Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout010493 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JANUARY 4, 1993 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order Monday, January 4, 1993, 6:00 P.M., at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Linda Fahey. PRESENT: ABSENT: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner John Meyer and Minute Clerk Gall Zigler. PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Aaenda It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Ford to approve the agenda as mailed. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair Approval of Minutes of November 16, 1992 Planning Commission meeting Commissioner Hoagland amended Page 9 to reflect Commissioner Blair absent during the vote. It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Ford to approve the minutes of November 16, 1992 as amended. The motion carried as follows: PCMIN1/04/93 -1- 1/20/93 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 4, 1993 AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Hoagland, Fahey NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff Commissioner Blair arrived at 6:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING 3. Vestin.q Tentative Tract Map No. 26941, Change of Zone No. 22 Planner Craig Ruiz presented the staff report. Craig advised of the following changes to the Conditions of Approval: #4 Delete //10 Include wording that will require trees to be minimum 24" box in size. Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 6:20 P.M. Ernie Egger, IPC, 27447 Enterprise Circle West, Temecula, representing the applicant, concurred with the staff report and modifications to the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Hoagland suggested that cattle not be allowed at the equestrian style lots. He also expressed concern regarding the transition from the smaller lots to the larger equestrian estates. Chairman Fahey expressed concern regarding the proposed grading and the developers ability to maintain the rolling hills aspect of the area. John Wayland, 33342 Pauba Road, Temecula, representing the Pauba Ranchos (aka Country Roads) Association, advised that he had received his first notification of the project on December 27, 1992 and requested additional time to review concerns regarding the densities, access to the project on streets currently maintained by the property owners, liability relating to equestrian trails, and the private landing strip which is currently in the location of the proposed project. Fred Hammersly, 41999 Via Del Monte, Temecula, questioned the proposed lighting for the project. Ernie Egger stated that the project developer is very sensitive to the desires of the surrounding property owners to retain the "night lighting" they currently enjoy. Mr. Egger added that the project has been designed with substantial equestrian trails. PCMIN 1/04/93 -2- 1/20/93 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 4, 1993 Joanne Gebhardt, 48282 Via Del Monte, Temecula, asked that communications be open between City staff, the developer and the Homeowners Association. Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that he was unclear as to why the request was being presented and preferred to review the whole map prior to making any modifications. Commissioner Ford recommended modifying Condition 1 l-F, regarding Lot 8 and Lot 9, to read "...after constructed or obstructed"; and Condition 67 regarding Crown Hill Drive, should read "If Crown Hill Drive is not constructed and accepted ...... shall be constructed and accepted prior to the first occupancy". Commissioner Hoagland stated he felt that private roads in this type of development are inappropriate. Gary Thornhill suggested that the Conditions of Approval be amended to require a navigation easement to be placed on the property and a White Report be provided to potential property owners. It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff to close the public hearing at 7:05 P.M. and continue Change of Zone No. 22, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26941 off calendar to allow the applicant the opportunity to address the following concerns expressed by the Commission: the E.I.R. suggesting the planting of tall trees to provide nesting, the need for conditions pertaining to the navigation easement, concerns regarding lots created by the cribwalls around the lots, maintenance of the open space areas, traffic control if the through road is maintained as a private road, buffering between the project and higher density residences, grading, as well as direction that the applicant meet with the surrounding property owners to address their concerns. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland, Fahey NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PCMIN I/04/93 General Plan Consideration of Environmental Impact Report. John Meyer presented the staff report. Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 7:15 P.M. Eric Brown, 45673 Clubhouse Drive, Temecula, representing the Rainbow Canyon Homeowners Association, presented the Commission with a letter commending them -3- 1/20/93 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 4, 1993 on their "Open Space" designation of the parcel where the Rainbow Canyon Water Park is proposed and asked that the Planning Commission limit the Open Space area in question, to conservation or passive recreation zones. Lettie Boggs, representing the Temecula Valley Unified School District, stated that the language of the E.I.R. as amended has the potential for a very negative impact on the school district and asked that the language of the E.I.R., page 625, 4.1 and 4.2 be amended to require new developments to be coordinated with the availability of school infrastructure. The Commission reviewed each of the "Listed Environmental Impacts" and accompanying "Level of Significance After Mitigation" with no modifications or amendments. Regarding Transportation/Circulation, Commissioner Hoagland suggested that City Staff require all regulatory land use agencies to provide information regarding any development that impacts transportation/circulation. Gary Thornhill agreed that this could be added to implementation. Commissioner Hoagland asked that the Commission reconsider the standards of how the City interfaces with the school district. Commissioner Hoagland stated that he supported placing the school district in the same category as any other utility when the developer has to sign-off that they have successfully meet the requirements of the school district. Commissioner Ford stated that he would agree to the modification if the school district would agree to certain parameters. Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that he would support a modification to Goal 5, to establish a relationship between the City and the school district that provides that the City would engage in as much information exchange as possible. It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Blair to direct staff to work on policies 4.1,4.2 and 4.3, establishing the school district as another utility infrastructure where the school district would make a decision and provide the City with a sign-off that the developer has mitigated any potential impacts. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Hoagland, Fahey NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Ford Chairman Fahey declared a recess at 8:10 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 8:25 P.M. PCMIN 1/04/93 -4o 1/20/93 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 4, 1993 There was no response from the Commission on written comments received by staff regarding the General Plan. The overall consensus of the Commission was unanimous approval of the Environmental Impact Report. Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 8:35 P.M. Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula, requested that the description for Specific Plan Area Zone 1 reflect the language in the matrix, a mixed use plan with a specific plan designation. Additionally, Mr. Markham advised that the acreage under Area One should be 55 acres, and the language under the professional office designation (page 2.33) be included under the matrix description. Mr. Markham questioned the timing of the Chaparral Study area. Concerning the area on the ridgeline, the lowest density designation goes from 0 - .1, however, the SWAP plan allows it to go down to .2. The consensus of the Commission was to leave the language as written by staff with no modifications. Ernie Eggar, representing Old Vail Partners property, asked that a modification be made establishing a designation for a specific plan overlay and/or a mixed use designation. Craig Johnson, attorney representing Scotty McDowell (Margarita Road property owner), asked the Commission to reconsider the medium density residential designation, a downgrade from high density residential as proposed under SWAP. Mr. Johnson added that the property is involved in an eminent domain action and any down zoning of the property while the City Council is considering eminent domain could be considered a down zoning for the sole purpose of diminishing the value of the property during the pending litigation. The Commission made no modifications to the Preferred Draft Land Use designations. It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to close the public hearing at 9:00 P.M. and continue approval of the Draft General Plan to the meeting of January 25, 1993. The motion was unanimously carried. PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT Gary Thornhill recommended that the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting for January 18, 1993 be rescheduled due to the Martin Luther King holiday. The Commission unanimously approved January 25, 1993 as the next scheduled Commission Meeting. PCMIN 1/04/93 -5- 1/20/93 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 4, 1993 Gary Thornhill advised the next Old Town Steering Committee meeting will be held on January 7, 1993. PLANNING COMMISSIONER REPORT None OTHER BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff to adjourn at 9:10 P.M. The motion was unanimously approved. The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission is cancelled and a special meeting will be held on Monday, January 25, 1993, at 6:00 P.M., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. ~hair~n PCMIN 1/04/93 -6- 1/20/93 HIGGS, FLETCHER & MACK ATTORNEYS AT LAW 613 WEST VALLEY PARKWAY SUITE 345 ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA 92025-2552 (619) 743-1201 TELECOPIER (619) 743-9926 Via Messenger MEMBER, AMERICAN LAW FIRM ASSOCIATION SAN DIEGO OFFICE 2000 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDfNG 401 WEST "A" STREET SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92101-79(~ (919) 236-1551 TELECOPIER (619) 696.1410 4 January 1993 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION c/o JOHN MEYER, SENIOR PLANNER CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 43174 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE TEMECULA CA 92590 RE: PROPOSED CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN Members of the Planning Commission: This firm represents the Rainbow Canyon Villages Homeowner's Association ("Association"), which owns property to the north of the site upon which the Rainbow Canyon Water Park ("Park") is proposed. We have reviewed the Draft General Plan and wish to commend the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission for their immense effort and outstanding accomplishment in its production. The Plan appears to be thorough and well-conceived and it promises to provide sound guidance for the new City of Temecula into the next century. In particular, the Association recognizes the wisdom of applying the Open Space ("OS") designation to the proposed Park site and its sur- roundings. The area warrants sensitive treatment due to.(1) its high visibility from both 1-15 and the valley floor below; (2) the presence of sensitive habitats as shown in Figure 15 of the proposed Plan; (3) the presence of sensitive archaeological and paleontolo- gical areas as shown on Figures 5-7 and 5-8 of the proposed Plan; and (4) its utility as a resource conservation or passive recreation area. The Association recognizes, however, that the OS designation does not necessarily ensure that the area will be conserved or treated sensitively. In fact, active recreation zoning could be applied and could allow the development of high intensity commercial enter- prises, such as the proposed Park, which have "recreational" characteristics. CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION c/o JOHN MEYER, SENIOR PLANNER CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4 January 1993 Page Two HIGGS, FLETCHER & MACK The Association adamantly believes t~at commercial enterprises like the proposed Park are contrary to the spirit of the OS designation as applied to the subject area and should under no circumstances be allowed. The Association therefore implores the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the Plan as proposed, but with an addition- al caveat which limits the OS area in question to conservation or passive recreation zones and which completely bars the application of an active recreation zone to the area. In this way, the Planning Commission and City Council can prevent future parties from circum- venting the intent of the OS designation by developing a full-scale commercial enterprise under the auspices of a "recreational park". In this way, the Commission and Council can ensure the "conservation of open space areas for a balance of recreation, scenic enjoyment, and protection of natural resources and features" as mandated in Goal 5 of the proposed Plan's Open Space/Conservation Element. Again, thank you for the continued opportunity to be involved in the General Plan process. Sincerely, HIGGS, FLETCHER & MACK CHARLES LePLA, AICP Land Use Law Clerk pat CC: John Meyer, AICP, Senior Planner Rainbow Canyon Villages Homeowner's Association Allen E. Brogan James Dittman