Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout091790 PC Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA HELD SEPTF~BER 17, 1990 A regular meeting o~ the Temecula Planning Commission was called to order at Vail. Elementary School, 299]5 Mira I,oma Drive, Temecula, California at 6:10 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Dennis Cbin~aetf. PRESENT: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoag]and, Chiniaeff ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Also present were Lois Boback, representative ~rom the City Attorney's office for John Cavanaugh, Gary Thornhill, Acting Planning Director, John MJdd]eton, Sen~or Project Manager and Gai] Ziglet, Minute Clerk. PUBLIC COMMENT None MINUTES Continued m~nutes of A%~gl~st 20, 1990. Approve the minutes of September 10, 1990. C(~]SS]ONER FORD moved to continue the mfnutes of August 20, 1990 to October 1, ].990 and approve the minutes of September [[0, ]990, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR and carried unanimous[y. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagl and, ChJniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC HEARING ITFJ4S GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission that agenda items No. 9 and No. 13 were to be continued to another date. CHAIRMAN DENNIS CHINIAEPF opened the public bearing for these items and entertained a motion to continue to another date. MIN. 9/17/90 -1- 9/21/90 PI,ANNING COMMISSION ~]NUTES $EPTF~BER 3.7, ]990 COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to continue Public Hearing Item No. 9 to the regular meet.~ng of the Planning Commission October J., ].990, seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND. AYES: 5 COMM .l SS I ONERS: B)aJr, Fahey, Ford, Hoaqt. and, ChJ n~ aef f NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None CO~4M]SS]ONE~ HOAGI,AND moved to continue Pub].~c Hearing Item No. 1.3 to the reqular meet~.ng o~ the P[anni. ng Co~m-~.ss~.on on October .'lb, .] 990, seconded by COM. MISSI'ONE~ BI,AIR. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Btam. r, Fahey, Ford, Hoag]and, Chi. ni. aeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ?, COND]T.]ON]%L IJSE PE[R.M]T NO. Proposal to construct a mult~.-tenant automotive center w~tb 30,024 square ~eet of retail area and 2],80] square feet of service area, north of the intersection of Ynez Road and So]ana Way ~Dd request for Special Review of Parking. SCOTT WRIGHT presented the staff report on th~s ~tem. He advised the Commission that the applicant has indicated that the services provided wJ]] be gu~ck turn around such as lube, tune, tires, etc. and thereGore, have requested a special review of the parking requirements. Staff has agreed to allow 50% of the serv~.ce bays to be counted toward the parking reqllJrement. Mr. Wright brought special attention to the requirements of Condition No. 24 pertaining to block wail and landscape re~u~.rements on the easterly and southerly side of the property. ID~ SANCHEZ, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecu[a, represent~ng the applicant, requested that ~N.9/17/90 -2- 9/21/90 PLANNING CONNI SSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER ]7, 3990 Condition No. 20 be modif. ied to read "Prior to occupancy" .in place of "prior to JSSllaDCe oi building permits". She also stated that Board Reso}.ution No. 8861 had been adopted by the Collntv of Riverside And states that Structural Enqineers are no longer required in certain areas considered to be Jn SllbsJdence Zones And that this project was in one of those areas. She provided staff wJtb copies of the ReSO]l~tJon and sllggested that Condition No. 29 no longer pertained to this project. She also provided copies of Ordinance [%48 which a] ]owed for special review of parking reductions. PETER DOI.E, Architect, Co]bo~rn, Cx]rrier & Kno]] , ]0675 King Street, San Diego, questioned the requirement for the b]ock wails. He stated that the original intent of the wail was to screen the service bays from Ynez Road and he GleestipPed the block wail requirement for the south side of. the property. I.ARRY GABELE, applicant, ]0706 B~rcb Bluff, San Diego, stated that he has met with Bedford and that the project meets with blli]din.g standards for other bl~i]dings in the area of the project. He added that they had decided to %]se a landscape bllrm wJtb retainer wails. LOIS ROBACE advised the Commission that Condition No. 5 sbollJd be amended to read "this approval shall become null and void". IDA SANCHEZ reox~ested that Condition No. 3 be amended to read "two (2) years of approval. date". GARY THOI~NHII,I, stated that he thought tbat the one year expiration was an ordinance requirement; however, he indicated that staff wol~]d veri~y and amend the Condition accordingl y. COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearing, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY and carried unanimously. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: B]air, Fabey, Ford, Hoaqland, Chini ae~f NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None MIN. 9/17/90 -3- 9/21/90 RLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTFJ~{BER 37, 3990 GARY THORNHILL requested clarification of the revisions to Condition No. 24. COMMISSIONER ~{OAGI,AND stated that the Condition was acceptable with the amendment that the wall be constructed at the time of issue of Certificate of Occupancy unless the adjacent property has approved plans for the building from the City Counci] . SCOTT WRIGHT advised the Commission that Condition No. 3 was correct and would remain as stated. COMMISSIONER FORD moved to adopt the Negative Declaration; adopt Reso]utJon 90- approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2; and, approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2, based on the ana]ysis add findings contained in the staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval with the fo]]owiD~ modifications to the Conditions of Approval: Condition No. 5 amended to read "shall become null and void": ConditiOn No. 70 amended to read "prior to occupancy"; Condition No. 24 amended to read "If the adjacent property owner, south of the subject property, submits the discretionary application 2 years from tbis application, showing a b~i]ding located on the south property line, then the applicant shall not be required to construct the wa] 1 on the south side of the project." and Condition No. 29 de[eted. Seconded by COMNISSIONER FAI~EY add carried unanimous]y, AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoag]and, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 3. PLOT PI,AN NOS" 5 AND 6 Proposal[ to construct two industrial buildings side by side for a total of 23,700 square feet on two existing parcelis which together comprise [[.~19 acres. Parcels are located at the northeast corner of Avenida Alvarado and Aqua Vista Way. GARY THORNHILl. ~rovided tbe staff report on this item. He stated that the appl. icant had submitted a earlier prodoss); bowever, staff expressed concerns in the MIN.9/17/90 -4- 9/21/90 PLANN'.[NG COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 37, 3.990 location of. trash enclosures and loading doors, suff~c.~eDt landscaping and screening of roo~ equipment. The applicant re-submitted the proposal with modifications to the concerns expressed by static. JOHN MIDDI,ETON stated that Condition No. 44, relating to the .~ees ior road improvements add pub]Jc facJ]JtJes, wou].d be added to the Conditions of Approval, and that the aDD] J CMD~ bad been advised. ANTHONY POLO, Markham & Associates, 43.750 Winchester Road, TemecuJa, representative ~or the applicant, stated their concurrence with the staff report. COMMISSIONER FORD suggested that a Condition be set forth to restrict the mezzanine area to be used a storage only, as proposed by the applicant. ANTHONY POLO stated that the applicant would have no problem with this. COMMISSIONER FORD a)so suggested that "No ParkJ. ng" signs be erected at the back of the building. ANTHONY POLO stated that the f~re department bad a)ready required red stripping along the back of the building. COMMISSIONER HOAGI.AND moved to c]ose the public bearing, seconded by COMMISSIONER BI,AIR and carried unanimously. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Cbiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None COmmISSIONER FORD moved to recommend adoption of the Negative Decl. aration for PI. ot Plan Nos. 5 and 6 and approve PJot Plan Nos. 5 and 6; based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions o~ Approval with the following modifications: Condition No. 44 as submitted by the Engineering Department add Condition No. 45, restricting the use of the mezzanine area for storage oniy. Seconded MIN. 9/17/90 -5- 9/21/90 P]'.~NNING CO~]$$JON ]~INUTE$ SF,.PTFJ~BEJ;~ ] 7, 1 990 by COMMISSIONER FAHEY and carried unanimously. AYES: 5 COMM. I SSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoag].and, CbinJae~ None 4. PARCEl, MAP 23969 Proposal to subdivide Parcel 22 of Parcel Map 18254, located at Ridge Park ]]rive, South of Rancho California Road, JDto four parcelso The Commission continued this item from the meeting of August 20, 1990, and directed sta.~.~ to work wJ th the app] J cant and the adjacent property owner on a solution to the access problem. DEBORAH PARKS provided th~ start report on this item. She stated that staf~ arranged a meeting however, Mr. HaJ. ey did Dot attend that meeting but was advised of the results. JOMN MIDDI,E?ON stated that in speaking wJtb the Riverside County Fire Department regarding the proposed improvements o.~ Pujo] Street. They confirmed that the applicant could build Pujo[ Street according to 32'/50' sac would not be necessary at this time since the street the Engineering Department recoK~endation woul. d be to construct an o~set cu}-de-sac when Mr. Haley deve]ops his property. ANT'HONY POLO, Markham & Associates, 43750 Winchester Road, Temecula, asked for clarification of Condition No. .2..9, regtlestJ. Dg pub].Jc facJ.]Jty f.inancJ. n.g. GARY THORNMILL stated that Condition No. 29 did not pertain to this J tern and should be de] eted. WILLIAM HALEY, 28426 Pujol Street, Temecula, adjacent property owner, expressed his opposition to the recommendation by the Engineering Department. MIN. 9/17/90 -6- 9/21/90 PI,ANNIN~ CO~M]S~ION .MINUTES SEPTF..MBEI~ 17 , ] 990 HOWARD OMDAHL, applicant, 80~. Shade Tree Lane, Fa].[brook, stated that be bas discussed the situation many times with Mr. Haley; however, they have failed to arrive at a.ny so]ution. '~e advised the (;oremission that the Road Department did not condition him to build the cul-de-sac, and that the cul-de-sac would be oi no benefit to his property; however, he has offered to put in the curb and ~utter and 32' of street improvements to expedite the approval . COMM]SS]ONE~ FORD c]ari fied that Mr. Omdah] was providi. nq approximatel. y 80% of the street improvements and these improvements would be of Do benefit to his property. He suggested that Mr. Haley might want to vacate the property COM~41SSIONE~ FAHEY moved to close the public bearing, seconded by COMMISSIONER BOAGLAND and carried unanimously. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to adopt the Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 23969 and approve Parcel Map No. 23969, based oD the anallysis and findings in the Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval modified by the de]etlon of CondJt.Jon No. 29, seconded by COMMISSIONER ~{OAGI,AND and carried by the fo].J. owing vote. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 1. COMMISSIONERS: Blair TENTATIVE PARCEl, MAP 25633 PLOT PLAN NO. ].].669 Proposal to subdivide '1.? acres into four parcels and construct an industrial park on the west side of Business Park Drive, north of Rancho California Road. MIN. 9/17190 -7- 9/21/90 P),ANNINC, CONN]SSION MINUTES $E?TFJ,{BF, R 3{ 7 , 3 990 OI, IVER MUJICA presented the staff report on this item. He stated that the appilJcant bad orJcIina]ly app)ied for a pl. ot D{.an and a tentative parcel. map with the county; ibowever, the county combined the applications under tentative parcel mad 25633. The a.Dplicant has reckvested that the plot plan and the tentative parcel map remain separate to expedite construction of the project . O]iver Mupica stated that <;ondit~oD No. 22, page 3, of the Conditions of. Approval f.or Tentative Parcel MaD No. 25633, dad DOt .perta.~D to this .project add therefore should be deleted. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND .ouestioned the parking requirements f.or each indtvidua[ buJ. tding. He stated that the staff report indicates that some buildiDOls have more parking than others. O[,IYER MUJ[CA stated that the project would ut.i 3.ize shared Dark.~D<{, and there would be no designated parking spaces for each building. GARY THORNHILL su~(lested that the CC&R's sboll]d .incorporate the shared parking requirement. WARREN JA~.ES. Weston Properties, provided the Commission with inf.ormation regardin~ the project. .Mr. James requeste~ the .~oi{ ] ow.iD<l CoDdi tipns Of Approval be amended: Pi. ot Plan No. _3.1].669, Condition No. 7 amended to read "A m.~n.imum pt 392 Dark.~D(~ spaces"] Cond.it.~oD No. 22 amended to read "County GeoLogist's Report dated July 3, 3.989 as amended.".; Condit.ioD No. 24 amended to read "guarantee the instal.[ation of wal Is and fences"; Condition No. 27 amended to read "If iees have Dot been paid, prior to issuance"; Condition No. 28 amended to read "County Geologist's Report dated July 3, 1989 as amended."; Condition No. 42, Mr. James asked if the fee was set; Condition No. 43, Mr. James requested that this Condition be deleted from the Plot Plan however, to remain in the CODdJt.~ODS Of Approval for the Tentative Parcel Map; Condition No. 44, CATV deleted; Condition No. 47, Mr. James questioned the amount of the J=ee; and Condition No. 49, Mr. James requested that this item be deleted; Tentative Tract MaD No. 25633, Condition No. 41 amended to read "In the event that bonds and agreements do not exist, the subdivider".' Condition No. 42 be amended to MIN.9/l?/90 -8- 9/21/90 PLANNING COMM.T$$]ON MINUTF,$ SF,PTFJ~!BER ].7, 1990 read "In the event that bonds and agreements do not ex.ist, the subd.ivider"; Condition No. 57, Mr. James ~uestioned if this was appl. icable to his property and asked /bat /be Cond.it.ion read ".i.f the property fails within the 100 year t][ood p].ane", JOHN MIDDLETON adv.ised Mr. James that the fee fetefenced in Condition No. 42 of the Plot Plan would be $2,500 per acre, that CoDd.it.ioD No, 49 of the Plot P)an was a standard condition. Mr. Midall. eton advised Mr. James that the project was JD ~']ood ~,ODe B and fa]~l w.itbin the ]00 year f~[ood plane thetel. ore, Condition No. 57 of the Tentative Parcell Map woll)d ressip as stated. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF questioned the City Attorney i~ the re(~u.~remeDt for CC&.R's under the P.]ot Plan would prov.ide the requirement ~or reciprocal parking. Assistant City Attorney, I,O]$ BOBACK stated that the agreement for reciprocal parkin~ would be under the CC&R's, and the cc&R's for the P'.lot P]aD add the Tentative Parcel Map were the same. COMM]SSIONF,R CHINIAF,FF allso expressed concern for the screenin~ o~ the truck loading ramps ~rom the adjacent DroDert.ies. ~. JAMF,S suggested that the screenin~ of these ramps be approved by the Planning Director. COMMISSIONF,R HOAGI,AND advised the Planning D~rector and staf~ o~ discrepancies in the Section 3 of the F.,DvJ roDmeDta.t Check] .~st , COMMISSIONER FORD suggested that Condition No. 23 and (;oDdit.ion No. 48 of the Plot Plan should be co.incidin~q. GARY THORNHILL suggested that Condition No. 23 be modified to ~.ndicate a striping plan for the interior parking and entrance improvements akong with street .improvement p)aD. COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public bearing, seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGI,AND and carried unanimously. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: B]a,/r, Fahey, Ford, Hoagl. and, Ch.i ni aeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None MIN. 9/17t90 -9- 9/21/90 PLANNING COMMISSION ~/NIJTES SEPTEMBE~ 17, ]990 COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to adopt the Negative DecJ. arati. on for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2563..{, and P]{ot Plan No. LI.669; approve 'FentatJ~ve Parcel Map No. 25633; and approve PIct Pi{an No, ~1.1669, based on the analysis and ti. ndJ. nq.~ contained J.n the staff. report and subject to Conditions of Approval as modified: PIct P]aD No. 3.3669, Condi. tJ. ons of Approval No. ? to remaJ. n as J.s; No. 22. to read "}{eport dated ~71]]y 3, .].989 as amended"; No. 23 to read "on-sJ. te sJ. gnJ. ng and ,~trJ. p~.ng"; No. 24 to remain as writteD; No. ?'! to read ".if the fee has not been paid"; No. 28 r. ead "Report dated July 3, ].989 as amended"; No. 43 deleted; No. 49 to remain as written; Tentat.~ve Parcel Map No. 25633, Condit~.ons of Approval No. 22 deleted; No. 3.] to remain as written with the addition oi a CC&R agreement for. add].t~.ona]. space; No. 4]. to read "In the event bond doe..~ not exist"; No. 42. to read "In the event bond does not exJ. st"; and No. 47 to r. emain as written. COMMISSJONER BI,A]R seconded the motion. COMMISSIONF, R HOAGI, AND requested that Condi. tion No. 43 of the PIct Plan reinaiD as written, and COMMISSIONE]~ CHINI. AEFF stated he to would ].ike to see the CC&R's rema.in o, the PIct Plan. (.*OI~MISS.~ON.F.R FAHEY amended her. motJ. on to refl. ect Cond].t].on No. 43 of the P].ot Plan to rema.in as written, seconded by COMMISSIONER B[,AIR and cart. fed unanimously, AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey Ford, Hoagland, CbinJaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECESS CHAIRMAN DENNIS CHINIAEFF dec]ared. a recess a 8:15 P.M. meeting reconvened at 8:25 P.M. The 6. PI, OT PLAN NO. ~J~620 Proposal to construct a two story offJ~ce building with 23,450 square feet of floor area, 17,675 leaseable on the northerly side of Enterpr.ise C.~rc]e north abutting Santa Gertr~dis Creek. SCOTT WRIGHT presented the staff report on tbJ. s item. MIN. 9/17/90 -10- 9/21/90 PI,2%NN]NG COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER ] ? , .3 990 SCOTT WRIGHT added the following modifications to the Conditions of Approval. Condition No. 38 to read "Prior to the issuance of building permits add~t.~onal and/or revised p]ans for signage sha]l be submitted for P[anning Department approval and Blli]dino and Safety Department approval :"; Condition No, '24 amended to read "a California Licensed Soil Engineer or Geologist"; addition of Condition No. 46 to read "The applicant sha[J. fill out an application for final inspection. Allow two weeks processing time to obtain all required clearances prior to final inspection." IDA SANCMEZ, Markham & Associates, representing the applicant, stated their concurrence with staff's recommendation. C()MM]SSIONE]~ FAHEY moved to c]ose the public hearing and adopt the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. .31670~ adopt Resolution No. 90- approving P]ot Pl. an No. I.].620; and approve Plot Plan No. 1.1620 based on the ana]ysJ, s and ifadJags contained in the staff report and subject to Conditions of Approval amended as io]]ows: add Condition No. ]SA requesting a separate permit from the Planning Department and a separate permit from the Building and Safety Department ~or signage; Condition No. 24 amended to read "a California L~censed So~] Engineer or Geologist"; and add Condition No. 46 to read "The applicant shall fill out an application ~or final inspection. Allow two weeks processing time to obtain al[ required clearances prior to f]Da] inSPeCtiOn" COMMISS]ONE~ HOAGI,AND seconded the motion and ~o[[owed by a unanimous vote. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None MIN. 9f17/90 -11- 9/21/90 PI,ANNING COM}N]$$]ON MINUTES SEPTFdMBER 3 7 , 3.990 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 25004 (;}{;~NGE OF ZONE 561{i} Proposa.{ to subd.~vfde 42.4 acres into [135 single family lots. Cbanoe zone from R-Ri/? to R-.] in conjunction wJtb Vesting Tentative Tract No. 25004. Property 3s [{ocated at the intersection of Nicholas and Joseph Roads. OLIVER HUJICA presented the staff report OD this item. Mr. Mujica stated that Condition No. 22 should be modified to read as ~oi{)ows: "Pr~or to issuance of any .<]fading permit, the applicant m{]st submit either a letter from the Department of F.~sb and WJ]d]Jfe which states that the identified habitat area will. not be affected by the proposed deve]JopmeDt or sba]l] obtain a 30A permit, subject to the approval. of the Planning Director. COMMISSIONER HOAGI.AND GuestJoned the findings of the environmental impact of this project. OLIVER MUJICA stated Jt wag a Negative Declaration. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND stated that the Resolution indicates that no env.~ronmeDta] impact wi]] occur, whe~ in fact an environmental impact will occur however, it will be mitigated. Comm.~ssioner Hoag]and felt that the Negative Dec[.aration and the Resolution should be consistent and sugoested that the Resolution state that an envJ. ronmenta[ impact wi.[ 1. occur however, J t wJ [t it be mJtJc~ated to the extent that a Ne<~at.~ve Decl. aration can be filed. Staff stated that they wollild roodJify the Reso]lltion to be con. sJstent with the Negative Declaration. CO~_~ISS]ONE~ }{OAGLAND asked J f (:onditJon No. 60 a. would include signals at Nicolas Road or any type o~ traff.~ c TOM SORENTINO, Traffic Engineer, stated that they did require th~s project to ~nsta]] a traffic signal as a result of the traffic study. MIN. 9/17/90 -12- 9/21/90 PI,ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTFNBER 37, 1990 The Commission expressed concern for the maintenance of lots ~136 thru ~143, which are SCE and MND easements and are also part of the SKR habitat. GARY KOONTZ, C-M Engineering Associates, 43.593 Winchester Road, Temecu[a, stated that Fish and Wildlife has requested that the app].~caDt not disturb tbfs area and that they fence it off.. He stated that the applicant Js willing to add a condition that lots 238 and [[39 be fenced on the north and south boundaries as approved by SCE and MWD, as we]] as the landscaping of lots 140 and ].41. He stated t.hat the applicant concurs with the CODdJtJ. oDs Of Approval set forth by staff. COMMISSIONER FORD asked if Lot 137 would also be included in the COnditiOn tO fence off the easements. GARY KOONTZ stated that they would agree to include Lot ].37. COMMISSIONER FORD suggested that the applicant m~ght submit a request to SCE and MWO for the open areas to be ~]~ed as par~s. GARY DIX, applicant, 2.%342 Birch Drive, Dana Point, stated that as owner they would be very happy to deed over the ]and to the city to be l~sed ~or a park. BILL ANDREWS, 395].5 LJ. efer Road, TemecuJ. a, stated that he owned property along the east side o~ these easements and preferred that they not be improved, DIANA WALTER, 4268] Loma Portola, Temecu]a, stated that she al. so owned ~roperty al. onq these easements and preterred to see them Rated at both ends. GARY THORNHILl, indicated that due to the small. amount of ]and that wo{]ld ultimately be dedicated, it m~ght be Jn the city's best interest to accept the fees in lieu of the ]and. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF suggested conditioning the map to get an irrevocable offer o~ dedication and the city could determine Ji they wanted to use the ladd for park space. GARY THORNHILL stated if the city accepted the ]and, then the applicant collid be reimbursed for the MIN. 9/17/90 -13- 9/21/90 9I.ANNING (;OMNISSION .NINUTES SF, PTF~BER ]7 , .]990 balance of Ouimby ~.'ees. l, OtS BOBACK expressed a concern for settiDO a time limit OD this type of condition and suggested that the cond(tion needs to be addressed very care.~u] J y, COMMISSIONEN HOAGI,AND guestioned the design guidelines enclosed in their packages as they tel. ate to the project. The Commission indicated there were inconsistencies Jn what they rece].ved and what was presented. COMMISSIONER FAI{E¥ moved to not close the public hearing and continue Vesting Tentative Tract No. 25004 and Zone (;baDGe of 56[t3 to the P)aoniDg Commission meeting of October .1.5, .[.990. GARY KOONTZ asked what issues staff would be addressing. GARY THORNHILL stated that they would be looking at the f.o[[owing issues: use of the easements, the Guideline standards which re]ate to the map, the dedication of easements, look at t,ot 137 as park space, as well) as I,ot 338, check the consistency of the verbage for the landscape for the front yards and the maintenance with what Js proposed in the Conditions of Approval, the wa[[ proposed between l,ot ].49 and [,ot [50 add obta.~DiD~ a SeCtiOn Grade ~or the Commission to review. COMMISSIONER FORD seconded the motion which carried unanimous] y. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: B[lair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Cbiniae~f NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 9. TENTATIVE PARCEl, MAP NO. 25632 Proposal to subdivide 4.7 acres J. nto ].0 parcels in the M.S,C. zone, to construct an industrial park on the southwest side of Business Park Drive, North of Rancho California Road, Temecula. This item continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October ] , ]990. MIN, 9t17/90 -14- 9/21190 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES $EPTF, MBER 3 7 , 3[990 PLOT PLAN NO. 43. Prior to this item beinq beard, COIiMI$SIONER CHINIAEFF execused himself due to a conflict of interest due to his wife OWning a business next to the proposed project and turned the qavel over to VICE CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONER FORD. .10. ~} Proposal to convert an existing J;,200 souare foot office to restaurant with outdoor dining area, located at 28636 Front Street, Temecu}a. GARY THORNHILL provided the staff report on this item. He stated that a]thougb parking J.S an issue in the Old Town area, it was not an issue for other restaurant permits isslled by the Collnt¥, therefore staff recoramends approval. o~ this project. COMMISSIONER HOAGI,AND stated that Condition No. R7 should incrude Rancho California Water District and Eastern MllDiciDMi{ Water District. MIKE THESING, applicant and owner o~ the bui[dinq, 50.]6 HaiGtax Road, Arcadia, addressed the issue parking. He stated that he not impact ~arkino due to the fact that a majority of the merchants ~i[I. be employees in the Old Town area. ~r. Tbesi9~ questioned if the re~erence to developer Condition No, ~? woutd be himself.. GARY TIiORNHILL stated that ~r. Thesing would be considered the developer and that. this was a standard condition. WII.I, IAM PERRY, 286:{b Front Street, TemecuJa, expressed his approval of the project. MICHELE PERRY, 28636 Front Street, Temecula, expressed her approval o~ the project. LLOYD SEVERS, 30]05 Cabri].1o Avenue, Temecu]a, expressed his approval of the project. He stated that he owned the Sears store and two lots adjacent to the project and that ~e would allow ofifi-site parkinq on his property flor the restaurant. MIN. 9117/90 -15- 9/21/90 PI,ANNING COMMISSION MINUT.F.S SF, PTF2/BER 17, .1990 COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND suggested that council might direct staff to look into this area to see Jf there isn't some property that could be acquired or the sharing of parking spaces between bl]siness owners. COMMISSIONER FORD questioned if the parking lot was restricted at tb.is time to owners and occupants. The applicant, MIKE THESING, stated that they would accept COMMISSIONER F~J~EY moved to close the public heari. ng add approve Variance No. il based on .tJDd.ings contained in the Staff Report and adopt Resolution No. and approve Plot Plan No. 431 subject to the (;oDd.it.ions of Approval. as submi. tted and to i. nc[ude unrestriveted parking dllrJDo DOD'-blls~DeSS bollrs. COMMISSIONER FORD seconded the motion, with Conditi. on No. .1.7 amended to include Rancho Cal.i.tornia Water District and Eastern Municpal Water 9i, stri. ct. COMMISSIONER FAHEY accepted the amendment to the motion, AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blai. r, Fahey, Ford, Hoag]and NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: ] COMMISSIONERS: CbJnJaeff COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF returned to the chair. CHANGE OF ZONE 57~4 Proposal to change zone ~rom M-SC to C]/CP. Property located at the northwest corner of Winchester Road and Jefferson. GARY THORNHII.I. advised tbe Commission that this item shou].d not be on the agenda. He indicated the item was received ]ate and should be submitted to the City Council, 12, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3046 ].2.1. Proposal to extend an existing canopy. Property located at the northwest corner oi Winchester Road add Jefferson. 9/17/90 -16- 9/21/90 PLANNING CONMISS]ON MINUTES SEPTF2MBER .17, ] 990 GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission that this item sbou.{d not be on the agenda. He stated that the item was received .{.ate and should be submitted to the City ]3. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23~99, EXTENSION OF TIME 1.3,l Proposal for first extension of time for Vesting Tentative Tract No. ?3?99, a 232 unit condominium project, located on approximately ].4.3 acres south of ~Jqbwa¥ 79, went o~ Margarita Way. This item continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October 35, ~1990. ].4. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 1.9872 AMENDED NO. ?, PHASE 3 AND 4, A REVISED PERMIT Prior to item being heard, COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF execused bJmsell~f d~e to a conflict of interest wJtb representative Robert Bein, Wi/ liam Frost and AssocJ. ates and turned the gave[ over to VICE CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONER FORD. ].4, 1. Proposal to revise architectural floor plans, elevations add PlOttinG Of bo~]sJng oD project located south oi Pa]a Road, west o~ Via Gi[berto. GARY T~ORNHILL provided the staff report and stated that ~t was a change to the approved Tentative Tract Map. COMMISSIONER ]{OAGLAND stated that be wou[{d ]Jke a condition added to ,lpdate the fire flow requirement from what the standards were at the time the of the original approval. ROBERT KFJ~BI.E, RBF and Associates, 28765 Single Oak Drive, Temecula, representing the applicant, stated that a] J phases have been recorded add that all water and sewer plans have been submitted to the proper a~encJ es. COMMISSIONER FORD questioned the dedication of a park site and whether or not Quimby Fees have been paid. MIN.9/17/90 -17- 9/21/90 PI,ANN.~NG COSMISS]ON M.~NI,]TE$ SEPTEMBER ] 7 , ]990 ROBERT KEMBI,E stated that they were in discussion with the City abollt a Dark. GARY THORNHILL stated that he thouqht that the project pre-dated the Quimby Act~ GARY THORNHTI. I. advised the Commi. ssJon that the issues do not re[ate to the Tentative Map, that they relate to cbaDqes to the Tentative MaD and that they rea].]y don't. have the ability to condition the Tentative Map, and that they are .limJ. ted to ]OOkJDO at the design i. ssues. He stated the the Commi. ssi. on's onl. y akternative wol)]d be to recommend that the app]Jcant redesign the project . COM~IISSIONRR HOAGLAND moved to deny Tentative Tract Map No. ].9872, Amended No. 2, Phase 3 and 4, seconded by COMMISS.].ONER BL;%IR, with the ~o]]owJng vote. AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Hoaqland ABSTAIN: .[ COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff The motion failed to carry, as stated by Assistant City Attorney, l,ois Boback. GARY THORN.~IILL stated that .~ the .~tem was contJ. nued, the issues they would be limited to addressing would be those relating to the architectlira] desJc[n. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to recommend that staff approve Tentative Tract MaD No. ]9877, Amended No. 2, Phase 3 and 4, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. ROB'F..RT KFJ~BLE, added that the applicant was discussing a park with the city within the project on [and that is not buJ ]dab]e; however, a coDc]us.ion has not heed reached at this time. MIN. 9117/90 -18- 9t21/90 PLANNING COMMISSION NINUTES SEPTFJ4BER .] 7, 1990 The Commission voted on t.he motion as AYES: ? COMMISS!ONERS: Fahey, Ford NOES: ]. COMMISSIONERS: Btair ABSTA]N: ~ C(~M]SSIONERS: Hoag]and, Chiniaeff Assistant City Attorney, LOIS BOBACK, advised the Commission that the absta3nJng vote goes in iavor of the motion and therefore the motion carries as CHAIRMAN DENNIS CHINIAEFF returned to the chair. SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE NO. 9 Proposal to relocate a driveway on the southwest corner of the project located at the southern corner of Buek.~ng Drive and Madison Avenile. GARY THORNHILL provided the staff report. He stated that the reason for the relocation oi the driveway was due to an uncooperative adjacent property owner. DAVID I.ESEKE, representative, expressed their concurrence with staff's recommendation. COM~ISSIONE~ BLAI~ moved to approve Substantial Conformance No. 9 based on the analysis and findings in this report and subject to the Conditions of Approval, seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND. AYES: b COMM. ISSIONERS: Blair, Fabey, Ford,Hoagland, Cbiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None MIM. 9117/90 -19- 9/21/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTFIBER ./? , 1 990 GARY THORNHILL stated that the City Counci) meeting of October 23, has been changed to October 30, 1990. He asked the Commission if the process of presenting the items w~tbout the case planner present was acceptable. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stated that on the more important issues, someone that is know)edgeab)e o~ the project sholl[d be project. COMMIS$]ONEN HOAGI,AND requested that the P]lannino Department ]ook over the agenda packages c[osel. y to ensure they are presented acm~rateilv. He a)so requested that they provide an update on the status o~ the General. P].an by October [5, 1.990. COMW:rS$IONI~:N FOND reguested that we reouire landscape plans from the aDpt.%cants~ and COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF added that they request the applicants to s~lbmit a redllced transparency of the pilot plan. COMI~ISS[ONER FORD also suggested the ap.Dl.J. cant discuss the agenda paclka(~e of their project prior to the meeting to save on time at the meeting. ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to adjourn the meeting the meetJ. ng at 10:40 P.M., seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD and carried unanimously. The next scbedIl]ed reGliilar meeting to be be]d Monday, October ], 1.990, at Vail Elementary School, 299[5 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula. MIN. 9/17/90 -20- 9/21/90