The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About051892 PC AgendaAGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING May 18, 1992 6:00 PM VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 29915 Mira Loma Drive Temacula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Hoagland ROLL CALL: Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed 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 and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Minutes 2.2 Approval of minutes of May 4, 1992 Planning Commission Meeting. NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Presenter: TCSD Community Recreation Center City of Temecula Rancho California Sport Park. Schematic design of our proposed Community Recreation Center at Rancho California Sports Park for the Commissioners comments and approval. Gary King BEAUDLR~PL~NCOMM~AGNS-18 1 Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Planner: Recommendation: Conditional Use Permit No. 5 Lou Kashmere West Side of Front Street, North of Lower Highway 79. Color change Building, Roof and Signs Mark Rheades Approval Case No: Applicant: Proposal: Location: Planner: Recommendation: Best Western Inn County Inn General Partnership Revision to block wall and associated landscaping. 27706 Jefferson Avenue Matthew Fagan Provide direction to Staff PUBLIC HEARING Case: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Planner: Recommendation: Variance No. 11, Plot Plan 10605 Rev. No. 1 To-Mac Engineering 41934 Main Street A request to allow a gravel parking lot. Saied Naaseh Denial Case No. Applicant: Location: Proposal: Planner: Recommendation: Conditional Use Permit No. 18 Mobil Oil Corporation Rancho California Town Center, 29500 Rancho California Road. A request to permit the sale of beer and wine. Saied Naaseh Approval Next meeting: June 1, 1992, 6:00 p.m., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Lama Drive, Temecula, California. Planning Director ReDart Plannine Commission Discussion Other Business ADJOURNMENT BEAUDLR~f,~NCOIVl/AAGNS-18 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MAY 4, 1992 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order Monday, May 4, 1992, 6:00 P.M., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California, Chairman John E. Hoagland presiding. PRESENT: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Senior Planner Debbie Ubnosk, e, Senior Planner John Meyer and Minute Clerk Gall Zigler. PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSION BUSINESS APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner Ford, seconded by Commissioner Blair, to approve the agenda as mailed. The motion was carried unanimously with Commissioner Fahey absent. 2. MINUTES 2.1 Aoorove the minutes of April 20. 1992. Plannine Commission Meeting as mailed. Commissioner Ford re~luested that the findings for Item No. 9, Section 3 (Paloma Del Sol) be revised based on staff recommendations and that the specified areas of the Landscape Design Zones that did not meet the requirements be stipulated more clearly (i.e. LDZ's along Butterfield Stage Road). The applicant agreed to increase the LDZ to 32 feet in the "yellow" areas and the "red" areas will remain under 32 feet as shown prepared by the applicant. It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Blair to approve the minutes of April 20, 1992 inserting additional findings as prepared by staff for Item No. 3. PCMINS/4/92 -I- 5112192 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS MAY 4.1992 3. SLOPE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT VACATION 'THE VILLAGES' 3.1 Proposal to vacate the slooe maintenance easement over oortions of Tract Nos. 20735-4, 20735-6, 21082-4 and 21082 effective July 1,1992. Located on the easterly/southerly side of Marearita Road between 1100 feet northerlv and 6500 feet northwesterly of Rancho California Road. Gary King presented the staff report. Mr. King advised the Commission that the slopes fall under Ordinance 91-18 which allows for enforcement of all weed abatement areas, which gives the City authorization to ensure that the slopes are properly maintained. Gary Thornhill added that the City would have the authority to ensure the cluality of appearance of the slopes through the ordinance. Commissioner Fahey arrived at 6:15 P.M. David Michael, 30300 Churchill Court, Temecula, representing the Homeowners Association, requested the Commission's support of the easement vacation. Jane Vernon, 30268 Mercy Court, Temecula, assured the Commission that the Villages Homeowners Association is a very pro-active group and could maintain the slopes adequately as they had previously done. Commissioner Ford asked staff if there was a reversion clause to ensure if proper maintenance was not carried out, the City could take back the maintenance of the slopes. John Cavanaugh advised that there is no reversion clause and the Commission would have to direct staff to insert that as a condition. He clarified that the action required by the Commission was to determine whether the vacation of the slope maintenance easements will be consistent with the general plan presently being developed by the City of Temecula. Chairman Hoagland stated that the request is not consistent with the direction the Commission has been given in the past and probably not consistent with the future general plan; however, if the Commission waits to see what the general plan stipulates, the homeowners will again be assessed for the slope maintenance. PCMkN5/4192 -2- 5112/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 4. 1992 It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff to approve Resolution CSD92-(next) finding that the VACATION of the SLOPE MAINTENANCE EASEMENTS (specified herein as attached Exhibits "A" through "H") for TRACT NOS. 20735-4, 20735-6, 21082-4 AND 21082 is CONSISTENT with the General Plan presently being developed by the City of Temecula and recommend that the City Council include a reversion clause in the resolution. The motion was carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Staff presented the following three specific plans at the same time: SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I - CAMPOS VERDES 4.1 Prooosal for develooment of 132.9 acres into 206 sinale family units, 644 multi-family units, 23.9 acres of commercial and 13.5 acres of Dark/detention basin. Located north of Maroarita Road and east of Ynez Road. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 263 - TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER 5.1 Proposal for development of 201.3 acres into 1.375,000 sauare feet retail commercial core, 298.000 souere feet of retail. 810,000 souare feet of office and institutional. two hotels. end multi-family or residential flats over office or commercial uses. Located south and east of Winchester and Ynez Road intersection. SPECIFIC PLAN 255 - WINCHESTER HILLS 6.1 Proposal for development of 569.9 acres into 1092 sinDie family units, 532 multi-family units. 15.6 acres of commercial. 11.4 acres of commercial/office. 120.1 acres of business Dark. 11.2 acre school site, and 16.8 and 6.1 acre neiahborhood parks. Located on the east side of Interstate 15. north of Winchester Road. PCMINSI4/92 -3- 5112~92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PCMINSI4192 MAY 4, 1992 Debbie Ubnoske related staff's concerns on the specific plans as follows: *All three specific plans: circulation and access (specifically with the Date Street overcrossing end interchange, Cherry Street overcrossing, extension of General Kearney and Margarita, and the Jackson/Ynez alignment. phasing of improvements and the costs of improvements. interface of the three specific plans with the general plan. the development of the north end Sports Park. *Temecula Regional Center: urban form (Ynez and Winchester are key intersections seen as a gateway to the City, in particular the WalMart Store that has been proposed). mixed use concept being proposed. coordination with Campos Verdes. *Campos Verdes: multi-family. the park and detention basin. the possible necessity for a school site. concurrent processing of tentative maps. coordination with the Regional Center. *Winchester Hills character of the commercial development within the specific plan. three "not a part parcels" that are interspersed throughout the specific plan. multi-family. -4- 51 112192 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES the possible necessity for a school site. urban form. MAY 4, 1992 PCMINS/4/92 the location of the specific plan to the Murrieta City boundaries. concurrent processing of tentative maps with the specific plan. John Meyer presented a update on the general plan process. Gary King briefly commented on TCSD's concerns with the proposed park site in the Campos Verde specific plan. Chairman Hoagland declared a recess at 7:00 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 7:10 P.M. Barry Brunnell, T&B Planning Consultants, 3242 Halliday Street, Santa Ana, representing Bedford Properties, provided the project summary on the three separate Specific Plan applications. Bob Davis, Wilbur Smith Associates, traffic engineer for all three projects, addressed the traffic aspects of the three Specific Plans and how they tie into the City's general plan effort. The following concerns were expressed by the Commission: Commissioner Blair expressed a concern that the potential location of the WalMart store is at a major intersection (gateway) into the community and suggested that staff try to reposition that store within the development area for less visual impact. Gary Thornhill advised that staff continues to address the location of the "big box" users within the development area. Commissioner Chiniaeff expressed the following concerns: that the location of the recreational amenities in the Campos Verde specific plan in closer to the residential development. transportation and circulation in the Winchester Hills development ties together with the entire specific plan. Commissioner Fahey expressed the following concerns: potential impact of the location of high density housing in the area of Margarita which already has abundant high density housing. detail on alternative designs for high density housing. -5- 5/~ 2/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 4, 1992 Commissioner Ford expressed the following concerns: noise attenuation.(CV) landscape setbacks and location of walls.(CV) definitive statement of phasing plans.(CV) Campos Verdes (CV) role in CFD 88-12 and how much is assessed for the Ynez corridor. definitive statement of location of traffic signals and traffic mitigation.(CV) insufficient erosion control in 2-16. location of the park in the detention basin.(CV) multi-family sites need proper open space. Planning Area 5 needs access points to the commercial. consistency of street widths. circulation on General Kearny Road and its dead end at Meadowview. change in flow to regional drainage facilities. whether the Meadowview Homeowners Association has been contacted for a possible upstream de-silting station. the need for definitive statements on the specific plan E.I.R. regarding EMWD and RCWD current sewer facilities and possible lack of future facilities if they do not get discharge permits, Planning Area One: definitive layout of park area. definitive schedule of phasing of improvements. Planning Area Two: no real buffer, needs to be an offsite interface. landscape along Margarita does not show any entrances off Margarita Road, and only one coming off of General Kearny (stipulate). allow for meandering sidewalks in the landscape buffer along Margarita Road. Planning Area Four: allow for meandering sidewalks in the landscape buffer along Margarita Road. Planning Area Five: access to the commercial must accommodate pedestrians, Planning Area Six: PCMIN514/92 -6- 6112192 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 4, 1992 landscape buffer zone to offset the residential. Planning Area Seven: no landscape buffer up to the existing residential in Meadowview. Address what is there already. Applying to all three Specific Plans: K-Rat mitigation implementation program. Commissioner Blair expressed these additional concerns: preservation of the natural contours of the land. quantity of apartment units planned for Campos Verdes and Winchester Hills. Would like to see verification and justification that the number of units proposed is required. the mobile home park in Winchester Hills and its location on Ynez Road. Commissioner Ford asked for follow-up on the following issues: need for further fault studies prior to completion of the Specific Plan. storm drains and diversion to other culverts. need for a phasing plan for improvements. fire station sites. continuation of the bike plan. work with parks department on the park sites. PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT Gary Thornhill advised the Commission of the following: Joint luncheon with the Murrieta Planning Commission scheduled for May 8, 12 noon at Primadonna's. City Council of Temecula and Murrieta have formed a joint committee to study the traffic situation and provisions for an interchange south of the Y. Request a Planning Commissioner to serve on the committee. Commissioner Steve Ford volunteered for the committee. PCMINS/4/92 -7- 5112/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT None OTHER BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to adjourn to a joint luncheon with the City of Murrieta Planning Commission on Friday, May 8, 12:00 Noon, Primadonna's Italian Restaurant, Temecula. MAY 4, 1992 Chairman John E. Hoagland Secretary PCMINS/4/92 -8- 5/12~92 ITEM#3 CITY OF TEMECULA MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Planning Commission Gary L. King Development Services Administrator DATE: May 18, 1992 SUBJECT: Design Review, Rancho Recreation Center {CRC) California Sports Park Community BACKGROUND A Joint City Council/Parks and Recreation Commission meeting and several Project Committee meetings have been held concerning the CRC Project. These discussions have included the programming requirements of the facility and how the floor plan will best facilitate those programs. At the April 9, 1992 Joint City Council/Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, a preliminary conceptual design of the CRC was presented. Several comments were made relative to grading, adequate storage, kitchen requirements, community pool, amphitheater, and parking. A Project Committee meeting was then held on April 30 to further refine the CRC project and its design. On May 11, 1992 staff presented the conceptual schematic design to the Parks and Recreation Commission, where it was unanimously approved. DISCUSSION A presentation will be made by Bob Mueting of RJM Design Group, Inc. concerning the CRC project and its conceptual schematic design. Based on the information provided, staff requests that the Planning Commission review the conceptual schematic design and provide staff with comments. Attachments / // // :i-.-=:t-:--!I-t ..... ..... I I I I RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPORTS PARK RJM Design Group I SCHEMATIC DESIGN SPACE ALLOTMENT SPACE INFORMATION OFFICE A OFFICE B DIRECTOR'S OFFICE MUL TIPURPOSE STORAGE - MUL TIPURPOSE TEEN ROOM / GAME ROOM STORAGE - GAME / TEEN MEETING ROOM A MEETING ROOM B CRAFTS ROOM RECEPTION KITCHEN RESTROOMS - MUL TIPRUPOSE STORAGE - GYM GYMNASIUM STAGE @ MULTIPURPOSE STORAGE - STAGE SHOWER / LOCKER STORAGE - LOCKER / SHOWER EMERG. PREP. STOR VENDING - INDOORS VENDING - OUTDOORS UTILITY / MECHANICAL POOL EQUIPMENT POOL CONTROL SUBTOTAL CIRCULATION TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ORIGINAL PROGRAM ' SQUARE FOOTAGE Oi 150 150 200 3, 400 ~ Oi 1,500 o! 340 680 300 1,000 750 7oo ~ 600 8,000 ~,ooo i O~ 2,500 0 300 200 O~ 200 5oo ~! 260 22,730 2,273 ~ 25,003 CURRENT DESIGN SQUARE FOOTAGE COMMENTS 160 ~ 750 ~ 200 i 3,400 ~ 290 i 1,600 i 720 i 338 i 675 i 338 i 7,000 i 530 ! 520 ~ 6oo i 8,790 }BLEACHER SEATS - 372 7,075 ! 230 ~ 2,300 i 115i 285 ~ 50i 50 i 200 i 480 i ~50 i 23,796 ~ 2,684 i 26,480 4121192 Page I RJM DESIGN GROUP, INC. PLANNING AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS 1OF2 RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPORTS PARK CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 559-00-4 APRIL 30, 1992 UNIT ITEM QTY UNIT PRICE SUBTOTAL TOTAL SITE DEVELOPMENT: UTILITIES 500 CLEAR AND GRUB 7 ROUGH GRADING (ONSITE FILL) 55,000 ROUGH GRADING (OFFSITE FILM 20,000 CY FOUNDATION (OVEREX.) 8,200 CY CURB AND GUTTER 6,040 LF AC PAVING 97,278 LF SIGNAGE ALLOW LIGHTING ALLOW STREAM EROSION CONTROL 2,800 SF TOTAL LF 170.00 85,000 AC 3000.00 21,000 CY 3.00 165,000 6.00 120,000 1.00 8,200 16.00 96,640 2.00 194,556 50,000 100,000 5.00 14,000 4,396 SITE LANDSCAPING: HYDROSEED SOIL PREPARATION/ FINE GRADE IRRIGATION PLANTING BLUFF TOP PROMENADE ESTABLISH MAINTENANCE TOTAL 325,244 SF 92,640 SF 92,640 SF 92,640 SF 8,453 SF 92,640 SF 0.07 22,767 0.25 23,160 0.75 69,480 2.00 185,280 3.00 25,359 0.10 9,264 335,310 CRC COMPLEX CRC BUILDING 26,480 SF COMPETITION/RECREATION POOL 5,000 SF WADING POOL 625 LF POOL ENCLOSURE FENCE 800 SF ACCENT PAVING 31,818 SF MISC. FURNITURE ALLOW MOWSTRIP -' 420 LF RETAINING WALL 18" 530 LF RETAINING WALL 36" 687 LF AMPHITHEATRE ALLOW SHELTER 2,000 SF TOTAL 80.00 2,118,400 110.00 550,000 65.00 40,625 16.00 12,800 4.00 127,272 8,000 5.00 2,100 23.00 12,190 75.00 51,525 100,000 15.00 30,000 3,Q52,912 27285 LAS RAMBLAS. SUITE 250 , MISSION VIF_.]O. CA 92691 · (714) 582-7516 , FAX (714) 582-0429 RJM DESIGN GROUP, INC. PLANNING AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE .ELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPORTS PARK CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 559-00-4 APRIL 30, 1992 2 OF 2 CRC COMPLEX LANDSCAPE SOIL PREP/FINE GRADE IRRIGATION PLANTING ESTABLISH MAINTENANCE 27,327 SF 0.25 6,832 27,327 SF 1.00 27,327 27,327 SF 3.00 81,981 27,327 SF 0.10 2,733 TOTAL 118,872 SUBTOTAL 10% CONTINGENCY 4,361,491 436,149 GRAND TOTAL 4,797,640 '~E ABOVE ESTIMATE DOES NOT INCLUDE MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT FEES FOR ITEMS SUCH AS ,NGAROO RAT, MURIETTA CREEK DRAINAGE, FIRE MITIGATION, WATER TREATMENT AND ~.AFFIC SIGNAL. RJM HAS PREPARED THIS ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST ON THE BASIS OF II BEST PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT AND EXPERIENCE WITH THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY. THE ESTIMATE, HOWEVER, REPRESENTS ASSUMPTIONS AND OPINIONS OF THE CONSTRUCTION MARKET AND CONTRACTOR'S METHODS OF DETERMINING ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS OVER WHICH RJM HAS NO CONTROL. IF THE OWNER REQUIRES GREATER ASSURANCE OF THE CONSTRUCTION COST, THE EMPLOYMI. OF AN INDEPENDENT COST ESTIMATOR IS ENCOURAGED. 27285 LAS RAMBLAS, SUITE 250 · MISSION VIF. JO, CA 92691 · (714) 582-7516 · FAX (714) 582-0429 I 'l 30 APR 92 92006.10 RANCHO CA SPORTS LIFORNI PARK A LPA SPACE MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM (2): ARTS & CRAFTS ROOM (9): MEETING ROOM A (6): MEETING ROOM B (7)(8): RECEPTION (18): DIRECTOR'S OFFICE (17): OFFICE A (16): OFFICE B (16): RESTROOMS (14): RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPORE; PARK LPA PROJECT NO. 92006. 10 PREUMINARY FURNITURE ALLOCATION ITEM 330 - Stackable Chairs 21 - 6' Fold Down Tables PA System 12 - Stools I - Conference Table 21 - Stackable Chairs I - Side Credenza 1 - Wipe Board, 8' 5 - Multi-Purpose Tables 2 - Corner Tables 36 - Stackable Chairs 2 - End Credenza/Lat. Files 1 - Task Chair/Stool 1 - Bu~etin Board 2 - Lateral Files, 18"x30': 2 High I - Executive Unit 36'~84" w/Left Pos. Pedestal Bridge w/overhead storage Credenza w/2 lateral files underneath 1 - Executive High Back Chair 2 - Side Chairs 1 - Task Chair I - Vertical File, 2 high I - Task Chair 1 - Vertical File, 2 high I - Mop Set 70 - 15'~4/ x 18"D x 36"H Vented Metal Lockers or 30 - 15'~4/ x 78"D x 24"H and 50 - 15'M/x 18"D x 36"H Vented Metal Lockers STORAGE LOCATION Storage Room & Stage Storage Room & Stage Storage Room Storage Room Storage Room .,,..,, I RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPORTS PARK April 30, ? 992 LPA Project No. 92006. 10 Page 2 POOL SUPPLY ROOM (19): GYMNASIUM: 2 - Task Stools 3 - Umbrellas Water Control Kit I - First Aid Kit 2 - Water Jugs Various Water Games 5tereo 3 - Blackboards I - Divider Curtain (Roll) 2 - Score Board/Clock 2 - Glass Basketball Backstops 2 - Wood Basketball Backstops 2 - Volleyball Standards & Inserts I - Volleyhaft Net 24 I. jneal Feet Waft Padding 2 - Mat Trucks 12 - Section Bleachers Gymnastic Equipment -2 uneven bars -3 Balance Beams -1 Vault -2 Spring Boards Gym Storage Gym Storage Gym Storage Gym Storage Gym Storage TEEN ROOM (3)(4): 2 - Fold Down Pool Tables I - Billiards 2 - 36 "x36" Tables 20 - Multi-purpose Chairs 3 - Carom Tables 1 - Fo~s Bail 3 - Electronic Video Games I - Large Screen T.V. 1 - Built-in Stereo Board Games Sporting Equipment Art Supplies Storage Room Storage Room Storage Room Adjacent Storage Rm i ,PA I~Ub~'Pu~Rp~ t~22A/1 DAA,LTI. pv, e-,eo~ pcz~ 0,6 · 9_[ ~ C6'--o" ~)e t2-Lo ~ G'T-,H- [~,e~-,9-1o ~ Multi-Purpose Room RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPORTS PARK N\I t/itl~l~ \1 t.N I I I Multi-Purpose Room (2-A) 30 APR 92 92OO6.10 RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPORTS PARK LP_/-k \1 Multi-Purpose Room (2-B) 30 APR 92 92006.10 RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPO R TS P A R K LPA ', i Multi-Purpose Room (2-C) 30 APR 92 92006.10 RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPORTS PARK LPT-k d' <- /\ /",-,, /--,,. \/ \/ /\ "-x/' \/ \/ /\ II "//''\' '/\ t/ "\\' N.\/ \ /\ Meeting Room A 30 APR 92 92006.10 RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPORTS PARK LPA II /,~ ij rl ii ~L/1,1.~iN MLLL, W~, o.~ Meeting Room A (6)(9) 30 APR 92 92006.10 RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPORTS PARK LPA I '1 Meeting Room B (7)(8) 30 APR 92 92006.10 RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPORTS PARK LPA ~o~'~Ll,bwo ~7 Meeting Room B 30 APR 92 92006.10 RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPORTS PARK LPA 1 Reception/Office/Storage (18)(17)(11) RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPORTS PARK Office A & B/Storage (16) 30 APR 92 92006.10 RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPORTS PARK (3 0 C3 ~ RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPORTS PARK 30 APR 92 9~00,.~0 LPA ~A'~9 vmr~t,e~6. Pool Supply Room (19) 30 APR 92 92OO6.10 RANCHO CALIFORNI SPORTS PARK A 2A'-'CT~F /// / / / I Us'T oFt~P/~Eh~ Teen Room (3)(4) 30 APR 92 92006.10 RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPORTS PARK LPA f "1 Gymnasium Storage RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPORTS PARK 30 APR 92 ~OO,.,0 I Pool Storage RANCHO CALIFORNIA 30 APR 92 92006.10 SPORTS PA.RK LPA MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning May 18, 1992 Conditional Use Permit No. 5, Roof and Canopy Fascia Color Change BACKGROUND Conditional Use Permit No. 5 was approved by the Planning Commission on June 17, 1991. The approved use was for a 15,381 square foot automotive services center including gasoline dispensing, a mini-mart, car washing and detailing, and a service center. The buildings elevations that were approved consist of off-white stucco, grey streambed boulders for some trim elements, wood trellises, and a blue metal raised seam roof. The canopies approved for the gasoline pump islands included multi-color striped fascia elements. DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a change in color for the canopy fascia and the roof. The approved multi-color striped canopy fascia would be replaced with a solid medium grey material. The blue metal roof would be changed to a red, utilizing the same material. The sign lettering color would match the proposed roof color. Staff has reviewed the request and has determined that it is consistent with the current approval, and does not alter the proposed use or design integrity of the existing approved project. The red roof is similar in color intensity to the approved blue roof. Staff is requesting direction from the Planning Commission relative to this request. vgw Attachments: Proposed Canopy Fascia Proposed Roof Color 1TE~ #5 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SURIECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning May 18, 1992 Construction of a 10 foot high noise attenuation wall and landscaping on the east side of the Best Western County Inn which is adjacent to Interstate 15 BACKGROUND Substantial Conformante No. 22 was denied 4-0 (Commissioner Fahey was absen0 by the Planning Commission at the February 24, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. Objections were raised by the Commission as to constructing a 10 foot high noise attenuation wall adjacent to the freeway. No landscaping was proposed for the project at that rune. The Conunission felt that landscaping could be used as a suitable screen for the site, but the wall would not be sufficient by itself. The Commission also expressed that ff the noise attenuation wall was presented with a landscape plan that they may have addressed the proposal differently. After the Planning Commission denial of Substantial Conformante No. 22, the applicant contacted Staff to discuss any options which would be available to him. He still felt that the wall was necessary to reduce the mount of noise within the motel rooms. Staff met with the applicant and recommended that a landscape plan be prepared which would sufficiently screen the proposed wall. In addition, Staff recommended that the wall height be reduced and that the wall be staggered or recessed between the pilasters. The applicant chose to submit a landscape plan, rother than re-design the wall (reference Exhibit A). The landscape plan incorporates exisfmg sycamore and eucalyptus trees and proposes to use African Sumac (rhus lancea) trees which are evergreen trees that are drought tolerant and spread as they grow. They also propose to plant cat's claw (doxanthus ungnis-cati) which is a partly deuduous vine, which is drought tolerant once established, to act as a screen for the wall. The landscaping will be located within the CALTRANS right-of-way and watered via drip irrigation. CALTRANS requires City approval before they will consider the landscape plans. Staff considers this plan to be adequate and is requesting that the Planning Commission provide Staff with d'krection. vgw S\STAFFILtq'X22SC-M~_IVLiW~ ITEM STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 18, 1992 Case No.: Plot Plan No. 10605, Amendment No. 1, Revised Permit No. 1 and Variance No. 11 Prepared By: Saied Naaseh RECO1VIM~.NDATION: ADOPT Resolution No. 92- _ and Resolution No. 92-_ denying Plot Plan No. 10605, Amendment No. 1, Revised Pennit No. 1 and Variance No. 11 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: To-Mac Engineering To-Mac Engineering PROPOSAL: A request to modify Condition No. 16 of approved Plot Plan No. 10605, Amendment No. 1 and a Variance to Section 18. 12.b.l.b. of Ordinance No. 348. LOCATION: South side of Main Street, 70 feet west of Mercedes Street EXISTING ZONING: C-1/C-P ~General Commercial) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: C-1/C-P (General Commercial) C-1/C-P (General Commercial) C-1/C-P (General Commercial) C-1/C-P (General Commercial) PROPOSED ZONING: N/A KXISTING LAND USE: Engineenng Office SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Vacant Comme~ial Comme~ial Commemial S\STAFFRPT\10~O~PP.PC 1 PROJECT STATISTICS Building Foot Print Parking & Driveways Landscaping Boardwalks Total 2,225 square feet (total square feet 5,486) 11,000 square feet 1,350 square feet 270 square feet 14,845 square feet Number of Parking Spaces 25 BACKGROUND On March 27, 1989 the Riverside County Planning Director approved Plot Plan No. 10605, Amendment No. 1 for an expansion of an existing office building. Condition No. 16 for this approval required a paved parking lot (refer to Attachment No. 4 and Exhibit D) . PROJECT DESCRIFFION The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission to allow a gravel parking lot for an office building by applying for a Revised Permit and a Variance. The approval of the Revised Permit, will modify Condition No. 16 of the appmved Plot Plan which required a paved parking lot. The approval of the Variance will allow a gravel parking lot by deviating from Section 18. 12.b.l.b. of Ordinance No. 348 (refer m Attachment No. 5) which requires that all parking lots to be paved. ANALYSIS Section 18.27 of Ordinance No. 348 (refer to Attachment No. 6) states that Variances can be granted when special circumstances apply to a parcel of land including size, shape, topography, location or surrounding that would deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity that is under the same zoning classification. It is Staff's opinion that there axe no special cLrcumstances in this case to support a Variance from Section 18. 12.b.l.b. of Ordinance No. 348 which requixes all parking areas to be paved. Furthermore, Staff does not support the Revised Permit to modify this condition since this would be the first project where the City would waive a requirement for parking lot paving. Staff feels this could set a precedent in considering future projects and would likely be inconsistent with the Specific Plan being developed for Old Town. Attachment No. 7 includes a letter of explanation from the applicant and the signatures of people in support of the request which was provided to Staff by the applicant. FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY This project is not consistent with the C-I/C-P zoning designation since Section 9.4.d. of this zoning designation (refer to Attachment No. 8) requires all projects to be consistent with Section 18.12 of Ordinance 348 which is the parking regulations. This section requires paving of parking lots. This project will also likely be inconsistent with the City's future General Plan and zoning regulations, since it is not expected to allow gravel parking lots. This project is also inconsistent with SWAP since it refers to Ordinance No. 348 for development guidelines. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An environmental determination is not applicable for projects that are recommended for denial. If the Planning Commission elects to approve this project, it would be a Class I Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS Staff is not able to support this project since there are no special circumstances that apply to this property which do not apply to other properties in the vicinity in terms of size , shape, topography, location or surroundings. Furthermore, approval of this project might set a precedent in reviewing future projects. FINDINGS Variance No. 11 There axe no special circumstances that apply to this paxeel including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings that would deprive this property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity that is under the same zoning classification. 2. Economic hardship is not acceptable as a special circumstance in granting variances. Approval of a Variance will constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. Plot Plan No. 10605, Amendment No. 1 was approved with a condition to pave the parking lot. The City of Temecula has not approved a gravel paxking lot for any project and approving this variance could set a precedent in reviewing future projects. The granting of the Variance will probably be inconsistent with the future General Plan in that it will not set policy guidelines that will allow gravel parking lots. Plot Plan No. 10605. Amendment No. 1. Revised No. 1 The project was originally approved with a condition to pave the parking lot; the applicant agreed to this condition of approval on March 27, 1989 and the applicant has not demonstrated an acceptable reason for not paving the parking lot other than economic leasons. Section 18.12.b.l.b. of Ordinance No. 348 requires all paxking lots to be paved; approval of this Revised Permit will make this project inconsistent with Section 18.12.b.l.b. of Ordinance No. 348. Section 9.4.b. of Ordinance No. 348 requires all projects with the C-1/C-P zone designation to comply with all requirements of Section 18.12 of Ordinance No. 348; approval of this Revised Permit will make this project inconsistent with Article IX of Ordinance No. 348 which is the requirements for C-1/C-P zoning designation. The South West Area Plan (SWAP) requires all projects to be consistent with Ordinance No. 348; approving this project, as demonstrated in Findings 2 and 3, will make this project inconsistent with Ordinance No. 348, therefore, making it inconsistent with SWAP. The granting of the Variance will probably be inconsistent with the future General Plan in that it will not set policy guidelines that will allow gravel paxking lots. The City of Temecula has not approved a gravel paxking lot for any project and approving this Revised Permit could set a precedent in reviewing future projects. STAFF RECOIVIMENDATION: ADOPT Resolution No. 92-_ and Resolution No. 92-_ denying Plot Plan No. 10605, Amendment No. 1, Revised Permit No. 1 and Variance No. 11 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. vgw Attachments: 5. 6. 7. 8. Resolution (Plot Plan No. 10605, Amendment No. 1, Rev. No. Permit 1 - blue page 5 Resolution (Variance No. I1) - blue page 9 Exhibits - blue page 13 a. Vicinity Map b. SWAP c. Zoning Map d. Site Plan Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan No. 10605, Amendment No. 1 - blue page 14 Section 18.12.b.l.b. of Ordinance No. 348 - blue page 15 Section 18.27 of Ordinance No. 348 - blue page 16 Applica.nt's letter and signature list - blue page 17 Section 9.4.d. of Ordinance No. 348 - blue page 18 $\$TAFFRPT~I0605PP-I~C 4 ATTAC~ NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 92- S~TAFFRF~I0605PP.PC 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THI?. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THF. CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING DENYING OF PLOT PLAN NO. 10605, AMENDMF_dNT NO. 1, REVISED PERMIT NO. 1 TO PERMIT A GRAVEL PARKING LOT ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 0.34 ACRES LOCATED ON ~ SOUTH SIDE OF MAIN STREET, 70 FEET WEST OF MI~RCEDES STREET AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 92~-044-02~ WHIr~REAS, To-Mac Engineering fried Plot Plan No. 10605 Amendment No. 1, Revised Permit No. 1 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WI~-REAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WFrEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public heating pertaining to said Plot Plan on May 18th, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and W!tF. REAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Plot Plan. NOW, TWF~REFORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF TFFF. CITY OF TE1VIECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section I. Findings. following findings: That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: general plan. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the $XSTAFFRJrf~1060$PP.I~c 6 B. The Riverside County General Plan, as mended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following findings can be made: 1. The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general weftare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. 3. The Planning Commission, in recommending denial of the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following f'mdings, to wit: a. The project was originally approved with a condition to pave the parking lot; the applicant agreed to this condition of approval on March 27, 1989 and the applicant has not demonstrated an acceptable reason for not paving the parking lot other than economic reasons. b. Section 18.12.b. 1 .b. of Ordinance No. 348 requires all parking lots to be paved; approval of this Revised Permit will make this project inconsistent with Section 18.12.b.l.b. of Ordinance No. 348. c. Section 9.4.b. of Ordinance No. 348 requires all projects with the C-1/C-P zone designation to comply with all requirements of Section 18.12 of Ordinance No. 348; approval of this Revised Permit will make this project inconsistent with Article IX of Ordinance No. 348 which is the requirements for C-1/C-P zoning designation. d. The South West Area Plan (SWAP) requires all projects to be consistent with Ordinance No. 348; approving this project, as demonstrated in Findings 2 and 3, wffi make this project inconsistent with Ordinance No. 348, therefore, making it inconsistent with SWAP. e. The granting of the Variance will probably be inconsistent with the future General Plan in that it will not set policy guidelines that will allow gravel parking lots. f. The City of Temecula has not approved a gravel parking lot for any project and approving this Revised Permit could set a precedent in reviewing future projects. S~STAFFIIPT~I0(~0~PP.PC 7 g. The Plot Plan as proposed does not conform to the logical development of its proposed site, and is incompatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. Section lI. Environmental Compliance. This project has been recommended for denial, therefore, no envh'onmental determination has been made. Section 1II. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby denies Plot Plan No. 10605, Amendment No. 1, Revised Permit No. 1 to permit a gravel parking lot located south side of Main Street, 70 feet west of Mercedes Street and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 922-044-022; therefore no Conditions of Approval are proposed for this project. Section IV. PASSED, DENIRI} AND ADOFrED this 18th day of May, 1992. JOHN E. HOAGLAND CHAIRMAN I ltRREBy CERTIYY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 18th day of May, 1992 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANN'I~G COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONF. RS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS S~STAFFRF~I060~PP.PC 8 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 RESOLUTION NO. S\STAFFRPT~I060~PP.PC 9 ATTACHNIENT NO. 2 RESOLUTION NO. 92- A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE. CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING VARIANCE NO. 11 TO GRANT A RELIEF FROM SECTION 18.LZ.b.l.b OF ORDINANCE 548 WHICH REQUIRES ALL PARKING LOTS TO BE PAVED; LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MAIN STREET, 70 FEET WEST OF MF. RCEDES STREET AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCF. L NO. 922-044-022. WHEREAS, To-Mac Engineering fried Variance No. 11 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; Wi~REAS, said Variance application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; W!tE. REAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Variance on May 18, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Variance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Variance; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF TE1VIECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section I. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following fmdings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: 1. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. S\STAFFRPT~I060SPP.PC B. The Riverside County General Plan, as mended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. Pursuant to Section 18.27(a), no variance may be approved unless the foBowing fmding can be made: 1. Special circumstances exist applicable to a parcel of property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, whereby the strict application of this ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity that is under the same zoning classification. D. The Planning Commission, in denying the proposed Variance, makes the following fmdings, to wit: 1. Them are no special circumstances that apply to this paxeel including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings that would deprive this property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity that is under the same zoning classification. Economic hardship is not acceptable as a special circumstance in granting variances. 3. Approval of a Variance will constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. 4. Plot Plan No. 10605, Amendment No. 1 was approved with a condition to pave the parking lot. 5. The City of Temecula has not approved a gravel parking lot for any project and approving this variance could set a precedent in reviewing future projects. 6. The granting of the Variance will probably be inconsistent with the future General Plan in that it will not set policy guidelines that will allow gravel parking lots. E. Pursuant to SECTION E, the Variance proposed does not conform to the logical development of its proposed site, and may not be compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. Section 1I. Environmental Compliance. This project has been recommended for denial, therefore, no environmental determination has been made. sxs,^mumto~PP.~c 11 Section Ill. Conditions. Thatthe City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby denies Variance No. 11 to penTtit a gravel parking lot located on the south side of Main Street, 70 feet west of Mereedes Street, therefore no conditions of approval are proposed for this project. Section PASSED, DENIED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 1992. JOHN E. HOAGLAND CHAIRMAN I ITEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 18th day of May, 1992 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING CO1VIIMISSIONFjLS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: S\STAFFRF~I0605PP.PC 12 ATTACHMRNT NO. 3 EXH'IBITS S~STAFFR~ni0~pi'.VC 13 CITY OF TEMECULA CALIFORNIA CASE NO.: EXHIBIT: A P.C. DATE: May 18, 1992 Plot plan No. 10605, Amendment No. 1, Revised No. 1 & Variance No. ll VICINITY MAP SXSTAFFRPT'xlO6OSPP.PC CITY OF TEMECULA S~VAP - Exhibit B SITE Designation: Commercial \\ _~ · ZONING - Exhibit C Designation: C-1/C-P Case No.: Plot Plan No. 10605, Amendment No. 1, Revised No. 1 & Variance No. 11 P.C. Date: May 18, 1992 S\STAFFRPT~I0605PP.PC CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 10605, Amendment No. 1, Revised No. I & Variance No. 11 EXHIBIT: D SITE PLAN P.C. DATE: May 18, 1992 ATTACItM~NT NO. 4 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PLOT PLAN NO. 10605, AMENDMENT NO. 1 s~s'rAm~'r~lo6os~.~c 14 PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARZN~'DATE: 3-27-89 RIV~II$IOE ClIHTY R_qmlm D!~tll~IT lilTlOllS OF ,IbePIWAL Tn-MRr FnginPPring 41934 Main Street Temecula, California 92390 PLOT PLAN NO. 10605 AMENDED NO. l Project Description: ar, expansion of an existing office bu~idqng Assessor's Parcel No.: 922-044-DD2,003 ~fi~/Area: lemecula The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold hamless the County of Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or Irmul, an approval of the County of Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning PPlO6O5 Amended No. 1 The County of Riverside will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the County of Riverside and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the County fails to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the County of Riverside· This approval shall be used within two L~) years of approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the Two (_~ year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The developnent of the premises shall conform substantially with that as A , or as amended by these shown on plot plan mrkedAiiWAAai~Exhtbtt=~Tnn:ended No. 1 conditions. In the event the use hereby pemtttad ceases operation for s period of one (1) year or more, this approval shall become null and void. Any outstde lighting shall be hooded end dtrected so as not to shtne directly upon ed;}otnlng property or public rights-of-way. The ~ppltcant shall (amply with the street improvement 'recommendations outlined tn the County Road I)eparbaent transmittel dated 9-1-BB , a copy of which is attached. PLOT PLAN NO. 10605, AllENDED NO. 1 Conditions of Approval Page 2 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department transmittal dated B-23-88, a copy of which is attached. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District transmittal dated 8-16-88, a copy of which is attached. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated 8-24-88, a copy of which is attached. The applicant shall comply with the Building and Safety letters dated B-11~88 and 7-20-88. The applicant shall comply with County Geologic Report No. 547 and with the County Geologist letter dated g-12-88, a copy of which is attached. Prior to the issuance of building permits, Certificate of Parcel Merger No. 505 must have been approved and recorded. This project is located within a Subsidence Report Zone. Prior to issuance of any building permit by the Riverside County Department of Building and Safety, a California Licensed Structural Engineer shall certify that the intended structure or building is safe and structurally integrated. This certification shall be based UpDn, but not be limited to, the site specific seismic, geologic and geotechnical conditions. Where hazard of subsidence or fissure development is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures must be demonstrated. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10} feet of an entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30) inches. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit an 18.12 parking, landscaping and irrigation plot plan to the Planning Department and shall be acco~oanied by a filing fee as set forth in Section 18.37 of Ordinance 348. A minimum of 25 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 and as shown on the Approved Exhibit A, Amended No. 1. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base. PLOT PLAN NO. 10605 ANENDED NO. 1 Conditions of Approval Page 3 A minimum of 1 handicapped parking space shall be provided. 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 S~nnbol 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 in size with lettering not less than 1 inch in height, which clearly and conspicuously states the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephoning 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. 18. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: Road Department Environmental Health Riverside County Flood Control Fire Department 19. Prior to the issuance of building permits the following additional and/or revised plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval: Parking and Circulation Plan to reflect one handicap parking stall. Landscaping, Irrigation and Shading Plans 20. Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit B and Exhibit C, Color & Naterials Board. Specific colors and materials are as follows: Iq).terial Color Siding I x 12 Cedar board Ameritone paint with 1 x 3 Cedar batts No. 2043C (Amherst) Trim Wood Ameritone Paint No. 1UI(36A (Onar) Roofing Cedar shakes - waterproofed Windows Glass Tinted 21. Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening material shall be subject to Planning Department approval. PLOT PLAN NO. 10605 ANENDED NO. 1 Conditions of Approval Page 4 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 30. 31. One trash encl o;u~c ~ich is aCequatc to enclosc a total of two bins shal-~ b~ l~at~d within thc privet, and chall bc conGtr~ct, e~ prior to thc issu ancc of occupancy pcw~-.its. Each enclosure s~all bc six fcct in hcight and shall be made with mason~y~lock and agatc which screens the bins ~Fom cxtcrnal vicu. (Deleted at Director's Hearing, 3-27-89} Landscape screening shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height of six (6} feet at maturity. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and within the parking areas. All existing specimen trees on the subject property shall be preserved wherever feasible. Where they cannot be preserved they shall be relocated or replaced with specimen trees as approved by the Planning Director. All street lights and other outdoor 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 and the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. This project site is within a significant groundshaking zone. ~itigation shall be the application of the proper Uniform Building Code standards in the development of this project. All existing structures on the subject property shall conform to all of the applicable requirements of Ordinance 348. F~r Clac~ I% bi;ycla racks Ehall be provided in convenient location: to facilitatc bicyclc acccss to the ~rcjoQ% area. (Deleted at Director's Hearip , 3-22-89 Prior to issuance of building permits, performance securities, ~n a~ounts to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the installation of planrings, walls and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the planting for one year shall be filed with the Department of Building and Safety. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order: All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kVor greater, shall be installed underground. Prior to the sale of any structure as shown on Exhibit A Amended No. 1, a land division shall be recorded in accordance with Riverside County Ordinance No. 46D and any other pertinent ordinance. PLOT PLAN NO. 10605 ~4ENDED NO. 1 Conditions of Approval Page 5 Prior to any use allowed by this Plot Plan, the applicant shall obtain clearance from the Department of Building and Safety - Land Use Section that the uses found on the subject property are in conformance with Ordinance No. 348. 35. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is based on the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superceded by the provisions of a habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by the County ordinance or resolution. 36. All of the foregoing conditions shall be cm~plied with prior to occupancy or any use all owed by this permit. GM:rs 10-12-88 ATTACHlVlENT NO. 5 SECTION 18.11.B.1.B. OF ORDINANCE NO. 348 sxs'rAmL,,n~x,.~c 15 be serve, and on t~at pertton of the parcel Sere the erection of .I garages or cavorts ts permitted. Parking shall be convententlJ~' · stributed throughout a residential project. 2. Hospitals, rest or convalescent homes, r~omtng and lodging houses, end fraternlt~y and sorortty houses. Parktng facilities shall be located not more than %50 feet from the building ~hich the parking ts to serve; prodded, however, that a hospital may prod de parking facilities more than 150 feet from the butldtng the parking ts to servt so long as an automatic parking gate or similar method of vehicular control ts 1natalled to insure that the parking lot is used solely for hospital purposes. 3. All Other Uses. Required parking shall be located on the sme parcel of land as the use for uhtch the off-street parking is to serve or on an adjoining parcel of land; except that it may be located on a parcel across an alley if the nearest boundary of the parking factltty is not more than 300 feet from the use it is to serve and the parcel is in a canmartial zone. T~o or more commercial or industrial uses may Jotntly develop and use required parking facilities, but the mintm~n off-street parking required for each individual use shall main the some and must be pro vt de d. Development Standards for Off-Street Parking Facilities. The following standards shall apply to the development of all parking facilities, whether the space is required or optional. 1. Surfacing. All parking areas and driveways used for access thereto shall be surfaced as follows: a. One and t~o-f~ntly residences. Where the residences are located on parcels less than one-half acre in area, parking areas and driveways shall be paved vrlth concrete, asphaltic concrete, brick, or equal surfacing. If the parcel is one-half acre in area, or larger, all parking areas and driveways shall be improved utth at least three 1riches of decomposed granite, or equal, ~-j~- b. All other uses. (1) Where 25~ or more of the prtmary street frontage ~tthin 660 feet in each d~rectton from the subject property, counting both sides of the street, is in commercial, mobil,home park, residential, or lndustdal use, all parking areas and driveways shall be paved ~tth: a. Concrete surfacing ~th a mtntmm thickness of 3~ inches and shall include expansion ;}oints, or one-half gallon per square 7ard of penetration coat o11, followed ~thin six months by Kopltcatton of one-fourth gallon par square yard of seal coat placed on a base of decomposed granite, or equal, concrete paytrig compacted to a mtn$mum thickness Of three tnches on four inches of Class 2' base, The base thickness can he varied base on the recommendations of a preliminary sotl report. The structural section may be modified based upon the recommendart one of e Regt st, red Ct vt 1 Engt near. 156 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 SECTION 18.27 OF ORDINANCE NO. 348 s~s~^vmu,~o~os~x,.~c 16 Council, he shall make a wrttten request to the Clerk of the Board, if the matter is before the Board of Supervisors or to the Secretary of the Planning Canmission, if the matter is before the Planning Cabmission Or the East Area Planning Council. The Clerk or Secretary shall determine the n~nber of pages involved and require payment in advance for the transcript at the current rate. knended Effect, re: 11-11-82(Ord. 348.2104) 0,-30- 348.21 ,> 08-02-84: 348.2338) 02-02-8 ioo;l: 348.24,o, 03-12-87348.2570) ~-SECTION 18.27. VARIANCES. BASIS FOR VARIANCE. Variances from the terms of this ordinance may be granted when, because of special circ~nstances applicable to a parcel of property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vici nity that is under the s~ne zoning classification. A variance shall not be granted for a parcel of property which authorizes a use or activity that is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulation governing the parcel of property, but shall be limited to modifications of property · d evelopnent standards, such as lot size, lot coverage, yards, and park, ng and 1 andscape requirenents. APPLICATION. Application for a variance shall be made in writing to the Planning Director on the forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be accompanied by the fees set forth in Ordinance No. 671. If the use for which the variance is sought also requires approval of a conditional or public use permit pursuant to the land division ordinance, the two applications shall be filed concurrently. (1) Applications for a variance that do not require an approval of a conditional or public use permit or land division ordinance approval shall supply the following information: a. Name and address of the applicant. b. Evidence of ownership of the pramtses or written permission of the owner to make the application. c. A stateant of the spectftc provisions of the ordinance for which the variance is requested and the variance that is requested. d. A plot and development plan drawn tn sufficient ~tail to clearly describe the following: {1) Physical dimensions of property and structures. 23/Location of existing and proposed structures, Setbacks. 181 for an extension, the Planning Director shall review the application, make a recommendation thereon, and forward the matter to the Clerk of the Board, ~tm shall place the matter on the regular agenda of the Board. An extension of time may he granted by the Board upon a determination that valid reason exists for permittee not using the variance within the required period of time. If an extension is granted, the total time allowed for use of the variance shall not exceed a period of three (3) years, calculated from the effective date of the issuance of the variance. The term 'use' shall mean the beginning of substantial construction for which the variance has been granted, which construction must thereafter be pursued diligently to comphtton, or the actual occupancy of existing buildings or land under the terms of the authorized variance, or the recording of the final or parcel map in connection with an approved land division. The effective date of a variance shall be determined pursuant to Section 18.26 of this ordi hence. f. REVOCATION OF VARIANCE. Any variance granted may be revoked upon the findings and procedure contained in Section 18.31. Amended Effective: 08-2B-lgB6 (Ord. 34B.2612} SECTION 18.28. CONDITIONAL USE PERHITS. Whenever any section of this ordinance requires that a conditional use permit be granted prior to the establist~ent of a use, the following provisions shall take effect: APPLICATIDN. Every application for a conditional use permi L shall be made in writing to the Planning Director on the forms provided by the Planning Deparment, shall be accompanied by the filing fee as set forth in Ordinance No. 671 and shall include the following information: (1) Nane and address of the applicant. (2) Evidence that he is' the owner of the praises involved or that he has written permission of the owner to make such application. {3} A plot and development plan drawn in sufficient detail to clearly descrtbe the following: a. Physical dimensions of property and structures. b. Location of existing and proposed structures. c. Setbacks. d. Methods of circulation. e. Ingress and egress. f. Utilization of property under the requested permit. (4) S~ch additional information as shall be required by the application form. (5) Dlmenstoned elevations, Including details of proposed materials for elevations. ADDITIONAL INFOI~ATION. When the application is for a conditional use permit to establish a mobilehome park, travel trailer park or recreational trailer park, the following additional tnfomatton is required as part of the application: 183 . (2) C3) (4) Herhods of circulation. Utilization of property under the requested permtt. e. Such additional tnfomatton as shall be required by the application form, Applications for a variance that also require approval of a permit or land division, shall be accepted for ftling only tf the principal application is accepted, and shell set for the specific. provisions of the ordinance for which the variance ts being requested, If the application for a variance ts in connection with a land daviston pursuant to the land division ordinance, the application shall be construed to be a waiver of any shorter time limitations on processing both a variance and a land division; including time limitations on appeals of either appltcaUon, so that both applications are processed in the public hearing held under Section 18,26 as one untt to final decision. PUBLIC HEARING. A public hearing shall he held on all variance applications In accordance with the provisions of Section 18,26, and all the procedural requtrenents and rtghts of appeal as set forth therein shall govern the hearing, All public hearings on variances which require approval of a permit or land division shall be heard by the hearing body which has jurisdiction of the principal application. All public hearings on variances which do not require approval of a permit or land division within the area of Jurisdiction of the East Area Planning Council shall be heard by the Council, and all public hearings on variances which do not require approval of a permit or land division outside the area Jurisdiction of the East Area Planning Council shall be heard by the Planning Cumtsston, CONDITIONS. Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as are necessary so that the adjustment does not constitute a grant of special privileges that is inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated, and which are necessary to protect the health, safetO' and general welfare of the community. USE OF VARIANCE. Any variance that is granted shall be used within one year frm the effective date thereof, or within such additional time as may be set in the conditions of approval, which shall not exceed a total of 3 years, except that a variance in connection with a land division may be used during the see period of time that the land division approval may be used; otherwise the variance shall be null and void. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a variance is required to be used within less than three (3) years, the permittee may, prior to its expiration, request an extension of time in which to use the variance. A request for extension of time shall be made to the Board of Supervisors, on forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be filed with the Planning Director, accmpanied by a fee as set forth in Ordinance No. 671. Within 30 days following the filing of a request 182 ATTACHMENT NO. 7 APPLICANT'S LETTER AND SIGNATURE LIST S'xSTAFFP. F'P.I(YO05PP.PC 17 C(V~t EI'~(jlNEU~U'.~, - !;UiIVEYI[,,k; - L/',,ND I'LANN(NG February 20, 1992 Gary Thornhill, Planning Director City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Re: Application from To-Mac Engineering for Appeal to a Condition of Approval PP 10605 - JN 2359 Dear Gary: Per a phone call from your office, we hereby request to change our application to one which is a request to revise a Condition of Approval and a request for a variance (to allow gravel for the parking surface). As to a reason that will give the City findings to support our request, we offer the following: State and Federal Regulatory agencies in many parts of this nation have begun a move to revise existing design standards to enhance the recharging of ground water basins. One way to do this is to reduce the amount of impermeable surfaces that prevent such recharging. The gravel surface at To-Mac Engineering accomplishes this objective. In Southern California, the water shortages have been a sober reminder of what could be a serious problem if we continue with our past practices. The gravel poses no problems with regard to health nor safety. Our Handicap space is located within our covered parking area on concrete thus providing easy, weather-protected access. e As witnessed by the recent heavy rainfall, our parking area has demonstrated excellent drainage for periods of excessive rain. e Customer traffic at To-Mac averages approximately i to 2 vehicles per day. 41934 MAIN STREET · TEMECUI. A, CA 92590 · (714) 676-5716 / (714) 676-5716 · FAX (714) 676-6306 We, therefore, respectfully request the same kind of support from Staff and the Planning Commission as we have been pledged by members of the Council. Very truly yours, TO-MAC ENGINEERIN A rl cc: Pat Birdsall Karel Lindermans Ron Parks THE SIGNATURES BELOW REPRESENT EIT|~ER CITIZENS WHO LIVE OR OWN PROPERTY IN TEMECULA OR WHO DO BUSINESS IN TEMECULA AND WHO SUPPORT TO-MAC ENGINEERING BEING ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO UTILIZE A GRAVEL SURFACE FOR THEIR PARKING. I LIVE/OWN PROPERTY/DO BUSINESS IN TEMECULA NAME ADDRESS () () () IF YOU WISH TO WRITE A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF TO-MAC'S PARKING LOT IN YOUR OWN WORDS, YOUR LETTERS ARE MOST WELCOME. YOU MAY ADDRESS THEM TO: Attn: GARY THRONHILL, PLANNING DIRECTOR CITY OF TEMECDLA - PLANNING DEPT. 43174 Business Park Dr. P. O. Box 3000 Temecula, Ca. 92590 ATTACHMENT NO, 8 SECTION 9,4,D, OF ORDINANCE NO, 348 s~rAmu, r~lo~oseP.~c 18 ,Ir-Y~ d. front, rear and side )or lines not less than 2 feet for each foot by which the height exceeds 35 feet. The front setback shall be measured from the existing street line unless a specific plan has been adopted in which case it will be measured from the specific plan street line. The rear setback shall be measured from the existing rear lot line or from any recorded alley or easenent; if the rear line adjoins a street, the rear setback requtrament shall be the same as required for a front setback. Each side setback shall be measured from the side lot line, or from an existing adjacent street line unless a specific plan has been adopted, in which case it will be measured from the specific plan street line. All bull ·ngs and structures shall not exceed 50 feet in height, unless a height up to 75 feet, or greater than 75 feet for broadcasting antennas, is approved pursuant to Section 18.34 of the ordinance. Automobile storage space shall be prod ded as requi red by Section 18.12 of this ordinance· All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from the ground elevation ~ew to a minim~ sight distance of 1,320 feet. Amended Effective: 01-15-64 {Ord. 34B.251 11-10-65 {Ord. 348.401 01-1g-66 (Ord. 348.422 o5-o4-72 348.1023 09-14-72 348.1070 10-19-72 {Ord. 348.1091 0g-13-73 (Ord. 348.1201 07-25-74 {Ord. 348.1349 10-02-75 {Ord. 348.1470 11-13-75 {Ord. 348.1476 12-10-75 (Ord. 348.1481' 04-21-77 (Ord. 348.1564 06-29-78 {Ord. 348.1647 08-29-78 {Ord. 348.1664 04-12-79 (Ord. 348.1688 10-23-80 (Ord. 348.1879 03-05-81 Ord. 348.1926 0 -07-.6 348. 5gi 06-30-88 348.2856 05-04-8g (Ord, 348.3023 08-10-8g (Ord. 348.3047 10-05-8g (Ord, 348,3053 7O ITE1VI #7 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEIVlECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 18, 1992 Case No.: Conditional Use Permit No. 18 Prepared By: Saied Naaseh RECO1VIMENDATION: ADOPT Resolution No. 92-_ appwving Conditional Use Penit No. 18 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Mobil Oil Corporation REPRESENTATIVE: Mobil Oil Corporation PROPOSAL: A request to permit sale of beer and wine LOCATION: 29500 Rancho California Road in the Rancho California Town Center C-1/C-P (General Commercial) EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: C-1/C-P South: SP Hast: C-1/C-P West: C-1/C-P N/A Service Station General Commercial) (Spec'ffic Plan) (General Commercial) (General Commercial) North: South: Hast: West: Commercial Open Space (The Information Center) Commercial Commercial PROJECT STATISTICS Building Area Pavement Landscaping 2,351 square feet 23,015 square feet 12.096 square feet Total 37,462 square feet BACKGROUND On January 9, 1989, the Riverside County Planning Director approved Plot Plan No. 10641 to permit construction of a serf service gas station, a mini mart and an automatic drive-through car wash. The applicant fried for this Conditional Use Permit on April 10, 1992. PROJECT DESCRHvfION The applicant is requesting approval for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the sale of beer and wine in the mini-mart for an existing service station. ANALYSIS All alcoholic sales require an approval from the Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC). However, Ordinance No. 348 does not specify any restrictions for this use. Staff has contacted ABC to fred out about their approval process and restrictions. An "off-sale beer and wine application" will be required for this request according to ABC. The approval of this application will allow sale of beer and wine on site; however, it does not allow on site consumption. A public notice period through ABC is associated with this application. If no protests are made to ABC as a result of this public notice, they will probably approve this request with conditions. If there is public protest, they could still approve the request with stricter conditions. The ABC applies conditions on applications that are within 600 feet of schools, churches, hospitals, youth centers and public parks. This project is within 600 feet of a church which is located across the street on Rancho California Road. However, ABC did not feel this application would be denied based on this fact alone. Moreover, they indicated that stricter conditions of approval may be enforced on this project. Staff has reviewed the request for compatibility with the surrounding uses. The Service Station is located in a major shopping center and is not in close proximity to sensitive uses such as school and residential. ZONING, FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY Them is a reasonable probability that Conditional Use Permit No. 18 will be consistent with the City' s future General Plan, which wffi be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State Law due to the fact that the proposed beer and wine sale is consistent with the existing zoning of C-1/C-P and the SWAP land use designation of commercial. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This project has been determined to be a Class I Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Envixonmental Quality Act. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The site is located within a major shopping center and is not within close proximity to sensitive uses other than a church which is acwss the street on Rancho California Road. Staff has contacted the ABC and they did not raise any concerns for the request. Therefore, Staff is not opposed to the granting of the request. FINDINGS Them is a reasonable pwbability that Conditional Use Permit No. 18 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State Law due to the fact that the pwposed beer and wine sale is consistent with the existing zoning and the SWAP land use designation of commercial. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan due to the fact that the proposed use is consistent with the existing zoning, the SWAP land use designation of commercial, and existing commercial uses in the surrounding area. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning hws due to the fact that the proposed use complies with Ordinance No. 348 and the action complies with State Planning Laws. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use due to the fact that the proposed use complies with the standards of Ordinance No. 348. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or weftare due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval include measures which will ensure that public health and weftare will be maintained. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses due to the fact that it is located within an existing commercial center. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the prcsent or planned land use of the area due to the fact that the surrounding properties to the north, east and west are zoned General Commercial (C-I/C-P) which are consistent with the project zoning and proposed use. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the Environmental Section of the Staff Report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT Resolution No. 92--- approving Conditional Use Permit No. 18 based on the Analysis and Finding contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. vgw Attachments: Resolution - blue page 5 Conditions of Approval - blue page 10 Exhibits - blue page 12 a. Vicinity Map b. SWAP Map c. Zoning Map d. Site Plan ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 92-__ A RESOLUTION OF TI~. PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 18 TO PERMIT SALE OF BEER AND WINE IN AN EXISTING MOBIL SERVICE STATION LOCATED AT 29500 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER 921-320-016. WltEREAS, Mobil Oil Corporation fried Conditional Use Permit No. 18 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WltY~R.E~, said Conditional Use Permit application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WI~REAS, the Planning Commission considered said Conditional Use Permit on May 18, 1992 at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Conditional Use Permit; NOW, TIIERI~ORE, THE. PLANNING CO/VllXlIgSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section I. Findings. following findings: That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: B. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. C. The planning agency f'mds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: 1. There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. 2. Them is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. 3. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. E. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: F. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. G. The Planning Commission fmds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this rifle, each of the following: 1. There is reasonable probability that Conditional Use Permit No. 18 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time due to the current SWAP designation of "C", Commercial. 2. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan ff the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan because the project is surrounded with commercially designated parcels and is located within the Rancho California Town Center. 3. The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances, in that the project is consistent with Ordinance No. 348. H. Pursuant to Section 18.26(e), no Conditional Use Permit may be appwved unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community, and further, that any Conditional Use Permit approved shall be subject to such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community. I. The Planning Commission, in approving the proposed Conditional Use Permit, makes the following findings, to wit: S\STAFFRPT\ISCIIP.I~C 7 1. There is a reasonable probability that Conditional Use Permit No. 18 will be consistent with the City' s future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State Law due to the fact that the proposed beer and wine sale is consistent with the existing zoning and the SWAP land use designation of commercial. 2. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan due to the fact that the proposed use is consistent with the existing zoning, the SWAP land use designation of commercial, and existing commercial uses in the surrounding area. 3. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zomg laws due to the fact that the proposed use complies with Ordinance No. 348 and the action complies with State Planning Laws. 4. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use due to the fact that the proposed use complies with the standards of Ordinance No. 348. 5. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or weftare due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval include measures which will ensure that public health and weftare will be maintained. 6. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses due to the fact that it is located within an existing commercial center. 7. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area due to the fact that the surrounding properties to the north, east and west are zoned General Commercial (C-I/C-P) which are consistent with the project zoning and proposed use. 8. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the Environmental Section of the Staff Report. J. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION Ill, the Conditional Use Permit proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Section II. Environmental Compliance. This project has been determined to be a Class I Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section llI. Conditions. The City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 18 for the sale of beer and wine in an existing Mobil Service Station located in the Rancho California Town Center at 29500 Rancho California Road, APN 921-320-016. 1. Attachment No. 2, attached hereto. SXSTAFFRPT~ISCUP. I~Z' 8 Section IV. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 1992. JOHN E. HOAGLAND CHAIRMAN I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 18th day of May, 1992 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABS~: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: S\STAFFRF~IgCUP.PC 9 ATTACHlVlY. NT NO. :2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL s~rAm~xxsctw.~c 10 A'I'IACI-IIV[E,N'T NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit No. 18 Project Description: A request to permit the sale of beer and wine in an existing Mobil Service Station. Assessor's Parcel No. 921-320-016 The use hereby permitted by this Conditional Use Permit is for permitting the sale of beer and wine in an existing Mobil Service Station. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Conditional Use Permit No. 18. The City of Temecula will promp~y notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shah not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. The applicant shall apply for all necessary permits through the Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) and shall comply with all their requirements and conditions prior to commencement of and during the sale of any beer and wine. S\$TAFF!tFI~ISCUP. PC 11 ATTACItMI~NT NO. 3 EX1HRITS s~s'r^~x~'rx~scu~,x,c 12 CITY OF TEMECULA SiTE CASE NO.: Conditional Use Permit No. 18 EXHIBIT: A P.C. DATE: May 18, 1992 VICINITY MAP CITY OF TEMECULA PLA; SWAP - Exhibit B SiTE SiTE Designation: C1-CP A CO~ ZONING - Exhibit C Case No.: Conditional Use Permit No. 18 P.C. Date: May 18, 1992 Designation: C S\STAFFRFr% 18CLrP. PC CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO.: Conditional Use Permit No. 18 EXHIBIT: D P.C. DATE: May 18, 1992 SITE PLAN S\STAFFRPT\ 18CLrP. P(2