Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout080690 PC Minutes"" ZCEIVED $EP 1 2 1990 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA HELD AUGUST 6, 1990 A regular meeting of the Temecula Planning Commission was called to order at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California at 6:00 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson 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 and Gail Ziglet, Minute Clerk. PUBLIC. COMMENT Frank KleiD, 30180 Santiago Road, Temecula, addressed the Commission with his concerns regarding the traffic problems in the city and the use of non-tethered balloons for advertising. He also requested that the Consnission look at the aesthetic appearance of some cylindrical tanks structures constructed off of Front Street which he suggested be camaflouged in some way. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Minutes 1.1 Comm_issioner Chiniaeff entertained a motion to approve the minutes of July 16, 1990, with the following amendments. Item 2, page 2, last paragraph, change the wording in line three to read "west boundary". Item 2, page 3, third paragraph, Commissioner Ford requested a clarification of his position regarding the the block wall on the southern boundary of the project. Staff's recommendation was to eliminate the wall and provide off-site landscape improvements and maintenance; however, Commissioner Ford wanted to reiterate the Commission's acceptance as long as the applicant can work out landscape and maintenance of the area with the surrounding property owners. If not, the applicant would be required to construct the block wall on the southern boundary. HI]lUTES 8106190 -1- 8/14/90 PLANNING COMMISSION N!NUTES &UGUST §, 1990 The adjournment of the meeting of July 16, 1990, was amended to reflect the next scheduled meeting to be the joint meeting between the City Council and the Planning Commission on Monday, July 30, 1990. Commissioner Ford moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland and carried unanimously. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford HoaglandGhiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC HEARING ITENS 2. Plot Plan No. 1, Change of Zone No. 3 2.1 Sam Reed, Senior Planner, presented Staff's Report. He stated that the applicant, Advanced Cardiovascular Systems (ACS), was proposing to construct office and manufacturing facilities, a tri-leve] parking structure, a service equipment housing structure, and reconfigure and repave the existing parking and asphalt areas to accommodate required parking and landscaping. Additionally, applicant is requesting a change of the maximum height limitation from 50 to 75 feet. John Middleton clarified some of the information in the staff report regarding the traffic study. He stated that the impact reflected was based on full employment and that Wilbur Smith and Associates, traffic engineer for the project, had prepared an addendum to the report looking at phased employment. Staff concluded that because ACS operates on three shifts, the addition of employees would be at low levels until the improvements could be constructed for the Mello-Roos. Based on these findings, staff added Condition 33A which states at such time that ACS implements Phase 2, the Mello-Roos improvements would be constructed or ACS would construct the necessary improvements. MI~U?~.S 8/06/90 -2- 8/14190 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 6, 1990 David Olsen, Facilities Manager, ACS, 45981 Classic Way, Temecula, provided a brief video of the proposed project site. Mr. Olsen introduced the architects representing ACS, A1 Thomas, project manager, Ehrlich Rominger, 5000 Birch Street, Suite Newport Beach, California. Mr. Thomas spoke briefly in favor of the building expansion and introduced David Matthis Meyer, senior project manager, also of Ehrlich Rominger. Mr. Meyer presented exhibits of the proposed ACS facilities and descriptions of the buildings, materials· etc. Larry Markham, developer for the project, Markham and Associates, 41.750 Winchester Road, Temecula, addressed the Co~m~ission on some modifications to the staff report concerns: page 6, applicant would prefer or recommend deleting "no access will be allowed on Apricot Road": page 8, these improvements would be phased per the occupancy of the building; and regarding Conditions of Approval: No. 7, applicant offered an alternative proposing that the number of parking spaces as referred to in the count based on the employee analysis would be used for the required parking unless there would be a change in land use on the site where you could not designate the number of employees; Condition No. 18, applicant does not fee] these fees were applicable, due to the site presently being one large parking area; Condition No. 33A, applicant accepted of interim road improvements on a phased basis; Conditions No. 36, 42 and 48, applicant requested these items be included in the funding for the Community Facilities District (CFD) at such time they would take place. Commissioner Chiniaeff opened the item for public comment. The following individuals spoke in favor of the project: Allan McDonald, 43466 Manzano Drive, Temecula, representing the Temecula Chamber of Commerce. Jim Allmon, 43954 Gatewood Way, Temecula. Bill Bopf, 29824 Front Street, Suite 106, Temecula. MINUTES 8/06190 -3- 8/14/90 PL/~NING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 6, 1990 Commissioner Ford verified that Mr. Markham would include Condition No. 49, in the CFD funding items and Mr. Markham confirmed that it would. Commissioner Hoagl.and asked for clarification of Condition No. 44 by staff. Mr. Markham requested that Condition No. 44 to be worded to say "as determined by the City Engineer." Commissioner Chiniaef.f questioned staff whether or not the Commission could waive the fee for the SKR in relation to Condition No. 18. Gary Thornhill directed the guestion to Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Mr, Cavanaugh advised the Commission that they were at liberty to waive the fee; however, the City Attorney's office had reviewed the ordinance and exemptions to the ordinance and concluded that the project does not fall under the exemptions for waiving the fee, therefore it was the Airy Attorney's opinion that this project should comply with the ordinance. Gary Thornhill addressed a couple of comments Mr. Markham made to the staff report. In relation to the issue of no access to Apricot Road, Mr. Thornhill stated that staff's concerns were with traffic congestion and turning conflict however, they might suggest right-in and right-out turns for the traffic engineer's ultimate decision. Also, regarding Condition No. 7 for parking requirements, Mr. Thornhill stated that the Condition could be amended to read, "a minimum of 1,102 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with the sections of the codes; however, if the applicant can demonstrate via a parking study, that a lesser number of parking spaces would satisfy the concerns of the Planning Department, it would be acceptable to staff. John Middleton stated that Condition 48 was for area wide improvements throughout the city and was being applied to all developments at this time. Doug Stewart, deputy traffic engineer, Condition 48 was established to cover costs of improvedments not directly required by this facility. MINUTES 8/06/90 -4- 8/14/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 6, 1990 Commissioner Chiniaeff asked if the fee had been imposed at this time by the City Council and, if not, could the fee be levied by the Commission. Mr. Stewart advised the that the City Attorney had reviewed Condition 48 and the wording was directly from him. Larry Markham suggested that as long as ACS receives credit for any improvements that will be defined Jn the overall city program which they are doing as part of the CFD, Condition 48 would be acceptable. Mr. Stewart stated that this would be acceptable to the city engineers as well. Commissioner Fahey moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Hoag]and. Commissioner Fahey moved to approve staff's recommendation and recommend that City Council adopt a Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 1 and Change of Zone No. 3, approve Change of Zone No. 3 and approve Plot Plan No. 1, subject to the following: Planning Department Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan No. 1, items 1 thru 6 to remain as written, item 7 amended to provide a minimum of 1,102 parking spaces or provide a parking study which determines the precise number of parking spaces required, items 8 thru 35 to remain as written, item 36 to be included in the CFD, items 37 thru 41 to remain as written, item 42 to be included in the CFD, item 43 to remain as written, item 44 to read "as determined by City Engineer", items 45 thru 47 to remain as written, item 48 to state credit will be given to ACS for any costs already incurred for this item, item 49 to be included in the CFD, items 50 thru 60 to remain as written and to include item 33A. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ford. Commissioner Hoagland moved to amend the motion presented by Commissioner Fahey by deleting item 18. Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh advised the Commission that MINUTES 8/06/90 -5- 8/14/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTgS AUGUST 6, 1990 once a motion has been made and seconded, there needs to be a vote on the motion; however, if someone wishes to withdraw the motion and state a new motion, they may do so. Commissioner Fahey declined to withdraw the motion. The motion was carried unanimously. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford Hoagland,Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 3. Tentative Tract No, 23209 3.1 Gary Thornhill brought it to the Commission's attention that the staff report referred to the City Council and should have referred to the Planning Con~nission. Scott Wright presented staff's report for the subdivision of an 80 acre site into 257 parcels with a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet, which lies in close proximity to Callaway Vineyards. He stated that the project was approved by the County Planning Department in February, 1990, with the recommendation that the City Council receive and file; however, the Planning Staff had a number of concerns and wrote the staff report as a recommendation for denial to the City Council. City Council referred the item to the Planning Commission for their recommendation. Mr. Wright reviewed the tentative tract map and pointed out the various concerns staff has with the development. Mr. Wright indicated that the Planning Staff could recommend approval of the project with a minimum lot size of one-half acre or as a planned residential development with common open areas adjacent to the vineyards which would allow for lots smaller than one-half acre. He concluded with Staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission deny the application for Tentative Tract No. 23209 and adopt a resolution incorporating the recommendation for denial. Commissioner Chiniaeff asked if the item was coming to the Planning Commission on an appeal. MINUTES 8/06/90 -6- 8/14/90 PLANNING CONNISSION MINUTES AUGUST 6, 1990 Gary Thornhill stated that this was a recommendation from county staff which the Planning Department reviewed and modified. Richard Cruzen, project engineer, Alba Engineering, 41890 Enterprise Circle South, Temecula, responded to the concerns addressed by staff in the their report. He stated that the plan was originally submitted for 304 lots and that the minimum lot size for the zone was 7200 square feet. They modified their plans for the county to reduce the number of homes as well as increase the minimum lot size to 8,000 square feet. He stated that due to the grade on the surrounding projects and streets, they had no choice but to grade at the proposed levels. He also addressed the issue of the SKR and SWAP, and felt they were in conformance regarding both issues. Mr. Cruzen explained that only seven (7) of the lots are adjacent to the vineyards and they made these their largest lots. Michael Lundin, a partner in the project, expressed his confusion regarding to why this project was being presented to the City Planning Department due to the fact that they already had County Approval. He stated that he felt the development was appropriate for the area and that they had worked very hard with the County Planning Department to create a desirable development which addressed the concerns of county staff. The following individuals spoke in opposition of the proposed development: Ray McLaughlin, 30021 Front Street, Temecula. Audrey Cilurzo, Cilurzo Winery, 41220 Calle Contento, Temecu]a. Jim Allmon, 43954 Gatewood Way, Temecula. Ray Henderson, 31832 Poole Court, Temecula. Da!e Wooding, 40979 Alton Court, Temecula. Mr. Wooding presented a signed petition to the Planning Department opposing the development. a~o?~.s 8/o6/90 -?- 8/14/9o PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 6, 1990 Pat Leohey, 40850 Alton Court, Temecula. Mary Jones, 32085 Vista Del Monte, Temecula. Carol Killingsworth, 32185 Vista De] Monte, Temecula. Kenton CrowIcy, 40970 Alton Court, Temecula. Craig Weaver, Callaway Winery, 32720 Rancho California Road, Temecula. Jon Leiberg, attorney representing Callaway Winery, 27349 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 213, Temecula. Mr. Leiberg stated they were in opposition of the development due to the fact that the plans failed to provide an adequate buffer between the project site and the vineyard and the tract interferes with the natural air drainage which would create horticultural problems for the vineyard. He added that the tentative tract proposes to buffer 8,000 sguare feet with a 20 to 40 foot landscape strip and block wall which they feel w/l] lead to future conflict between Callaway Vineyards and project residents. He also stated that the proposed earth movement could block the flow of air through the natural water courses which flow westerly through the vineyards and accross this tract. Mr. Leiberg provided the Commission with photographs of the vineyards and excerpts from articles relating to studies performed on air flow and horticultural problems to support these findings. Commissioner Ford questioned Callaway' flow was blocked. s options if the air Mr. Weaver stated that they would have to utilize wind turbines for air flow. Commissioner Ford asked if there was a Right-To-Farm provision and Mr. Weaver stated that there was. Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that the grades on the La Serena tract were the same grade as the vineyard and questioned if they would oppose the same grade level for this tract. #I~TES 8105190 -8- 8/14/90 PLANNING COmmISSION NINUTR-S ~UGUST 6, 1990 Mr. LeJberg stated that they would not oppose the same grade level. Gary Fatland, Marlborough Development, 27851 Rancho California Road, Temecula. Mr. Fatland stated that approximately three years ago when Marborough was drawing their tentative tract map, the applicant was also drawing their tentative map, and approached Marlborough Development, for their approval in utilizing their property for drainage and also for grade acceptance. Mr. FatJand stated at that time they gave their tentative acceptance; however, they do not agree with proposed grade of this tentative tract map which they feel could have a negative affect on their project and wou]d not give a grade acceptance letter as presented. He also stated that they would also have to see the proposed drainage for the plan before giving their approval. Mr. Cruzen addressed some of the concerns expressed in opposition of the project. He stated that he felt they had satisfactorily addressed all of staff's concerns, as we]] as the Commission's, and encouraged the their approval. Commissioner Fahey explained that the City Planning Department was reviewing tb~s item was due to the concerns the City Council had expressed upon receiving this item. Gary Thornhill brought to the Commission's attention a memo from Ross Geller stating that the Commission's action would be a specific recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Fahey moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland. Commissioner Ford moved to approve staff's recommendation and recommend to the City Council to deny Tentative Tract No. 23209, seconded by Commissioner Fahey and carried unanimously. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland,Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None MINg?ES 8/06/90 -9- 8/14/90 PLANNING CON~]SSION NINUTES AUGUST 6, 1990 4, Tentative Tract No. 23990, Plan No. 11222 4.1 Gary Thornhill advised the Commission that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the August 20, 1990 Planning Commission meeting, to allow for a public hearing. Commissioner Blair moved to continue Tentative Tract No. 23990, Plan No. 11222, to August 20, 1990, seconded by Commissioner Ford and carried unanimously. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford Hoagland,Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEI~S 5. Appeal No. 6 5.1 Gary Thornhill advised the Commission that the applicant has reguested that this item be continued to allow for more discussion with Planning Department. Commissioner Fahey moved to continue Appeal No. 6 to August 20, 1990, seconded by Commissioner Ford and carried by the following vote. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland DISCUSSION ITEMS 6. Interim Change of Zone Policy Gary Thornhill reguested that the Commission make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the interim policy for Zone Changes. After discussion, the Commission recommended that they see the re-zoning independent of the application; however, they would like the flexibility to review MINUTES 8/06/90 -10- 8/14/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 6, 1990 the application if it looked like something the Commission could consider. Commissioner Blair added that they would want to know if there was a trailing case application at the time of the zone change action by the Commission. Commissioner Chiniaeff clarified the Commission's point by stating that the decision would be based on the use at the particular zone, and if the Council did not approve of the use, do not approve the zone change, unless it was conditional. Gary Thornhill also advised the Commission on the status of the following items: Agenda Packets The Planning Department is attempting to get these out by Wednesdays and they are in the process of developing a draft schedule of the agenda to be distributed prior to the agenda packages being issued for the Commission's review. Staff made the recommendation that "Approval of the Agenda" be added to the agenda items. Resolutions The City Attorney, Scott Field, has drafted a set of Resolutions to be used by the Planning Commission and the City Council, for adopting resolutions ~n the future. John Cavanaugh explained that state law requires that the time of appeal starts at the date the Commission makes an order, therefore the purpose of the Resolution is to create a clear record of the action. SKR A committee has been formed, and has recommended to the member agencies that Temecula become a participant and directed these agencies to sign the GPA and we should be a participant in the next few weeks. Mr. Thornhill stated that the 1OA permit has been issued by the government however, the State has modified their permit and it will be a couple of weeks before it will be resolved. #I~?!~S 8/06/90 -11- 8/14/90 PLANNING COMNISSION MINUTES AUGUST 6, 1990 ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Chini. aeff entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 P.M. Commissioner Hoagland moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Ford and carried unanimously. Next scheduled meeting to be held Monday, August 20, 1990, 6:00 P.M. at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula. ~INUTES 8106t90 -12- 8114/90