HomeMy WebLinkAbout082090 PC Minutes MINUTES OF A REGUI,AR MEETING
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
H~I,D AUGUST 20, ]990
A regular meeting of the Temecuia Planning Commission was called to
order at Vail Elementary School, 299]5 Mira I, oma Drive, Temecu]a,
California at 6:10 P.M. The meeting was called to order by
Chairperson Dennis CbJ. nJaeff.
PRESENT: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford
Hoag]and, ChJniaeff
ABSENT: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
Also present were Assistant CJty Attorney John Cavanaugh, Gary
Thornhill, Acting Planning Director, John Middleton, Senior Project
Manager and GaJl Ziglet, Minute Clerk.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Ray McLaugb] in, 30025 Front Street, Temecula, addressed the
commission w.~th his concerns relating to SpecJf.Jc Plan ]99,
Tract Map 23371-10. Mr. McLaughlin advised the Commission
that there has been no final approval of this tract map
and he would I. ike them to look at J.t closely before granting
f~naJ approval . He stated that the org.ina] conceptl~a.] plan
indicated a[ot of. negatives about the project. He presented
the Commission copies of a recent appraisal done on property near
the site which has depreciated in value due to noise, traffic,
DO] Jutjori, etc.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
~1, MINUTES
] ..] Comm.~ssioner CbJnJaeff enterta.~ned a mot]on to approve the
minutes of August 6, ]990, with the following amendments:
Discussion Items, page 11, first paragraph, amended to
read "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 Blair moved to approve the minutes as
amended, seconded by Commissioner Hoagtand and carried
unanimously.
~T/l,8/20/90 -1- 8/2~/90
PLANN]'NC, C.O~.'[ S$.'[ ON ~INUT~,,S
RYES: 5
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS:
AUGUS? 20, ]990
B}air, Fahey,
Ford, Hoagl and,
Cbi ni aeff
COMMISSIONERS: None
PUBT,.] C HF. RR 1NG
Tentative Tract No. 9.3990
Prior to this item being heard, COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF
excused b.~mse'Jf dl~e to a conflict of ~nterest and turned
the qave]. over to Vi. ce Chairman, CO~ISSIONIgR FORD.
Sam Reed, Senior P)anner, presented staff's report on
the subd.~v.~s.~on of ,5,76 acres
lots and one common open s.oace 1. ot, 1. ocated between
I,a Serena Way a~d Maroar~ta Road; on the south side of
Via La Vida. ~e also Orovided a st. ide presentation of
the ~ro!~osed site.
Dean A'.lstrup, aDp)icant, 4~1360 Circle D Court, Temecu)a,
provided sketches of arcb~tectura~ design of the planned
residential struct~lres a[onq with material. samples and
a br~e~ slimmary.
Vincent D.~Donato, 29780 Rven.~da CJma De] So], Temecu]a,
expressed bJs concerns for gradJn(~ that w~.].] have to be
done by the appl. icant as well. as some existing trees which
be Dianted that WOll}d have to be removed by the applicant
and the type of fenc%ng the applicant will be using to
separate the adjacent tracts from this deve}opment.
Robert Kemb].e, 28'165 Sinq].e Oak Drive, Temecula,
representing Robert BeJn, W.~]~.~am Frost and Associates,
indicated that the actual. size of. the site %s 6.32 acres
wJtb a Droposed den.~Jty o.t 4.75 liDits Der acre. He also
stated that the aDpl.%cant and deve[o.Der ~.ntend to work
w.~tb the adjacent Dronetry owners on the ~sslles addressed
by Mr. Dir)onato. Mr. Kembl. e requested the f.o].J. owing
modifications to the Cond.~t.~oDs of Approval : Condition
No. ].3 - (]~) to ref.].ect "at the Buildin~ Permit Stage";
Cond.~t~oD No. ]3.--(])E, c)ar~fJcatJon of this condition
MIN.8/20/90 -2- 9/20/90
re~ardJncl ex.~stJng wood fencing and the wa]] requ.~rements;
Condition No, ].5-H, change condition to read "Building
separation between a] ] buildings exc)udJnq fireplaces
shal. l. not be less than ten (i.0) ~eet: and Condition No.
35, amend Condition to read "At time o~ recordation o~
Gary ThornbJ ]) added the OuJmb¥ Act Fee, which
regu] res the aDD] Jcant to pay the aDD] Jcab]e fee prior
to building permits, as a standard condition.
(lobs MJdd}eton stated that the Engineering Department
wou}d be adding Condition No~ 59, the Road Benef.~t
Condition, and stated that the applicant had been so
adv.J sed.
aobm M.Jdd]eton allso clarified tbe :last sentence of
Condition No. 43 to state "al[ lots shall not be all. owed
to drain onto adjacent tract~ without a recorded gradJn_g
or drainage easement."
Robert gemb)e stated that a]) condJt.~ons as amended by
sta.~ were acceptab]e,
Commissioner Blair asked for staff's comments to the
amendment of the Conditions Of Approval[ by the applicant.
Sam Reed stated that staff woul. d agree to the amendment
ot Cond5 tJ on No. ~1 ,'4 - ( ] ) , as ]ong as approprj ate bonds
are issued if. the grading work i.s done prior to map
recordation: Condition No. .]3- (])F., the easterly wail
requirement coul. d be del. eted; Condition No. ].5 - H, he
would not oppose as long as J.t was within the ordinance
r ec/u.i r ernest.
0o.bn GerrJtsem, Robert Rein, WJ]]Jam Frost and Associates,
requested a clarification of the fence requirements add
the existing wood fence at the bottom of the slope on the
west s~de o~ the property.
Sam Reed stated that staff is requesting that a block watl
of some type be 0oDstrllcted at tbe top of the s)ope.
Commissioner Fahey moved to close the public hearing,
seconded by Commissioner B]aJ r and carrJ ed 11nanJmolls]
M]}I. 8t20f90 -3- 9/20/90
PI,ANN:ING CO~:IS$.~ON ~J:iNIJ'.I'F.S AUGUST 20, ]990
Commissioner Ford stated that be wou}d .}.~ke CondJt.~on No.
}5 . H to rema.~n as recommended by staff. Commissioner
Blair concurred.
CommJssJoner Ford allso requested that the Conditions
ref}ect the modification of street and }andscape
J.mprovetnents for Lot 31. be completed prior to occupancy
Of any )ORS.
Sam Reed stated that ..~taff could amend Cond.itJon No. .}6 -
B to state "street improvements and }andscape .~mprovements
on Via [.a VJ, da wJ.[ [ be com~)l. eted prior to occupancy".
Comm.issJoner Hoegland moved to approve staff's
recommendation and adopt the Negative Declaration for
Tentative Tract No. ~.3990, and approve Tentative Tract.
No, ~3990, sllbject to the to} ]owing, modifications to
Conditions of, A~rovaJ.: Condition No. 1.3- (].), chanqe
to read "Dr~or to the ~ssuance of bll~}dJng permits"
as I. onq as appropriate bonds have been issued;
Condition No. 33 - (})E, de}ere the we] ] regllirement
on the east s~.de of the property~ Condition No. ].5 - H,
to remain as recommended by staff; Condition No. 36 - E,
street and landscape improvements on Via [,a Vide
comD}eted prior to occupancy permit; CondJ. tJoD No. 43,
amended to read "Lots shall not be all. owed to drain
on adjacent tracts without a qradJnq and/or drainage
permit"; Condition No. 59, added as requested by the
Traf.f~c Deparf. menf and Cond.JtJon No, 60, added for the
payment of. Quimby Act Fees. Commissioner Blair seconded
the motion, which carried the f,o[towinq rol.]. call, vote:
~YES: 4
CONM]SSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, ~oagl. and
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: .'I
COMMISSIONERS:
Ch~ n~ aeff
COMMISSIONER C~INIAEFF returned to the chair.
3. Tentative Parcel Nan. No. 26036
3. )
Sam Reed presented the staff's report oD the subdivision
of a } ,79 acre parce} wJtb existing bllJ}d~ngs, ~ocated on
the west .~J. de of, Enterlprise Circle West, near the terminus
of Rider Way,
8/20190 ~4- 9/20/90
PLhNN]N~ COMM]~B]ON ~IN[I'J'~S hU~UST 70, .~990
Dave James, Ranpat Eng~neer.~ng, ?7447 EDterpr.~se C.~rc]e
West, Temecu]a0 clave a br.Sef summary of the rec[t~est add
ad.d.ressed. the Commission's comments.
There beJncl .no furlbet pub.lie test.~momy, Commissioner
Fahey moved. to c[ose the public hearing, seconded by
CommJss~ ODer l~'oag] RDd.
Comm.~ssJoner gla.~r moved to adopt the Negat.~ve Dec) arat~ on
for Parcel MaD No. ?6036 add approve Parcell Map No. ?6036,
based. on the Cond. itions of Approval net forth by the
P]a.nn.~Dg Department. ComlnJSsJoner Fahey seconded the
mot.~oD wbscb carrSed the fo]]ow.~ng vote.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Hoagland,
Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
4. & .%. Plot P)an No. 5 add No. 6
Sam Reed presented the staff report on Plot P)an
No. 5, the construct.~on of a 3],050 s~uare foot ]~ght
manufacturing facil. ity on .57 acres and Plot Plan
No. 6, the coDstruct.~on of a .'12,950 srtuare foot /.~ght
manufacturing facility on .63 acres. Parcels are
located at the northeast corner of gvenJda Alvaratio
and Aq~la Vista Way.
0oe Yentress, J.R. M~tler & Associates, 2854 E. Imperial
H~ghway, Brea, gave a brief description of the project.
Mr. Yentress stated. that the total square footaqe did
Mot ~nc]!lde mezzanines ~n both bllildiDgs; however, the
parking study incorporated th%s extra square lootage.
Mr. Yentress ~nd~cated an error ~n the staff report
on page 4, und.er Health Department, and advised the
Commsss5on that tb~ Health Department requirements for
both Diet plans had been reviewed.
Comm.~ssJoDer Ch.Sn.~aeff asked 5. f the applicant would be
opposed to reconfJgurJng the itocat.~on of the trash
encl. osure and. the truck ].oading doors so that they do
Dot face the street. Commsssioner CbSnJaefi also
M~N. 8t 20/90 -5- 9t20/90
PLANN]N~ COMNIS$1ON NIN[]TES AUGUST ~0, 3990
expressed concern for sufficient landscaping and proper
screening of. roof equipment.
Mr. V~.ntress stated the project has satisfied the
]andscane reqll~Jrements add Drovided for suft.Jci. ent
screening of the roof equipment, but that they could
accommodate the CommJss~oD's req]]ests. He a~{so sta~ed
that there would be no ~rob.{.em turning the door of the
trash eDc~{osure away ~rom the street; bowever, ~n
rel. ocatin~ t~e tr.lck loading doors, the needs o~ the
tenant wou]d have to be considered.
Commissioner Ford moved to close the pllb].ic hearing
seconded by Commissioner Fahey add carried unanimous]y.
Comm.~ssioner Hoag3and moved to reject staff's
recommendation add not adopt the Negative Dec]afar.ion
for Plot Plan Nos. 5 and 6 and deny Plot Plan Nos. 5
and 6, and direct staff to work w.~tb the appl~can%
to Drovide a detailed ].andscane plan, review the
structura} des~D to ensure adeGuate screening
of the roof equipment, study the parking and to
doors. Co~issioner Hoagland amended his motion
by cODtJDUJDQ the .pubJJc bearing oD Item 4 and Item 5
to the PI. anninq Co~ission meeting of September ].7,
] 990. Commissioner Fahey seconded the revised motion.
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fabey,
Ford, Hoaqland,
Cbiniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
Cba.~rman DeDD.~s Cbiniaeff declared a five minute recess at 7:50
,P.M. to allow planning staff to set up more exhibits for agenda
items. The meeting was reconvened at 7:55 P.M.
M11{.8/20/90 -6- 9/20/90
PLANN.~NG CO~]'~S]ON ~INU?F.S AUGUST ~0, ~ 990
6. Tentat.~ve Parco.] .~aD P3969
Deborah ParRs presented staff's report on the subdivision
of :Parcell 27 of Parce) Map 38254 into four .parcels,
I. ocated at Kathleen Way, South of. Rancho Calif.ornia Road.
Ms. Parks stated that wbeD the Darce) map was approved
by the County, they failed to show Pujo[ Street. County
Ord.sDaDce 460 required the dedication of Plljo] Street;
at that time, however, is was overt. ooked and the width
of Plljol Street remained at 40 feet. When Ohmdab)
Enterprises applied to sub-divide, they were told by
the COllDty they wou)d need the dedication of 20 feet
o~ Parcel. 2 for dedication o[ Pujol. Street. Ohmdahl
Enterprises bad reached aD a~qreemeDt wJtb Eastern
MuniciPal. Water District to provide an easement within
tbSs 70 teet. To widen Plljo~ Street woll]d be a great
expense and at this time staff is unclear as to who
wol121d be resvoDsSb~le for the cost of these 5mprovements.
John Middl. eton stated that the Engineering Department's
reco~r~r~endat.JoD was to co.nstruct Pujoll Street as per
county standards.
Anthony .Pollo, Markham & ItsseeS ares, 4~1750 W.~ncbester Road,
Temecu.]a, gave a brief descrJ.ptJon of the project.
Wi[ti. am Haley, 28426 Pujol Street, Temecula, an
adjacent property owner expressed bJs desire to have
the devel. oper proceed with the road improvements to Pujo].
Street as proposed by the County of Riverside.
Anthony Polo offered an alternative to the Conhmission
of JeavSDg Pujo] Street 5n lts' present state and
DrovJ. de the dedication and improvements to create a
ell]-de-sac on the end of Sixth Street.
Doug Stewart, deputy traff.ic engineer, advised the
Commission that the easeme.nt was neither Mr. Ohmdabl's
property nor Mr. Hal. ey's property. He stated that
Coll.nty Ordinance No,460 a.nd the recommendatJon by the
Riverside County Transportation Department requires
certain JmprouemeDts be completed; boweuer, there Js
an exception clause within the ordinance that would
aJlow the (:ommSssJon to dev5ate from these required
MIN. 8/20/90 -7- 9/20/90
PLANNING CONI~I]SSIf')N ~}11NIIt}~}~:S AUGUST 20, .]990
street improvements, but on3y under that exception
cl. ause could the Commission consider anything other
than what was recommended by the County.
Commissioner Fahey cuesti. oned the reference to special
c~rcumstances of the exception apD]Jcab]e to the
properties size, shape or topagraphy, and did that
exception MDD:Iy to sllcb conditions created by the
property owner.
Doug Stewart stated that the ordinance reguires that
the applicant put
a substantial cost to the applicant, and since applicant
has offered other alternatives that seem more appropriate,
the commission could consider one of these alternatives
and make that recon~pendatJon to the City
Commissioner Chiniaeff asked if staff needed action by
the CommJss.~on to come baclk wJtb a rev~,~ed recommendation.
,John Cavanaugh, Assistant City Attorney, advised the
Comm.~ssJoD that ~f they were to approve th.~s parcel map
and recorf~end there be a oartia[ dedication or recor, mend
that Dart o~ the ded.~cat.~on be accomp].~shed by another
property owner other than the app].icant, the Corffmission
needs to be aware that ~f the other property owner does
not approve of the recommendation, and if that approval.
Js not sou.qbt wJtb.~n 320 days after the CommJss.~on's
recommendation, this condition wil
terminate.
Commissioner Ford asked Jf this was a condJ. tJon for
offsite improvements, could the Commission reguest the
applicant to bond or guarantee the acquisition rights
of the property.
John Cava~auqb, AssJsta.nt City Attorney, stated that the
CommJ ssJ oD COll] d eJ tber recommend that the app] J cant
provide the dedication of ihJ. s own property or recommend
partial dedication/vacation of the other property owner.
[f the other property owner does not approve 3.20 days
after the Comm.~ss~on acts on Jr, this condition Js
automatical. [y terminated.
HIM. 8/20/90 -8- 9t 20/90
PLANNING COMMISSION MIN[]'~'ES AUGUST 70, 3990
Commissioner Fahey moved to not adopt the Negative
Dec)station for Farce} MaD No. 23969, and to continue
the item to September 17, 1.990, with staff. working with
both parties to come to an agreement acceptable.
Commissioner Ford seconded the motion.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Hoagland,
Cbiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Deborah Parks provided staff's report and an architectural
rendering of the project, a proposal to complete Phase 2
of. this project, Iotated north of Winchester Road, west of.
Ynez Road.
Wait Mount ford, 7330 EnGineer Road, San Diego, gave a
brief slimmary of the project add reqllested the to] ]owing
modif.ications to the Conditions of. Approval.: Condition
No. 313, as it relates to grading be de[leted; Condition No.
~.8, establ. ish a maxim~lm f. ee expos]Ire to the deve].operi
Cond.ition No. 29, fees which were inc]tided Jn the street
and drainstie bond posted with the county, to be de].eted.
Deborah Parks stated that staff would not oppose the
deiletion of conditior) No, :13,
John Middleton advised that the ~ee schedule has not been
established at this t~me and that the $30,000 fee would be
a deposit for whatever that fee is, and therefore they
collid not amend Condition No. 28.
After discussion of the Conditions of. Approval
Coramiss.ioner Fahey moved to c)ose the p!lblic hearing,
seconded by Conm~lissioner Hoag]and.
Commissioner Fahey moved to adopt tbe Negative Declaration
for P]ot Plan 3/{62] and approve P.Iot Plan 1162] as
recommended with the f.ollowing amendments: delete
Condition No. 33 and amend Condition No. 29 to state
MIN.8/20/90 -9- 9/20/90
PLAMNJNG COMMISSION .MINUTES ~U~US~ 20, ] 990
"Pray]deal the ice has a)ready been paid for sign]n9
and striping, the county will. be responsible for the
improvements." Commissioner Blair seconded the
motion ~
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Hoag[and,
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS:
None
NON PUBLIC HEARING I?F~S
8. Appeal No. 6
Ar~pea] P.lannJng Department's denial of the Palm Plaza
Sian Criteria Program. Project I. ocated at the southwest
corner of Winchester Roads and Y.nez Roads.
Gary Thornhill. advised the Commission that it was staff's
decision that the most appropriate way to handle this
item was through a variance; however, a discussion with
the city attorney indicates be may have a problem with
making the necessary findings for a variance.
Larry Markham, Markham and Associates, 4]750 Winchester
Road, Temecu]a, represent]nO the ann)]cant, stated that
the applicant would ].ike to request continuing the appeal
until September [10, 3~990, to allow time for research of
the variance.
9. P]ot P] an 69
Prior to tbJs item being heard, COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF
execused himself due to a conflict of interest and turned
the Gave~l over to VICE C~AIRMAN, COMMISSIONER FORD.
9.1
Mark Rhoades, pianning staff, provided staff report for
the proposal to constr!lct a 3170 fOOt antenna tower, off of
Front Street.
El)Jot UrJck, 2866~I Ca]]e ],ago, Temecu]a, reguested
Condition No. 3 be modified to read "The approved
MIN.8/20/90 -10- 9/20/90
PLANNING COMMISSION .MINi]TF.S AUGUST i}O, ] 990
temporary antenna structure sisal ] be removed Do later
than 30 days af~ter the final. inspection of the
tower" add Condit.~on No. 4 to read "construction of
the approved 1.20 foot high pol. e."
Ray ~4cLauab.l.~D, 30025 Front Street, 'remecula, spoke
support el staff's recommendat.~on. Mr. McI,auqhlin owns
the oreperry the tower wi[[ be I. ocated on.
.C, ary 'J'bornbitl stated t.~at staff bad no problems w.itb
the modJt~catioDs to Condition No. 3 and Condition No, 4.
Commissioner Hoaqland moved to approve Plot Plan No. 69
as presented with the modification of Condition No. 3
and (;ondJtJoD No. 4 as reqlleSted bY the appil~cant,
f. orwarded to City Council as a receive and f.i}.e item,
seconded by Comm.~.~sJ oder Fahey.
AYES: 4
COMMISSIONERS:
Fahey, Ford
Hoaqland,
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 3
COMMISSIONERS: Cb~niaeff
¢Ol~M[SS[ONEIt C, HINIAEFF returned to the chair.
~0. P~tot PilaD No. 57/Revised Perm.~t
Mark Rheades provided staff report for a revision to a
prev.i ousl y approved .126,000 s.~uare foot el ect toni cs
f. acil. ity 1. ocated at. 43044 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Applicant Js propos.~nq to add 3,400 square feet of
conference and office space to the second floor as well
as a small eXpanSiOn to the erlll.iDmer)t area. Mr. Rheades
amended Condition No. 2 to reflect 20 x 35 square foot
are~ .
Corrmaissioner Fahey moved to approve Plot Plan 57,
SliDjeer to the Conditions of Approval by staff with
Item 57 revised to reflect 20 x 35 square foot area,
seconded by Commissioner Hoaq).and and carried
unanimous 1. y.
MI14.8/20/90 -ll- 9/20/90
PLhNNING COMMItSSION !*4INUTr*:S hUGHST 20, ].990
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Hoagland,
ChJnJ aeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
]3. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23299
Richard Ayala provided staff report for tbe extension of
t~me for Vested Tentative Tract Map No. 23299, a 232 unit
condominium project on approximately 14.3 acres. Project
~s located solltb of Highway 79, west of Margarita Road.
Raymond Casey, Presley of San Diego, 15010 Avenue of
Science, San Diego, gave a brief summary of the request
for extensJ. on o~ the project. Mr. Casey stated that the
project bas been de)eyed due to the processing of another
pllb[ic agency's approval necessary for the recordation
of the map, regarding the flood control channel. He also
advised that the project is in comp].iance with the Quimby
Act and DariUs within the project will be dedicated to the
CSD. Mr. Casey also stated that they are looking at
re-mapping the project; bowever, the extension o~ time
J.s necessary to complete this applJ. cation.
Commissioner Hoag]and expressed concern for tbe density of
the project, as i.t tel. ares to the surrounding area.
Gary TbornbJ]J stated that Jt was staff's opinion that the
approved map does not fit Jn the Southwest Area Map Plan
as it stands now.
Commissioner Fahey questioned what options the Commission
had in granting or denying the extension.
John Cavanaugh, Assistant City Attorney, advised the
CO~iSS~OD that under the code the Commission has the
option of. approving or denying the extension, but they are
limited due to the subject map being previously approved
by the County. He stated that the Code of Standards for
eva]uatJn~ an extension reflected that an extension of
time sha].]. not be granted unl. ess the ].and division
conforms to the comprehensive general plan, Js consistent
with existing zoning and does not affect the health,
HIN,8/20/90 -12- 9/20/90
PY.ANNING (;OMNISSION MINUTES AUGUST 70, 3 990
safety or we)'lfare of the Dub].~c. W.~th that, he advised
that the Commission could not. go back and re-evaluate the
ent.~re project; bowever they could conduct a further
revi. ew of what. the project. i.s, before making their
decision of approving or denying the extension of time.
Commissioner Chiniaeff was concerned that an extension
of the mad woll]d essentially be an approva) and presently
the Commission does not have sufficient information about
John CavaDauab, Assistant C.~ty Attorney, adv.~sed tbe
Comm.~ss.~on that they co, ld d~rect staff to bring the ~tem
back to the Commission with a].l. the particulars of. the
project, so that they coll]d be better .~nformed to make the
proper recommendation.
Comm.~,~s.~oner Ford moved to contJnl~e the regl~est for
extens.~on of t.Jme for Ve~t.~ng Tentat.~ve Tract No. 23299,
to the next. availabl. e meeting, and directed staff to
look at a]] ~ssl~es of tbJs project ~nc]ud.~ng the
surrounding map, the ~iscal impact report, park
stlldy as ~t relates to Quimby Act, design of the
project, landscape pl. ans and trailtic circu].ation.
Commissioner Fahey seconded the motion.
AYES: 5
COMM .l SSI ONERS:
Blair, Fahey,
Ford, Hoagland,
Cb.~ n~ aeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
A]exander Urm~bart, Crosby, Mead, Benton & Assoc,.ares,
5650 E3 CamS no Real, Suite 200, Carlsbad, project engineer
provided information on drainaqe and access.
.1;>. P) ot Pjian No. 86
Prior to tbJs ~tem be~n.g beard, COMMISSIONER C~INIAEFF and
COMMISSIONER FORD indicated they had a conflict o~ interest
w~th the applicant and execllsed themselves. The gavel was
turned over to COMMISSIONER FAHEY.
MEN. 8120/90 -13- 9~20~ 90
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 20, ] 990
Steve Padovan provided sta~ report for the construction
of a 60 foot receiving antenna tower witb a JO foot
microwave dish, for In[and Vai[ey Cablevision, in order to
uporade the reception of several cbanDe]s in the service
area,
Edward GageD, 33{000 Corte Arroyo VSsta, Temecula, spoke in
~avor of the new antenna tower due to %be poor reception
he receives.
Ken Heid, 4]486 Big Sage Court, Temecu]a, questioned the
proposed camaf]oug.~ng of the tower and the col[or of the
microwave dish.
Jerr.y Sanders, In]and Va]ley Cablevision, provided a brief
summary for the Commission on the purpose of upgrading the
existinq tower. He stated that the location of. the tower
Js on a sma]] portion of a ]arger lot being developed as
a park for the community, which will. be dedicated to the
c~ty. He stated that the u.].t.Jmate goal is to have the
receiving tower located in an industrial area.
Commissioner }toag]and moved to adopt a Negative
Declaration and approve Plot Plan No. 86 and the attached
Conditions of. Approval, and recommend that the City
('.o~ncJ] ~rant aD exemption from Ordinance No. 90-3 based
on findinqs contained in the Staff. Report, and recommend
that staff work w~th the app]~cant oD a suitable col or
scheme f.or the tower and microwave dish. Seconded by
Com~j ssi oder B] ai r.
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey,
Hoaq[and
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS:
Ford, CbinJaefi
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF and COMMISSIONER FORD returned to their
chairs.
ADJOURNMENT
Comm.~ss.~oner Hoag)and moved to cancel tbe regular meeting of the
CJ ty of Temecu] a P] ann.~ ng CommJ ss.~ on schedu]ed for Monday,
September 3, 1990, seconded by Commissioner Ford and carried
unan imous [ y.
MIN.8/20/90 -14- 9/20/90
PLANNINC, COMMISSION ~INUTF,$ AUGUS.? 20, ] 9.90
Commissioner Blair moved to schedule a special meeting of. the
City of Temecu:la PilanDing Commission for Monday, September 10,
].990, 6:00 P.M. at Vail. Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive,
TemecuJa, seconded by Commissioner Ford and carried unanimously.
MIN.8/20t90 -15- 9/20/90