Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout120390 PC MinutesH~NUTES OF ~ REGULAR ~EET~N~ OF THE C~TY OF TE~ECUL~ PLANNING COMMISSION HELD DECEMBER 3, 1990 A regular meeting of the Temecula Planning Commission was called to order at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California at 6:00 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dennis Chiniaeff. PRESENT: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Also present were Acting Planning Director Gary Thornhill, John Middleton, Doug Stewart, Deputy city Engineer, Kirk Williams, Traffic Engineer, Assistant city Attorney John Cavanaugh and Minute Clerk Gail Zigler. PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. MINUTES 1.1 Approve the minutes of November 5, 1990. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to approve the minutes of November 5, 1990, seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN:2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford 1.2 Approve the minutes of November 19, 1990. Minutes were not included in the agenda packages. continued to the next agenda. Item GARY THORNHILL stated that Item No. 3 of the agenda had been placed on the agenda at the request of the applicant; however, the staff report did not go out with the agenda packages. The applicant has requested that the item be brought up for discussion at this meeting and staff will present the staff report and if the Commission needs more information they can request to continue the item to receive more information. PCMIN12/3/90 -1- 12/7/90 PL~NNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 1990 Mr. Thornhill also advised the Commission that Items 5, 6, and 8 would be continued to the December 17, 1990 agenda. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to continue Items 5, 6, and 8 to the agenda of December 17, 1990, seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 2. SUMMARY VACATION OF JEFFERSON AVENUE 2.1 Proposal to vacate the existing Jefferson Avenue alignment. DOUG STEWART provided the staff report. He stated the vacation was being processed in conjuction with the approval of Parcel Map 23561-2. He added that the re-alignment of Jefferson would allow direct connection with the alignment which was established by Parcel Map 20490. Existing alignment needs no improvements. He added that what was before the Commission was to find that the vacation was consistent with the upcoming general plan. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND asked when Cherry Street was vacated and was concerned that a portion of this parcel was half street width of Cherry. CHRIS HOPPER, 28481 Rancho California Road, Suite 204, Temecula, engineer for the project, stated that Cherry Street east of Jefferson has been abandoned. He stated that the right-of-way had to do with Jefferson. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND asked if a portion of Cherry Street was being vacated also. He was concerned that all the utilities were out and the resolution correctly reflected what they were doing. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF asked if staff with satisfied with the way the easement was written. DOUG STEWART said that staff was satisfied with it and that the item was on the agenda for the City Council the following evening and he would review it to make sure it correctly reflected what staff was approving. PCMIN12/3/90 -2- 12/7/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 1990 COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to adopt Resolution No. 90-(next) and concur to staff's recommendation that the summary findings are likely to be consistent with the general plan. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None GARY THORNHILL advised Chairman Chiniaeff that the applicant wanted to discuss Item No. 8 at this meeting. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF stated that the Commission moved to continue the item and that there was no information in the agenda package and therefore they had nothing to base a decision on. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF stated that the Commission would like to continue the item as previously moved. LARRY MARKHAM stated that they would prefer that the Commission hear the item; however the Commission remained with their motion. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3. EXTENSION OF TIME PM 23430 REVISED NO. i 3.1 Proposal for the first extension of time for PM 23430 located at the southwest corner of Ynez and Winchester Road. STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report on this item. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 6:30 P.M. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at 6:30 P.M. and recommended approval of First Extension of Time for Parcel Map 23430, Revision No. 1, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD and carried unanimously. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 4. PLOT PLAN NO. 104 PCMIN12/3/90 -3- 12/7/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 1990 4.1 Proposal for a 1,996 square foot addition to the Tower Plaza located at 27475 Ynez Road, Temecula. STEVE PADOVAN provided the staff report. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 6:35 P.M. RUSSELL RUMANSOFF, 530 St. Johns Place, Hemet, architect representing the applicant, concurred with the findings and conditions of the staff report. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to close the public hearing at 6:35 P.M. and adopt Resolution No. 90-(next) approving Plot Plan No. 104, based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None o PLOT PLaN NO. 34, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 25059, CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 6 AND NO. 7 This item has been continued to the meeting of December 17, 1990. 6. PLOT PLAN NO. 179 This item has been continued to the meeting of December 17, 1990. 7. TRACT MAP 26549 AND PLOT PLAN 10864 7.1 Proposal to construct a 260 unit townhouse development on a 22.22 acre site located south of Rancho California Road East of Moraga Road. OLIVER MUJICA provided the staff report. JOHN MIDDLETON reviewed changes to Engineering Conditions of approval. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned if there had been any revisions to the school district issue of access on this project. OLIVER MUJICA stated that the school district is not prepared to become the lead agency for the improvements PCMIN12/3/90 -4- 12/7/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 1990 and/or initiation of the pedestrian accessway and is only requesting the 10' strip, along the westerly property line, as dedication to be used in the future. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF re-opened the public hearing 7:45 P.M. LARRY MARKHAM, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula, representing the applicant, advised the Commission that in speaking with Shawn Nelson, Community Services Director and Joan Sparkman, their desire was to have the developer maintain the 10' easement, which concurred with the previous agreement. In regards to the drainage issue, Mr. Markham stated that he had several meetings with the Oder family and have reviewed the site as well as done substantial research with flood control. He stated that on the easterly project there was a surface drain which caused the severe erosion during the flooding in 1978. Me added that in 1980, that was replaced by an inlet and underground system going through Mira Loma Apartments down to Empire Creek. Mr. Markham stated that as opposed to what they were originally proposing, they are now proposing to direct the drainage into the inlet and deepen the flow line which would mean that all of the drainage from this project would now go to the southwest corner of the site through a series of storm drains. All the surface drainage would be taken around the Oder property and down to Empire Creek which he felt would satisfactorily address the drainage concerns. In regards to flooding during the grading process, Mr. Markham proposed providing the City with a Course of Construction Insurance Policy due to the vulnerability during the grading process. Mr. Markham also proposed that the CC&R's include a provision that the project could not be mass leased to address the Oder's concern that it not become a apartment complex; however, Mr. Markham added that he would request that this be a condition of all proposed condo developments within the city, and not just this particular project. ROBERT L. ODER, 29911 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, provided the staff with pictures and materials he used in his presentation. He expressed a concern for flooding during the grading process of this project. He stated that although he was pleased to see the progress the developer PCMIN12/3/90 -5- 12/7/90 PL~/TNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 1990 had made regarding the drainage issues, in meeting with the developer they had made specific requests to see the detailed drainage plans and had not yet received them. He also expressed a concern for the concrete encasement over the sewer located downstream of Empire Creek which he had a letter from Flood Control stating that the structure did not meet standards. COMMISSIONER FORD asked if the Oders had contacted Flood Control and addressed this issue. HELEN ODER, 29911 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, stated that they have contacted Flood Control on several occassions trying to resolve this matter. She added that they are very concerned with the potential for disaster in the event of a flood. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned Ms. Oder if the apartments to the East were designed to carry water down and along their property. HELEN ODER responded that they have found nothing indicating that they were. ROBERT J. ODER, 29911 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, also referred to the materials presented to staff and the flooding of their property in 1978. He stated that no matter where the water comes down from, it must go into Empire Creek; he suggested that the drain coming down the property should turn away from the sewer main. TAMARA STEIN, 2049 Century Park East, Los Angeles, attorney for the Oders, thanked Mr. Markham for agreeing that the project remain a condo project. She added that while the Oder's felt the insurance policy was good for the City, their property should also be covered since it stands to be severly impacted. She stated that they were not in agreement with Conditions No. 52 and No. 56 and felt that the developer should have a comprehensive erosion control plan in affect at all times; she recommended that no grading be allowed during the rainy season and also that the Oder's would prefer not to see sand bags used as erosion control. She added that the would like to see the condo condition included in the Conditions of Approval. LARRY MARKHAMadvised that the easterly apartment project was requested by Flood Control that the drainage flow be contained within the driveway with a six inch asphalt PCMIN12/3/90 -6- 12/7/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 1990 berm; however, the original owners choose not to do that. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF asked if a condition could be imposed denying mass leasing of the project. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that although the project could be conditioned as initially purchase of units be owner occupied, he doubted that this could be enforced. He stated that he would have to further review the matter. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF asked if staff had received the drainage calculations for the project. DOUG STEWART stated that staff had reviewed the entire layout of the drainage system with the applicant's engineers. He stated that it was concluded that the downstream property owners were in a better position with the project in place than as the property is today. COMMISSIONER FORD stated that he had a problem with a condition for denying mass leasing which would be applied to all future developments of this nature. He stated that he did not agree on closing the door to those type of projects in the community. He added that he had no problems with the proposed drainage as long as the engineer was showing a decrease in the drainage along the southeast corner of the project. DOUG STEWART stated that the tentative engineering plans show the pipes on the southeast side of the project oversized by 50%. COMMISSIONER FORD questioned what Riverside County Flood Control District was doing about the downstream flow. He added that he could not understand why they weren't addressing the issues that have been raised by the Oders. DOUG STEWART advised that The Flood Control District was accepting the drainage of this project as conditioned. He stated that staff could contact Flood Control and have this issue addressed. COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearing at 7:30 P.M. and continue Tract Map 26549 and Plot Plan 10864 and direct staff to contact Flood Control and get some answers to those issues regarding the dam structure in the creek as well as to allow the City Attorney time to issue an opinion on the leasing condition, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. PCMIN12/3/90 -7- 12/7/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 1990 DOUG STEWART stated that he felt the problem with the dam structure is between Flood Control and the individual who built it and not the applicant. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND stated that he could not support a continuance of this item. He stated that he felt the applicant had properly addressed all the drainage concerns and that he would not concur with the condition for no mass leasing. COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated that the issue of whether or not the creek could handle the increased flow had not been addressed and felt they needed to ensure that it could. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND commented that Flood Control, as well as the engineers, have said that the creek could handle it. COMMISSIONER BLAIR reminded that the motion was for continuance not denial. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF called for the vote. AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey NOES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to close the public hearing and adopt Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 and Plot Plan No. 10864 and adopt Resolution No. 90-(next) approving Tentative Tract Map No. 26549 and adopt Resolution No. 90-(next) approving Plot Plan No. 10864 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval as amended, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4 This item has been continued to the meeting of December 17, 1990. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF declared a ten minute recess at 7:35 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 7:45 P.M. 9. PLOT PLAN NO. 157 9.1 Proposal to construct a children's playland at the PCMIN12/3/90 -8- 12/7/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 1990 existing McDonald's fast food restaurant site located at 28100 Front Street. OLIVER MUJICA provided the staff report on this item. COMMISSIONER FORD questioned if the playland equipment would be the standard colors. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 7:50 P.M. CONNIE GIFFIN, 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, San Diego, representing the applicant, stated that the playland would incorporate McDonald's new color scheme of greys with greens, and pinks as accent colors. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to close the public hearing at 7:50 P.M. and adopt Resolution No. 90-(next) and approve Plot Plan No. 157 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, based on the findings contained in the staff report, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 10. PLOT PLAN NO. 11654 10.1 Proposal to develop four mixed use Retail/Industrial office buildings on approximately 2.5 acres located Northwest of Del Rio Road, between Calle Cortez and Las Haciendas Street. RICHARD AYALA presented the staff report. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned if this property had a reciprocal drainage easement. JOHN MIDDLETON stated that he had not seen any reciprocal drainage easements on this property. COMMISSIONER HOA~LAND expressed a concern that the rear entrance doors along the back of the building would be used for loading and unloading instead of the designated loading zone at the front of the building. He questioned if the project could be conditioned to limit it to front loading only. GARY THORNHILL suggested requiring signs posted indicating "No Loading Zone". PCMIN12/3/90 -9- 12/7/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 1990 CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 8:10 P.M. ROB SANDERS, Andrews & Rothenberg, Santa Ana, advised the Commission that the rear entrance doors did not swing out. He also addressed the reciprocal drainage easement and stated he wasn't aware of one; however, the sump located on the property was in place due to a low spot. COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearing at 8:10 P.M. and adopt the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 11654 and adopt Resolution No. 90-(next) approving Plot Plan No. 11654, based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval, seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 11. PLOT PLAN NO. 126 11.1 Proposal to construct a two story bank with 10,620 square feet of floor area and a two story office building with 6,480 square feet of floor space located on the easterly side of Jefferson abutting the northerly side of Santa Gertrudis Creek. OLIVER MUJICA provided the staff report on this item. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 8:15 P.M. BRUCE NUNEZ, Bank of Commerce, San Diego, representing the applicant, expressed their concurrence with the conditions and findings set forth in the staff report. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at 8:15 P.M. and adopt the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 126; adopt Resolution No. 90-(next) approving Plot Plan No. 126 and Approve Plot Plan No. 126 based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PCMIN12/3/90 -10- 12/7/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 1990 12. PARCEL MAP NO. 25687 12.1 Proposal to convert an existing commercial structure to a 2 unit condominium for ownership purposes located at 28450 Felix Valdez Avenue. STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report on this item. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 8:20 P.M. MARK TILPERT, 33415 Little Red Place, Sun City, expressed concurrence with the findings and conditions set forth in the staff report. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND questioned an existing reciprocal access agreement. MARK TILPERT responded that this was a private easement between three individuals on the previous title report that had not been removed. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to close the public hearing at 8:20 P.M. and adopt Resolution No. 90-(next) approving Parcel Map No. 25687 and approve Parcel Map No. 25687 based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval as presented in the staff report, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 13. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 24038, PLOT PLAN 76 13.1 Proposal to subdivide 4.99 acres into 3 parcels and construct a 92 unit motel and convert an existing building into a restaurant located at Moreno Drive Adjacent to Motel 6. STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report on this item. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND stated that the staff report did not indicate any additional traffic that might be generated by this project at the intersection of Moreno Road and Front Street. KIRK WILLIAMS advised that the peak hours of the motel would be off-peak hours of the traffic patterns. He PCMIN12/3/90 -11- 12/7/90 PL~NNIN~ COl. fi~ISSION HINUTES DECEMBER 3, 1990 added that they concluded the traffic generated by the motel would be distributed throughout the day and off- peak. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND questioned the placement of this motel/restaurant adjacent to the historical Sam Hicks Park. GARY THORNHILL stated that the department posted public hearing notices and had not received any negative response. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned truck parking. STEVE JIANNINO stated that the trucks would utilize street parking. KIRK WILLIAMS stated that they did condition the project for 165' of red curb in front of the project. GARY THORNHILL stated that it would be impossible to provide that type of parking within the project. He added that the city is looking into a City wide ordinance regarding truck parking. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned if this project was being conditioned to install traffic signals at Moreno and Front Street near the post office. KIRK WILLIAMS stated that the trips generated by this project will not severly impact this intersection. DOUG STEWART added that the staff is looking at putting in a raised median at the intersection of Moreno and Front Streets, near the Union 76 station, to allow right- in and right-out only. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 8:35 P.M. JOHN JOHNSON, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road Temecula, representing the applicant, addressed the staff with questions relative to some of the Conditions of the Plot Plan. He stated that on Condition No. 1, the applicant did some minor revisions after their meetings with staff which provided them with two additional parking spaces, and therefore, they propose to increase the motel to 94 units; Condition No. 16, their request was for the deletion of one handicapped parking space in front of the PCMIN12/3/90 -12- 12/7/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 1990 restaurant to be utilized for additional drainage; Condition No. 21, they proposed to construct a decorative block wall with wrought iron and pilasters; and Condition No. 31, they propose that the wording be changed to require a substantial conformance when the elevations for the restaurant are proposed. COMMISSIONER FAHEY questioned if the applicant would prefer that Condition No. 1 remain as written or to continue the item to investigate the increase. DEL CURLAN, 29847 Villa Alturez, Temecula, representing Leland/Sung Development, stated that they would prefer to go forward with the project. JIM BACARELLA, 29892 Corte Tolano, Temecula, opposed the motel/restaurant adjacent to the historical Sam Hicks Park and stated that he felt the project would have a negative impact on the traffic on Front Street. COMMISSIONER HOAHLAND questioned staff's comments to the applicant's request for the amendments to the Conditions of Approval. GARY THORNHILL stated that they would prefer to see the conditions remain as written. COMMISSIONER HOAHLAND questioned the possibility of increased incident of graffiti on the wall if left a solid block wall. GARY THORNHILL suggested that they could construct the wrought iron and pilaster wall with a hedge along the front between the wall and the park. COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated that she felt the building was to tall for the area proposed. COMMISSIONER FORD concurred with Commissioner Fahey, adding that he was concerned with the impact that the project would have on traffic and felt that signalization should be addressed. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF stated that no matter what is put here it will be located next to Sam Hicks Park. He also stated that he felt the proposed height of the building was too tall for the area and that he felt the project was going to impact traffic. He also expressed a concern for what was happening in relation to the restaurant area. PCMIN12/3/90 -13- 12/7/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 1990 COMMISSIONER FORD clarified that the approval for the restaurant was going to come back to the Commission at a later date. GARY THORNHILL stated that it would be coming back; however, the applicant was requesting an approval on the use, which he opposed. COMMISSIONER FORD suggested that staff look at restricting parking off of Sixth Street as well. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND questioned approving this item not to include the restaurant. GARY THORNHILL recommended that Condition 31 of the Plot Plan require that all uses submitted shall be applied for at a later date and not be part of this approval. He also recommended amending Condition No. i to delete the last four words. COMMISSIONER FAHEY asked if staff could address some of the concerns presented by the Commission more clearly. GARY THORNHILL stated that if it was the issues of compatibility, height, etc., then they were looking at a major re-design. COMMISSIONER FORD stated that if it was not sent back to staff, he would not approve it. He requested staff's guidance. STEVE JIANNINO stated that a concern of the City Council in May was approving the project with no Parcel Map. They wanted to make sure the project fit the Parcel Map. COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated that what the Commission was saying is that they did not like the way this project fit the map. STEVE JIANNINO stated that staff would prefer that it not be approved. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised the Commission that they could approve the plot plan and the parcel map; or, approve the parcel map and plot plan without the restaurant; or, approve the plot plan with conditions; or, just deny the whole project including the parcel map; also, they could continue it with direction to staff of what the Commission wants. PCMIN12/3/90 -14- 12/7/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 1990 COMMISSIONER FORD moved to close the public hearing at 8:55 P.M. and continue this item and direct staff to address the concerns expressed by the Commission. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised the Commission that a better solution might be to deny the project and have the applicant work with staff and then bring it back. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF called for a second to the motion. The motion failed due to lack of a second. Chairman Chiniaeff stated that he felt it was an appropriate use for the location; however, he felt that the building was to high and had a negative impact on the park. He felt it would be better to let staff work with the applicant and address those concerns rather than deny the whole project. COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated that although the use and location may be appropriate, there is nothing else the Commission likes about the project and the issues that need to be addressed would constitute a redesign. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND stated that he felt the concerns that are being addressed by the Commission are beyond the applicant's ability to deal with. The traffic problems were already there, the Park was already there and he feels that the applicant has shown a great effort in conforming to the zone. COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearing and continue the item off calendar to allow the applicant time to address the Commission's concerns relating to the height of the building, the additional impact on the area and park and work with staff, seconded by CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF. GARY THORNHILL expressed concern for the time frame involved and advised that the City Council was directing staff to charge additional fees for the additional staff time spent on redesigning the project to get the project through. Gary Thornhill advised that if it was continued, they may have to bring it back with a recommendation for action on the parcel map as well as the plot plan and the applicant work out a deposit with staff to pay for the additional time spent on this item. Gary Thornhill suggested asking the applicant to apply PCMIN12/3/90 -15- 12/7/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 1990 for a 90 day time extension. COMMISSIONER BLAIR withdrew her motion, and the 2nd concurred. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF asked if the applicant was willing to apply for a 90 day extension. LARRY MARKHAM stated that they would prefer to continue the item to a determined date, but would agree to a 90 day extension. GARY THORNHILL stated that staff could bring it back on the second agenda for the month of January. COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearing and re-notice and continue Tentative Parcel Map 24038, Plot Plan 76 to the second agenda in January, seconded by CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF. COMMISSIONER FAHEY expressed disagreement with the motion due to the substantial redesign and the increased cost to the City. AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff NOES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Hoagland The motion failed to carry. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to deny Tentative Parcel Map 24038 and Plot Plan 76 based on the design, height of the building, traffic concerns and proposed restaurant. The motion failed due to lack of a second. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to reconsider the motion to continue, seconded by CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF called for the vote on the motion to continue Tentative Parcel Map 24038, Plot Plan 76 to the second agenda in January and close the public hearing. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford PCMIN12/3/90 -16- 12/7/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 1990 14. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25603 14.1 Proposal for a 57 Lot Multiple Family Subdivision of 20.8 acres located at Margarita Road, approximately 1500 feet easterly of Moraga Road. STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report on this item. COMMISSIONER FAHEY questioned staff if they had presented all their concerns to the applicant and if the applicant was willing to conform to staff's conditions. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 9:25 P.M. WALT DIXON, 41785 Enterprise Circle West, Temecula, applicant, discussed his reasons for deciding to build a four-plex development rather than an apartment complex. He commented that he did not feel there was a need for CC&R's due to the fact that these were usually owner occupied units. COMMISSIONER FAHEY questioned if there were any park facilities within the project. WALT DIXON stated that there was no designated park area within the development; however, they would be paying the required fees. He did add that the Commission could choose any lot within the project to be designated as park area. JERRY ZIGROSSI, 30173 Hillside Terrace, San Juan Capistrano, California, engineer for the project, spoke in favor of the project and stated that the elevations of the units closely resembled that of a residential development. He suggested that staff could condition the architectural and landscape design. DEL COVINGTON, 30525 Greenbrook, Canyon Lake, California, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that this type of development is considered to be an home owner/income property and that it is a natural buffer between residential houses and apartment complexs. The following individuals strongly opposed the development: CLARK KEGLEY, 41775 Humber Drive, Temecula. ERIK KRAG, 29917 Via Puesta Del Sol, Temecula. DUNCAN MACDONALD, 42135 Humber Drive, Temecula. BILL BELLINO, 42111 Humber Drive, Temecula. PCMIN12/3/90 -17- 12/7/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 1990 GLEN SMITH, 42105 Humber Drive, Temecula. JIM BACARELLA, 29892 Corte Tolano, Temecula. ERNEST CROSBY, 29891 Corte Tolano, Temecula. LINDA VANKIRK, 41756 Humber Drive, Temecula. ARTHUR YORK, 30087 Corte San Luis, Temecula. GARY BURG, 30219 Corte Cantera, Temecula. JEFF CUNY, 30080 Corte Cantera, Temecula. PETE ROSSI, 30475 Shenandoah Court, Temecula. All of these individuals expressed concern for the continued development of high density housing in this area and felt that it was an inappropriate location for this type of housing due to the close proximity of the residential neighborhoods. They also expressed a concern for the excess traffic generated from this project that will access Margarita Road, which they referred to as a raceway. Another point they made was the increased incident of crime and drugs in these high density housing developments. WALT DIXON stated that he felt that, since most of the units would be individually owned/rented, there would be more pride in the property and less incidence of crime as opposed to a apartment complex. He added that the school district was pleased to see this type of development going in as opposed to an apartment complex. JANET YORK, 30087 Corte San Luis, Temecula, addressed the Commission with her opposition to the project and added the schools are at capacity now, and that the school district is strongly opposing high density housing. GARY THORNHILL advised the Commission that staff would like some feedback before they determine a date to continue. He asked if the Commission would entertain a different type of design. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND stated that the Commission has tried to work towards decreasing the density as they approached single family the residential housing. He expressed a desire to see somewhere in the area of 8 dwelling units per acre for this site. He did not support the concept of individually owned units. He stated that he would prefer to see a condominium type set-up with common open space. COMMISSIONER FAHEY agreed with Commission Hoagland's comments and asked staff if that would require an extensive redesign which would require the Commission's denial or could staff work with the applicant and the PCMIN12/3/90 -18- 12/7/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 1990 proposed design. GARY THORNHILL stated that they could not work with the design and would prefer that the Commission deny it. COMMISSIONER FORD disagrees with the use of the crib wall and should be addressed from a design standpoint. He added that a development of this size should have some type of amenities as well as a control mechanism such as CC&R's so that the properties do not run down. He stated he felt the schools are going to have to handle themselves and he felt the sub-standard lots on the south end should be redeveloped for the project to allow for the addition of play areas, tot lots, etc. COMMISSIONER BLAIR stated that when the Commission has had other projects of this nature presented to them they have had the developer work with them to produce meaningful projects for the area and some of those requirements have been open space, CC&R's and less dense housing in these areas and all of these things as well as the impact on the schools, the Commission is concerned about. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF also opposed the four-plex concept for this lot. He added that he concurred with the decrease in density moving towards the east. He stated that he hoped that the developer could work with staff to address these concerns. He stated that, although he did not support the four-plex concept due to the high density, he did feel that the property should be developed. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at 10:25 P.M. and recommend that the City Council deny Tentative Tract Map 25603 based upon the findings in the staff report, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland, Chiniaeff CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF and COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND stated that, although they did not approve the project as presented, they did feel the applicant should have the opportunity to work with staff to address the Commission's concerns. COMMISSIONER FORD stated that going back to staff to address all the issues that were brought up by the Commission would constitute a substantial redesign PCMIN12/3/90 -19- 12/7/90 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 3, 1990 which would cost the City additional money. He stated that it would be cheaper for the applicant to re-file his project. He added that he did not oppose the four- plex concept; however, he felt that it should include all the amentities (which would mean a lower density), but it would include the common maintenance and CC&R's associated with multiple family housing. COMMISSIONER FAHEY advised the audience that this item would be brought before the City Council for final decision. 15. PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT 15.1 GARY THORNHILL advised that the general plan consultant interviews were being conducted this Saturday. He also advised that the Planning Department has instituted the use of signs to notice public hearings. 16. OTHER BUSINESS 16.1 COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND questioned the issuance of temporary outdoor use permits and asked that staff watch these a little more closely. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF asked that staff ensure that the conditions that are being submitted apply to the projects and are not duplications. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF adjourned the meeting at 10:35 P.M. Next regular meeting will be held December 17, 1990, 6:00 P.M. at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula. Secretary PCMIN12/3/90 -20- 12/7/90