HomeMy WebLinkAbout120296 PC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
December 2, 1996, 6:00 PM
City of Temecula Council Chambers
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula
City of Temecula
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Fahey
Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak and Webster
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 narae and address.
For all o~her agenda i~ems a "Request to Speak" form must be ~ed with the Planning Commission Secretary
before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute lime limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Approval of Minutes
November 4, 1996 Minutes
DISCUSSION ITEMS
3. Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Planner:
Recommendation:
PA96-0321
Norm Reeves Super Group
27500 Jefferson Avenue
To erect a 150 square foot freeway sign at a height of 35 feet for "Norm
Reeves Super Used Cars'
Carole Donshoe
Recommend on appropriate height to the Planning Director
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposat.'
Planner:
Recommendation:
N/A
Layton-Beiling and Associates
Tower Plaza
Revision to Elevations for Tower l'la,a Theater and Retail
Matthew Fagan
Provide Direction
PUBLIC HEARING 1TErd~
None
PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
OTHER BUSINESS
Next meeting:
ADJOURNMENT
ITEM #2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR M'ERTING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMI~qSION
NOVEMBER 4, 1996
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, November 4,
1996, 6:10 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula,
California. Chairman Fahey presiding.
PRESENT: Fahey, Miller, Soltyslnk,~ Webster
ABSENT: Sinyen
AIm present were Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Rubin D. Weiner, Senior Planner
Dave Hogan, Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz, Assistant Engineer Anna Bostre-Le, and Minute Clerk Pat Kelley.
PUBLIC COMM~ENTS
Chairman Fahey called for public comments on non-agenda items at 6:11 P.M. There were no requests to speak.
CO]~VH~SION BUSINF.~S
1. Approval of Agenda
It was moved by Commissioner Webster and seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak to approve the agenda.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Soltysiak, Webster
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Slaven
2. Status of Landsc.~in, g for Unoc31 and Timing of Traffic Signal at Intersection of MargJ~rita Road and
Solann Way
Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske stated staff inspected the Unocal Station site and the landscaping is
in accordance with the approved landscape plans. She also reported the traffic signal at the intersection
of Margarita Road and Solann Way is expected to be in operation in Febru,Try 1997.
Commissioner Webster commented that Commissioner Miller' s concorn was the Condition of Approval
for removing the existing landscaping stated plants were to be replaced in like kind and it appears the
replacements am sigulficanfiy smaller in size. Ms. Ubnoske said staff would re, check the Conditions and
site.
R:\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1996\l10496.PC 11/21/96 klb 1
PLANNING COIVfM'rSSION NOVI~3VrBF, R ~ ~
Payless Dnlg Store (Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity)
Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz presented staffs responses to the established criteria for justification for or
against making a
finding of Public Convenience or Necessity pursuant to State Law. He stated one finding (geographical
boundaries) was found for public convenience or necessity and none against such a finding and there is
one existing beer and wine license within a lO00-foot radius.
Commissioner Miller a~ked what kind of notice was given to surrounding residents. Mr. Ruiz answered
no notices were sent to residents or posted as this matter is not a public hearing.
It was moved by Commissioner Webster and seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak to make a finding of
public convenience for Payless Drag Store due to the lack of other licensed establishments in the general
vicinity.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
3 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Soltysiak, Webster
NOES:
1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
ABSENT: i COMMISSIONERS Slaven
The Beach Club (Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity)
Senior Planner Dave Hogan presented staff' s responses to the established criteria for justification for or
against making a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity pursuant to State Law. One finding
(provide live entertainment) was found for public convenience or necessity and one(a church within 600
feet) against such a finding. It is staffs opinion there will not be a conflict between the two as the church
is open on Sunday mornings and Thursday evenings which are not peak demand times for the
establishment.
The Beach Club, located at 27780 Front Street, curren~y has a license as a restaurant. However, it has
been determined they no longer fall within this category, and a Type 48 (on-sale General Public Premises)
license is be'mg required.
David Honaker, 27780 Front Street, Temecula, applicant, stated he wants to provide musical shows in
addition to bands.
It was moved by Commissioner Webster and seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak to make a frodin
public convenience for The Beach Club since this is a continuation of an existing license and a business
activity unique in the City of Temecula is provided.
R:\PL/~NCO~M\MINUTF.,$\1996\l10496.PC 11/21/96 klb 2
/ PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 1996
The motion carried as follows:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Soltysiak, Webster
NOES:
0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS Shaven
Workshop to Consider Creation of Provisions and ReqJjirement~ for the Al~pmval of Mastt'r Development
Plans for Industrial PrOjects
Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske presented the concept of developing an industrial facility plan which
would provide predesigned and preapproved facilities for users who have a desire to locate in the City
of Temecula. Under this concept, a not site-specific site plan, floor plan, and elevation would be brought
to the Commission for approval. Subsequent users would only need an administrative approval. She said
this process is available to any qualified firm who meets the criteria and is a continuation of the City' s
marketing plan. The intent is to ensure the City is competitive in the industrial market.
Grant Destache, representing Snyder Langston Real Estate and Construction Services, spoke about
problems Temecela faces bringing potential industrial users to the City: i.e., properties priced out of the
market; Ontario and Mira Loma being more advantageous locations; and process speed not in place. He
proposed a process of preapproving industrial facilities, not site specific, which means users could get
their facilities in place in six (6) or seven (7) months. He said the existing fast track approval process
is great, but it does not lend itself to developers developing projects for users. This process will allow
developers to preplan facilities and give Temecula a jump over communities which are less costly or better
located, but cannot provide facilities in a short period of time.
Commissioner Webster stated he was unable to provide much feedback as there is too little to go on, and
it would be beneficial to hear why this process is a better method than the existing fast track process. Mr.
Destache replied there are many steps in getting a project ready for submittal to the City; it takes about
three (3) months to get a project ready for fast tracking. A developer needs some type of preapproval
to be able to tell a user this 50,000 square foot building will be approved because it is already designed
and ready to go to the fast track system.
Chairman Fahey asked what things would be done ahead of lime and what would walt for a specific user.
Mr. Destache replied all the pans of a design except for special needs relating to space, electrical, and
mechanical needs. He stated one can get to a 75 % point on the drawings which allows several weeks to
put the other documents in place.
Commissioner Webster stated that when the draft proposal returns, a section on when a project comes in
for administrative approval, the boundary line between the changes in the original approved project and
what is finally submitted to the City is clearly written. He asked at what threshold does the project stay
at the City for approval or come back to the Planning Commission. Mr. I)estache stated zoning
requirements will dictate the parking ratio, usable square footage of lot, regardless of size.
R:\PIANCOi~4\MINUTES\t996\l10496.PC 11/21/96 klb 3
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVF:,MBER 4,
Chairman Fahey asked how this particular type of relationship would impact other development businesses
and has this concept worked in other cities. Mr. Destache stated they were not asking the City to enter
into a pubLic/private relationship with Snydex L~ngston, but with the private sector. The intent is to build
a quicker process so facilities can be put in place in a shorter time making Temecula more competitive
in the market.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked about the intent of "Proposal for Preapproved Industrial Facilities". Mr.
Deslathe stated it was an outline for how he vis~mliv~l the plocl~. The intent is a development team will
submit a prototype facility for preapproval, betting that users will ask for that building to be built in a
given time. The ordinance will be written to encompass the process.
Commission Soltyniak questioned how a building could be predesigned without knowing the user or site
and how time is saved. Mr. Destache stated they are after the industrial and warehouse distributor market
and after working with that group for many years, they have historic data about their wants. The user
will dictate what his facility will look like.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked if Mr. Destache has been working with area property owners. Mr.
Destache answered he has talked with owners but works more with brokers who are approached by users.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked what size buildings are being considered. Floor plans are in modules
12,500 sq. ft.; that way there is a 25,000 to 75,000 sq. ft. range with minimal structural problems.
Chairman Fahey questioned ff Snyder Langston has worked with another city regarding this preapproval
process. Mr. Destache answered they have not.
Commissioner Miller asked ff the site plan presented in the proposal conforms to the City' s requirements.
Mr. Destache replied no as the proposal is only in an early stage.
Chairman Fahey asked if staff had an estimate of how this process compared to fast tracking in speeding
up the process. Ms. lYonoske replied staff had not looked at the process in any more detail than what is
being presented tonight. She agreed with Mr. Destaehe that a lot of work is completed ahead of time
when buildings are preplanned and preapproved. She said criteria is needed for determination of when
a project comes to the Commission. The fast track works well, but the key is the preapplication meetings
when all the plans are ready. She thinks there will be a fairly significant saving of time.
Doug Austin, architect working for Snyder Langston to develop this process, stated that if you can
manage by exception and get 90% of the work done ahead of time, a lot of time is saved.
Commissioner Fahey asked staff what the next steps were if the Commission decides the concept should
be further developed. Ms. Ubnoske stated with Commission support, staff would develop the process
and an ordinance, talk about criteria and look at Light industrial zones where this process could be u~liz~
A comprehensive package will be presented next time and a discussion of criteria expectations x
respect to elevations, site, landscaping, floor plans, and the process through the various City departments.
R:\PLANCOI~4\MINUTES\1996\l10496.PC 11/21/96 klb 4
/ PLANNING COMMISSION NOV~.MB~..R 4, 1996
Chairman Fahey asked if another developer would be able to prepare plans. Ms. Ubnosk~ replied the
ordinance will be written so any developer who is able to put together a development team and met the
criteria could submit a proposal.
Don Goldberg, 2386 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, representing CoLtiers International, stated the fast track
system is working and the City probably could do a better job with it. His concern is someone is going
to get preferential treatment. He pointed out each business park's architectural control, CC&Rs and
zoning already dictate many of the items discussed tonight.
Chairman Fahey asked if he could compare Temecula's fast track system with other cities. Mr. Goldberg
answered Temecula's system is not consistent at this point; but this is the first time it has been used for
spec development.
Commissioner Soltysiak suggested a workshop be held and the local community be invited to participate
and comment as they have worked in Temecttla and understand the problems, know where improvements
can be made, and the limitations of the current process.
Ms. Ubnoske agreed a workshop is an excellent idea and will help determine whether or not this is viable.
If it is determined to go forward, a Development Code amendment could be written and the entire
package would come back to the Commission.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked if the Economic Development Commission (EDC) is working on this
process. Ms. Ubnoske replied the EDC is aware of it and will be invited to the workshop.
5. Plannin~ Application PA96-0232 (Development Plan)
Senior Planner Dave Hogan presented the staff report.
Commissioner Webster stated he did not notice a public hearing notice posted on the site over the
November 2, 1996 weekend. Mr. Hogan will check the ~es to make certain a sign was posted.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked about future parking in the back. Mr. Hogan stated if additional parking
is required, it could be added in the back with the installation of a retaining wall to back the slope.
Mr. Hogan stated the Planning Department recently received a letter from Riverside County Flood
Control requiring the applicant to pay area drainage fees and that would be added as Condition No. 60.
Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 7:05 P.M.
Commissioner Miller asked how far the slope would be pushed to provide additional parking. Charles
Sher, applicant, stated it is a 2:1 slope
and building a retaining wall, could pick up 12 feet. There is also excess loading area that could be used
for parking. However, it is believed there is sufficient parking considering the amount of traffic and type
of user in Temecula.
R:\PLANCO~\MINUTES\1996\l10496.PC ~/21/96 klb 5
PLANNING COMMISSION NOVF. MBF, R 4, ~
Commissioner Miller asked about the width of the landscape area. Mr. Sher answered it was a little over
30 feet.
Chairman Fahey closed the public comment section at 7:15 P.M.
Commissioner Webster stated he felt the parking was more than adequate.
Commissioner Miller asked staff flit was possible to have plans detailing the type of plant, size, and the
dimension on center rather than circles. Mr. Hogan stated that type of information might be possible for
shrubs, but probably not for trees. Circles are a standard symbol for trees. City requires minimum 15
gallon trees.
Commissioner Soltygiak asked ff the slope planting is existing or proposed and if proposed, will the new
density requirements be used. Mr. Sher answered some regrading is necessary and the planling will be
new using the recently approved density. There are existing trees in the front, and new ones will be 36"
box trees instead of 24".
It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Webster to adopt the Negative
Declaration for Planning Application No. PA96-0232; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for
Planning Application No. PA96-0232; to adopt Resolution No. 96-Next recommending approval of
Planning Application No. PA96-0232 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff repc -"
and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval as supplemented by Condition No. 60 relatint
Riverside County Flood Control District; and to close the public hearing.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
4 COMI~SSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Soltysiak, Webster
NOES:
0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS Slaven
Chairman Fahey called for a recess at 7:20 P.M.
Chairman Fahey reconvened the meeting at 7:35 P.M.
City-Wide Design Guidelines
Chairman Fahey stated the continued public hearing was open and Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 will be
reviewed.
R:\PLJ~NCOFM\MINUTES\1996\lI0496.PC 11/21/96 klb 6
PLANNING COMMISSION NOVF. MBER 4, 1996
Chapter 4, Specific Commercial Development Types
A.2. Site Orl/aniTa~on, page IV-2 Commissioner Webster stated the last sentence talks about preferred access.
While there is no problem with intent, he is concerned about preventing direct access from adjacent
residential properties for people to walk there. Mr. Ruiz stated he will relook at the wording.
Commissioner Soltysiak stated he is concerned about the promotion of parking in the rear while focusing
on the main entrance being in the front. He is not sure how much sense that makes, particularly for an
office building, since people will park and enter from the back. Chairman Fahey mentioned the General
Plan encourages design focus on streets because Temecuh is trying to achieve a lVlain Street concept with
store and office building fronts on the street and parking in the rear. Ms. Ubnoske stated staff will look
at that and see what can be done.
Chairman Fahey reiterated that at the same time we cannot lose the concept of not providing parking on
main streets.
Commission Soltysiak asked ff parking in front on industrial collector streets in an industrial park is also
being discouraged. Mr. Ruiz replied the typical industrial setback is 20 feet and it is recommended that
area be landscaped with parking in the rear.
Commissioner Soltysiak stated he has a problem when one section of the Guidelines gets specific and in
others, the Development Code is referenced. Chairman Fahey asked if there is a way to tie these
documents together in a clearer fashion. Ms. lYonoske stated a discussion would be helpful on where the
Design Guidelines piggyback on the General Plan and Development Code. Mr. Ruiz stated staff added
previous Commission-approved standards not found in any other documents.
~ Commissioner Soltysiak questioned the specifics for parking lot landscaping in the guidelines, saying
it is his belief that having sections of the Development Code referenced would be beneficial to users.
Assistant City Attomey Rubin Weiner stated difficulty arises if the Development Code is changed, and
the Design Guidelines are not.
Chairman Fahey remarked sometimes a concept is presented in one document and the Design Guidelines
are describing implementation of that concept. There is a fie-in between the General Plan, Development
Code and this document which includes items that have been approved and/or ones where concern has
been expressed.
B.2 Site OrganiT~tion, p~e IV4 Commissioner Webster commented the two examples contradict each other
and perhaps staff can enhance them.
_E. Neighborhood Centers Commissioner SOlty~iak asked ff this section dovelails into neighborhood commercial.
Mr. Ruiz stated a neighborhood center is a collection of small stores serving local people.
R:\PLANCO~\MINUTES\1996\l10496.pC 11/21/96 klb 7
PLANNING COMMISSION NOV'EMBF, R 4. ~
G. Vehicle Dealerships, b., page IV-13 Commissioner Miller questioned rotating vehicle platform standards
being more appropriately in a sign ordinance. Mr. Ruiz stated the statement was added as it has been a
problem in other areas.
G.2. Site Organization, page IV-13 Commissioner Webster remarked he would like to see designated
"Customer Parking" spaces on lots. Mr. Ruiz remarked dealers often use employee parking to
merchandise vehicles which is an enforcement issue.
G.4.Special Requimment~g. ,l~e W-15 Commissioner Webster asked if chain link fencing should be included
since the Planning Commission has historically discouraged chain link fencing. Commissioner Soltysiak
questioned requiring a higher price fence if it is not visible from the front.
It was the consensus of the Commission to recommend wrought iron fencing and discourage chain link
fencing if visible from the street.
G.4.i, p0l~e IV-15 Commissioner Miller questioned if the last sentence "Building perimeters...retail parking
lots." is a new requirement, a change or an existing requirement. Ms. Ubnoske stated staff will look at
that sentence.
Commissioner Webster asked about minimum landscaping requirements in the Development Code for
dealers. Ms. Ubnoske stated it is the same as any commercial business. Commissioner Webster stated
car lots generally have minimal landscaping and they should be consistent with commercial guidelines.
4.h., pace W-15 Commissioner Miller stated different requirements for new and used vehicles seems strange.
It was the consensus of the Commission the requirements should be the same,
H. Service Stations and Car Washes, page IV-16 Commissioner Miller stated the photo captioned "Utilize
permanent..." shotrid be deleted as it does not add anything.
It was the consensus of the Commission to delete the photo.
I. 2. Site Organintion, c, pace IV-18 Commissioner Miller remarked there are businesses with bays facing
anywhere but center. Mr. Ruiz stated this item was added in an attempt to achieve the goal of having
adjoining properties not looking into bays.
J. Hotels and Motels, italic paragr4ph, pace IV-20 Commissioner Webster stated 1-5 should be changed to 1-15.
J. 3. Building Design, b., p0ge IV-21 Commissioner Miller asked why exterior exposed air condifioners should
be allowed in one or two story structures. Mr. Ruiz stated the three story requirement will be delet~t
R:\PLANCO~\MINUTES\1996\l10496.PC 11/21/96 klb 8
' . PLANNING COMMISSION NOV~.MItF. R 4, 1996
Chapter 5, Multi Family Residential
2. Garages and Carport~ h, page V-7 Commission Miller stated he does not know how carports can be
architecturally compatible with adjacent buildings.
2,j., page V-7 Commissioner Miller questioned that because modular homes are permitted, modular garages
would seem possible. Mr. Ruiz stated the word prohibit would be changed to discourage.
2 .k., page V-7 Commissioner Miller asked if the language "garage doors being simple and unadorned" means
the metal ones with raised panels and windows axe not allowed.
It was the consensus of the Commission to delete the sentence.
C.4.Site Gractin~, page V-12 Commission Webster suggested moving the site grading paragraph to page V-2.
D. Building Architecture, page V-13 Chairman Fahey requested beginning paragraph be modified to eliminate
the mandatory wording.
D. 1. General Standards,a. page V-13 Commissioner Webster asked where the maximum number of 8 units
came from. Mr. Ruiz replied this was a result of trying to get a residential single family mix with no
large buildings. "It is recommended no more than eight (8) units per building." was suggested.
Commissioner Miller stated he could not support that language as the value of the apartment property is
being limited. Staff is to work on the language.
D. 1. h., page V-13 Commissioner Webster stated the City should discourage rather than prohibit prefabricated
stairs. Mr. Weiner stated the Commission cannot prohibit in guidelines. Chairman Fahey stated
Subsection (g) deals with the issue, making (h) redundant.
D. 1 ,j , page V-13 Commissioner Miller remarked the statement may not always be the case and "shall" should
be changed to "should" or "encourage.'
D. 1.1, page V-14 Commissioner Miller felt the first sentence reads silly. Chairman Fahey suggested eliminating
"which are monotonous and impersonal."
D.2. Building Scale and Fleight, a.2) p~e V-15 Commissioner Miller stated the Commission is looking for
architectural articulation and this level of specificity is not appropriate for the Design Guidelines.
It was the consensus of the Commission to retain the sentence.
..D.3. Building Materials, b., page V-I 7 Commissioner Miller said he did not understand prohibiting artificial
materials since faked river rock is being used in the area and is considered atUactive. Chairman Fahey
suggested "artificial materials should present a realistic facade" rather than prohibiting them. Staff will
rework the wording.
R:\PLANCO~\MINUTES\1996\l10496.PC 11/21/96 klb 9
PLANNTNG COMI~flSSION NOVEI~RER 4, ~
E.3. land~pe Are~ Rntio, c., page V-2S Commissioner Webster stated he has the same ratio comment as he
stated under General Commercial. Chairman Fahey reiterated staff will apply appropriate comments from
previous sections.
F,.3. Iandscape Area Ratio, e., p~e V-25 Commissioner Webster stated he would like to see evergreens at
40%.
It was the consensus of the Commission ~o retain the 35% ratio.
Chapter 6, Industrial Guidelines
C. l ~oadir~ FacilitieS, p~e VI-4 Commissioner Miller stated the photo illustrating enclosed loading ramp should
be deleted as it has nothing to do with a real world situation.
It was the consensus of the Commission to delete the photograph.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked why photographs of businesses in Temecula are not used in this document.
Mr. Ruiz answered it was decided not to use a Temecula business so it wouldn't appear that one business
was being promoted over another.
E. l ~nd,sc~ing Commissioner Webster remarked that for clarity's sake a ratio the same as commercial should
be stated. Ms. Ubnoske suggested a lesser standard than commercial. Chairman Fahey recommended
staff develop an appropriate ratio.
E. Architecture, pace VI-7 Commissioner Webster mentioned the examples of building designs are very poor.
Mr. Ruiz stated staff will rework the drawings.
Chapter 7, Village Center
A. 1. Appropriate Mixture,i.. p~e VII-2 Commissioner Miller remarked the statement that 25% of the building
area should be for residential use is an unrealistic requirement. Mr. Ruiz stated it is recognized the 25 %
figure is not in the foreseeable future, but is a long-range goal. Chairman Fahey suggested the language
be changed to suggest it is a future goal. Ms. Ubnoske stated staff will look at rewording.
C. Intensification, p0ee VII-4 Commissioner Miller stated the diagram in the lower right hand comer is very
unrealistic for Temecula. Ms. Ubnoske stated staff will find a better example.
F.. Street & Alley Des~n, page VII-7 Commissioner Miller asked why cui-de-sacs are not appropriate if it fits
the lay of the land. Ms. Ubnoske stated cul-de-sacs compound traffic problems as they do not provide
good traffic flow.
F. Pedestrian Open Space% p0~e VII-9 Commissioner Webster stated the figure illustrating appropriate grouna
relationships for buildings does not make sense. Mr. Ruiz stated staff will work on that illustration.
R:\PLANCOf~4\MINUTES\1996\l1049~.PC 11/21/96 klb 10
PLANNING COMMISSION NOVF. MRF. R 4, 1996
Chanter 8, Public Design Guidelines
Arterlals Parkway Design Matrix, p~,ee VIII-2 Commissioner Webster questioned why this matrix is go'rag
against the standard of having a parkway and a sidewalk which is in the General Plan. Mr. Ruiz stated
all existing plans were reviewed and any gaps were continued with what is presen~y in order to have a
continuous theme. Commissioner Webster suggested future streets should always have a parkway
between the street and the sidewalk. Mr. Ruiz stated revisions will be made and brought back to the
Commission.
It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak to continue discussion
of City-wide Design Guidelines to the December 16, 1996, meeting.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fithey, Miller, Soltysiak~ Webster
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Slaven
Chairman Fahey stated the public hearing remains open.
PLANNING MANA GF, R ' S RF. PORT
Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske stated she had nothing to report.
PI ,ANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
There was no further discussion.
It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak to adjourn the meeting at 9:20
P.M. The motion was unanimously carried.
The next meeting will be held November 18, 1996, at 6:00 P.M. at the Rancho California Water District Board
Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California.
'.inda Fahey, Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\PIANC0be4\MINUTES\1996\l10496.PC 11/21/96 klb 11
ITEM #3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
December 2, 1996
SUBJECT:
Planning Application No. PA96-O321 - A Freestanding Freeway-Oriented Sign for
Norm Reeves Super Used Cars, measuring 150 square feet in area and 35 feet
in height, located on the west side of Interstate 15
Prepared by:
Carole K. Donahoe, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
Direct staff to approve Planning Application No. PA96-0321 for
a freestanding freeway-oriented sign for Norm Reeves Super Used
Cars, measuring 150 square feet in area and 35 feet in height,
located on the west side of Interstate 15
BACKGROUND:
Planning Application No. PA96-0321 was submitted to the Planning Department on November
13, 1996. A flag test was performed by staff, with assistance from Country Signs and Designs
and Dick Kennedy of Norm Reeves Super Group. This case is now before the Planning
Commission because current policy requires the Commission to direct staff with respect to all
freeway oriented sign applications.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed sign is an internally illuminated cabinet sign, using blue letters, red accent stripe
and white background. The sign cabinet is of steel-frame construction with sheet metal, and
polycarbonic faces (Lexan) and will be mounted on poles already existing within the rear parking
area.
There are other freeway-oriented signs in close proximity to this site:
Business Yr Aprv'd
Burger King County
In 'N' Out County
Tony Roma's 1990
Hungry Hunter/Weilert 1992
Wendy's 1994
Size
150 square feet
144 square feet
142 square feet
Height
40 feet _+_
30 feet _-k.
27 feet
25 feet
28 feet 4 inches
The applicant's proposal is within the height range of these existing signs.
The flag test was performed with photographs taken from the freeway median on the
northbound side, approximately three-tenths of a mile south of the Winchester Road exit.
Photographs were taken with the sign at a 20' height, 25' height, 30' height, 35' height and
40' height. Existing shrubbery along the freeway obscured the sign at the 20' and 25' height.
At 30' the sign was clearly visible above the height of landscaping and truck traffic. At 35' and
40' the proposed sign aligned with the nearest adjacent signs for Burger King and Tony Roma's.
The photographs were enlarged at 220% and will be available to the Commission during their
meeting. The limited clarity of the Polaroid photographs precluded reproduction for individual
distribution.
Attachments: 1.
Exhibits - Blue Page 3
a. Site Plan
b. Elevations
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
EXHIBITS
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA96-0321 (NORM REEVES SUPER USED CARS}
EXHIBIT- A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 2, 1996
SITE PLAN
R:XSTAFFRPT~21pAg~.PC I1~22/9~ klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
- {
1,
8C~lLra 'i]/8"' ==, I]'
CASE NO. - PA96-0321 (NORM REEVES SUPER USED CARS)
EXHIBIT- B
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 2, 1996
ELEVATIONS
R:\STAIqqLoT~321PAg6.1~3 11/22/96 klb
ITEM #4
FROM:
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
December 2, 1996
SUBJECT: Revised Elevations for Planning Application No. PA95-0114 (Tower Plaza)
Prepared by: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
REVIEW the revised elevations for the theater and the retail that show the
removal of an architectural wall from the front of the proposed theaters and
retail at Tower Plaza and provide direction to Staff as to its conformity with the
approved elevations
BACKGROUND
The original project (Planning Application No. PA95-0114) was a proposal to renovate and
expand portions of Tower Plaza in phases, with an net overall building area expansion of
54,985 square feet. On December 4, 1995 the Planning Commission approved the site plan
for the theater and retail component of the project; however, they did not approve the
elevations for the theater and retail. On June 3, 1996 the Commission approved the elevations
for the theater and retail component of Planning Application No. PA95-0114 (Attachment No.
2.A). Since that time, the applicant has approached the Planning Department with proposed
revisions to the elevations (Attachment No. 2.B.).
The project consists of the removal of an architectural wall from the front of the proposed
theaters and retail at Tower Plaza. The change will also necessitate the relocation of the ticket
booth and the outdoor movie display screen. There is no request to modify any colors or
materials of the project.
Condition of Approval No. 3 of Planning Application No. PA95-0114 requires elevations
substantially conform with Exhibit E (Elevations). While Staff typically makes substantial
conformance determinations on projects, Staff is not comfortable making this determination this
time because the proposal is a greater departure from the approved project than is typically
requested from Staff.
R:\STAFPRYI~l14PA95.PC3 llr25/96mf
ANALYSIS
Ai0plicant's Rationale for the Change
The applicant has submitted a letter stating why they would like the wall to be removed from
the approved plans (reference Attachment No. 1 ). According to the letter, the applicant
believes the wall creates a significant leakage and stabilizing problem for the theater. In
addition, the applicant states the wall creates a visual obstruction for drive by security.
Overall Affect of the Change
The removal of the wing wall will logically result in a change to the elevations of the project.
Since the wall was proposed to be located in an area which is not clearly visible from Ynez
Road, the change is not, in Staff's opinion, very significant.
Attachments:
Letter from Applicant dated November 21, 1996 - Blue Page 3
Exhibits - Blue Page 4
a. Approved Elevations
b. Proposed Elevations
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
LETTER FROM APPLICANT DATED NOVEMBER 21, 1996
R:~TAFFRPT~II4pA95.PL'T3 11/25.'96mf 3
November 21, 1996
LBA
Layton-Belling
& ASSOCIATES
tc;'L ..........
Mr. Matthew Fagan
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Ddve
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: Theater Redesign
Dear Matthew:
Please accept this letter as an explanation of the attached proposed redesign of the
Tower Plaza Theater entry area.
During construction documents of this project, it was brought to our attention by the
general contractor that "the wall" created a significant leakage and stabilizing problem
for the theater. VVhile we were in the process of trying to correct these design details,
we had a security situation occur at the site. As you may have heard, midday, in the
parking structure we had a robbery at knife point. This occurrence has obviously been
taken quite seriously by the ownership, thereby causing management to relook at the
entire site for potential secudty problems. During our review, the theater extedor was
looked at again in a new light.
It was determined that the wall created a visual obstruction from the theater and ddve by
security. Also, the box office should be closer to the entry for better visibility from the
interior.
In our proposed redesign, the projection screen will be located above the box office,
therefore keeping the most important design feature and limiting possible vandalism.
Thank you for your consideration in this proposal, if you have any further questions
please contact me at (714) 253-0552.
Sincerely,
L~yto -BellinK ~s Associates
Construction Manager
DC:jc
cc: Roxanne DaSilva
David Thomas
Z'~555 Ynez Road, Suite ~105, Temecula, California 92591
(909)693-1455 FAX:(909)693-1456
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:~,STAFFRPT~II4PA95.PC3 11/25/96mf 4
CITY OF TEMECULA
.
~c.,,Ge ACU,~ ,, I i SOUTH ELEVATION
~.~..?_,ez.,_,~ ....... ~ .............. _ - - J. ................ ' _. _L _ _L _ _. j
NORTH ELEVATION
CASE NO. N/A
EXHIBIT A APPROVED ELEVATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 2, 199~
R:\STAFFRPT~I14PAgS.PC3 llf'2~6m~
CITY OF TEMECULA
.... '--~?~-~-~I-
EAST ELEVATION
""~""-'~'""'T;' ~ .........................-h ................."['~""'
! ' I , o · ,
WEST ELEVATION
CASE NO. N/A
EXHIBIT A APPROVED ELEVATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 2,
R:XSTAFFRPT~lI4PA95,PC3 11/22/96mf
CITY OF TEMECULA
NORTH ELEVAIION
CASE NO.: N/A
EXHIBIT B PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 2, 1996
R:\STAFFRPT~l14PA95.1~3 ll/22/~mf
CITY OF TEMECULA
aAST ELEVATION
CASE NO.: N/A
EXHIBIT B PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 2, 1996