Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout012891 PC Special Meeting MinutesM'~'NUTES OF A REGULAR MEET'rNG OF THE PY.~.NN?NG COMM?SS?ON OF THE C'rTY OF TEMECUL~ HELD JA.NUARY 28, 1991 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula was held Monday, January 28, 1991, 6:00 P.M. at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dennis Chiniaeff. PRESENT: 5 COMMISSIONERS- Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Gary Thornhill, Acting Planning Director, John Middleton, Senior Project Manager, Doug Stewart, Deputy city Engineer, Kirk Williams, Traffic Engineer and Gail Zigler, Minute Clerk. PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. MINUTES 1.1 Approve the minutes of January 7, 1991. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to approve the minutes of January 7, 1991 as presented, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR. AYES: 5 NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff COMMISSIONERS: None NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS None GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission that Item No. 5 would be continued to the meeting of February 4, 1991 and Item No. 7 would be continued off calendar. PCMIN1/28/91 -1- 1/30/91 COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to continue Item No. 5 to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held February 4, 1991, seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to continue Item No. 7 off calendar, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND abstained from voting due to a potential conflict of interest. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 2. VARIANCE NO. 3 2.1 Request for a variance to allow a 200 square foot temporary subdivision sign. Located at the northeast corner of Rancho Califonria Road and Margarita Road. Continued from the meeting of January 7, 1991. RICHARD AYALA provided the staff report. C~IRMAN CHINIAEFF re-opened the public hearing at 6:20 P.M. MARK WILSON, representing the applicant,MSI, 1240 Railroad Street, Corona, addressed questions by the Commission. COMMISSIONER FAHEY suggested that the applicant move the temporary sign back approximately 20 feet, next to the chain link fencing. The applicant's representative concurred with this request. COMMISSIONER FORD asked for clarification of Conditions No. 3 and No. 4. GARY THORNHILL advised that Condition No. 4 could be deleted. PCMIN1/28/91 -2- 1/30/91 PLANNIN~ CO~-~ISSION ~INUTE$ ~ANUARY 28, 299L COMMISSIONER FAHEY asked that the applicant be conditioned to set back the sign. GARY THORNHILL stated that since the applicant has concurred with this request, Condition No. 4 could require that the sign be moved back approximately 20 feet. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at 6:25 P.M. and to adopt Resolution No. 91-(next) approving Variance No. 3 based on the analysis and findings contained within the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval as amended, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Due to the applicant and their representative not being present the Commission moved on to Item No. 4 and placed Item No. 3 at the end of the Agenda. 4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 24038~ PLOT PLAN 76 4.1 Proposal to subdivide 4.99 acres into 3 parcels and construct a 92 unit motel and convert an existing building into a restaurant. Located at Moreno Drive, adjacent to Motel 6. Continued from the meeting of December 3, 1990. MARK RHOADES provided the staff report. Mr. Rhoades advised the Commission that Conditions of Approval No. 16, No. 25 and No. 30 had been amended by staff. A copy of those amendments were provided. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 6:35 P.M. LARRY MARKHAM, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula, representing the applicant, addressed some of the questions the Commission had regarding the traffic issues. Mr. Markham stated that they had met extensively with staff and the Community Services District staff to address some of the issues brought up at the December 3, 1990 meeting. Mr. Markham added that they were in concurrence with the Conditions as presented by staff. PCMIN1/28/91 -3- 1/30/91 PLanNING COI~ISSION MINUTES JANUARY 28, 1991 COMMISSIONER HOAGLANDmoved to close the public hearing at 6:50 P.M. and adopt the Negative Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map No. 24038 and Plot Plan No. 76; adopt Resolution 91-(next) recommending approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 24038 and adopt Resolution 91-(next) approving Plot Plan No. 76, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval as presented and amended by staffed, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PLOT PL]%N NO. 138 5.~ Proposal for a revised permit for a portable classroom. Item No. 5 continued to the meeting of February 4, 1991. 6. PLOT PLAN 10675t EXTENSION OF TIME Proposal to construct a two story office building with 25,742 sq. ft. of leaseable floor area. Located at the south side of Single Oak Drive, approximately 300 feet east of Business Park Drive. SCOTT WRIGHT provided the staff report. Mr. Wright advised of the following amendments to the Conditions of Approval: Pursuant to County Road Department Condition No. 2 requiring the payment of traffic signal impact mitigation fees prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute 15% of the cost of installing a signal at the westerly intersection of Business Park Drive and Rancho California Road or shall submit a traffic analysis and contribute to signalizing the intersection in an amount based on the percent traffic impact as determined by the traffic analysis. Credit shall be given toward that fee for any amount that has already been paid for traffic signal mitigation. Mr. Wright added that they would be adding the Condition for facility fees and also payment of Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation fees. PCMIN1/28/91 -4- 1/30/91 PL~/~NIN~ COMMISSION ~NUTES ~ANUARY 28, L99L MIKE GRAY, County Fire Department representative, addressed questions regarding the width of the internal drive aisles. ~ARY THORNHILL stated that when the applicant first came to talk he found that there was no provision for a time extension on a plot plan in the ordinance and he thought that it was an oversight in the ordinance and advised the applicant to file and they would take it ahead as a time extension. After accepting the application, the applicant began to develop their final plans. They have submitted for building permit and are ready to have a permit issued and it was Mr. Thornhill's opinion to go back and redesign at this point was senseless. He recommended that the Commission proceed with the issue at hand which was the extension of time. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned the letter from Bedford disputing the public facilities fee. JOHN CAVANAUGH stated that he had just received the objection from Bedford prior to the meeting. He stated that he was not in a position to make an opinion. He added that there was no extension provision in the ordinance. In reviewing all the land use provisions, C.U.P.'s, variances, etc., they all had extension provisions in them, it was an administrative interpretation as to whether or not this was omitted intentionally or omitted inadvertently, and therefore staff had to make an interpretation. He added that it was the City Attorney's opinion that the Commission could make a decision on an extension based on staff's recommendation. He also stated that staff will be looking at amending the ordinance to allow for the extension provision. CHAIRMAN CHINI~EFF opened the public hearing at 7:05 P.M. LISA PETERSON, 28765 Single Oak Drive, Temecula, representing the applicant, clarified that Condition No. 1 was in lieu of Condition No. 2. SCOTT WRIGHT stated that "pursuant to" meant "in lieu of". MS. PETERSON stated that the letter stating their position on the public facility fees was a legally formality which requires that if they protest any condition they must do so at the time of the public hearing and in writing. She added that they did not intend to create any debate over the Condition. As to Condition No. 3 regarding the Kangaroo Rat fees, Ms. Peterson stated that this property had been graded long before the Kangaroo Rat issue came PCMIN1/28/91 -5- 1/30/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 28, 1991 about and questioned whether it was necessary to impose those fees to this project. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned if the Commission continued this item would it pose a problem to them. MS. PETERSON stated that they were having on-going discussions with the City Attorney regarding the fee issue. She added that they were ready to pull their permits. JOHN CAVANAUGH recommended that the Commission go ahead and make a decision based on the analysis and findings in the staff report. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND stated that in reviewing the River- side County Planning Department Conditions of Approval, they were clear that there was a two year, No Extension clause, and the applicant was well aware of all the Conditions of Approval. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to approve a one year extension of time for Plot Plan 10675 based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in the attached County Staff Report and the conditions added by staff. Motion failed for lack of a second. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to deny a one year extension of time for Plot Plan 10675, due to the expiration of the time period and there was no provision for an extension of time, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR. COMMISSIONER FAHEY expressed concern that the applicant should have been told that there was not a provision in the Ordinance for an extension of time when they applied. COMMISSIONER FORD expressed a concern for allowing an extension of time without having it approved and setting a precedent by allowing the extension. He thought there might be another alternative. GARY THORNHILL stated that it was staff's intention to come back with an ordinance allowing for extension of time for Plot Plan. He added that in discussing it with the County, they had conditioned the project correctly. He stated that he felt that all actions should have a provision for extension of time. PCMIN1/28/91 -6- 1/30/91 PLANNING COI~ISSION ~INUTES ~ANUARY 28, 299L JOHN CAVANAUGH advised the Commission that by law the Planning Director is authorized to make an interpretation if there is an ambiguity and justify it through an analogy in other provisions of the ordinance, which they had found in other variances, C.U.P.'s, etc. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF indicated that he did not support the motion to deny the extension of time and called for the vote. AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Hoagland NOES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF entertained a motion to continue Item No. 6 and direct staff to bring it back and recommend an amendment to the ordinance for Plot Plan Time Extensions. ~ARY THORNHILL suggested that it be continued off-calendar and re-notice. COF~&ISSIONER FAHEY moved to continue Plot Plan 10675 Extension of Time off-calendar, and re-notice the public hearing to allow for an ordinance amendment which allows for Time Extensions of Plot Plans, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF declared a five minute recess at 7:30 P.M. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 21821 7.1 Proposal to subdivide 7.71 acres into five (5) single family residential lots. Item No. 7 continued off-calendar. Chairman Chiniaeff stepped down due to a potential conflict of interest on Item No. 8 and handed the gavel over to Vice Chairman Ford. 8. CHANGE OF ZONE $631 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25320 8.1 Proposal to change the zoning designation of the subject property from R-R to R-l; and subdivide the subject 56.6 PCMIN1/28/91 -7- 1/30/91 PLi~N[N~ COMMiSSiON N~NUTES ~ANU~Y 28, ~99~ acre parcel into 102 single family residential lots and 4 open space lots. Located on the North side of Pauba Road, East of Ynez Road. OLIVER MUJICA provided the staff report. Mr. Mujica advised the Commission that staff had received a letter from the Lake Village Community Association expressing their concern with the drainage of this property and it's impact on the wildlife and migratory bird population and residents of Lake Village. He added that staff had contacted the Department of Fish and Wildlife and they indicated that the lake was in their jurisdiction and all developments that may impact this lake must be reviewed and approved by their agency. COMMISSIONER FORD opened the public hearing at 8:05 P.M. ROBERT KEMBLE, Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, representing the applicant, expressed concurrence with staff's recommendation. He stated that the applicant was not in concurrence with Condition No. 50 requiring approval from the Department of Fish and Wildlife, since the applicant felt it was unnecessary. Mr. Kemble also opposed Condition No. 83 regarding the public facilities fee, which was presented to staff and the Commission in letter form. MR. KO, Bedford Properties, 28765 Single Oak Drive, Temecula, provided a brief history about the project and answered questions presented by the Commission. The following individuals expressed their opposition to the development due to the negative impacts it would have on the environment. Also they expressed a desire to see a decrease in the density if the project were approved; however, their recommendation was for the City to utilize this as park land. MARCIA SLAVEN, 30110 La Primavera, Temecula. JAMES CONLEY, 30369 Veronda Place, Temecula. HARRY SACKIN, 43098 Corte Villa, Temecula. STANLEY MELAD, 9445 Aldabra Court, San Diego. NATE DIBIASI, 30445 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula. NORMAN DUNN, 30434 Colina Verde, Temecula. PCMIN1/28/91 -8- 1/30/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 28, 1991 PHILLIP SAUM, 43209 Vista Del Rancho, Temecula. LETTIE BOGGS, representing the Temecula Valley Unified School District, expressed a concern for the potential flooding of the Vail School grounds which lies just beyond the Lake Village Lake MR. KO presented a brief history regarding the progression of the intended land uses from multi-family to single family and that the lake is line with soilcement. He also advised the residents that without this.development, Pauba Road would not be improved. The Commission expressed a concern for speed control on Pauba Road, comments from the Department of Fish and Wildlife and Regional Water Quality Control Board and the density of the project. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to close the public hearing at 8:50 P.M. and continue Change of Zone 5631 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 in order to allow staff and the applicant the opportunity to address the environmental concerns expressed by the Commission and the residents, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR. COMMISSIONER FORD asked that staff address the following issues as well: site distances approaching Pauba Road, effects of lighting from the Sports Park, landscaping, existing easements on the south side of Pauba Road and the quality of water that will flow into the storm drain. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND amended his motion to include this direction to staff with the second's concurrence. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey ABSTAIN:I COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff 3. PARCEL MAP 25607 3.1 Proposal for a two lot residential subdivision. Located at the southeast corner of Ormsby Road and Estero Street. STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report. PCMIN1/28/91 -9- 1/30/91 PLANN~'NH COl~SS'rON MTNUTES ~u~UARY 28, 199~ CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF expressed a concern for the impact the increased density would have on traffic. COMMISSIONER HOAHLAND stated that he felt that this was a blatant attempt to avoid the sub-division map act. COMMISSIONER FAHEY questioned if the Assistant City Attorney had reviewed the findings for denial of this Parcel Map. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that the Commission had the ability to make a decision on an environmental basis. He added that traffic circulation concerns was an environmental concern. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 9:00 P.M. MIKE BENESH, Benesh Engineering, 28991 Front Street, Temecula, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant cannot understand why he cannot do what another applicant was allowed to do in a previous request to the Commission for a subdivision. He added that the grading of the lots had been approved and permited by the County. Mr. Benesh also indicated the applicant's willingness to do the improvements to Ormsby Road. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at 9:10 P.M. and adopt Resolution No. 91-(next) denying Parcel Map No. 25607 based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report, seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAHLAND. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Chiniaeff PCMIN1/28/91 -10- 1/30/91 PL~IN~N~ COM~SS~ON N~NUTES ~ANUARY 28, L99L AD~OURI~ENT COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 P.M. The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission to be held Monday, February 4, 1991, 6:00 P.M., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. PCMIN1/28/91 -11- 1/30/91