HomeMy WebLinkAbout071596 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 15, 1996
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, July
15, 1996, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road,
Temecula, California. Chairman Fahey presiding.
PRESENT: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster, Fahey
Also present were Community Development Director Gary Thornhill, Assistant City Attorney Rubin D.
Weiner, Senior Planner Dave Hogan, Senior Planner John Meyer and Principal Engineer Steve Cresswell.
The minute clerk was absent.
PHB! IC COMMI=NT.~
Chairman Fahey called for public comments on non-agenda items at 6:05 P.M. There were no requests
to speak.
COMMI-~SION RUSINFSS
1. Approval of Agenda
it was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the
agenda.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
A~.oroval of Minutes
2.1
Fahey, Miller, Webster, Soltysiak
None
None
Approval of Minutes December 4, 1995
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to
approve the minutes.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Webster
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Soltysiak
R:\PLANCO~f\MINUTF. S\1996\071596.PC 9/10/96 klb ~
P! ANNIN~ ~.~MMIRRION
2.2
2.3.
2.4
JII!y 15. 1996
Approval of Minutes February 5, 1996
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to
approve the minutes.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Webster
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Soltysiak
Approval of Minutes May 20, 1996
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to
approve the minutes.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Approval of Minutes dated June 3, 1996
Page 4, last paragraph, Commissioner Miller requested the correction that mechanical
equipment on the building be screened so the adjoining buildings cannot see the
mechanical equipment.
Page 5, line 5, Commission Miller requested clarification. Chairman Fahey requested the
correction regarding the columns to read 'Commissioner Slaven expressed concern
about the design of the columns.'
Commissioner Soltysiak requested the addition for clarification that the applicant agreed
to add additional treatment on the elevation facing the freeway.
Page 3, Commissioner Miller requested the correction to change the second the Shell
Station to Texaco Station.
It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to approve
the minutes as corrected.
R:\PLANCO!~4\MINUTF. S\1996\071596.PC 9/10/96 klb 2
P! ANNINn ~-OMMI-~SION
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
JIII y 15. 1996
Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
None
None
Ap.0roval of finding for convenience or necessity for a Reer and Wine ! icerise for PA96-
0198. AR~ AM/PM. Ro~,theast ~orner of Winchester Road and Nicolas Road
Senior Planner Dave Hogan presented the staff report for off-site sale of beer and wine. The
service station and convenience market associated with this item were approved at a Director's
Hearing on July 3, 1996.
Commissioner Slaven stated that at the May 20, 1996 meeting the Commission requested staff
provide some criteria for the finding of convenience.
Senior Planner Dave Hogan stated the criteria was not complete at this time.
Applicant Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, representing ARCO stated this ARCO
station will be similar to the aesthetics of the ARCO on Ynez Road. it will operate on a 24 hour
basis. There will be no arcade games and they will not allow loitering. ARCO prefers not have
any pay phones on site to also discourage loitering. They will have the standard food service
menu; this is a company owned store and not a franchise. ARCO has provided information to
the Commission on past community contributions by ARCO including Temecula and Murrieta.
Relative to the Chaparral High School - The ARCO Station will be 134 feet across a six lane
highway, not including turning lanes and breakdown lanes. The distance from building to
building is approximately 600 feet as the crow flies. The walking distance from the front door
of ARCO to the front door of the school is approximately 1/4 mile, that is measured walking
along the sidewalk, not as the crow flies. The school will be a closed campus and ARCO does
not anticipate any problems. ARCO has had other instances where they have been in far closer
proximity to educational facilities and have ARCO representatives available to illustrate this
point.
Mr. Markham stated this property was zoned Commercial in the mid-80s as part of the
Roripaugh Hills Specific Plan and has remained Commercial subject to a development agreement
and that predates the purchase of the high school property. He stated he believes the high
school property was originally zoned Ught Industrial and was purchased by the high school with
the purpose of constructing a high school a couple of years ago. That commercial property at
that time did have an approved plot plan for a mini-market type facility. This is a redo of that
approved plot plan and there is also an approval to the east for a supermarket, drugstore type
facility which will come and request liquor, beer, wine sales which is typical. ARCO requests
that the commission grant the approval and the findings of convenience and necessity.
Chairman Fahey requested the applicant to address public necessity or convenience.
Mr. Markham referred to the map. The only alcohol licenses that have been granted east of
Ynez Road are the Chevron Station (Costco Center), Costco, Texaco Food Mart at Murrieta Hot
R:\PLA~C(I~4\M~NUTES\1996\071596.PC 9/10/96 klb 3
P!-ANNIN~ ~-~'IMMIS~I(1N Jill y 15. 1996
Springs Road. Mr. Markham informed the Commission that all three ARCO stores in Temecula
are company owned.
Commissioner Soltysiak expressed concerns about hours of operation, hours of alcohol sales,
employee age requirements, and alcohol sales advertising. Larry Markham responded that the
hours of operation are 24 hours, standard state law hours of alcohol sales is 6:00 a.m. to 2:00
a.m. Minimum age requirement is 21. Mr. Markham state he did not believe there were plans
to advertise alcohol sales but he will defer to Mr. Unscogg. There is no proposed take out food
service such as a Taco Bell or a Subway. He reiterated there would be no video games. In
response to the question of individual container sales of beer, Mr. Markham deferred the
question to Mr. Unscogg. Within the layout of the store, the alcohol is in the rear of the store.
This is a standard ARCO layout, they also discussed this with the Sheriff's Department as to
layout. The Sheriff's Department requested the store face the corner so they can see into the
store as they drive by.
John Linscogg, ARCO Product, 4 Centerpointe Drive, La Palma, responded to the additional
questions. ARCO generally does not advertise in the windows. Their Chief of Security does
his best to keep the windows open for the officers in the street to see what is going on in the
stores when they drive by. In response to sale of individual alcohol containers; the company
has agreed to allow no individual sales but it is difficult to monitor. ARCO does not sell alcohol
or gas to people who are intoxicated.
Commissioner Slaven questioned the age requirement for people who work for ARCO. Mr.
Unscogg responded that employees must be 21 to sell alcohol between the hours of 10 p.m.
to 2:00 a.m. but can be under age and sell alcohol between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10 p.m.
Mr. Unscogg stated the employees are very well trained at their facility in Pomona.
Commissioner Miller asked if they would be opposed to a condition that their employees be 21
years or older. Mr. Unscogg was not certain what the company's position would be. If the
Commission felt it was something that would enhance sales to minors they would consider it.
Mr. Unscogg stated they have not had a problem with that, especially in Temecula, and have
not been cited by ABC for any violation. Part of the reason ARCO doesn't allow pay phones
and video games is because that does create loitering situations and ARCO does everything
they can to minimize that.
Commissioner Soltysiak inquired about the status of the ABC application. Mr. Unscogg stated
it has not been filed yet but will be shortly.
Commissioner Soltysiak inquired as to how ARCO handles on-site alcohol consumption. Mr.
Linscogg stated employees are instructed to notify the Police if this occurs as well as
cigarettes being used by minors. The policy with respect to cigarette sales is that staff is
trained to check the ID of people to assure they are of legal age to buy either product.
Ralph Salzman, 426 Culver Blvd., Playa del Rey, Counsel for ARCO, stated that the alcohol
license is one that is being purchased and not a new license, it is one in existence already. It
won't be adding to the overall county statistics.
Chairman Fahey stated this is not a public hearing item, although there are several people who have
requested to speak on this item and advised them on the request speak guidelines and allow them to
address the item.
R:\PLANCO~4\MINUTES\1996\071596.PC 9/10/96 klb 4
PLANNIN~ ~OMMIRSIt~N .lilLy 15. 1996
Janet Dixon, 31860 Via Cordoba, Temecula spoke representing the Temecula Valley Unified
School District. The ARCO site is directly across the street from Chaparral High School which
is presently under construction, and will be opening in the summer of 1997 for 2,100 students
with expansion planned for 2,400 students within a few years. The school is only 134 feet
from the ARCO site. She said based on Business and Professions Code Chapter 5, Section
23789, paragraph B a license can be refused for a site within 600 feet of a school facility the
Temecula Valley Unified School District is opposing the liquor license to the ARCO Station.
Sonny Salkind, owner of Texaco Food Mart approximately one mile from the proposed ARCO
Station stated he welcomes ARCO in the neighborhood, but to have alcohol sales directly
across the street from a high school he would oppose it. He said he has monitored his center
for five years and they do have a lot of youngsters come in and they police it because they are
open 24 hours.
Ray Tooter, 27420 Balander Court, I live above the proposed site and there are three gas
station mini-marts within a mile and one-half of residents, so I can tell you it is convenient to
get to any of the three existing locations. Two major concerns, first we are putting an all night
liquor store next to a school. Second, he expressed concern with the crime and graffiti that in
residential and school area typically accompany all night liquor stores.
Roberta Tooter, 27420 Balander Court, said alcohol is not acceptable so close to a high school.
She said she blanketed about three blocks in the Roripaugh Hills area and out of those three
blocks I got 44 signatures requesting denial of this liquor license with this AM/PM. ARCO has
three AM/PM's in Temecula, and there are others as well and she and I have a hard time seeing
the necessity for another one.
Del James, 27546 Jon Christian Place, stated he agreed with the previous concerns of the
previous speaker. He is opposed to the sale of alcohol and liquor and he feels the Commission
probably knows this facility should not be built, let alone sell alcohol and liquor.
Mr. Black, 39561 Linett Circle, spoke in opposition to the application based on the sale of
liquor.
Patricia Keller, 39201 Celinas Drive, Murrieta, spoke in opposition and suggested that if this
might go through ARCO agrees to have a 24 hour security guard on-site as a deterrent.
Cecilia Axton, 30169 Sierra Madre Drive stated she is opposed to any type of alcoholic
beverages being sold at this location. She volunteers in the community and with the school
district. She doesn't feel this is the right message to send to our kids.
Mark Esbensen, 27311 Jefferson Avenue spoke in favor of the ARCO. He stated there are 30
to 40 acres of commercial at that intersection. There was a Ralph's approved across the street,
but due to the market, that fell apart. He believes we will definitely see a market, drugstore,
at the site. He stated the owner of the property has $850,000 in assessments on his 8.5 acre
site and he has done his share for street improvements and trying to help the situation that has
buried him in assessments.
Chairman Fahey, asked if Mr. Markham to address the Commission before they consider the Item. He
asked Ralph Salzman to speak.
R:\PLANCgi~,E~\MINUTE$\1996\O71596.PC 9/10/96
pI ANNIN~ ~r)MMI.~RIrIN Jllly 15. 19-q6
Ralph Salzman, provided clarification on the statute that was cited. He stated the statute
23958.4 calls for municipalities to provide input to the Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control as to public necessity or convenience. The only individual who spoke on the issue of
public necessity or convenience was Mr. Markham who addressed the issue, that by definition
this is a convenience store, the addition of beer and wine is purely as a convenience to the
customers who come in. It's sales are minimal, however it does provide a convenience to
customers who are already frequenting the store and mainly purchasing gasoline. With respect
to 23958.4, the statute permits the Department of ABC, not the municipality to deny a license
where there is a consideration point. Schools are called consideration points. ABC, during the
conduct of their investigation looks to the school district, sees its distance and talks to school
representatives and then comes to a conclusion as to whether a license should be issued or not.
Commissioner Soltysiak questioned that if the alcohol sales component is minimal in sales, then
why is this a big issue?
Mr. Salzman, replied we lose customers for gas and other purchased items if they know we do
not sell alcohol and they must go to another store. He clarified for Chairman Fahey that he did
not know if the alcohol license being purchased was one from within the City of Temecula.
Chairman Fahey moved to Commission Discussion
Commissioner Slaven expressed concerns regarding ARCO's difficulty with prohibiting the sale
of single alcohol containers. Due to the difficulty defining "convenience' she recommended
ARCO consider finding a new location more conducive to the type of business they want to
operate.
Commissioner Soltysiak requested clarification from Assistant City Attorney Rubin Weiner on
approval process with a purchased alcohol license or a new alcohol license. Mr. Weiner stated
there would be no difference. He further clarified for Commissioner Soltysiak that Section
23789 is not relevant to the discussion. When ABC considers whether to issue the license they
will consider that as a factor and also consider as a factor whether the Planning Commission
has determined that it serves a public necessity. ABC will not consider Section 23789 unless
the Planning Commission has determined that it will serve the public convenience and
necessity.
Chairman Fahey requested clarification, "is it inappropriate to consider within public
convenience and necessity the distanc~ the from the high school?'
Mr. Weiner stated the public convenience and necessity is an undefined term. It does not have
to be defined by the Planning Commission in order to make a determination. Whether the
ARCO located next to a school affects the public is convenience and necessity, would be the
argument. Commissioner Slaven has stated that public convenience includes the public as a
whole. Mr. Salzman's interpretation is more limited as far as your discretion. Obvious things
that would be considered are location to other facilities, whether it's located next to a school
should not be the only factor driving a decision. He recommended the Commission consider a
broader base.
Commissioner Soltysiak requested clarification, if the Commission finds determination for
convenience and necessity can the Commission require certain conditions of approval for
operation?
R: \PLANC(]!~W\MINUTES\1996\071596.PC 9/10/96 klb 6
P! ANNIN~,, ~nMMIR-~InN .IU! y 15. 1996
It was
Mr. Weiner stated there is no law prohibiting the Commission from making a determination that
states 'as conditioned as follows". Mr. Weiner did not know if ABC would translate that into
conditions on the license. The Commission does not really have an approval that they can
condition but since it can make a determination it can state what it desires.
Commissioner Miller and Mr. Weiner discussed the interpretation of public convenience or
necessity.
Commissioner Soltysiak stated, that due to the proximity to the high school, if the applicant
was willing to provide for additional security that should help assist the Commission's decision.
He suggested conditions on sales of individual alcohol container sales, no advertising, reducing
the sale period, not allowing people in the 18 year age group to sell alcohol and things of that
nature.
moved by Commissioner Webster and seconded by Commissioner Miller to approve the item.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Soltysiak, Webster
NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slaven
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Ai~oroval of finding of convenience or necessity for a Reer and Wine license for PA95o009~.
Temecula Rtage ;tOlT. Northeast Comer of Front and ;ixth .~treets
Finding of Public or Necessity for Beer and Wine License for Temecula Stage Stop which
provides local and regional shuttle services. The wine tasting and sales are a component of the
shuttle services to the Wince Country by Temecula Stage Stop.
Dave Hogan, Senior Planner presented the staff report.
The applicant, Ed Dool, 41920 Sixth Street, owner of Temecula Shuttle spoke in support of the
project. Hours of operation will be 9:00 am to 9:00 pro. There will be no games or
entertainment. He said this would be a convenience for tourists.
Planning Commission Discussion
The consensus was that the uniqueness of the project provides for a finding for convenience.
It was moved by Commissioner Webster and seconded by Commissioner Miller to approve the
item.
R:\PLANCO~4\HINUTES\1996\071596.PC 9/10/96 klb 7
P! ANNIN~ ~-rtMMIRRIr~N J! I! y 15. 1996
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Soltysiak, Webster
NOES: I
COMMISSIONERS: Slaven
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
5. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
PA95-0047 Residential Development Facilities Impact Mitigation
Plan
Temecula Valley Unified School District
Citywide
Enact a school facility impact mitigation fee for future residential
development requiring City Council approval
Exempt
Dave Hogan
Approve a Resolution Recommending the City Council Approve
the District's School Facility Impact Mitigation Plan
Dave Hogan, Senior Planner presented the staff report.
Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director stated that Mayor Karel Undemans is in the
process of contacting developers to see if they would agree to a flat $3.00 + fee across the
board and waive the school mitigation fee on new development. Mayor Lindemans is asking
for consideration for a couple of weeks as he is waiting for response from the developers to set
up a meeting with the developers.
Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing.
Dave Gallaher, Temecula Valley Unified School District, 31350 Rancho Vista Road, provided
an overview of the mitigation plan and spoke in support of the plan.
Chairman Fahey asked if there were any questions for the applicant.
Commissioner Webster stated that within the mitigation plan it was mentioned that by the end
of 1995 all the surplus at the middle school level will be filled. Is that true?
Dave Gallaher stated if your question is, 'do we currently have surplus seats at the middle
school level?' The answer is we do not.
Commissioner Webster stated the mitigation plan recommended for approval to the City Council
has revised impact fees from what the school district has proposed. He asked if the School
District agrees with the revised fees the City has proposed?
Dave Gallaher stated the revision between 9400 and 9200, is reasonable to move ahead.
Commissioner Webster questioned how often will it be updated?
R:\PLANCi~-~\MINUTES\1996\071596.PC 9/10/96 klb 8
P! ANNIN~ COMMISSION JII! y 15. 1996
Dave Gallaher stated they will be reviewed with developers on an annual basis.
Commissioner Webster stated the City's consultant recommended the School District improve
their enrollment data. Is that something the School District plans to require information in the
future?
Dave Gallaher responded that it is an excellent suggestion.
Commissioner Soltysiak inquired, does the District have a system that once the fee is paid it's
"ear marked' to go to a specific facility?
Dave Gallaher responded, yes.
Chairman Fahey requested clarification on fees to be imposed on new developments stating
these fees do not reflect cost shifting for those developments that are paying $1.84 now, they
only reflect the impact of the individual development.
Chairman Fahey, opened the hearing for public comments.
Bob Brown, 30333 Via Brisa, Temecula. Spoke in support of the mitigation plan.
Adrian McGregor, 34555 Madera de Playa, Temecula, said this is a great plan and spoke in
support of the plan.
Rebecca Weersing, 41775 Yorba Avenue, Temecula, indicated disappointment that the Building
Industry was not present, she spoke in support of the plan.
Kenneth G. Ray, 31647 Pio Pico Road, Temecula, spoke in support of the plan and requested
the Commission forward this agreement to the City Council with a positive recommendation.
Chairman Fahey closed the public comments and moved on to Commission Discussion.
Chairman Fahey stated the Commission's options, including one option from a City Council
Member to continue this item; or to act on the item.
Commissioner Webster requested clarification on the County Mitigation Plan Agreement versus
the proposed City Mitigation Plan. Is there a time frame connected between the two?
Dave Gallaher stated this time last year, the Commission voted to approve the resolution and
the City Council approved the resolution. The School District forwarded that resolution to the
County asking if the District set a policy nearly identical to the City's, does that qualify for
consistency? The County responded that it did. However, the County has a sunset clause
that if Districts don't follow with a City and County plan within a year the County will no longer
enforce it. Therefore, this needs to move ahead.
Commissioner Miller stated this has been worked on for a year and we have had this package
for 3 or 4 days. Will it there be great danger if we continue this for two weeks?
Commissioner Webster stated he was ready to move ahead for approval.
R:\PLANCO~4\HINUTES\1996\071596.PC 9/10/96 klb 9
P! ANNINit, ~-OMMI-qRI~N .l!1! y 13. 19R6
Commissioner Slaven agreed with Commissioner Webster to move forward.
Commissioner Soltyaiak agreed with Commissioner Miller. Further understanding of the plan
is required.
Chairman Fahey stated she could support the issue tonight but feels that if two Commissioners
need an additional two weeks to look at the issues it should be continued.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to continue the
item to the August 5, 1996 Planning Commission hearing.
Chairman Fahey asked for additional questions of staff.
Commissioner Webster requested clarification on how often the mitigation plan should be
updated and if the District intends to improve the data acquisition of student enrollment
numbers to get a better idea of student generation factor.
Chairman Fahey stated that Commissioner Soltysiak requested, based on the red dots on the
chart, how money tracks to particular schools in future capital investment plans.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
NOES:
0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
PA96-0008 (Development Plan)
Hydro-Scape Products, Inc.
4158 Enterprise Circle North
Develop a warehouse and office facility of approximately 9,994
square feet
Negative Declaration
Stephen Brown
Approval
Chairman Fahey stated thi~ item was continued from a previous Planning Commission meeting.
Chairman Slaven, stated she needed to abstain, she was absent from the meeting and hadn't read the
minutes or listened to the tapes of that meeting.
John Meyer, Senior Planner, stated this item was presented at the June 17, 1996 meeting.
Staff was directed to work with the applicant in four areas. First, to define what is the storage
and what is the drive aisle generally to the north of the subject building. Second, to confirm
whether or not the fault was located by survey, Third, to provide additional work on site line
analysis to determine the visual impacts from Jefferson Avenue from the Jefferson Creek
Center to the east and from the Burnham Building to the southeast. The overall direction given
to the applicant that adequate screening is attainable to mitigate the visual impacts that are
associated with this use. On July 12, 1996 Commissioners Miller and Soltysiak met at the site
R:\PLANCO~\MINUTES\1996\071596.PC 9/10/96 klb 10
Pt ANNIN~ COMMISRION ~1111 y 15. 1996
and subsequent to that meeting the applicant has provided revised landscape and site plans.
The new site plan shows the area intended for storage and the drive aisle.
John Meyer stated the applicant has upgraded the landscape plan to increase the number of
tree planting along the east side of the site. Commissioners Miller and Soltysiak and the
applicant had a discussion on the height and length of the wall (and effective height of 8' from
the existing graded parking area to the east) and will allow the applicant to provide additional
detail on that.
Staff was not able to locate the original engineering survey on the fault zone. Although, staff
did contact Steve Cupferman, County Geologist who had a personal recollection of this project.
He explained the reason why the fault zone in this case was not two parallel lines was because
they were able to determine the very specific location of the fault; the County will allow a 35'
setback from that specific location when you can do that.
Chairman Fahey asked for questions of staff.
Commissioner Webster asked on Conditions No. 12 and 13, based on these revised exhibits,
are these conditions satisfied?
John Meyer stated 'no". On Condition 12, he didn't believe any modifications to the landscape
occurred on the south side of the building. The applicant has provided architectural elevations
showing an awning feature over the entrance, staff feels it needs to be further developed to
meet the concept of strong entry statement.
Commissioner Miller stated on Condition 11 (signage), given the fact that the City is in the
process of trying to adopt a sign ordinance, is it possible to make room for the sign ordinance
when it is adopted.
Rubin Weiner, City Attorney, stated the Commission can make it subject to whichever sign
ordinance is applicable at the time the sign is installed.
Commissioner Miller discussed prohibiting the installation of scissor wire.
Chairman Fahey asked the applicant to speak.
Russell Rumansoff, 27349 Jefferson Avenue, representing the applicant, indicated the storage
area and regarding additional landscaping and suggested placing it next to the trash enclosure.
He said they have removed 4 parking spaces and now have approximately 36' of landscaping
adjacent to the wall. In addition to the landscape they extended the 8' high wall to 104' feet
long. The line of sight exhibit shows the 8', as measured from the top of the wall, is 8' above
the finished surface of the parking area immediately adjacent to the wall (there is an area
planter in the immediate parking surface). He discussed the additional added landscaping and
a metal canopy added to the entry to the building and will work with staff on this.
Mr. Rumansoff stated they will verify the fault zone before they lay the building out. Steve
Cupferman with the County stated that they are in storage and he can get them for us.
Mr. Rumansoff feels they have successfully screened the site with the wall, increased
landscaping and improvements. He feels the applicant complies with zoning, ordinances and
R: \ PLANCO~4\HINUT~S\ 1996 \ 071596. pC 9/10/96
pI ANNINn COMMI-~ION JUl Y 15. 1996
the General Plan according to the staff report. He further stated the building is tilt up concrete
and will be sand blasted with a blue band at the top of the building. It's a simply designed
building.
Chairman Fahey opened the hearing for public comments.
Mark Esbensen, 27311 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 103, Temecula stated he doesn't feel it is
consistent with the General Plan, the 8' wall is better than a 6' wall, expressed concern with
the gate staying ope and the storage area being too visible. He spoke in opposition of the
project.
Chairman Fahey opened the Commission Discussion
Chairman Fahey directed the applicant to work with staff on the project and the wall. Mr.
Rumansoff questioned how that fits with the development code and general plan if they go
with the wall.
Commissioner Webster stated they should move ahead and let planning staff deal with the issue
through the permit approval process.
Commissioner Miller stated he cannot make the finding that this conforms to a logical
development of the proposed site, or is compatible with the present and future development
of the surrounding property.
Chairman Fahey asked for a motion.
Commissioner Webster stated he was satisfied with the project as submitted and visual impacts
are addressed in the revised plan and conditions of approval and stated the applicant has gone
above and beyond the call of duty. He moved approval to adopt the negative declaration for
PA96-0008 and adopt the mitigation monitoring program and adopt Resolution 96- . Adopt
PA96-0008 subject to the attached conditions of approval.
Commissioner Soltysiak questioned staff if there is a provision in the Building Code that
prohibits a free standing wall of this height? Gary Thornhill responded, it's just a matter of
engineering. Commissioner Miller, stated the Development Code has a maximum height of 6'.
John Meyer stated there is an inconsistency in the Development Code that shows a table
referencing no height above 6' and another portion in the performance standards that
encourages minimum 8'. There is an implied inconsistency and minor exceptions or variances
to take care of that.
Chairman Fahey asked for further discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Miller made a motion to deny PA96-0008 on the basis the design and condition
is not compatible with present and future development of the property. The motion was
seconded by Chairman Fahey.
R:\PLANC(I~4\HINUTES\1996\071596.PC 9/10/96 klb 12
P! ANNINC, COMMIRSION
The motion failed as follows:
AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller
NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Soltysiak, Webster
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN I COMMISSIONERS: Slaven
J!11 y 15. 1996
Chairman Fahey called for a new motion to continue the item.
It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Fahey to continue the
item to the August 5, 1996 Planning Commission hearing and to close the public hearing.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Soltysiak, Webster
NOES: 0 COMMIS910NERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN 1 COMMISSIONERS: Slaven
MANAR!=R.~ RI=PCtRT
None given.
COMMISSION nlSCUSSION
Commission Slaven stated she would like to have a 'definition" of convenience and necessity and for
the record stated she doesn't want to vote on any more applications until that is perfectly clear.
Gary Thornhill stated we will bring something back to the Commission at the next hearing.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak to adjourn the
meeting at 9:20 PM. The motion was unanimously carried.
The next meeting will be held August 5, 1996, at 6:00 p.m. at the Rancho California Water District
Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California.
Linda Fahey, Chairman /
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\PLANCO~MINUTES\1996\071596.PC 9/10/96 klb 1 3