Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout121790 PC Minutes MEETING MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA HELD DECEMBER 17, 1990 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula was held Monday, December 17, 1990, 6:00 P.M. at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dennis Chiniaeff. PRESENT: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Gary Thornhill, Acting Planning Director, John Middleton, Senior Project Manager, Doug Stewart, Deputy city Engineer, Kirk Williams, Traffic Engineer and Gail 'Zigler, Minute Clerk. PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. MINUTES 1.1 Approve the minutes of November 19, 1990. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF amended the minutes as follows: Page 20, Chairman Chiniaeff asked City Attorney John Cavanaugh if a member of the Commission should attend the city Council meeting to explain their reasons for denying the two items which were up for appeal. Mr. Cavanagh responded by saying that any Commissioner could attend as a private citizen and speak for or against an item; however, they could not go to give their opinion as a Commission. COMMISSIONER FORD moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey PCMN121790 -1- 12/21/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1990 1.2 Approve the minutes of December 3, 1990. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF amended the minutes as follows: Page 3, Chairman Chiniaeff wanted the minutes to reflect the reason they choose not to hear the comments from the applicant regarding Item 8 was because they had received no information in the agenda package for this item; Page 4, Russell Rumansoff, engineer changed to architect; Page 6, dam structure in the fourth sentence changed to read concrete encasement over the sewer; Page 12, Chairman Chiniaeff's question about improvements to Moreno and Front Street were related to the intersection nearest to the Post office and Doug Stewart's comments were related to the intersection nearest to the Union 76 gasoline station; and Page 20, amended to read that Chairman Chiniaeff asked that the staff ensure that the Conditions submitted with each item pertained to that item and were not duplicated. COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to approve the minutes of December 3, 1990 as amended, seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: i COMMISSIONERS: Fahey COMMISSIONER FAHEY arrived at 6:15 P.M. and was no longer absent. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF advised that Item 4 on the agenda was continued to the meeting of January 7, 1990. OLIVER MUJICA added that Item 3 of the agenda would also be continued to January 7, 1990. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND questioned why the applicant was requesting to continue Item 3 to the next meeting. SCOTTWRIGHT stated that the applicant had some questions regarding the capital facilities fees applied to this parcel map because it is nothing more than a conversion of a existing structure and the applicant feels it will result in no additional impacts. JOHN CAVANAUGH stated that the applicant had called the city Attorney's office this date to request a continuance of this item PCMN121790 -2- 12/21/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1990 so that the City Attorney's office could research the applicability of these fees. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to continue Items 3 and 4 to the meeting of January 7, 1990, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4 2.1 Proposal to construct a 924 square foot gasoline service station and mini-market with beer and wine sales, located at the southeast corner of Highway 79 and Bedford Court. STEVE PADOVAH provided the staff report on this item. JOHN MIDDLETON requested a deletion of Condition No. 55 due to a conflict with the wording of Condition No. 56. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAHD questioned the traffic evaluation of this project and what was being done about traffic control. KIRK WILLIAMS stated that a traffic study was completed and it was determined that this type of facility would generate pass-by trips and therefore would not warrant the installation of a traffic signal. COMMISSIONER FORD questioned traffic safety and left hand turn pockets off of Highway 79. He asked what the Assessment District is planning for this area. KIRK WILLIAMS indicated that this intersection may be signalized in the future with continued development of this retail area. He stated that the traffic study reflected no problem at this time with left turns into and out of the site. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 6:30 P.M. LARRY MARKHAM, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula, stated that the applicant was in concurrence with the staff report and conditions of approval. He did ask that staff and the Commission reconsider the hours of business from 5:00 A.M. to PCMN121790 -3- 12/21/90 PLanNiNG COI~ISSION ~INUTES DECEMBER 17, 1990 12:00 A.M. as opposed to staff's proposal of 6:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. He stated that they felt the 5:00 A.M. to midnight hours were imperative to the commuter traffic. He also expressed a concern for the open-ended community services assessment fees. COMMISSIONER FAHEY questioned the need for alcoholic beverages to be sold on the premises pointing out that the Circle K directly across the street sold alcohol. LARRY MARKHAM stated that this was a competitive situation and it was for the sale of beer and wine only. COMMISSIONER BLAIR asked if the applicant's intentions were to plant mature trees as shown on the landscape plans. LARRY MARKHAM stated that staff had conditioned the landscaping to what was presented to them which was for mature trees to screen the project from adjacent residential properties. He added that staff would be approving the landscape plan. COMMISSIONER BLAIR also asked what the applicant was planning for signage. LARRY MARKHAM stated that they would utilize the monument sign at the freeway as well as a smaller sign on the property. GARY THORNHILL added that his idea was for a low monument sign on the property. COMMISSIONER BLAIR added that there was a freeway sign indicating gas and food ahead and this should be adequate notice for motorist. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND stated that he felt 6:00 A.M. was a late opening time and would not adequately service the commuter traffic and suggested that Condition No. 40 be modified to read 5:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF also stated that he felt 6:00 A.M. was a late opening time and that 11:00 P.M. was an early closing time and would like to see the hours changed to 5:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. He added that he thought the applicant did a good job of screening the project with their landscape plans. PCMN121790 -4- 12/21/90 PL~'~'~NG CONN~SS~ON ~NUTES DECEMBER 17, 1990 COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated that she felt the proposed hours of 6:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. were more suitable to this project due to the close proximity of residential housing. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND stated that this project will generate quick trip traffic and the level of noise will be adequately addressed by the placement of the screen wall. COMMISSIONER FAHEY concurred that the applicant had done a very good job with the landscape plans; however, she stated that she did not agree with the proposed sale of alcohol when there was a location adjacent to this property that supplies liquor. COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearing at 6:45 P.M. and adopt the Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit No. 4 and Adopt Resolution 90- (next) approving Conditional Use Permit No. 4, seconded for discussion purposes by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND recommended amending the motion to change Condition No. 40 from a 6:00 A.M. opening time to a 5:00 A.M. opening time. COMMISSIONER BLAIR choose not to amend her motion. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF added that he felt the hours recommended by staff were too restrictive. AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey NOES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff The motion failed. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to close the public hearing at 6:45 P.M. and adopt the Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit No. 4 and adopt Resolution 90- (next) approving Conditional Use Permit No. 4, and amended Condition No. 40 to state hours of operation from 5:00 A.M. to Midnight, seconded by CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF stated that he felt the earlier opening time was imperative to the project. COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated that she agreed the earlier hours did not pose a problem; however, did not agree with the 12 midnight closing. PCMN121790 -5- 12/21/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1990 COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND amended his motion to modify Condition No. 40 to state hours of operation from 5:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M., seconded by CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 3. PARCEL MAP 25686 3.1 This item was continued to the meeting of January 7, 1990. 4. PLOT PLAN NO. 179 4.1 This item was continued to the meeting of January 7, 1990. 5. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 23143 AMENDED NO. 4/CHANGE OF ZONE 5535 AND 6. VESTING TRACT 23143 AMENDED NO. 3, FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME 5.1 Proposal for a 1,026 lot subdivision with a change of zone from R-1 to R-4-6000 and from R-1 to R-4-5000 for 534 lots. 6.1 Proposal for extension of time for a 1,092 lot subdivision. Project is located south of Pauba Road, East of Butterfield Stage Road. GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission that after discussions with the City Attorney it was recommended and agreed that there would be no action taken at this time on the Development Agreement; however, it would be brought back at a later date. COMMISSION FORD stepped down on these items due to a potential for conflict of interest. SCOTT WRIGHT provided the staff report on this item. Mr. Wright advised the Commission of the following modifications to the Conditions of Approval for the Vesting Tentative Tract 23143 Amended No. 4: Condition No. 11, last sentence to read, "prior to the issuance of building permits."; Condition No. 26B, last sentence to read, "45 CLEN"; Condition No. 29, delete "provided for PCMN121790 -6- 12/21/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1990 the payment of parks and recreation fees" and replace with "satisfied Quimby Act requirements"; and Condition No. 35, delete "exterior of all buildings" and replace with "all buildings in common open areas." CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned the City Attorney about the approval and status of the old map. He asked if the approval of a revised tentative map approved by the City Council automatically void the old map. JOHN CAVANAUGH suggested the Planning Director address this questions. GARY THORNHILL stated that staff wanted to see the applicant develop the revised map. He said that the problem is with the ordinance, in that before approving the revised map, you have to approve the extension of time. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF suggested the alternative of denying the extension and submitting a new application. JOHN CAVANAUGH stated that the ordinance reads that under the old map, the Commission cannot entertain an extension without approving the revised map. He added that the revised map cannot be a substanially new map. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF asked if they were legally exposed approving a map that appeared to be substanially different. COMMISSIONER FAHEY asked why this was not entertained as a new map. GARY THORNHILL stated that the changes made were in direct response to the Planning Department concerns to get a better project and included more open spaces, better circulation, and the general design of the project. He added that the project still presents the same buffer space, but less units, and staff feels comfortable with the improvements. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF stated that he felt the change in lot sizes changed the complexion of the project itself. He asked staff who was proposed to maintain the large slopes on the smaller lots, which he felt could present an erosion problem. He added that he would like staff to look at a comparison of the two tracts. PCMN121790 -7- 12/21/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1990 SCOTTWRIGHT indicated that the individual property owners would be responsible for maintaining the slopes. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 7:35 P.M. ERNIE YEAGER, Ranpac Engineering, 27447 Enterprise Circle West, Temecula, clarified that what the applicant and' staff were requesting at this time was an extension of the old map and then approval of the revised map. He added that they have been working hard to improve the design characteristics of the project and have utilized lush landscaping and substantial open spaces to provide a pleasing environment within the community. He stated that they had made extensive efforts to provide park spaces which he stated exceeded the Quimby requirements. He indicated that the buffer strip along the North side of the project ranged from a minimum of 100 feet to 300 feet and they have made extensive efforts to reduce the number of intersections connecting to Pauba Road, to minimize disturbance of the rural communities to the North. Mr. Yeager also advised that where practical, the Conditions of Approval facilitate maintenance of the slopes by the Homeowners Association or the CSA. The Conditions also require the developer to construct full landscaping and irrigation in excess of three feet. Mr. Yeager advised that the 5,000 and 6,000 square foot lots were actual pad size and not the overall lot size. These lots have large slopes and are substanially larger in overall lot size. Mr. Yeager questioned if the City Attorney could research Ordinance 460 which only facilitates a 1 year time extension, and determine whether a 2 year time extension could be granted. Mr. Yeager expressed a concern for the proposed yet undetermined fees and their ability to contest those fees. Mr. Yeager concurred with the conditions set forth in the staff report; however, suggested that the last sentence of Condition 24 D on page 4 be deleted. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned the unit sizes on the 5,000 and 6,000 square foot lots. SHARON SLOKLEY, Taylor & Woodrow, stated that the architectural quidelines represented two product types: PCMN121790 -8- 12/21/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1990 a 1,700 square foot unit on the 5,000 square foot lot and a 2,100 square foot unit on the 6,000 square foot lot. WALT SWILKIA, 33480 Pauba Road, Temecula, president of the Pauba Ranchos Homeowners Association, stated that a representative from Taylor & Woodrow had brought the original map to one of their meetings. He stated that as a minimum five acre lot community they had reservations about the lot sizes and the safety of the roads. He indicated that they were private roads and the speeds were unenforceable. He stated that they are concerned with the park sites not providing parking areas, the proposed street light plan and he expressed a interest in seeing the lots along Pauba Road remain 2 1/2 acre parcels. He stated that he felt the project should be presented as an entirely new map and all of the HOA's reservations addressed. CRAIG BEAGLE, 34385 Cooperman, Temecula, stated he was against the project and he felt that the traffic impacts will be unsurmountable. He added that he-would like to see the area remain rural. PAT MCMILLIAN, 42200 Kellybrook, Temecula, asked if any consideration had been given to the existing land strip and the air corridor over the right corner of thier original map. FRANK HAMERSLEY, 41999 Via Lamonte, Temecula, expressed a concern for the road improvements being completed by the developer due to the traffic that will be generated by the project. He stated that they proposed that they would develop half the road, and the Pauba homeowners could utilize that half of the road while they improved the other side; however, they have not done any of those improvements. NICK SAVALA, 33150 Pauba Road, Temecula, expressed a concern for the drainage plans for this project due to the impacts could have on his property. He also expressed a concern for the traffic that will be generated from this project. ERNIE YEAGER stated that the maintenance of Pauba Road is on the General Plan as a public road and would be maintained by public funds and constructed to urban standards. The lots that front Pauba Road are a minimum of 10,000 square feet. The parking for the park space along Pauba is proposed to be off street. He added that the delays in the Assessment District improvements were PCMN121790 -9- 12/21/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1990 not anticipated; however, the program is still there and the improvements should be completed sometime in the near future. He also commented that all of the drainage from this project will drain from the West to the Southwest and do not anticipate affecting any of the surrounding residences. He added that in discussions with the Airport Land Use Commission the private airport did not propose any problems to this project. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF reviewed a letter from the Airport Land Use Commission indicating that the proposed development did not indicate it was in the location of any airport influence area. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND questioned the indication in the staff report the requirement for the developer to sign off any related noise problems. GARY THORNHILL stated that this could be accomplished with an Aviation Easement or a White Report for each homeowner. WALT SWILKIA advised that the airport was not under the regulation of the Riverside County Airport Committee. It is a private air strip. He stated that you have a 45 degree from the beginning to the end of the landing strip and certain type houses cannot be built in that area. You must abide by FAA standards, and not build in that area. He added that the houses along Pauba Road are not part of the Assessment District and since it is going to be a major thorougfare and their side of the road will need to be maintained. GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission that in looking into the definition of a revised map with the City Attorney they agree that the project can be handled as a revised map. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned if they approved the revised map would that start a new time period for the tentative map. JOHN CAVANAUGH stated that when you approve the revised map it does not change the time limit on the original map, even though it voids the approval of the original map it does not extend the time of that map. PCMN121790 -10- 12/21/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1990 COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND questioned the approval for the development affecting the surrounding homeowners being able to utilize the air field. GARY THORNHILL concurred with his comments. COMMISSIONER FAHEY asked for a response to the lighting issues and the road extension that would not be improved by the Assessment District. GARY THORNHILL stated that the lighting would be the standard low sodium lighting utilized throughout the City. He added that there was no question that the surrounding residents would be affected somewhat by the increase in lighting. Gary Thornhill advised the Commission again that Staff did not want to see the original project developed. COMMISSIONER FAHEY questioned if the park sites should have been included on the plans. GARY THORNHILL stated that this will be something that the developer will work out with the Parks and Recreation Department and Commission. ERNIE YEAGER provided a conceptual plan of the park site. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF expressed a concern with the compatibility of the two maps, the transition of the 5 acre parcels from the North side of Pauba to the South side of Pauba, traffic impacts on the lower density area and the adjacent lot being developed as a 7200 square foot lot tract. GARY THORNHILL advised that the adjacent parcel was zoned for 2 1/2 acre minimum. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF added that he would like to see a bigger along Pauba Road and would like the maintenance of the slopes addressed. COMMISSIONER FAHEY asked for clarification of the Commission's options for approving or denying this project. GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission that if they were to choose to deny the extension of time, once the original map expired the revised map would also expire. PCMN121790 -11- 12/21/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1990 JOHN CAVANAUGH added that the revised map should be entertained as an original map. The Commission is limited to reasons for denying, which is based primarily on health and safety reasons, as a basis for denial. He added that the Commission could present their concerns to the City Council and let them put it back to the staff or the Commission could deny this, or you could approve the extension of time and continue the revised map. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF suggested that the Commission approve the extension of time as well as the revised map with some added conditions as follows: look at a minimum landscape buffer of 200 to 300 feet along Pauba Road or larger lots along Pauba Road; have staff work out an inspection program for maintenance of the large slopes; and, look at phasing the street improvements. COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearing at 8:10 P.M. and recommend that the city Council adopt Resolution 90-(next) approving Extension of Time for Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23143, continuing Amendment No. 4 to allow staff to address the issues relating to the airport, lighting, increase in the size of the buffer lots and maintenance of the large slopes, subject to the Conditions of Approval as modified by staff. The motion failed due to lack of a second. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to recommend that the City Council approve a waiver of the requirement of Ordinance 460, Section 3.8 (c), adopt the Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 230, adopt Resolution 90-(next) approving Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23143 Amended No. 4 and Change of Zone No. 5535 and adopt the Resolution 90-(next) approving the extension of time for Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23143 Amended No. 4, subject to the Conditions of Approval as modified by staff and recommend that the City Council has the Planning Department staff work with the applicant to address the Commission's concerns regarding reducing the lighting of the development, the airport impact on the project, modifying the buffering along Pauba Road to a minimum width of 200 to 300 feet or larger lot sizes and develop a method of maintaining the interior slopes possibly through the CC&R's. COMMISSIONER FAHEY indicated a hesitation to second the motion because she understood the concerns of the PCMN121790 -12- 12/21/90 PL~NNIN~ COI~ISSION ~INUTES DECEMBER ~7o L990 Commission to be only a recommendation to the City Council and not additional Conditions of Approval. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND amended his motion to include the reduction in lighting, Airport Land Use condition, the widening of the buffer zone or an increase in lot size along Pauba Road and the wording of a Condition by staff for the maintenance of the interior slopes in the CC&R's, as additional Conditions of Approval, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair ABSTAIN:I COMMISSIONERS: Ford CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF declared a ten minute recess at 8:25 P.M. meeting reconvened at 8:35 P.M. The PLOT PLAN NO. 34 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 25059 CHANGE CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 6 AND NO. 7 7.1 Proposal to construct one seven-story office building containing 102,243 square feet; one 7,000 square foot restaurant; one 7,872 square foot restaurant; and one four level parking structure containing 134,933 square feet on 5.51 acreas; and change the maximum height limitation contained in the development Standards for the I-P (Industrial Park) zone on this site from 50 to 75 feet; and amend Ordinance No. 348, Section 10.4 (b) to increase the maximum height permitted with the I-P zone, above 75 feet. Located on the Southwest side of Ridge Park Drive, approximately seventy feet east of its intersection with Rancho California Road. OLIVER MUJICA provided the staff report on this item. He advised of the following modifications to the Conditions of Approval: Condition No. 7, te read "submitted and approved by the Planning Department"; Condition No. 12 deleted; Condition No. 27, "or lease" deleted, condition to read "Prior to the sale of any structure"; and add a Condition No. 69 to read "Prior to the issuance of building permits, a Certificate of Parcel Merger shall be approved". PCMN121790 -13- 12/21/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1990 KIRK WILLIAMS advised of the following additional modifications to the Conditions of Approval: Condition No. 60 of the Plot Plan add a sentence to read "Based on the traffic study, these plans shall be designed to provide for three hundred feet of left turn storage capacity on westbound Rancho California Road to southbound Ridge Park Drive."; Condition No. 61 delete "pro rata percentage" and replace with "46%"; and Conditions No. 37 and No. 39 of the Parcel Map are the same as above and will be amended accordingly. COMMISSIONER FAHEY asked if the Commission approved the amendment of Ordinance No. 348, would it apply to just this project or would it apply to all future developments. GARY THORNHILL stated that it would have city wide implications. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned the City A~torney if the applicant wanted a variance to the development standards you request a variance to show a reason. JOHN CAVANAUGH stated that this was correct; however, variances are typically restricted to odd lot sizes and the applicant in this case is requesting an amendment to the zoning ordinance. You would be recommending a policy change. OLIVER MUJICA stated that the application was originally submitted as a plot plan. After staff's review, they came up with the issue of how to get above 75 feet. Staff's interpretation of the zoning ordinance was that anything above the 75 feet would be for mechanical storage, etc., and looking at the applicant's application the floor line on the seventh floor is 75 feet. The ordinance reads buildings at 75 feet and structures at 105 feet. COMMISSIONER FAHEY questioned if the fire department could service a structure of this height. OLIVER MUJICA stated that there are specific Conditions of Approval from the fire department. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND questioned if the reason staff was going for a change in the ordinance was because it was to hard to get a variance. GARY THORNHILL stated that variances were usually handled on a case-by-case basis for which you have to make unique PCMN121790 -14- 12/21/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1990 findings. If the Council or Commission feels the findings are justified in each case then a decision is made. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 8:50 P.M. ANTHONYPOLO, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula, provided exhibits of the proposed building. He clarified that the building was 91 feet to the top and 75 feet to the seventh floor elevation. COMMISSIONER FORD questioned if the glass on the building was reflective. MR. POLO stated that yes this was reflective glass; however, it could be conditioned for some other type of glass. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF asked the Fire Department representative to address the height concerns. MIKE GRAY, Riverside County Fire Department, stated that the City of Temecula will be receiving their 105' aerial platform truck within the next 30 days. He added that the City's fire ordinance makes special considerations for any building over 30 feet and must be built to high-rise standards and items that are usually required of buildings of 75 feet or more are required on a building of 30 feet or more in the City of Temecula. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND questioned traffic mitigation for this project. KIRK WILLIAMS stated that the current situation at Front Street and Rancho California Road will be impacted and continue to operate at lower standard levels. COMMISSIONER BLAIR questioned why the applicant needed this height for their building. GARY THORNHILL stated that when the applicant went to the County, they got an interpretation from the County that they could build at this height; however, when it was transferred to the City, staff had concerns about the height. Staff felt that this was a good project and the height was there only concern. He added that staff would like some policy direction on this issue until the general plan is completed. He recommended that the Commission consider some interim guidelines on occupied floor heights. PCMN121790 -15- 12/21/90 PL~'qlqlNG COIO[ISSION ~NUTES DECEMBER ~7o ~990 COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated then when you look at added floor height rather than mechancial space you have to address the traffic issue and was concerned with setting a precedent and the Commission will have difficulty denying other projects. GARY THORNHILL indicated that he felt if the Commission suggested that the City Council establish some interim language discouraging these types of applications, then there should be no problems in the future. He added that this applicant was just caught in the transition. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF asked if the applicant would consider lowering the building one floor. LARRY MARKHAM, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula, stated that with the Bedford building, when they went to the County for their zone change, the County relayed that as long as the maximum floor height was not above 75 feet they did not need to do a zone change. He added that what the applicant was requesting was a ordinance clarification and rather than coming to you with findings for a variance, staff choose to pursue the ordinance amendment. Mr. Markham stated that they did not forsee lowering the maximum floor height. COMMISSIONER BLAIR stated that she did not approve of this height and felt it was out of character for the area. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF stated that he did not agree and he felt that a building of this height against the hills was appropriate, versus a building of this height on the flat land; however, he did not like the process that was being taken to get the approval for the additional height. Chairman Chiniaeff stated that he felt a variance was the best way to handle the change in the height. He added that he felt the traffic problems were being adequately addressed and the project could be conditioned to complete improvements prior to occupancy. Chairman Chiniaeff recommended that the ordinance stay as written and each application addressed on a case-by-case basis. COMMISSIONER FORD commented that he felt if the Commission approved this building then they will be setting a precedent for the I.P. zone. PCMN121790 -16- 12/21/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1990 GARY THORNHILL stated that in this case only the applicant is asking for the additional height, and all other applications will be addressed on a case-by-case basis. He added that this applicant had received commitments from the County when planning this building. JOHN CAVANAUGH added that the Commission was making a recommendation to change the ordinance which would be creating a precedent; however, these are development standards that will be coming before the Commission or the City Council. GARY THORNHILL added that until the general plan is adopted staff will not encourage projects with this height proposal. COMMISSIONER FORD questioned if the Commission could make a recommendation to the City Council to clarify an ordinance before the general plan. He stated that he liked the project; however, he was concerned with future requests for amendments to the height ordinance. He concurred that he also felt a variance was more appropriate to the project and that he felt that they could come up with the findings for a variance and that some of the findings that were in the staff report were not appropriate. GARY THORNHILL stated again that in his personal opinion once you approve a variance for height you also set a precedent, and when you have a re-zoning applicant you are not limited by time, etc. It is a legislative decision by the approving body and it is a policy statement. JOHN CAVANAUGH added that on a change of zone is a policy issue and findings are not required under state law; however, a variance would require findings for denial. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF asked if the issue was that this project was asking to vary from the standards of the zone ordinance and unless you change the zone standards you ask for variance. GARY THORNHILL stated that there are provisions in the code, in the I.P. zone district you may apply for a re-zoning to change the height. COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated that she agreed with the Mr. Thornhill's conclusion to pursue a change of zone rather than a variance. PCMN121790 -17- 12/21/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1990 GARY THORNHILL clarified that the current way the ordinance reads you do need a re-zoning for inhabitable space above 50 feet, if you go above 75 feet is must be uninhabitable space. JOHN CAVANAUGH stated that the ordinance reads that no building and/or structure can exceed 50 feet under the present ordinance, unless you go through the process of section 1834 of the ordinance, which allows you to go to 75 feet for buildings (inhabitable space) or 105 feet for other structures (uninhabitable space). Not only do you have to amend the existing ordinance, you have to apply for a zone change. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF asked why the Commission doesn't just change the height and then the Planning Department can determine the height limitation on a case-by-case basis. GARY THORNHILL stated that staff preferred to keep the height limit throughout the district. COMMISSIONER FORD clarified with the Commission that they did not want a non-reflective glass building. COMMISSIONER FAHEY and COMMISSIONER BLAIR stated that they did not want reflective glass; however, COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND stated no and CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF stated that he liked the building the way it was. COMMISSIONER FORD moved to close the public hearing at 9:50 P.M. and adopt the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 34, Tentative Parcel Map No. 25059 and Change of Zone Nos. 6 and 7; and adopt Resolution No. 90-(next) approving Change of Zone No. 6; adopt Resolution No. 90-(next) approving Change of Zone No. 7; adopt Resolution No. 90-(next) approving Plot Plan No. 34; and adopt Resolution No. 90-(next) approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 25059, subject to the Conditions of Approval as presented and amended by staff, seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT 8.1 GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission of the following: PCMN121790 -18- 12/21/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1990 Interviews have been conducted for the general plan consultants and the City will be inviting three of the applicants to participate in the proposal process. He added that the request for proposals will probably go out in two weeks with an approximate two week turn-around. Received approval from the City Manager for each Commissioner to become a member of the American Planning Association. Will provide an area for Commissioner's concerns on the future agendas. Mr. Thornhill advised that when Tentative Tract 25212 off of Nicklas and Calle Medusa went to the Council, the Council directed staff to look at that area and come back with a recommendation on the appropriate land use designation. Staff will putting together a package of that whole area and bring it back to the Commission and the Council. He added that this project was approved by the City Council with a one acre restriction, instead of the half-acre the Commission reviewed it at. 9. OTHER BUSINESS 9.1 COMMISSIONER FAHEY questioned if the Commission will have access to the Lightfoot Study. GARY THORNHILL advised that he would be presenting that to the Commissioners as well as some selected developers. Mr. Thornhill stated that the Planning staff is currently working on the last of the transfer cases from the County and is starting some of their own cases and he added that they are looking at a pre-application process. DOUG STEWART advised the Commission of a provision of the tract map which reflects that is some of the larger projects are putting in more than $125,000 in off-site improvements and they have recorded a phase of their map they get an automatic three year extension on top of the one year extension that the City grants, therefore many of these projects will not be back before the Commission for quite some time. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND commented on applicants requesting continuance of thier items the day of the meeting. He indicated that he did not approve of continuing these items at the last minute. PCMN121790 -19- 12/21/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 17, 1990 GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission that they had the discretion of continuing the item or hearing the item. He added that he would talk with staff about making recommendations to do so. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF commented that he was pleased with the public hearing signs being utilized; however, he suggested they be placed in an area where they can be easily read. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF asked if any one is doing anything with the Historical Review Committee notices. GARY THORNHILL stated that yes they are addressed and any item that comes before the Commission that is in the Old Town area there will be a recommendation from the this Committee. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF adjourned the meeting at 10:10 P.M. The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be Monday, January 7, 1991, 6:00 P.M. at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. S~-cretary PCMN121790 -20- 12/21/90