Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout031692 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MARCH 16, 1992 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order Monday, March 16, 1992, 6:05 P.M., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California, Chairman John E. Hoagland presiding. PRESENT: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Also present were City Attorney Scott Field, Director of Planning Gary Thornhill, Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner John Meyer and Minute Clerk Gail Zigler. PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSION BUSINESS APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Ford, to approve the agenda as mailed. The motion was carried unanimously. MINUTES 2.1 Approve the minutes of February 24, 1992, Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Chiniaeff requested that Page 8, Item No. 6, sixth sentence be corrected to read "Brian Esgate, Community Engineering, 5225 Canyon Crest, Riverside, representing Marlborough Development, Inc ...... ". Commissioner Ford requested that Page 6, second paragraph, be amended to read "He added that the bank was taking collateral on the project...". Robert Righetti, Public Works Plan Check, requested that Page 7, third paragraph, be amended to read "Mr. Walsh addressed the motion by Chairman Hoagland stating that even if the project were conditioned as a condominium...". PCMIN3/16/92 -1- 3/30/92 It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Ford, to approve the minutes of February 24, 1992 as amended. The motion was carried unanimously. NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS None PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAY ORDINANCES 3.1 Proposed interim Ordinance establishino reoulations for Outdoor Advertising Displays. Senior Planner John Meyer summarized the staff report. Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 6:15 P.M. Commissioner Fahey questioned the wording on Page 11, Section 3., fifth sentence of the Ordinance. City Attorney Scott Field advised that the sentence should read "conforming uses for one (3) year period...". Commissioner Fahey and Commissioner Chiniaeff questioned the meaning of "Non-Commercial Off-Premise Signs" and requested clarification of "Prohibited Signs". City Attorney Scott Field stated that staff would like time to review this section of the Ordinance. It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Ford to continue Outdoor Advertising Display Ordinances to the meeting of April 6, 1992, to allow staff time to review Section 2. Prohibited Signs. The motion was carried unanimously. PLOT PLAN NO. 8839, REVISED NO. 1, AMENDMENT NO. 2 4.1 Proposal to revise Plot Plan No. 8839, changing uses on the second floor from 5,413 souare feet of storaoe to a 780 souare foot beauty shop and 2,961 souare feet of office space and 1,672 s(~uare feet of storaoe, and re(~uest a PCMIN3/16/92 -2- 3/20/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 16, 1992 reduction in reauired off-street parking from 44 to 40 spaces. Located at 41910 Sixth Street. Commissioner Ford stepped down due to a potential for conflict of interest. Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan summarized the staff report. Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 6:30 P.M. Ed Rabalais, representing the applicant, advised that the garages would be assigned to various suites. Chairman Hoagland advised that the Commission had received one letter in opposition. Ed Rabalais requested that Condition No. 27, requiring improvements to the alley, be changed to "Prior To Issuance Of Certification of Occupancy". Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that he is not comfortable with the request to increase square footage and reduce parking. Commissioner Chiniaeff added that he did not agree with deleting the requirement posting a bond for improvements to the alley and that he was concerned about 90 degree parking spaces in a 20 foot wide alley and ensuring that the parking spaces would be used for parking not storage. Lastly, he stated he did not feel that Item No. 4 under Findings supported the request. Chairman Hoagland concurred with Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments and added the request conflicts with previous requests that have come before the Commission. Chairman Hoagland stated he would be willing to approve the request if the applicant is required to pay a parking mitigation fee for the purchase of fourteen off-site parking spaces in the Old Town area. Commissioner Fahey questioned if there was a way that the City could require projects to contribute to the purchase of lots for public parking. City Attorney Scott Field advised that the applicant could be conditioned to pay an impact fee for a designated number of parking spaces or required to participate in an assessment district. It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Blair, to close the public hearing at 6:55 P.M. and Deny Plot Plan No. 8839, Revision No. 1, Amendment No. 2, due to the reasonable probability that this plot plan will be inconsistent with the City's future adopted General Plan because it will not meet the parking standards set forth in the existing Ordinances and there is a likely probability of substantial detriment and interference with the future General Plan; that the proposed use or action does not comply with state PCMIN3/16/92 -3- 3/20/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 16, 1992 zoning and planning laws in that there is no substantiation for the reduction in the number of required parking spaces for the useable space proposed; the site is not suitable to accommodate the proposed land uses in terms of circulation patterns, access and intensity of uses; the project is not compatible with surrounding land uses due to the fact that the alley would be sub-standard and would create traffic conflicts in the alley that would be serving surrounding properties; and the proposal would have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey ABSTAIN: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Ford Commissioner Fahey stated that she believes that the parking problem could be adequately mitigated by requiring the applicant to pay a parking mitigation fee or participate in an assessment district and therefore voted against the motion. PLOT PLAN 11001, AMENDMENT NO. 3, EXTENSION OF TIME 5.1 Proposal for extension of time for Plot Plan No. 11001, an approved plot plan for a 220 unit apartment complex. Located south of Margarita Road, approximately 400 feet east of Moraga Road and 550 feet north of Rancho California Road. Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan summarized the staff report. Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 7:00 P.M. Linda Miller, J.F. Davidson & Associates, 27349 Jefferson Avenue, Temecula, representing the applicant, expressed the applicant's concurrence with the conditions presented by staff. James Marpie, 19210 St. Gallen Way, Murrieta, representing Citizens For Responsible Watershed Management, advised the Commission that since the original approval of this project, there have been many changes in regulations for rainfall run-off. Mr. Marpie suggested that the site developer should be required to apply the most modern technology available to capture rainfall and keep the polluted run-off from entering the drinking water. Robert Righetti stated that the Department of Public Works has imposed a condition which requires this project to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System requirements of the Department of Water PCMIN3/16/92 -4- 3/20/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 16, 1992 Resources. It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Ford to close the public hearing at 7:05 P.M. and Reaffirm the previously adopted Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 33522 and Adopt Resolution No. 92-{next) approving the Extension of Time for Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Blair stated that although the project seems to be an adequate project, she would vote against the motion because she was not in favor of going forward with any project of this nature until the completion of the General Plan. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 580 6,1 Proposed reauest to revise the County approved Public Use Permit No. 580 to grant approval for existin~ mobile structures used as classrooms. Located on the south side of Santiaao Road between 1-15 and Ynez Road. Associate Planner Saied Naaseh summarized the staff report and advised that Condition No. 13 had been deleted and the Fire Department Condition has been updated from the February 24, 1992 staff report to the Planning Commission. Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 7:20 P.M. Leonard Fowler, California Geo Tek, 42030 Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, representing the applicant, expressed concurrence with the staff report and requested that Condition No. 15 be amended to require a parking set back of 40 to 50 feet from the fence. Paster Kerry Martin, Rancho Temecula Bible Church, clarified that the original school house and the two previous existing mobile units had occupancy permits; however, the concerns the Building Official has is with the seven unit mobile. He said the church received approval from the State; however, after meeting with Mr. Elmo, the State indicated that they had made some mistakes and would like additional information. Mr. Martin advised that he had since met with the Building Official and an architect to insure the building meets the codes. PCMIN3/16/92 -5- 3/20/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 16, 1992 Saied Naaseh advised the Commission that the historic chapel on the site has occupancy permits; however, it is being used as a classroom which is not a permitted use. Bob Hinze, 44264 Cabo Street, Temecula, expressed concern with the parking of the buses. He stated that he would like to see the buses parked as far north of the chapel as possible. Leonard Fowler advised that parking the buses in front of the facility would cause a sight problem as well as a safety problem and again requested that the condition allow the buses to be parked a minimum of 50' beyond the rear property line. It was moved by Commissioner Ford to close the public hearing at 7:35 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 92-(next) approving Public Use Permit No. 580, Revised No. 1 based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval and recommending that the buses be parked in front, northwest of Building A when not in use. Chairman Hoagland seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion and stated that he could support the motion if there were time frames addressing the block wall construction, the parking of the buses, etc. Gary Thornhill suggested that the applicant be allowed 90 days to accomplish some of these issues, and if they are not accomplished, bring the item back for revocation of the permit. Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that he would agree to not allowing the use of building "A" until the inspections are completed; construction of the block wall to start within 90 days; and parking of the buses in front of the facility. Commissioner Ford amended his motion to have completion of the block wall within 90 days from the date of the March 16, 1992 public hearing; restrict the parking of the buses to the front of the property, and if the Commission does not receive assurances from Building and Safety that the applicant is in compliance, the Commission would recommend revocation of the permit. Chairman Hoagland concurred with the amendment to the motion. Chairman Hoagland adding that the Commission would like the Building and Safety Official to come before the Commission and update them on the progress of resolution of the unresolved issues. The motion carried unanimously. Chairman Hoagland declared a recess at 7:45 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 7:55 P.M. PCMIN3/1 6/92 -6- 3/20/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 16, 1992 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 16 7,1 Proposal to construct a full service car wash including oil/lube station, located at Parcel 11 of Parcel Map 28625, north side of Winchester Road in the Costco Shooping Center. Associate Planner Saied Naaseh summarized the staff report. Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that he would like to see the landscape plan enhanced with the placement of larger trees. Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 8:00 P.M. Jack Ballatore, 42690 Rio Nedo Way, Temecula, expressed concurrence with the staff report. James Marpie, 19210 St. Gallen Way, Murrieta, representing Citizens For Responsible Watershed Management, expressed concern that the applicant take the necessary measures to protect the drinking water supply from rainfall run-off. Jack Ballatore stated that the car wash would be constructed with a water reclamation system. Commissioner Ford stated that he would like to see the landscaping increased and scattered with possible berming along the front of the building between Winchester Road and in the stacking area off of Winchester Road. It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to close the public hearing at 8:15 P.M. and Adopt the Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit No. 16 and Adopt Resolution No. 92-(next) approving Conditional Use Permit No. 16 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, including the increase to 24" box trees. The motion carried unanimously. PLOT PLAN 241, CHILI'S INC. 8.1 Proposal to construct a 7,500 square foot restaurant in the C-1/C-P Zone. Located at the northwest corner of Rancho California and Ynez Roads. Planner Mark Rhoades summarized the staff report. Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 8:25 P.M. PCMIN3/16/92 -7- 3/20/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 16, 1992 Randy Fleming, Engineering Ventures, representing Chili's Inc. asked that Conditions No. 21 and No. 26 be deleted. Gary Thornhill advised that staff does not recommend deleting those requirements. Gary Capp, Bedford Properties, requested that Condition No. 58 and No. 59 be deleted once the Mello-Roos bonds sell. James Marpie, 19210 St. Gallen Way, Murrieta, representing Citizens For Responsible Watershed Management, advised that this project is upstream from the drinking water, which could be protected from pollution at a minimal cost. Mr. Marpie explained the percolation procedure for capturing rainfall run-off. Robert Righetti advised that the City is presently working in conjunction with the Riverside County Flood Control District, on a National Pollutant Discharge Permit and is currently waiting for State guidelines. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff to close the public hearing at 8:40 P.M. and Adopt the Negative Declaration prepared for Plot Plan No. 241 and Adopt Resolution No. 92-(next) approving Plot Plan No. 241 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval. The motion carried unanimously. 9. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23209 9,1 Proposal for a residential subdivision of 80 acres into 220 single family lots. Located at the easterly terminus of La Serena Way. Planner Mark Rhoades summarized the staff report. Chairman Chiniaeff opened the public hearing at 8:45 P.M. Bo Kemble, Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, 28765 Single Oak Drive, Temecula, representing the applicant, provided a brief summary of the project's history. Mr. Kemble requested that Condition No. 6 and Condition No. 14A be amended to read "Prior to issuance of building permits..."; and Condition No. 30 be deleted. Mark Rhoades clarified that Condition No. 29 could be deleted. Commissioner Ford stated that he would suggest that Condition No. 6 and Condition No. 14A be amended to read "Prior to issuance of first occupancy permit". PCMIN3/16/92 -8- 3/20/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 16, 1992 The following individuals offered their support of the proposed project: Nelson Betancourt, 40835 Calle Medusa, Temecula, stated that he would support the project if the applicant was conditioned to complete Butterfield Stage Road to Calle Chapos. Paul Sorrel, 31675 Leigh Lane, Temecula, stated that he supported the project; however, would request the mobile home zoning be deleted. Ruperto Jordan, 31944 Leigh Lane, Temecula, expressed his support of the project; however, requested that the applicant be required to build a block wall along Walcott Lane to screen the noise from the park area. Additionally, Mr. Jordan expressed concern for the increase in traffic on La Serena Way. Gabriel Serrano, 31943 Leigh Lane, Temecula, indicated his support of the project; however, expressed the same concerns regarding the noise and the traffic along La Serena Way. The following individuals expressed their opposition to the project: Ruth Ann Weathersby, 40517 and 40541 Calle Katerine, Temecula, indicated that she would oppose the mobile home park zoning. Ms. Weathersby indicated that she did not have any other problem with the project. Tony Bartys, 40529 Calle Katerine, Temecula, concurred with Ms. Weathersby's comments. David Raya, 31824 Dane Court, Temecula, expressed his opposition due to the impact the project would have on schools and traffic, the inadequate response time for emergency services and fire rescue on this side of the city, the project's inconsistency with the future general plan and the transition from the vineyards to tract homes. John Moramarco, 32740 Rancho California Road, Temecula, representing Callaway Vineyard and Winery, stated that he has reservations that the project place no restrictions on the air flow. Mr. Moramarco added that Callaway Vineyard and Winery will be asking the City and the developer to pay for wind machines if there is frost damage to the vineyard. Owen Leverson, 31944 Dane Court, Temecula, opposed the project based on it's impact on schools and traffic. Mr. Leverson added that he lives behind the area designated for a park and was concerned with noise. Karen Nelson, 31858 Valone Court, Temecula, opposed the project based on the fact that the development was originally to be built as luxury executive homes. Ms. Nelson also expressed a concern for the project's impact on the PCMIN3/16/92 ~9- 3/20/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 16, 1992 schools. Mary Jones, 32085 Vista Del Monte, Temecula, expressed concern with the potential for flooding from drainage run-off and expressed a concern that previous issues recommending denial were not being adequately addressed. Greg Tortoretti, 31984 Dane Court, Temecula, reiterated concerns regarding impacts on schools, traffic and emergency service responses. Terry Kavicki, 31951 Valone Court, Temecula, expressed concerns with pollution, the impact the project will have on the vineyards, wildlife preservation and schools. James Marpie, 19210 St. Gallen Way, Murrieta, representing Citizens For Responsible Watershed Management, advised that this project is upstream from the drinking water, which could be protected from pollution at a minimal cost. Mr. Marpie explained the percolation procedure for capturing the rainfall run-off. Bo Kemble addressed some of the concerns expressed by the area residents, advising that the project is conditioned to improve Butterfield Stage Road along the project frontage as well as providing improvements to Butterfield Stage Road out to Rancho California Road; park plans have been left open to the Parks Department for design; most of the drainage will flow to the west and tie into the storm drain system in that area; and, Temecula Unified School District was present at all DRC meetings and have offered no comments. Mary Jones, 32085 Vista Del Monte, Temecula, reiterated her concerns for the potential flooding to Walcott Lane, a decrease to the park site due to improvements, and she advised that the developer had not discussed the proposed project with her and she is an adjacent property owner. Bo Kemble advised that the developer had a letter to grade from Marlborough and a verbal authorization from an adjacent property owner off La Serena Way. Mike Gray, representing the County Fire Department, stated that the County currently acknowledges a deficiency in the eastern portion of the City; however, the Fire Stations that will be built in that area rely on the development of homes first. Mr. Gray advised the next fire station that is scheduled to built will be located at Butterfield Stage Road and Highway 79. Commissioner Fahey and Chairman Hoagland stated that they did not feel the project offered adequate transition from agriculture to residential. Mark Rhoades suggested that a condition be added requiring the developer to advise potential property owners of the possibility of future implementation of wind machines at the vineyards. PCMIN3/16/92 - 10- 3/20/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 16, 1992 Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to close the public hearing at 9:55 P.M. and R~- affirm the Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map No. 23209 and Adopt Resolution No. 92-{next) approving Tentative Tract Map No. 23209 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval, deleting Condition No. 29 and Condition 17(d); and addition of a condition requiring the applicant to advise property owners of the possible future implementation of wind machines at the vineyards, seconded by Commissioner Ford for the purpose of discussion. Commissioner Ford recommended Condition 17 be amended to read "Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit or Model Complex Permit the following Conditions shall be satisfied." AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Hoagland Chairman Hoagland opposed the motion based on inadequate buffering on the southwest portion of the tract. Commissioner Fahey opposed the motion based on inadequate buffering of the lots next to the vineyards. 10. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22515, 3RD EXTENSION OF TIME 10.1 Proposal for third extension of time for a 3 lot commercial parcel map. Located on the east side of the southerly terminus of Front Street. Planner Mark Rhoades summarized the staff report. Larry Markham, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula, representing the applicant, requested that Condition 12 requiring CC&R's, and Condition 26 requiring County Flood Control review be removed. Robert Righetti advised that there is a storm drain plan being done in conjunction with this property and the property across the street. James Marpie, 19210 St. Gallen Way, Murrieta, representing Citizens For Responsible Watershed Management, advised that this project is upstream from the drinking water, which could be protected from pollution at a minimal cost. Mr. Marpie explained the percolation procedure for capturing the rainfall run-off. It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to close the public hearing at 10:10 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 92-(next) approving the Third Extension of Time for Parcel Map No. 22515 based on the PCMIN3/1 6/92 -11 - 3/20/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 16, 1992 analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval. The motion carried unanimously. 11. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23103, SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME 11.1 Proposal for second extension of time for an 18 lot residential subdivision on 29.2 acres, Specific Plan No. 199. Located on the west side of Butterfield Stage Road, northerly of Rancho California Road. Planner Mark Rhoades summarized the staff report. Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 10:15 P.M. Brian Esgate, Community Engineering, 5225 Canyon Crest Drive, Riverside, representing Marlborough Development Corporation, requested Condition No. 4 be amended to read "1992" and advised that regarding Condition No. 12, the vertical design of Butterfield Stage Road has been approved by the City Council as of November 12, 1991 and the applicant has submitted plans based on that alignment. John Moramarco, 32740 Rancho California Road, Temecula, representing Callaway Vineyard and Winery, reiterated that potential property owners should be advised of the possible implementation of wind machines in the future and Callaway Vineyard and Winery will be asking the City and the developer to pay for wind machines if there is frost damage to the vineyard. Dorian Johnson, Marlborough Development Corporation, advised that the development has attempted to keep the natural air flow passages open and the disclosure issue is a part of the overall sales package of Chardonnay Hills. Community Service Planner Gary King advised that staff would like Condition No. 7 revised to require an offer of dedication for an easement. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Blair to close the public hearing at 10:25 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 92-(next) recommending approval of the Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23103 subject to the Conditions of Approval, correcting the date on Condition No. 4 and revising Condition No. 7 to the satisfaction of staff and the applicant, and based on the findings contained in the staff report. The motion was carried unanimously. PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT Gary Thornhill advised the Planning Commission of the following: PCMIN3/16/92 -12- 3/20/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES # MARCH 16, 1992 Need reservations for Planning Commission Institute, April 9 - April I 1. The Growth Management Technical Sub-Committee will be meeting on March 17. The Economic Development Technical Sub-Committee will be meeting on March 19. Joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting on March 25. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION None OTHER BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff to adjourn at 10:30 P.M. The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be held Monday, April 6, 1992, 6:00 P.M., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. PCMIN3/16/92 -13- 3/20/92