Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout110491 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1991 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order Monday, November 4, 1991, 6:00 P.M., at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman John E. Hoagland. PRESENT: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Also present were Assistant city Attorney John Cavanaugh, Director of Planning Gary Thornhill, Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske, Planner Mark Rhoades, Deputy City Engineer Doug Stewart, Robert Righetti, Department of Public Works, Gary King, Park Development Coordinator, and Minute Clerk Gail Zigler. PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSION BUSINESS Approval of Agenda CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND reviewed the agenda and advised that Items 4 and 5 are recommended for continuance by staff; however, the public hearing would be opened on these two items. COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to approve the agenda, seconded by COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 2. Minutes 2.2 Approval of minutes of October 21, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting as mailed. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to delete second paragraph on Page 7, first motion made by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None TPCMINll/4/91 -1- 11/6/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE~ November 4t 1991 NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE NO. 24/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP 13) 3.3 Proposal for tenant improvements of an existing structure within the M-SC Zone for use as an indoor shooting range with accompanying retail sales of firearms and ammunition. MARK RMOADES presented the staff report. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 6:15 P.M. JIM BRANSON, 42245 Sarah Way, Temecula, applicant, gave the Commission a brief description of the proposed facility and it's functions. COMMISSIONER FANEY moved to direct staff to Approve Substantial Conformance No. 24 subject to the Conditions of Approval, seconded by COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND requested that staff present the following two items together: 4. EXTENSION OF TIME TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22761 4.1 Proposal for second extension of time for a 50 lot residential subdivision on 16.7 acres. Located on the west side of Ynez Road, North of Pierce Lane. 5. EXTENSION OF TIME TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22762 5.1 Proposal for second extension of time for an 80 lot residential subdivision on 28 acres, Specific Plan 180. Located on the west side of Terra Vista Road, South of Ynez Road. MARK RHOADES presented the staff report. Mr. Rhoades advised that staff has requested a continuance to December 16, 1991, to allow the applicant time to complete the Engineering Department's erosion control requirements. TPCMINll/4/91 -2- 11/6/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 4, 1991 ROBERT RIGHETTI provided an update on the progress of this project. Mr. Righetti advised that staff had met with the applicant and their lender regarding finishing the erosion control and construction of preliminary drainage devices and that the lender has indicated that they will agree to cooperate with the contractor to make sure the funds are there to complete the work. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF asked if there were heavy rains prior to the December 16, 1991 deadline, would there be adequate erosion control in place. ROBERT RIGHETTI indicated that currently there is not adequate protection; however, staff feels that in lieu of calling the bonds and having the City complete the work, which would require some time, it is best to work with the applicant and their lender. Mr. Righetti added that if the erosion control is not complete prior to December 16, 1991, then staff will follow through with drawing on the bond and recommend denial to the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 6:20 P.M. LARRY SMITH, representing the applicant, Coleman Homes, advised that the applicant is currently working with the lender and joint venture partner to initiate the early stages of the erosion control plan. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF asked if the applicant felt they could get the improvements in place by December 16, 1991. LARRY SMITH advised that portions of the plan include completing the storm drain system; however, that will not be in place, but the erosion control portion will be complete. The following individuals requested that the Commission deny Second Extension of Time for Tentative Tract No. 22761 and Tentative Tract No. 22762 for reasons relating to the developer's inability to resolve homeowner concerns regarding unconstructed project amenities and failure to provide for erosion control: MIKE MARTELL, 43750 Buckeye Road, Temecula. ROBERT LEDEE, 43738 Buckeye Road, Temecula. ARLENE GRABAU, 43656 Buckeye Road, Temecula. FRANK R~GUSA, 43682 Buckeye Road, Temecula. GREG DAIGLE, 43692 Butternut Drive, Temecula. STEVE GANZ, 44104 Quiet Meadow Road, Temecula. ELEANOR SMITH, 43658 Buckeye Road, Temecula. TpCMINll/4/91 -3- 11/6/91 PLANNING COM~ISSION MINUTES November 4, 1991 MARK MCCORMICK, 29850 Gateview Court, Temecula. DAVID CARR, 43660 Buckeye Drive, Temecula, presented the Commission with photographs of property damage as a result of the developers inability to follow through with proper erosion control. STEVE WILLIAMSON, 29840 Gateview Court, Temecula. JEAN STIMER, 43659 Buckeye, Temecula, requested an explanation of the continuance process. SIDNEY KUTCHUK, 43863 Butternut, Temecula. RICHARD COOK, 44065 Sheldon Court, Temecula. LARRY SMITH stated that Coleman Homes understands that continuing the map is contingent upon putting in place a erosion control plan. He added that all the homeowners that are present purchased from the Williams Company and that Coleman Homes was not obligated to construct the recreation center until the three hundredth home of Rancho Highlands and that the homeowners have been advised of this at previous Board meetings of the Homeowner's Association. Mr. Smith added that the Conditions of Approval of the Specific Plan stipulate that the builder has the option of designating parks facilities within the project either public or private. GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission that the Specific Plan stipulates that the park and recreation center be in place prior to recordation of any sub-division in Phase Three. Both of these tracts fall within Phase Three. LARRY SMITH advised that there Specific Plan that had been staff. was an amendment to the provided to engineering CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND requested that a copy be included in the next agenda package on this item. GARY THORNHILL gave a brief summary of the time extension process. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to continue Tentative Tract No. 22761 and 22762 to the meeting of December 16, 1991, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None TPCMINll/4/91 -4- 11/6/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 4, 1991 CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND declared a recess at 7:00 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 7:10 P.M. 6. PARCEL MAP 25139 6.6 Proposal to create 66 commercial/industrial parcels on a 97 acre site in the M-SC Zone. Located west of Diaz Road and South of Cherry Street. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stepped down due to a conflict of interest. DEBBIE UBNOSKE presented the staff report. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND advised that he had received a letter from Murrieta's City Manager, requesting that the Commission continue this item to allow their City time to perform traffic studies. CHAIRM~N HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 7:15 P.M. MAX URESOL, 9968 Hybrid Street, San Diego, representing the applicant, indicated the applicant's concurrence with the staff report; however, requested modification to Condition 21, Line 3, adding "at the discretion of the archeologist, a Native American be present". COMMISSIONER FORD advised that he had met with the applicant and reviewed the grading that he had questioned during the previous hearing for this item. Mr. Ford questioned staff whether some of the roads had been down graded to 45 mph due to the road radius not being standard. DOUG STEWART stated that he was not aware that the design specifications of the roads required a compromise in speed volumes. COMMISSIONER FORD also requested that staff condition the applicant on the following: 1) That any oak trees lost as a result of development be replaced at a 10:1 ratio. 2) Work with the map on an approximate 1230 elevation on the base line topo. 3) That staff work with the applicant to create right in/right out only access at some of the driveways on the circulation road. TPCMINll/4/91 -5- 11/6/91 PLANNIN~ COMMISSION MINUTES November 4, 1991 COMMISSIONER FORD moved to close the public hearing at 7:25 P.M. and recommend that the City Council Adopt the Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 25139 and Adopt Resolution No. 91- (next) approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 25139 subject to the Conditions of Approval along with the modifications to the Condition for the oak trees as follows, "Prior to the issuance of grading permits, applicant shall relocate and transplant all specimen oak trees. A qualified arborist shall prepare a report outlining the relocation and replanting procedures. In the event the trees do not survive transplanting, the applicant shall be required to replant ten 24" box oak trees for every one lost", staff to work with map on the 1230 elevation on the base line topo, and condition added by transportation department at the previous hearing as follows, "Prior to recordation of the final map, developer shall provide bus turnouts with pedestrian entrance.", seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY, who questioned the condition for right in/right out only access on the circulation road. Commissioner Ford asked for staff's comments. ROBERT RIGHETTI stated that the applicant is required to prepare a stripping plan that will be directed by the transportation department and if the Commission wants staff to keep that in mind, they can do that; however, staff would hesitate to set specifics at this time. Mr. Righetti added that staff is trying to incorporate shared driveways. MAX URESOL concurred with the changes to the modifications to the conditions. AYES: 4 COM}{ISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN:i COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff PARCEL MAP 25408 7.7 Proposal to create 20 commercial/industrial parcels on a 36 acre site in the M-SC zone. DEBBIE UBNOSKE presented the staff report. COMMISSIONER FORD stated that he would recommend the same modifications as previously stated on Item 6. TPCMINll/4/91 -6- 11/6/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 4t 1991 CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 7:30 P.M. ED BEECH, 44601 Harvey Way, Hemet, representing the applicant, concurred with the modifications to the Conditions of Approval. COMMISSIONER FORD moved to close the public hearing at 7:25 P.M. and recommend that the City Council Adopt the Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 25408 and Adopt Resolution No. 91- [next) approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 25408 subject to the Conditions of Approval along with the modifications to the Condition for the oak trees as follows, "Prior to the issuance of grading permits, applicant shall relocate and transplant all specimen oak trees. A qualified arborist shall prepare a report outlining the relocation and replanting procedures. In the event the trees do not survive transplanting, the applicant shall be required to replant ten 24" box oak trees for every one lost", staff to work with map on the 1230 elevation on the base line topo, and condition added by transportation department at the previous hearing as follows, "Prior to recordation of the final map, developer shall provide bus turnouts with pedestrian entrances.". Seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN:i COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND advised that he had received the letter from the City of Murrieta requesting that the City of Temecula Planning Commission continue their action on these two items and although the Commission did not postpone their action, it was not meant to mean that the city of Temecula was going to ignore it's neighboring communities to the North; however, this map has been in process for quite some time and the letter from Murrieta was rather open ended without any real definite time frames for the completion of their traffic studies and therefore the Planning Commission could not support any further continuance. Chairman Hoagland added that the action was a recommendation to the City Council. CHAIRI~a~N HOAGLAND asked that staff present the following two items together: TPCMINll/4/91 -7- 11/6/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 4, 1991 8. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23372 8.8 Proposal for extension of time for a 66 Lot Condominium and apartment subdivision. 469 dwelling units on 46.9 acres. Located north of Rancho California Road, westside of Kaiser Parkway. 9. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23373 9.9 Proposal for extension of time for 348 condominium units on 23.5 acres with an additional 7.5 acres of commercial. MARK RHOADES presented the staff report and clarified that the recommendation was for the first extension of time. COMMISSIONER FAHEY questioned approving the extension without erosion control in place. MARK RHOADES advised that the expiration date of the map was November 8, 1991. ROBERT RIGHETTI advised that the applicant is in a financial situation with their lender which they are currently working on; however, the first extension of time needs to be acted upon simply to keep the map alive, and staff wants to get it to City Council. He added that staff has a number of issues that will be addressed with the second extension of time, and this applicant will be required to make improvements to Margarita, as well as other issues, prior to recordation; however, at this point staff wants the erosion control issues resolved, but staff does not want to forward it to City Council until the condition is satisfied. COMMISSIONER FAHEY questioned if there was adequate park land. GARY KING advised that all the City could request at this time was Quimby Fees; however, staff did offer the owners the opportunity to offer land in lieu of the fees and the applicant expressed their lack of interest, as well as, staff received notification prior to the meeting, the applicants opposition to paying the Quimby Fees. COMMISSIONER FAHEY expressed a concern for approving this extension without addressing staff's concerns that the tract will have an impact on public health and safety, which staff will bring forth with the request for a second extension of time. TPCMINll/4/91 -8- 11/6/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 4, 1991 MARK RHOADES advised that due to the time constraints involved with the expiration, staff is trying to keep the map alive to address these issues. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 7:45 P.M. CHARLES GILL, 600 B Street, Suite 1100, San Diego, representing the Margarita Village Development Company. In regards to the fees, Mr. Gill advised that the project is part of a development agreement which stipulates specific contractual obligations. The applicant is just advising the Commission that they will continue to work with the City on these fees. In regards to the grading and implementation, Mr. Gill stated that the applicant has indicated that the erosion control and grading measures are starting to be implemented; however, they are not sure if it will be completed by November 8, 1991, but the Margarita Village Development Company has received authorization from their lender to spend the necessary funds to complete the work. The following individuals requested that the Commission deny First Extension of Time for VTT 23372 and VTT 23373 based on the changes to what was originally presented as a retirement community, the proposed densities and the impact those densities will have on traffic and schools and the developer's inability to provide adequate erosion control to date: CARL ABBOTT, 31987 Vineyard, Temecula. ANA BLANCO, 31748 Corte Tortosa, Temecula. THOMAS BENTLEY, 41473 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula. RAPLH BROWNELL, 41487 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula. J.R. SHEKOSKI, 31999 Vineyard Avenue, Temecula. WILLIAM BACCUS, 41571 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula. Mr. Baccus presented the Commission with a letter requesting that the Commission deny the request and presented the Commission with a petition. MARY PHILLIPS, 41532 Chenin Blanc, Temecula. MYRA GONSALVES, 41556 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula. STEVEN CURNOW, 41636 Chablis Court, Temecula. C~AIG EVANS, 41390 Rue Jadot, Temecula. TIM KILFOYLE, 41529 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula. MARTHA KARATT, 41752 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula. KEN CHRISTENSEN, 31903 Vineyard Avenue, Temecula. The applicant's representative declined their opportunity to rebut. TPCMINll/4/91 -9- 11/6/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 4, 1991 COMMISSIONER FAHEY asked what the Commission's options were in taking action on this item. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that the Commission could deny the extension of time, approve the request for extension of time or the Commission could conditionally approve the extension. In relation to the park fees, the Development Agreement is not clear on what is addressed with respect to park fees; however, at this point, the City is taking the position that those fees are appropriate, and the City Council can listen to the applicant's argument further and make their decision. COMMISSIONER FAHEY questioned what findings the Commission would have to make to deny based on a health and safety issue. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that the denial would have to be supported by specific findings or make the finding that the proposed project is not likely to be consistent with the future general plan based on these findings. ROBERT RIGHETTI advised that if an extension of time is applied for, the applicant has sixty days from the time that the map would have expired to record the map under the original Conditions of Approval. If they do not record the map within sixty days, they must have that extension of time in order to keep the map alive for another year. He advised that this map does not have an approved extension of time yet, and if it had been approved it would be running out on November 8, 1991. With the conditions this applicant has in front of them, they will not be able to record the map in the sixty day period. The applicant will have to get that second extension of time and therefore the map will come before the Commission again very quickly. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to close the public hearing at 8:45 P.M. and Adopt Resolution 91-(next) recommending that the City Council ADDrove the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23372, contingent upon the implementation of corrective grading and erosion control measures to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the City Council approval, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. CHAIRMAN HOA~LAND questioned Item No. 4-C-6 on Page 8 of the Resolution which states that the Planning Commission makes the following finding, that Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23372 is compatible with surrounding land uses, and TPCMINll/4/91 -10- 11/6/91 P~ANNIN~ COI~4ISSION NINUTES November 4~ 1991 stated that he had a problem accepting this. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF requested that his motion include that Item No. 4-C-6 be deleted from the Resolution, with concurrence by COMMISSIONER FA~EY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None COI~4ISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to close the public hearing at 8:45 P.M. and Adomt Resolution 91-(next) recommending that the City Council ApProve the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23373, contingent upon the implementation of corrective grading and erosion control measures to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the City Council approval, and deleting Item 4-C-6 of the Resolution, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT GARY THORNHILL advised of the following: * The City Council is requesting a joint meeting and asked for the Commissioner's availability in late November or early December. * Community General Plan workshops are on schedule. * Permanent staffing has been filled, will be phasing out contract staff in the next couple of weeks. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION * COMMISSIONER FAHEY asked for a list of Planning Department employees and their functions. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF expressed a concern that there is going to be many more developments that have not provided adequate erosion control to date. OTHER BUSINESS None TPCMINll/4/91 -ll- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 4. 1991 ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to adjourn at 9:00 P.M., seconded by COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on Monday, November 18, 1991, 6:00 P.M., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. Gary Thornhill, Director o~ Planning TPCMINll/4/91 -12- 11/6/91