Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout011602 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE JANUARY 16, 2002- 6:00 P.M. Next in Order: Resolution: Ne. 2002-00~ CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: Guerriero Roll Call: Olhasso, Telesio, Mathewson, Guerriero and Chairman Chiniaeff PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission on items that are listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. A~enda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of January 16, 2002 R:\P LANC OMM~Agendas~2002\1-16-02.doc 1 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of November 28, 2001 2.2 Approve the Minutes of December 5, 2001 3 Director's Hearing Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. · 4 Plannincl Application No. PA01-0644 (Findinq of Substantial Conformance) Michael McCoy, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0644 pursuant to Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act and; 4.2 Adopt a Resolution Entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0644, A REQUEST TO ELIMINATE EXTERIOR SANDBLASTED FINISH FOR A 21,382 SQUARE FOOT AUTO REPAIR FACILITY LOCATED AT 43191 RANCHO WAY, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 921-040-042 OR R:~PLANCOMM~Agendas~002\1-16-02.doc 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 0'1-0644, WITH AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE TEXTURE TO THE EXTERIOR FINISH ON THE APPROVED BUILDING ELEVATION FOR A 21,382 SQUARE FOOT AUTO REPAIR FACILITY LOCATED AT 43191 RANCHO WAY, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 921-040-042 5 Planninc~ Application No. 01-0196 (Conditional Use Permit); Development Plan) RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Continue to Januar'~, 2002 (see memorandum) COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next Regular Meeting: January 30, 2002, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 R:\PLANCOMM~Agendas~002~1-16-02.doc 3 ITEM #2 MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 28, 2001 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 28, 2001 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, November 28, 2001, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Telesio. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Agenda RECOMMENDATION: Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff. None, Director of Planning Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Curley, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Senior Planner Hogan, Senior Planner Hazen, Associate Planner Harris, and Minute Clerk Hansen. 1.1 Approve the Agenda of November 28, 2001. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of October 17, 2001. 2.2 Approve the Minutes of November 7, 2001. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who abstained with regard Item No. 2.2. COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 Director's Hearina Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update. For Commissioner Guerdero, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the rental car use on Solana Way had withdrawn their application. The Planning Commission received and filed this report. 4 Appointment of two Planninq Commissioners to the Rancho Community Church Subcommittee It was the consensus of the Commission that Commissioner Guerriero and Chairman Chiniaeff be appointed to serve on this particular Subcommittee. Senior Planner Hazen relayed that there was a Subcommittee meeting scheduled for December 11, 2001 from 1:30-2:30 P.M. in the Community Development Conference Room, recommending that the Subcommittee Members arrive an hour earlier in order to receive a briefing regarding the project. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 5 Plannincl Application No. PA01-0109 (General Plan Amendment/Plannin¢ Application No. PA01-0102 (Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Amendment No. 8) and Plannincl Application No. PA01-0117 (Vestino Tentative Tract No. 24188 Amendment No. 4). Matthew Harris, Associate Planner. The Proposal is, as follows: Planning Application No. PA 01-0109 proposes to amend the General Plan Map to reflect the proposed Specific Plan amendments. Planning Application No. PA01-0102 proposes to amend Specific Plan No. SP-4 (Paloma del Sol), Planning Areas 5, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 38; and eliminating Planning Area 29B. Planning Application No. PA01-0117 proposes Amendment No. 4 of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 24188 to create 293 single-family residential lots, 1 recreation center lot, 1 park site lot and 16 open space tots located within PLanning Areas 26, 27, 28 and 29. RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a Resolution Entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2001-040 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DO THE FOLLOWING: (1) CERTIFY ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 8; (2) APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 8 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0109); AND APPROVE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 8 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0102) AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING STANDARDS FOR PLANNING AREA 38 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0102; 5.2 Adopt a Resolution Entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-041 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01- 0117 - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24188 AMENDMENT NO. 4 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY, NORTH OF DE PORTOLA ROAD, WEST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND SOUTH OF PAUBA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 955-030-002, 955-030-003, 955-030-004, 955-030-006, 955-030-032. Commissioner Olhasso advised that she would be abstaining from this issue, and therefore left the dais. Discussion ensued reaardinq the noticina of this proiect Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that just prior to the start of this hearing, staff received a letter dated November 28, 2001 (the date of this hearing) written by Mr. Darren W. Stroud, an attorney representing the Corona family; relayed that the primary concern expressed in the letter was regarding the improper noticing of this project; confirmed that noticing was a key element of the hearing process; relayed that the letter asserted that the Corona family was not noticed, and that the site was not properly posted; and requested staff to address this issue. Providing clarification, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the site was posted, and that staff was gathering the data regarding this matter, noting that approximately 4,000 notices were mailed and that staff was additionally in the process of investigating the 4,000 names for the Coronas mailing address, reiterating that this letter was received just prior to the hearing. Presenting additional information, Assistant City Attorney Curley defined the concept of actual notice, relaying that the party raising this concern was present at the Planning Commission's last meeting where it was stated that this matter would be noticed for tonight's meeting; advised that the party is present at this hearing; and since the mailing lists are prepared by the applicant, queried whether the applicant could address the thoroughness of this list, as prepared. Mr. Barry Burnell, representing the applicant, relayed that the applicant works with the title company to prepare the mailing labels, clarifying that the request was that the notices be distributed to all individuals within the City's required distance around the Specific Plan boundary and within the Specific Plan; clarified that when the labels come back from the title company, the maps are double-checked to ensure that the labels were made for all of those parcels; and concluded that to the best of his knowledge the proper mailing notices were prepared and distributed. Assistant City Attorney Curley additionally noted that the Planning Commission's action would be a recommendation to the City Council and not a final adjudicative action, relaying that if ultimately it is determined that in spite of the efforts to comply, the project had not been noticed properly, there would be further opportunities to address the matter; and noted that it was within the purview of the Planning Commission to determine whether to proceed at this point, relaying that it would appear to be safe to move forward. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that notice needed to be provided, clarifying that the notices would be required to be dispatched, but not necessarily received; and relayed that that mailing would need to be conducted within the distance parameters that the City's Code requires. In response to Commissioner Telesio, staff confirmed that his property was not within the parameters of creating a conflict of interest (per the Brown Act). For Commissioner Mathewson, Assistant City Attorney Curley provided additional information regarding the process if it was determined that the project was not properly noticed. Due to staffs investigation, Director of Planning Ubnoske announced that a label had been located for Mr. Stephen Corona and read into the record the address denoted, confirming that this mailing was sent. Mr. Sam Alhadoff, attorney representing the applicant, noted that at the last hearing (November 7, 2001), Mr. Darren W. Stroud, attorney representing the Corona family submitted a 67-page document; advised that both the attorney and the Coronas were present at that hearing, as well as at tonight's hearing; suggested that actual notice has taken place; and clarified that it would be the applicant's desire to move forward. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to move forward with this item. The staff report was presented Via overheads, Associate Planner Harris provided an overview of the project plan (of record); relayed the proposed amendments in the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan, the General Plan Land Use Map, and the Tentative Tract Map; specified the location of the drainage channel, noting the identified wetlands within this boundary and the applicant's efforts to preserve this area; relayed the School District's decision to relocate the elementary school site outside of this Specific Plan's boundaries; noted alternate revised features, as follows: the nine-acre Open Space corridor established along the wetland area, the relocation of the five-acre park, and the one-acre private park proposed south of the corridor; relayed the applicant's proposal to change the Medium High Residential in Planning Area (PA) No. 38 to Community Commercial (in the area to the rear of the Home Depot use); provided additional information regarding the proposed Tract Amendment, noting that the tract would encompass PA Nos. 24,26, 27, 28, and 29, relaying the plan to reduce the single-family residential lots from 321 units to 293; with respect to pedestrian links, identified staff's recommended connections, as follows, 1 ) a link between G and K Streets, 2) a link at the terminus of D Street to Butter'field Stage Road, and 3) a link at the terminus of O Street to Butterfield Stage Road; specifying that while the applicant was in agreement with respect to the interior G and K Streets connections, that it was the applicant's opinion that the D and O Streets connections were inappropriate; and requested the Planning Commission to provide direction regarding this matter. Continuing his presentation, Associate Planner Harris noted that the applicant had requested that various Public Works' and Planning's Conditions of Approval be amended and/or deleted, advising that after review the applicant's requests, the Public Works' conditions have incorporated all of the requested revisions, and all but two of the applicant's requests were incorporated into the Planning Conditions; specified that the two revisions (in the conditions) that staff disagreed with were, as follows: 1 ) the request to delete Condition No. 26 which requires that a conceptual landscape plan be provided Prior to Recordation of the Final Map, noting that the applicant has advised that the Specific Plan includes a conceptual landscape plan that would provide adequate detail for the review of landscaping, relaying that staff's position was that this condition has been a standard condition in all of the previous tract maps in the Paloma del Sol area, advising that staff was of the opinion that the specific design issues need to be addressed, and 2) the request to delete Condition No. 29, which requires that only one- stow buildings be constructed on parcels within PA Nos. 26, and 28, fronting Butterfield Stage Road with a Landscape Development Zone (LDZ) with a width of less than 32 feet, advising that this condition would address aesthetic issues, noting that it was the applicant's position that since none of the affected parcels will have an LDZ of less than 32 feet that this condition was not necessary, while staff was of the opinion that there was a potential for various parcels along this frontage to have an LDZ of less than 32 feet. Associate Planner Harris provided additional information regarding the applicant's proposal to change the Medium High Residential to Community Neighborhood Commercial, relaying the applicant's conceptual plan for this particular area (PA No. 38), reiterating the request for the Planning Commission to provide direction regarding the connection points in this area; specified the applicant's proposal to revise the Development Standards for PA No. 38 to allow for Commercial Office and Neighborhood Zoning; advised that it was staff's opinion that modifying PA No. 38 for commercial zoning would enhance the overall Village Commercial core; noted that for consistency, the General Plan Land Use map was additionally proposed to be amended; and advised that the applicant has prepared, and staff has reviewed a Final EJR (Addendum No. 4 to the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan final EIR), noting that the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed amendments would either stay the same, or decrease. Referencing the correspondence staff received on November 7, 2001, written by Mr. Stroud, attorney representing the Corona family, Associate Planner Harris relayed that the primary contentions are that the applicant failed to construct flood facilities which were required as previous Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures in accordance with the original Specific Plan approval, noting their concern regarding flood hazards on their property resulting from not meeting the conditions; noted that the Coronas were requesting that the City require the construction of the required flood control facilities prior to the Issuance of any additional Building Permits, or that the applicant be required to prepare a subsequent Environmental Impact Report to evaluate the hydrology of this area; and advised that the Public Works Department has reviewed these comments, relaying that it was staff's opinion that both the timing and the construction of the flood control facilities has already been addressed, and are controlled by different factors, beyond what could be addressed as part of this proposal. Noting Mr. Alhadoff's (the applicant's attorney) letter, written in response to the letter written by the Corona's attorney, Associate Planner Harris relayed that this correspondence was provided in the agenda packets. Advising that both typographical and numerical errors were found within both the Specific Plan text and the EIR Addendum text, Associate Planner Harris noted staff's recommendation that these errors be rectified prior to City Council presentation, specifying staff's recommended changes. In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Burnell relayed that the density was being reduced by 174 units (from the time of Amendment No. 7 to Amendment No. 8), providing additional information regarding available options with the original submittal; and relayed that since the original inception of the project, over time there have been additional decreases in density culminating into a total 8-10% decrease in the Specific Plan. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks confirmed that staff has reviewed the retention basin, the drainage, and the installation of flood control improvements associated with A.D. 159; clarified that although improvements have not been installed at this time, the developer has been working within A.D. 159 and the Coronas in an attempt to address the issue, relaying that the amendments presented with this agenda item will not affect this issue. The applicant provides the proiect presentation Mr. Burnell thanked staff, and in particular, Associate Planner Harris, noting that while being new to the project his presentation was comprehensive; clarified that he would not reiterate this data, but was available for questions; for Commissioner Mathewson, specified that in February of 1999, the applicant received a letter from the School District which provided notification that the School District did not need the noted site for an additional elementary school; relayed that the drop in 8-10% dwelling units over time could have contributed to the lack of a need for this school site; with respect to Condition No. 66, which required pedestrian connections to Butterfield Stage Road, noted that there are existing connections to Butterfield Stage Road, and that after additional review the concern was due to the cul-de-sac opening directly onto Butterfield Stage Road, and the fear that children in this area would not be safe in the connections at D, and O Streets, if this connection was implemented; with respect to the request of the applicant regarding Condition No. 26, relayed that this condition requires detailed elements such as landscape plans for front yards, clarifying that the merchant builders, and not the developer, would provide the plans for front landscaping and that these plans should be required prior to the Issuance of a Building Permit (per typical City procedures), noting that it was the applicant's recommendation that this requirement not be required Prior to Recordation of the Tract; and with respect to Condition No. 29, which required an LDZ of 32 feet along Butterfield Stage Road or a single-story home, noted that it was the applicant's desire that the language be clarified to reflect that if a 32-foot buffer was provided there would be no requirement for single-story homes. The public is invited to comment Ms. Michele Staples, attorney representing the James and Mary Corona family, opined that the City had no legal authority to approve this particular application due to the applicant not being in compliance with mitigation measures, Conditions of Approval, and the Specific Plan; opined that the City was in control of the timing of the construction of the interceptor channel facilities; specified the location of the Corona Ranch, and the significant negative impacts this project would have on the ranch with respect to potential flooding; provided additional information regarding A.D. 159 which has determined that there are insufficient funds to construct the needed facilities; and requested that no further approvals be issued regarding this project without either the facilities being constructed, or a new Environmental Impact Report being conducted. Mr. Darren W. Stroud, attorney for the Corona family, contested the project was not noticed correctly, and that the address previously read into the record was not Mr. Stephen Corona's address, clarifying the Mr. Corona had not been noticed regarding this application; referenced the City ordinance addressing the noticing issues (inclusive of the required noticing parameters); advised that any action taken by the Planning Commission at this time would be beyond the authority of the Commission due to the improper noticing; clarified that the only information the Coronas received regarding this hearing, and the hearing on November 7, 2001, was from a friend; and reiterated that this applicant had not met the Conditions of Approval, or the mitigation measures which were part of the original Specific Plan, requesting the Planning Commission to deny this application. For Commissioner Guerriero, Senior Planner Hogan relayed that the Code required the noticing information to be taken from the most recent assessor's records which is where this address was obtained; and confirmed that he compared the Assessor's Parcel Numbers on the Mr. Stephen Corona's mailing label, confirming that the address was associated with the Coronas' commercial property. In response to Commissioner Guerriero, Mr. Stroud confirmed that Mr. Corona did live at the referenced address at one time. Mr. Steve Corona, son of the Corona property owner of discussion, 33320 Highway 79, relayed that over the past two years the Coronas have collected a plethora of records which designate Newland Communities as the responsible party for the eventual construction and payment of the Butterfield East Interceptor Channel; referenced Mr. Alhadoff's letter of November 21, 2001 (per agenda material) which quoted the staff report which stated that while the staff agrees that the issue needs to be resolved, we do not feel that there is a nexus between the Butterfield Stage Interceptor Channel and the four cases ...; opined that there was a nexus, noting that it was from Newland Communities that the funding for the facility would be derived; provided a history of A.D. 159; noted the condition previously imposed which stated that if A.D. 159 was unable to build the much-needed channel facility, then the developer would take on this responsibility; and clarified that lack of adequate facilities. For Commissioner Guerriero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks clarified that nothing in this particular amendment was affected by this drainage course, advising that the parties needed to come to an agreement to build an affordable interceptor channel, clarifying that the issue at this time was the cost of the facility. Dr. Robert Wheeler, representing the Elsinore-Murrieta Resource Conservation District, 29090 Camino Albon, Murrieta, noted the merit of the Coronas' concern regarding the negative flooding and drainage impacts; and recommended that until this matter is addressed that the Planning Commission deny approval of any additional applications for this project. Ms. Mary Jane Olhasso, 32644 Favara Drive, requested that staff and the Ptanning Commission be diligent when reviewing conditions regarding the landscaping installed by Newland Communities; and noted that the landscaped areas (in other surrounding tracts) where the houses are adjacent to internal thoroughfares, which are typically the homeowner's responsibility, create a negative visual appearance due to the lack of various homeowners to maintain this property. Mr. Edward Lindsey, 42375 Camino Merano, commended the developer regarding the plan to construct homes in PA No. 28; and applauded the Planning Commission for their diligent work in thoroughly reviewing development in the City, which has had successful results. For Mr. Lindsey, Mr. Bumell confirmed that the previously proposed inlets off of Camino Merano would be closed off with this proposal. The applicant provides rebuttal Mr. Sam Alhadoff, attorney representing the applicant, offered the following rebuttal: Relayed that the Coronas' counsel has raised the same requests raised in the OctobedNovember, 1999 series of comments regarding the channel and flood control issues. Requested that the staff report from the Planning Application related to Specific Plan Amendment No. 7 be incorporated into the record, as well as letters submitted by the applicant's representatives (and other parties), listed as follows: the October 26, 1999 letter, the October 29, 1999 letter (submitted by Keith Companies), the November 1, 1999 letter (submitted by the A.D. engineers), and the November 3, 1999 letter. Noted that while the Coronas own approximately 161 acres, only 19.17 acres are within A.D. 159. ? Referenced a letter dated February 17, 2000 (from the County of Riverside) written to Mr. Corona, which stated that the Butterfield Interceptor was included as an A.D~ 159 facility to be located at the eastern district's boundary, additionally stating that if Mr. Corona was willing to place the required financial burden on the remainder of his property outside of the district's boundaries, that the Transportation Department was willing to recommend a certain alternative; and clarified that the Coronas' counsel has acknowledged that A.D. 159 is responsible for these improvements in a letter dated August 13, 2001. Noted that Newland Communities has paid all of its assessments, relaying that there exists $2.2 million of authorized bonds via A.D. 159 for the design and construction of the Butterfield Interceptor Channel, advising that the applicant supports the use of authorized but un-issued bond capacity on the Newland Communities property. Concluded that there was no nexus with the Coronas' concern, relaying that this particular proposal being presented will have no impact on the Corona property. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Alhadoff relayed that if it was the Coronas' intent to solely protect their 19.17 acres within A.D. 159, there was a solution which consisted of an open channel; advised that the Coronas were in opposition to this plan due to the interference with their farming operation; and noted that the applicant has been meeting with the Coronas and their representatives for over two years, providing additional information regarding the Coronas' desire to protect all their property (including the property outside of A.D. 159). In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks confirmed that staff concurred with Mr. Alhadof'fls comments. With respect to the issue of a nexus, Commissioner Telesio noted that it was his understanding that the Coronas' contention was that each approval was for another portion of the project, which subsequently reduces the ability to bond for the improvements. In response, Mr. Alhadoff noted that the ability to bond ran with the land; relayed that the applicant had 20 acres in a detention basin and 188 lots that were not useable, clarifying that the applicant, along with the Coronas, desired a solution; reiterated that there was no nexus regarding the Coronas' concern and this particular application; and reiterated that the Coronas were attempting to seek protection of all their property, inclusive of that which was not part of A.D. 159, while additionally being unwilling to place this property in the district, or to levy any assessments of this property. The Plannin(~ Commission deliberates Noting that the raised concerns were of a legal nature, Commissioner Telesio requested clarification. With respect to the issue of notification, Assistant City Attorney Curley noted the required use of the latest available County Assessor's role, relaying that if this data was not accurate, the Code was still satisfied, and the City was acting within its requirements if this data was utilized; and reiterated staff's ability to link the Coronas' mailing address with the Assessor's Parcel Numbers, advising that it appeared that notice was conducted properly. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that there were six signs posted for the site, specifying the locations, advising that she had photographs of the referenced signage, which was presented to the Planning Commission. In response, Chairman Chiniaeff advised that the property appeared to have been property noticed. With respect to the nexus issue, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that typically when considering imposition of a condition on a project there needed to be a relationship with the project (i.e., the project's impacts needed mitigation); noted that engineering staff from both the County, the City, and the applicant have reviewed these issues at length, relaying that the last time this issue was brought forward, it was determined that there was an insufficient linkage to impose a condition, requiring this applicant to take action to resolve [*later in the discussions it was noted that the City Council did place an added condition regarding PA No. 6(see below, two paragraphs down)], advising that circumstances have remained static from that 1999 date until today, clarifying that this particular application involved property further removed from the area of concern, advising that staff has advised that this proposal will not have any significant impact to the drainage issues; noted that while there might be difficulty in developing findings that this particular proposal had a bearing on the issue, the Planning Commission could opt to view the area as a whole, and recommend attaching the obligation to this application, advising that the better argument was most likely that there was no nexus between these particular amendments and the solution to the drainage issues, which has been affirmed by the Public Works' determination. For Commissioner Telesio, Assistant City Attorney Cudey clarified that numerous far- ranging, more tenuous nexus-based issues have been handled via a Development Agreement on other projects; and relayed that the required conditions of a project were based on analysis regarding the associated impacts of the project (i.e., the linkage which would create a nexus with the project). For clarification, Ms. Staples noted that in the agenda material (located under Tab C), there was information related to the additional condition imposed on the applicant, regarding withholding Building Permits until such time as the improvements were constructed. In response, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that the referenced information was not related to the proposal presented at this hearing, Mr. Burnell confirming that there were no proposed density changes, or development patterns in the southern area of the project, confirming that the amendment encompassed wording corrections, and changes in acreage, additionally confirming that the added condition Ms. Staples referenced was applicable to PA No. 6 which was the multi-family area which was not the subject of any discussion at this hearing, advising that this condition still exists. Chairman Chiniaeff clarified that A.D. 159 was controlled by the County, and formed by the property owners for the benefit of a much larger area than just the Paloma del Sol project, and was beyond the scope of the issue presented at this hearing. Noting that the Planning Commission would be providing a recommendation to the City Council, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that in 1999, the City Council added the additional condition previously referenced, withholding approval of 188 lots until the storm drain issue is resolved; relayed that it was likely that when this proposal was presented to the City Council that the status of the drainage issues would be questioned; and advised that it was staff's opinion that the current condition adequately addressed the issue, enabling this proposal to move forward. With respect to the landscaping issue, and for Commissioner Telesio, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that typically when a developer was seeking approval of a tract map, it was not known who would buy that pamel, and it was this party who would be the one to design the frontyard and sideyard landscaping in conformance with the Specific Plan concepts, advising that it would more appropriately be required Prior to Approval of Building Permits; with respect to the applicant's request to amend Condition No. 29, regarding the requirement for single-story homes where the LDZ was less than 32 feet, concurred with the request that the language be clarified to state that if the LDZ was 32 feet, there would be no requirement for the single-story buildings; and with respect to Condition No. 66, regarding pedestrian connections, concurred that if the connection opened the cut-de-sac to a major arterial, that this connection could create a safety hazard for children at play. Commissioner Telesio concurred with Chairman Chiniaeff's and the applicant's comments regarding Condition No. 66, specifically with respect to reluctance to opening the cul-de-sac onto an arterial. With respect to Condition No. 66, regarding the pedestrian links inclusive of the one associated with the cul-de-sac, Commissioner Mathewson, echoed by Commissioner Guerriero, noted a desire to maintain this requirement, relaying the need for access from the street. For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that staff was agreeable to changing Condition No. 26 (regarding landscaping), and to require the landscape plans Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit. With respect to the commercial area, Chairman Chiniaeff recommended that between the comer parcel at De Portola/Margarita Roads (which was separately owned), that the applicant consider making provisions for vehicular access between the parking lots. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation, adopting Resolution Nos. 2001-040, and 2001-041, subject to the modification of Condition No. 26 (regarding landscaping) to require that the specific landscape plans be approved Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Olhasso who abstained. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS Commissioner Guerriero thanked staff for addressing the outside storage issue at the Power Center. Requesting staff to investigate, Commissioner Guerriero relayed that the timing of the signal at Cosmic/Humber Drives seemed to be off in the early morning hours. Commissioner Mathewson thanked staff for addressing the plethora of illegally placed Work at home signs in the City. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding the Johnson property, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the slope has been hydroseeded, and the erosion issue has been addressed to satisfy the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board; and advised that there was a letter of credit that could be drawn upon to ensure that the landscaping is addressed. Commissioner Olhasso commended staff for the efforts regarding the installation of landscaped medians, removing the cones which have been restricting turning movements; and for Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, relayed that she would forward locations of particular concern where these installation were still needed. Commissioner Guerriero recommended that a landscaped median be installed in front of the Post Office, Commissioner Telesio concurring that this area should be addressed due to safety issues. Per her recent attendance of a meeting of the International Council of Shopping Centers, Commissioner Olhasso noted her concern as a moderator described the Temecula Valley as being unfriendly to development, including retail; relayed that need for retail uses due to the sales tax revenues; and recommended that Chairman Chiniaeff, along with City Manger staff, meet to correct this impression. Commissioner OIhasso invited all those present to the Temecula Town Association's sponsored Christmas Dinner Event, advising that any help with the provisions of turkeys in advance would be appreciated, For Commissioner Telesio, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the Roripaugh Specific Plan had been delivered to staff on November 27, 2001, and that staff would be conducting review, advising that this project has made tremendous strides recently. Commissioner Telesio recommended that the Public/Traffic Safety Commission address the on-street parking on Solana Way proximate to the auto park area. Chairman Chiniaeff requested staff to address the dirt field utilized for rental truck parking on Old Town Front Street proximate to the truck rental use. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Ubnoske noted the potential for the December 19th Planning Commission meeting to be cancelled. R: PlanComnV~nutes/112801 12 B4 In response to Director of Planning Ubnoske, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to appoint Commissioner Olhasso, and Commissioner Telesio to serve on the Villages of Old Town Project Subcommittee. In an effort to ensure the highest quality of development, Senior Planner Hazen noted staffs plans to schedule a monthly afternoon field trip for Planning staff; and invited the Planning Commission to attend the trips, noting that the first trip was scheduled for December 17th, relaying the plan to visit Business Park development in the City of Carlsbad, requesting the Planning Commission to respond to staff as to whether they could attend due to the need to notice the meeting if more than two Commissioners will be in attendance. Commissioner Othasso recommended that the City of Ranch Cucamonga be visited to investigate good examples of retail development. ADJOURNMENT At 8:00 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next reclular meetin,q to be held on Wednesday, December 5, 2001 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Dennis W. Chiniaeff, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 5, 2001 CALL TO ORDER MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2001 The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, December 5, 2001, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall. 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE The audience was ted in the Flag salute by Commissioner Mathewson. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: Commissioners Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff. Commissioner Guerriero. Director of Planning Ubnoske, City Attorney Thorson, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Senior Planner Hogan, and Minute Clerk Hansen. 1.1 Approve the Agenda of December 5, 2001. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who was absent. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 2 Planninq Application No. PA01-0566 (Development Code Amendment) Dave Hoqan. Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a Resolution Entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2001-042 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO MODIFY THE STANDARDS FOR SECOND DWELLING UNITS (PLANNING APPLICATION 01-0566) Senior Planner Hogan provided an overview of the proposed Development Code Amendment (of record), noting that legislature has indicated that secondary dwelling units are an integral part of the State's housing market, and that the State has set maximum size standards for these units which are applicable unless the local jurisdiction adopts its own ordinance, which the City of Temecula has adopted; relayed that the State standard, as well as the City's current Ordinance limits the maximum size at 1200 square feet, regardless of the size of the lot; advised that over the past year, staff has had requests from residents with larger parcels, desiring to build a larger second unit; specified the current proposal for amendment which was to keep the current maximum standard (of 1200 square feet) for lots one acre in size, and for lots larger than one acre, the maximum size permitted would be 2,000 square feet. Answering the questions of the Planning Commission, for Commissioner Mathewson, Senior Planner Hogan confirmed that the second dwelling would still be subject to applicable development standards, such as setbacks, and lot coverage; and for Commissioner Telesio, relayed that the secondary units could be for rental use but could not be sold (as a separate unit), per State legislated mandate. At this time the public was invited to speak Mr. Ron Knowles, 39675 Cantrell, noted his opposition to revising the City's Code to allow for a larger second unit, relalying his preference for the standard to be consistent with the State at a maximum size of 1200 square feet; opined that for provision of a second unit for the purpose of housing elderly parents the 1200 square feet would be adequate; and noted his concern with noise, traffic impacts, and the opportunity to use the unit as a rental if the unit was permitted to be larger. The Planninq Commission deliberates In response to Chairman Chiniaeff's comments, Senior Planner Hogan confirmed that State law stated that if the local jurisdiction did not adopt its own standard regarding this issue, then the State law would be applicable; advised that a jurisdiction could not set a limit under 1200 square feet without specific findings regarding the health, safety, and welfare of the public while, confirming that the size limitation could be more than 1200 square feet; for Commissioner Olhasso, noted that this revision would not affect the majority of tracts, but only the larger lot areas within the City; and advised that if an individual had a 2.5 acre lot and constructed an 1800-2,000 square foot second dwelling unit, there would be ample open area remaining. Via overheads, Senior Planner Hogan provided examples of the building envelopes on various lots with the revised standards, noting the requirement to still adhere to the setback, and maximum lot coverage standards, specifying the substantial area remaining without building coverage; and clarified that staff did not expect to see more than approximately two of these units built per year in the City of Temecula due to the Iow demand. Noting his concurrence with Mr. Knowles' comments, Commissioner Telesio opined that the proposed revision would create a second unit benefit for added income; and relayed his reluctance to support amending ordinances for special interests. Offering clarification, Chairman Chiniaeff noted that the issue before the Planning Commission was not regarding whether or not a resident could have a second dwelling unit, or whether it could be utilized as a rental, which is permitted via State law, but what the maximum size of this unit should be. In response, Commissioner Telesio opined that it was the permitted larger size that created a greater opportunity for an income- producing unit, rather that a granny flat type use. Chairman Chiniaeff specified the few areas in the City with large enough lots that this amendment to the Code would have any impact. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, City Attorney Thorson confirmed that the City was preempted by State taw which mandated the allowance of second units, along with the permission to use the unit as a rental, clarifying that local jurisdictions could regulate the maximum size (as long as it was 1200 square feet, or larger). While relaying his support of property rights, Commissioner Mathewson advised that to permit a 2,000 square foot second dwelling unit would create significant negative impacts with respect to traffic, aesthetics, and noise; relayed that the need for a 2,000 square foot unit had not been clearly demonstrated; advised that the intent of State taw was to provide housing opportunities for the elderly, the disabled, family members, and students, relaying that for these types of housing uses a 2,000 square foot home would not be necessitated. For clarification, City Attorney Thorson and Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that if the Planning Commission took action recommending denial of the recommendation to amend the Development Code, that the matter would still go to the City Council for final action, City Attorney Thorson advising that if the Planning Commission took no action, the item would go forward to the City Council in 40 days. MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to close the public hearing; and to recommend that the City Council deny approval of the proposed Development Code Amendment, as reflected in Resolution No. 2001-042, specifying the rationale for recommending denial, as follows: 1) no sufficient need has been demonstrated to justify the proposed change, 2) the proposed revision, allowing a larger second unit, would provide a greater opportunity for rental income which was not the intent of the State legislature, and 3) the resulting negative impacts on the surrounding community, specifically as it relates to traffic, public safety, noise, and law enforcement. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson. (Ultimately this motion passed; see below.) Commissioner Telesio clarified that the Planning Commission's rationale for recommending denial of the amendment was not solely based on the greater opportunities provided for rental uses, but additionally due to the associated negative impacts in the community. In concurrence, Commissioner Mathewson noted that with larger units, the impacts would be more significant with respect to viewscapes, traffic, and noise. Commissioner Olhasso relayed that there could additionally be law enforcement issues, citing the potential for a drug dealer to rent one of these back lot units, advising that it would be her preference to see units of this size confined to the more rural areas in the County. For informational purposes, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that in past years, the City has received a total of approximately four applications for the larger sized units, relaying that the resident's intent was generally to build a larger home for elderly parents. Commissioner Mathewson advised that he was specifically opposed to the vast differential between the current allowable second unit, at a maximum size of 1200 square feet, and the proposed maximum size of 2,000 square feet, reiterating the potential for significant impacts, Commissioner Telesio specifying the negative impact for the adjacent neighboring residents. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting approval of the motion to recommend that the City Council deny approval of the proposed Development Code Amendment with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who was absent. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS A. With respect to the recent new development that closed escrow on new homes without gas meters, for Commissioner Olhasso, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that this was a Building and Safety Department issue, noting that the matter had been forwarded to this department. B. Regarding the new legislation with respect to provision of water, for Commissioner Mathewson, City Attorney Thorson concurred with the concept of having a Water District representative attend a Planning Commission meeting to provide detailed information regarding the local impacts, advising that if there was additional information available from the State agencies, that staff would provide this data to the Commissioners, as well. R:PlanComnVminute~120501 4 C. Chairman Chiniaeff announced that the first General Plan Update Community Workshop would be held on December 6, 2001 in the City Council Chamber, at City Hall; and invited all to attend. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the December 19, 2001 Planning Commission meeting will be cancelled, and that the next meeting would be held on January 16, 2002. ADJOURNMENT At 6:46 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next reqular meetinq to be held on Wednesday, January 16, 2002 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Dennis W. Chiniaeff, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning ITEM #3 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM Planning Co m Debbie Ubnoske0Director of Planning Janua~ 16,2002 Director's Hearing Case Update Planning Director's Agenda items for November and December, 2001 Date Case No. Proposal Applicant Action November 1, 2001 PA01-0408 Planning application to design, construct, and operate a 9,993 square foot Woodcrest Children's Center on 3.22 acres of vacant land within the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan Woodcrest Children's Center Approved November 1,2001 PA01-0289 Request to subdivide a 13.83-acre parcel Ken Smith. into three parcels Approved November 1, 2001 PA01-0311 Product review application for 32 Rilington and PA01- detached single-family homes of three Bella Villagio 0511 model types ranging in size from 3,118 to LLC 4,001 square feet within Tract 25892. Minor exception application to increase the maximum allowable lot coverage by up to three percent on four lots within the development Approved November 8, 2001 PA01-0115 Request to subdivide 40.09 gross acres Excel of undeveloped land into five business Engineering park lots. Based on an estimate of the target floor area ratio (40%), the net land area (37.52 acres) could support approximately 653,748 square feet of building floor space. Approved R:~DIRHEAR\MEMO',2001'~Nov & Dec 2001.memo.doc Date Case No. Proposal Applicant Action November 15, 2001 PA01-0395 Request to subdivide a .40 acre parcel into two parcels of 9,809 square feet and 7,834 square feet with a waiver of the Final Map Jeff Continueo Compton November 15, 2001 PA01-0413 Product review application for 92 Buie detached single-family homes of three Communities model types ranging in size from 2,454 to LLC 2,900 square feet within Tract 24187-F Approved November 15, 2001 PA01-0394 Request to establish a church facility at an existing 4,300 square foot building Iglesia Bautista Continued November 21,2001 PA01-0452 Request to internally install six panel Cingular antennas and roof-mounted BTS Wireless, equipment on the existing Robinson May Inc. building to enhance wireless communication services Approved November 29, 2001 PA01-0395 Request to subdivide a .40 acre parcel Jeff into two parcels of 9,809 square feet and Compton. 7,834 square feet with a waiver of the Final Map Approved November 29, 2001 PA01-0394 Request to establish a church facility at Iglesia an existing 4,300 square foot building Bautista Approved December 27, 2001 PA01-0536 Request to design and construct a 2,258 Davidsen & square foot building in which Mission Alien Produce will operate an avocado packing Architects house Approved December 27, 2001 PA01-0505 The fourth one-year Extension of Time for Yogesh Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25004 Goradia Approved Attachments: 1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 2 R:~DIRHEARYMEMO~2001'~NOV & Dec 200l .memo.doc 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 ACTION AGENDAS R:'~D IRH EAR~/I EM O~2001 'uN ov & Dec 2001.m~mo.doc 3 ACTION AGENDA TEMECULADIRECTOR'SHEARING REGULAR MEETING November1,20011:30PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Planning Manager on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state vour name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. Item No. 1: Case No: Case Name: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA01-0408 (Development Plan). Woodcrest Children's Center Design Build Group Located on the corner of Pauba and Margarita and known as APN 955-150-027. Planning Application to design, construct, and operate a 9,993 square foot Woodcrest Children's Center on 3.22 acres of vacant land within the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. Notice of Exemption per California Environmental Quality Act Article 11 Types of EIRs Section 15162. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan, of which the project is a part. Rolfe Preisendanz Approval APPROVED Item No. 2: Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Case Engineer: Recommendation: ACTION: PA01-0289 (Tentative Parcel Map Number 30166) Ken Smith 27565 Diaz Road, Temecula, CA Request to subdivide a 13.83-acre parcel into 3 parcels. This project is exempt from CEQA review due to Class 15 Categorical Exemption 15315 (Minor Land Divisions) Rick Rush, Project Planner Mayra De La Torre, Assistant Engineer Approval APPROVED Item No. 3: Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION; Planning Application Nos. PA01-0311(Development Plans for Product Review) & PA01-0511 (Minor Exception) Ritington Bella Villagio LLC. c/o Kathleen Riley South side of Pauba Road west of Margarita Road Product Review application for 32 detached single-family homes of three model types; ranging in size from 3,118 to 4,001 square feet within Tract 25892. Minor Exception application to increase the maximum allowable lot coverage by up to three percent on four lots within the development. This project is exempt from further evaluation under CEQA in accordance with Section 15162 Matthew Harris Approval APPROVED P:XPLANNINGXDIRHEAR~2001\I 1-01-01 AGENDA_doc 2 ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING November 8, 2001 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Planning Manager on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. Item No. 1: Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA01-0115 -Tentative Pamel Map No. 30107 Excel Engineering West side of Margarita Road, southerly of Overland Drive and northerly of Solana Way (Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 921-680-010, 921-090-054, and 921-090-055) PA01-0115 is a request to subdivide 40.09 gross acres of undeveloped land into five business park lots. Based on an estimate of the target floor area ratio (40%), the net land area (37.52 acres) could support approximately 653,748 square feet of building floor space. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program Francisco J. Urbina APPROVED P:h°LANNING',DIRHEAR'O.001\I l..0g-01 AGENDA_doc ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING November15,20011:30PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of t 5 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Planning Manager on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. Thera is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. Item No. 1: Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA01-0395 (Tentative Parcel Map) Jeff Compton, P.O. Box 1152 Temecula, CA 92593 Southwest corner of Sierra Madre Drive & North General Kearney Road Request to subdivide a .40 acre parcel into two parcels of 9,809 square feet and 7,834 square feet with a waiver of the Final Map Exempt per CEQA Sec. 15315 (Minor Land Divisions - Four or fewer lots.) Matthew Harris, Associate Planner Continued to November 29, 2001 Director's Hearing Meeting Item No. 2 Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Planning Application No. PA01-0413 (Development Plans for Product Review) Buie Communities LLC., c/o Rick Scott West of Sunny Meadows Drive and South of McCabe Drive within the Paloma/Paseo del Sol Specific Plan, Planning Area No. 23 Product Review application for 92 detached single-family homes of three model types; ranging in size from 2,454 to 2,900 square feet within Tract 24187-F. Environmental Action:This project is exempt from further evaluation under CEQA due to the certification of the EIR for the Paloma./Paseo del Sol Specific Plan. Case Planner: Matthew Harris ACTION: APPROVED Item No. 3 Case No: PA01-0394 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) Applicant: Iglesia Bautista del Valle de Temecula, Salvador Carritlo Location: 28639 Pujol Street, Temecula Proposal: To establish a church facility at an existing 4,300 squares foot building. Environmental Action:This project is exempt from CEQA review due to Class 32 Categorical Exemption 15332 (In-fill Development Project) Case Planner: Rick Rush Case Engineer: Mayra De La Torte ACTION: Continued to November 29, 2001 Director's Hearing Meeting P:\PLANNI~G\DIRHEAR~2001\I 1-15-0l AGENDA_doc ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING November 21,2001 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temeculs, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Planning Manager on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. Item No. 1: Case No: Applicant: Location: Assessor's Parcel: Proposal: PA01-0452 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) Cingular Wireless, Inc. Robinson May department store at the Temecula Promenade Mall, 40900 Winchester Road 910-130-074 Internally install six (6) panel antennas and roof-mounted BTS equipment on the existing Robinson May building to enhance wireless communication services. Environmental Action: Categorically Exempt under CEQA Section 15301 Class 1. Case Planner: Michael McCoy ACTION: Approved P:\PLANNING\DIRHEAR~001\I 1-21-01 AGENDA_doc ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING November29,20011:30PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Planning Manager on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. Item No. 1: Case No: Planning Application No. PA01-0395 (Tentative Parcel Map) Applicant: Jeff Compton, P.O. Box 1152 Temecula, CA 92593 Location: Southwest comer of Sierra Madre Drive & North General Kearney Road Proposal: Request to subdivide a .40 acre parcel into two parcels of 9,809 square feet and 7,834 square feet with a waiver of the Final Map Environmental Action: Exempt per CEQA Sec. 15315 (Minor Land Divisions - Four or fewer lots.) Case Planner: Matthew Harris, Associate Planner ACTION: APPROVED Item No. 2: Case No: PA01-0394 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) Applicant: Iglesia Bautista del Valle de Temecula, Salvador Carrilto Location: 28639 Pujol Street, Temecula Proposal: To establish a church facility at an existing 4,300 squares foot building, Environmental Action:This project is exempt from CEQA review due to Class 32 Categorical Exemption 15332 (In-fill Development Project) Case Planner: Rick Rush Case Engineer: Mayra De La Torre ACTION: APPROVED P:XPLAN N ING~D IRH EAR~200 l\l 1-294)1 AGENDA..d~c 1 ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING December 27, 2001 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public ~an address to the Planning Manager on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item no~t listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state vour name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. Item No. 1: Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Case Engineer: ACTION: Planning Application No. 01-0536 (Development Plan) Davidson & Allen Architects 28071 Diaz Road, Temecula To design and construct a 2,258 square foot building in which Mission Produce will operate an avocado packing house Notice of Exemption per California Environmental Quality Act Article 19 Categorical Exemptions Section 15332 Class 32 In-fill Development Proiects. Rick Rush Annie Bostre-Le APPROVED Item No. 2 Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Case Engineer: ACTION: Planning Application No. 01-0505 (Extension of Time) Yogesh Goradia Northerly of Nicholas Road and east of Seraphina Road The fourth one-year Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25004 Determination of Consistency with a project for which a Negative Declaration was previously adopted (Sec. 15162 - Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations). Rick Rush Mayra De La Torre APPROVED P:\PLANN ING\DIR H EA RL2001'~I 2-27-01 AGENDA..dcc ITEM #4 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 16, 2002 Planning Application No. 01-0644 (Finding of Substantial Conformance) Prepared by: Michael McCoy, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0644 pursuant to Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act; 2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0644, A REQUEST TO ELIMINATE EXTERIOR SANDBLASTED FINISH FOR A 21,382 SQUARE FOOT AUTO REPAIR FACILITY LOCATED AT 43191 RANCHO WAY, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 921-040-042 OR PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01- 0644, WITH AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE TEXTURE TO THE EXTERIOR FINISH ON THE APPROVED BUILDING ELEVATION FOR A 21,382 SQUARE FOOT AUTO REPAIR FACILITY LOCATED AT 43191 RANCHO WAY, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 921-040-042 APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Graham Eves, Temecula Radiator and Auto Repair REPRESENTATIVE: Joe Jardine, Kaylind Commercial Contracting PROPOSAL: To eliminate the previously approved exterior colored sandblasted finish as shown on the approved building elevation exhibit for the approved Planning Application No. 01-0025 R:~D P~2001'~PA01-0025 Ternecula Radiator & Auto Rep'~;TF REPT, FINDS & COA'S ON PAOl-O644.doc LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: BACKGROUND West of Diaz Road and north of Rancho Cali~'ornia Road LI (Light Industrial) LI North: LI South: LI East: LI West: LI VACANT North: Professional Office South: Office and Industrial East: Industrial West: Commemial BP (Business Park) On June 6, 2001 The City Planning Commission approved PA01-0025, a Development Plan application for a 21,385 square foot two-story tilt up concrete auto service building located west of Diaz Road and north of Rancho California Road in the Temecula Business Park. The approved elevation plan is for a combination of smooth concrete panels with colored sandblasted finish along the lower wall sections and vertical columns of the south and east sides of the building. The building is now under construction and the walls have been installed. On December 10, 2001 the applicant sent a letter to the Planning Department requesting to eliminate the sandblast finish, because of his concern about the potential for the painted sandblast finish to appear like stucco and show imperfections, which would detract from the aesthetic appearance of the building. Staff did not support the request and indicated that the Planning Commission would need to make the final decision. On December 18, 2001 the applicant filed application, PA01-0644, to eliminate the exterior sandblast finish and requested that the project be scheduled for the next available Planning Commission meeting in order to meet construction completion timelines. ANALYSIS Staff does not support the request to eliminate sandblasting. The Industrial Design G[Jidelines state that walls should "use various siding material, i.e. metal, masonry, concrete texturing, cement or plaster to produce effects of texture and relief that provide architectural interest." (p. VI-8, 4a). The City Development Code (Commercial/Industrial Performance Standards) emphasizes the balancing of aesthetic design qualities with functional development (Section 17.08.070.A). Staff recently met with the applicant and his contractor to suggest several alternative finishes, such as painting affer the sandblasting, not painting the sandblasted wall sections, using other types of textures, or enhancing the entry with sandblasting and permitting the remaining portion of the wall to be painted. At the time of this writing, the applicant has not agreed to any other alternative finish suggested by Staff. R:~D P~001\PA01-0025 Ternecuia Radiator & Auto Rep~STF REPT, FINDS & COA'S ON PA01-0644.cloc 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This project has been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and is Categorically Exempt from CEQA (Section 15303 Class 3 New Construction). SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The request has been determined by staff to be inconsistent with the original findings for approval (Attached). It is staff's opinion that the proposed change does not meet the intent of the original approved building elevation exhibit nor the Industrial Design Guidelines to provide a variation of texture and relief. In addition, Staff also believes that approval of this proposed change would potentially set a precedent for future applicants to use only paint without additional finishes to achieve contrast in wall surfaces. Staff recommends denial of this application or requires an approved acceptable alternative in order to make the findings of approval. Draft Resolutions of either option are attached. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: The proposed structure is not in conformance with the general plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city. Section 17.08.070.A of the City Development Code (Commercial/Industrial Performance Standards) emphasizes the balancing of aesthetic design qualities with functional development. The Industrial Design Guidelines recommend that a variety of siding materials be used to create texture and relief to provide diversity and visual interest. The applicant has not agreed to consider any other alternative texture variation after requesting to eliminate the sandblast finish and therefore is not consistent with either of the abovementioned ordinance objectives. The overall development of the structure is not designed for the maintenance of the general welfare of the community. The elimination of sandblasted texture treatment of a long, unarticulated wall facing a public thoroughfare is inconsistent with the stated goals and policies of the General Plan Community Design Element, which states "One of the most pressing community design issues is the need to develop design policies and standards for use by the development community and City officials. The is general agreement that site planning, architecture and landscape architecture should be of high quality for both future development and modifications to existing development." Attachments: 1. PC Resolution and Findings for Denial - Blue Page 4 PC Resolution and Findings for Approval - Blue Page 7 Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval for PA01-0025 (Development Plan) Applicant letters supporting design change Exhibits for PA01-0644 (Substantial Conformance) ~ Blue Page 22 B. Vicinity Map C. Zoning Map D. General Plan Map E. Building Elevation Plan and Colored Elevation Reduction F. Site Plan R:~D P~2001 ~PA01-00:)5 Ternecula Radiator & A~to Rep',STF REPT, FINDS & COA'S ON PA01-0644.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- FINDINGS FOR DENYING PA01-0644 R:~D P~2001~PA01-0025 Temecula Radiator & Auto Rep~.STF REPT, FINDS & COA'S ON PA01-0644.cloc 4 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0644, A REQUEST TO ELIMINATE EXTERIOR SANDBLASTED FINISH FOR A 21,382 SQUARE FOOT AUTO REPAIR FACILITY LOCATED AT 43191 RANCHO WAY, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 921-040-042 WHEREAS, Graham Eves, Owner filed Planning Application No. PA01-0644 (the "Application"), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on January 16, 2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended denial or an approved acceptable design a~ternative of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, ail legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference, Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in denying the Application hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed structure is not in conformance with the general plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city. Section 17.08.070.A of the City Development Code (Commercial/Industrial Pedormance Standards) emphasizes the balancing of aesthetic design qualities with functional development. The industrial Design Guidelines recommend that a variety of siding materials be used to create texture and relief to provide diversity and visual interest. The applicant has not agreed to consider any other alternative texture variation after requesting to eliminate the sandblast finish and therefore is not consistent with either of the abovementioned ordinance objectives. B. The overall development of the structure is not designed for the maintenance of the general welfare of the community. The elimination of sandblasted texture treatment of a long, unarticulated wall facing a public thoroughfare is inconsistent with the stated goals and policies of the General Plan Community Design Element, which states "One of the most pressing community design issues is the need to develop design policies and standards for use by the development R:~D P~001\PA01-0025 Temecula Radiator & Auto Rep~STF REPT, F~NDS & COA'S ON PAOl-O644.doc community and City officials. The is general agreement that site planning, architecture and landscape architecture should be of high quality for both future development and modifications to existing development." Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The project has been found to be categorically exempt Pursuant to Section 15303 Class 3 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. No further environmental review is required for the proposed project. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally denies the application, a request to modify the previously approved colored sandblast finish to the building exterior of the approved Temecula Radiator Building, specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any and all necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 16th day of January 2002. Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson ATI'EST: [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 02-__was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of January, 2002, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~D p~2001\PA01-0025 Temecula Radiator & Auto Rep¥~TF REPT, FINDS & COA'S ON PAOl-O644.doc A'I'rACHMENT NO. 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL PA01-0644 R:~) P~2001~PA01 *0025 Temecula Radiator & Auto Rep~STF REPT, FINDS & COA'S ON PA01-0644.doc 7 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01- 0644 WITH AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE TEXTURE TO THE EXTERIOR FINISH ON THE APPROVED BUILDING ELEVATION FOR A 21,382 SQUARE FOOT AUTO REPAIR FACILITY LOCATED AT 43191 RANCHO WAY, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 921-040-042 WHEREAS, Graham Eves, Owner filed Planning Application No. PA01-0644 (the "Application"), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Ptan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on January 16, 2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended denial or an approved acceptable design alternative of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving an acceptable alternative design hereby makes the following findings of substantial conformance to the approved Development Plan PA01-0025 as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. The proposed structure is in substantial conformance with the general plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city. B. The overall development of the structure is designed for the protection of the to the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The project has been found to be categorically exempt Pursuant to Section 15303 Class 3 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. No further environmental review is required for the proposed project. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves the application, a request to modify the previously approved colored R:'tD P~O01'J:>A01-0025 Temecula Radiator & Auto Rep',STF REPT, FINDS & COA'S ON PA01-O644.doc sandblast finish to the building exterior of the approved Temecula Radiator Building, specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein bythis reference together with any and ail necessa~ conditions that may be deemed necessary. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 16th day of January 2002. Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson Al-rEST: [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 02-._was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of January, 2002, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~D P~2.001\PA01-0025 Temecula Radiator & Auto Rep~STF REPT, FINDS & COA'S ON PA01 ~0644.doc EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA01-0025 DEVELOPMENT PLAN R:~D P~2001\PA01-0025 Temecuia Radiator & Auto Rep~STF REPT, FINDS & COA'S ON PA01-0644.doc 10 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No: Project Description: Case Planner Project Name: DIF Category: Assessor's Parcel No: Approval Date: Expiration Date: PA01-0644 (Finding of Substantial Conformance) Request to modify the previously approved exterior colored sandblast finish of the approved Temecula Radiator and Auto Repair building PA01-0025 Michael McCoy, Project Planner Temecula Radiator and Auto Repair N/A 921-040-042 June 6, 2001 June 6, 2003 PLANNING DIVISION Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enab[e the City to file the Notice of Exemption required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. if within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department- Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition [ Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c) ]. General Requirements 2. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, defend with counsel of City's own election, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. R:~D P~2001~PA01-0025 Ternecula Radiator & Auto Rep~STF REPT, FINDS & COA'S ON PA01-0644.doc The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. 4. The exterior of the building shall not be used for outdoor storage other than temporarily parked vehicles under repair, unless approved by the Planning Department. 5. The vehicle display showroom area shall only be utilized for vehicle display purposes. No on-site vehicle sales or advertising of vehicles will be permitted. 6. Only operable vehicles shall be permitted to park in the front section of the project site outside the six-foot high perimeter wall. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "D" (Site Plan), approved with Planning Application No. 01-0025, or as amended by these conditions contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. In addition, the site plan shall reflect the following change: The disabled access path shall be relocated a westerly distance to be directly in line with the stripped area adjacent to the first disabled vehicle parking stall closest to the building entrance. This change shall be reflected on construction drawing and grading plans. 8. Any outside wall-mounted lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. Details of these lights shall be submitted to the Planning Department during plan check for review prior to installation. The installation of wall pack style light shall not be used along the street side elevation. 9. All parking lot lights and other exterior lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. 10. Building elevations shall conform substantially to the approved Exhibit "E" (Elevation Plans), or as amended by these conditions. All mechanical and roof equipment shall be screened from public view by architectural features integrated into the design of the structures. 11. The proposed six (6) foot perimeter concrete wall around the project site shall be of a decorative finish with appropriate scoring detail and relief as reviewed and approved by the Planning Department and is subject to a building permit. The perimeter wall along the east and west sides of the project site shall be sandblasted finish and shall be of an appropriate design as reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. The two 6-foot high rolling gates on each side of the building shall be wrought iron with metal mesh backing material painted to match primary building color. R:~D P\2001\PA01-0025 Ternecula Radiator & Auto Rep~STF REPT, FINDS & COA'S ON PA01-0644.doc 12 12. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "H" (Conceptual Landscape Plan) and to any modifications on the final landscape construction plans as approved by the Planning Department. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Planning shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. Additionally, the following criteria must be met prior to development of the project: a. The two accent palm trees chosen by the applicant to be located in each of the two courtyard planter areas shall be a minimum brown trunk height of twelve (12) feet. b. The landscaped berm along the length of the Rancho Way property frontage shall have a gradual slope height of 3:1 or 4:1, similar to the adjacent existing landscaped berm to the west of the project site on each side of Rancho Way. c. The exterior parking area of the project site shall be effectively screened from the public right-of-way with landscaping and earth berms that can be maintained at a 3-foot height. d. Plantings along the property frontage adjacent to Rancho Way shall be compatible with existing plantings to the west of the project site as required by City Code. e. All utilities shall be effectively screened by proper placement within landscaped areas. 13. The colors and materials used for this building shall conform substantially to the approved color and material board, or as amended by these conditions. Material Primary Wall Exterior Secondary Wall Exterior and Vertical Columns Accent Trim Man Doors, Roll-up doors and Storage doors Storefront Framing Window Glass Color Dunn Edwards SP2680 Apache Tan Sandblasted Concrete Finish Dunn Edwards SP 354 Fandango Dunn Edwards SP 2680 Apache Tan Clear Anodized Aluminum Frame Green Reflective Vision Glass 14. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 1 5. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "E", the colored architectural elevations, to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shalJ be readable on the photographic prints. 16. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 17. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. R:~D P~001\PA01-0025 Ternecula Radiater & Auto Rep~STF REPT, FINDS & COA'S ON PA01-0644.doc 13 18. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance and conform substantially to the approved Exhibit "H" Conceptual Landscape Plan, any approved modifications, or as amended by these conditions. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. c. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 19. The courtyard plaza area shall have installed either an eighteen (18) inch high by eighteen (18) inch wide rounded capped circular wall seat or decorative fixed benches around the courtyard plaza with the design reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to installation. The employee lunch break area shall have permanent tables with benches and shade cover installed with the design reviewed and approved by Planning Department. 20. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 21. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the bond shall be released upon request by the applicant. 22. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height of 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off- street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles parked in c~esignated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696-3000." In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. R:'~D P~.20OI'tPA01-0025 Temecula RAdiator & Auto Rep'~STF REPT, FINDS & COA'S ON PA01-0644.doc 23. A separate building permit and Planning Department approval shall be required for all proposed signage. 24. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use a~lowed by this permit. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY 25. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code: California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 26. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 27. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 28. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 29. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building is required. The path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope, travel slope stripping and signage. Provide ali details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) 30. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) 31. Provide house electrical meter provisions for 3ower for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 32. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be ~n accordance with the provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. Obtain the Division of the State Architect recommendation for the accessible restroom dimensions for toddlers from the Building Official, to implement in the building design. 33. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 34. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 35. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 36. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. R:\D P~001\PA01-0025 Temecula Radiator & Auto Rep~STF REPT, FINDS & COA'S ON PA01-O644.doc 15 37. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 38. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. 39. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. 40. Post conspicuously at the entrance to the project the hours of construction as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance #0-90-04, and specifically Section G (1) of the Riverside County Ordinance # 457.73, for any site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. Construction hours are as follows: Monday - Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Code Holidays DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 41. Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. General Requirements 42. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. 43. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 44. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 45. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 46. The Developer shall post secudty and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 47. A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. 48. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shalt provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. R:~D P~001\PA01-O025 Ternecula Radiator & Auto Rep~TF REPT, FfND$ & COA'S ON PA01-0644.doc 16 49. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify alt existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. 50. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System {NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. 51. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District b. Planning Department c. Department of Public Works 52. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 53. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 54. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. 55. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 56. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.D. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with City Standard No. 800, 801,802 and 803. d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400. 401and 402. e, All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. f. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. R:~D P~001\PA01-0025 Ternecula Radiator & Auto Rep~STF REPT, FINDS & COA'S ON PA01-0644.doc 17 57. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of the Department of Public Works: a. Improve Rancho Way (Principal Collector Highway Standards - 78' R/W) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way plus six feet, sidewalk, and utility laterals (including but not limited to water and sewer). b. Both driveways on Rancho Way shall be constructed full width including curb returns. 58. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: sidewalks, drive approaches, signing, and other traffic control devices as appropriate b. Storm drain facilities c. Sewer and domestic water systems d. Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines 59. All access rights, easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works and City Attorney and approved by City Council for dedication to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. 60. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 61. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. 62. The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western Bypass Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 63. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works 64. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 65. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. R:~D P~2.001\PA01-0025 Ternecu[a Radiator & Auto Rep~TF REPT, FINDS & COA'S ON PA01-O644.doc 18 FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 66. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 67. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1875 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 850 GPM for a total fire flow of 2725 GPM with a 3 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A) 68. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-1. A minimum of 4 hydrants, in a combination of on-site and off- site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 69. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2) 70. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) 71. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather sudace for 80,000 lbs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 72. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surtace designed for 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec 902) 73. Fire Department vehicle access reads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) 74. The gradient for a fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC 902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14) R:\D P~001\PA01-0025 Ternecula Radiator & Auto Rep~STF REPT, FINDS & COA'S ON PA01-0644.doc 19 75. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) 76. Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all- weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1 ) 77. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1 ) 78. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) 79. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single family residences and multi-family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4) 80. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9) 81. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10) 82. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door. (CFC 902.4) 83. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) 84. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. R:\D P~001\PA01-0025 Temecula Radiator & Auto Re¢STF REPT, FINDS & COA'S ON PA01-0644,doc 20 85. Prior to the building final, buildings capable of housing high-piled combustible stock, shall be designed with the following fire protection and life safety features: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department access doors and Fire department access roads. Buildings housing high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions California Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. (CFC Article 81) 86. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the developedapplicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from both the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau.(CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3) Special Conditions 87. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final a simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format must be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Alternative file formats may be acceptable, contact fire prevention for approval. 88. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permit. These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval per the Fire Code and is subject to inspection. (CFC 105) 89. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the city; should any quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce any additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports, (CFC Appendix II-E) By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant Name R:~D P~2001\PA01-0025 Ternecula Radiator & Auto Rep~STF REPT, FINDS & COA'S ON PA01-0644.doc Commercial 8, IndusU~al C~re~e City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBf~CT: Sandblasting the con.ere on the tilt-up building project in progress for Temecula Radiator located at 43191 Rancho Way, Planning Application. No. ¥A01-0025. Dear Projec~ Planner, I have had 25 years experience in flit-up concrete building projects. It has been my experience that due to the make-up of materials in the concrete and the fact that it is colored concrete it should not bc sandblasted. When colored concrete is sandblasted it will always show patch-a-sack and saw-cut lines. In addition the aggregate and sand will always appear gray and never change. I would also warn that if thc concrete is painted after sandblasting it will look like stucco, This look would be unable to be changed for the life of the building. It is my recommendation that instead of sandblasting we follow the same lines but paint two different colors to give the same effect. Two excellent examples of what I am suggesting can be seen on the Keaton project on Rancho Way as well as the Grant project that has been up for a y~ar. If Temecula Radiator is required to follow the original plans set forth in the Development Plan I cannot guarantee that the end result will not be adverse to the look we are trying to achieve. Therefore ifI am to continue with the original plan I will require a waiver signed by Mr, Eves stating that he understands these provisions. Respectfully, Mark Sharp 90@.609°3337 ~ax; 909o609-3~3B * 32:395 Clinton Kci~h Rd.. See. B-7 PMB 107; Wildomer, Celitornil 9~595 December 1 O, 2001 City of Temecula Planning Commission 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Planning Commission, This is in reference to the letter from Sharp Construction, Inc. about the project for Temecula Radiator at 43191 Rancho Way. At this time I would like to ask for an appointment to speak to the Planning Commission regarding granting a modification to the project. We are seeking to eliminate the sandblasting and replace it with paint using the same detail. The outcome would be more controlled and the effect would be the same. As I am sure you are aware time is of the essence. Construction is progressing in a timely manner and a decision needs to be made quickly. I would appreciate an appointment at your earliest convenience, as this matter should only take a few moments of the committees' time. Sincerely, Graham Eves, Owner Temecula Radiator 42148 SARAH WAY * TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92590 * BAR AF-1512S8 PHONE: (909) 694-1373 * FAX (909} 694-0794 A'I'rACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS R:~D P~001~F'A01-0025 Temecuta Radiator & Auto Rep~STF REPT, FINDS & COA'S ON PA01-0644.doc 22 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA01-0644 EXHIBIT - B PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- January 16, 2002 VICINITY MAP R:~D P~001~°A01-0025 Temecula Radiator & Auto Rep~STF REPT. FINDS & COA'S ON PA01-0644.doc 23 CITY OF TEMECULA ~ PRoJecT S,T~ i EXHIBIT C - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - LI (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) )OOO( EXHIBIT D - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION -(BP) BUSINESS PARK CASE NO. - PA01-0644 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 16, 2002 R:\D P~001\PA01-0025 Temecula Radiator & Auto Rep~STF REPT. FINDS & COA*S ON PA01-0644.doc 24 CITY OF TEMECULA 200i CASE NO. - PA01-0644 EXHIBIT- F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- January 16, 2002 SITE PLAN R:~D P~001~PA01-0025 Temecula Radiator & Auto Rep~.STF REPT. FINDS & COA'S ON PA01-0644.cloc 26 CITY OFTEMECULA It., 0 O0 O0 ! I CASE NO. - PA01-0644 EXHIBIT - E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- January 16, 2002 BUILDING ELEVATION PLAN R:~D P~001\PA01-0025 Temecula Radiator & Auto Rep~STF REPT, FINDS & COA'S ON PA01-0644.doc 25 ITEM #5 CITY OFTEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commissioners Rick Rush - Project Planner "~' January 16, 2002 Planning Application 01-0196 (Conditional Use Permit; Development Plan) Staff and the applicant are requesting a two-week continuance. This request is being made in order for the applicant to revise the plans to show proper details in order to suppor~ the application. Staff will be ready to present the item at the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting on January 30, 2002.