Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout030491 PC Minutes~NUTES OF ~ REGULAR HEET~NG OF THE C~TY OF TE~ECUL~ PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 1991 A regular meeting of the city of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order Monday, March 4, 1991, at 6:00 P.M., at 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dennis Chiniaeff. PRESENT: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Chiniaeff ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Ford Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Gary Thornhill, Acting Planning Director, Doug Stewart, Deputy City Engineer and Gail Zigler, Minute Clerk. PUBLIC COMMENTS None COMMISSION BUSINESS None NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS None PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 6 (CUP NO. 6) 1.1 Proposal is a request to convert 101,984 square foot industrial/warehouse structure for use as a commercial meeting/seminar venue including provision of food services. Located on the north side of Business Park Drive (approximately 3,000 feet north of Rancho California Road). CHARLES RAY provided the staff report. DOUG STEWART requested that Condition No. 12 be modified by deleting the words "and City rights-of-way". C~IRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public discussion at 6:10 P.M. PCMIN3/04/91 -1- MARCH 7, 1991 PL~TNING COHH~SSION H~NUTES M~RCH 4, 1991 PAMELA JANDT, Prestige Incorporated, 27635 Jefferson Avenue, Temecula, discussed the proposed use of the facility and some of the community and corporate interest that has been expressed in support of this facility. Ms. Jandt advised the Commission that she had parking agreements from two adjacent property owners and added that during all hours of business they will maintain a security guard and parking attendants at the facility. TOMLANGLEY, 27505 Ynez Road, Suite B, Temecula, president of the Community Recreation Center Building Foundation, spoke in favor of the proposed facility and the need for this type of center within the community. MARCI FARINBAUM, Rosewood Escrow, 41530 Enterprise Circle South, spoke in favor of the proposed facility. BOB ENGMAN, Huntington Beach, California, president of Opto 22, a high tech manufacturing firm, spoke in opposition to the proposed facility. Mr. Engman advised the Commission that he spent many months looking for an area to relocate his company and in choosing the business park, proceeded to design his building with surrounding gardens, picnic areas and volleyball courts for the employees to use. Mr. Engman expressed a concern for the liability should someone from one of the functions at the proposed facility come onto his property and get injured and also the added concerns of trash, etc., due to people coming over to his building to picnic, park their cars, etc. Mr. Engman also opposed this use in a business park environment. TOM GABRIC, 27919 Front Street, Temecula, owner of the building, advised the Commission that this building has been empty for four to five years. He stated that he felt the proposed use was better for the surrounding businesses than the original use because it would not be occupied everyday; however, would be used on the weekends when the other businesses were not operating. PIA OLIVER, 27919 Front Street, Temecula, advised the Commission that Rancho California Business Park Association had given their approval on the proposed use of the building. PCMIN3/04/91 -2- MARCH 7, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 4, 1991 COMMISSIONER FAHEY questioned the conditions relating to occupancy and use restrictions, based on the existence of the fault line. GARY THORNHILL advised that there had been some structural modifications to the building to mitigate the fault line situation. TONY ELMO, Building and Safety Official, advised the Commission that there is documentation on file that proposed the eastern end of the building to be separate from the rest of the building. Mr. Elmo stated that this portion is proposed as storage area only. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned the applicant's percentage of participation towards the signal at Rancho California Road. DOUG STEWART stated that this percentage was based on a traffic report. DOUG MACPHERSON advised the Commission that the traffic report reviewed for the project looked at a figure of 850 seats maximum in the proposed facility; however, based on the figures of 1,500 to 2,000 which had been referenced by the applicant, this figure would appear to be inaccurate. PAMELA JANDT added that the figure of 1,500 to 2,000 people would only be approximately nine times a year during the weekend. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND stated that he felt that Mr. Engman had discussed some valid points concerning his property. PAMELA JANDT advised the Commission that the Business Park Association had put tremendous restrictions on the proposed use, relating to parking. She added that there was no parking allowed on the street. GARY THORNHILL stated that there was a possibility of dealing with security, parking, clean up, etc., through the Conditions of Approval. COMMISSIONER BLAIR asked staff what would be considered terms for revocation of a C.U.P. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised the Commission that Section 18.31 sets forth the procedural requirements for revocation. He stated that the grounds for revocation would primarily PCMIN3/04/91 -3- MARCH 7, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 4, 1991 be based on violation of the Conditions of Approval, or a threat to public health and safety or public nuisance. He added that the city had a great deal of leverage in monitoring the proposed use. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF stated that the Business Park was designed to attract businesses such as Opto 22; however, he understands the need for the proposed building use. Mr. Chiniaeff suggested that the applicant and Mr. Engman should meet with staff to discuss their concerns and come up with a solution to the trespassing concerns. He added that staff should also review the traffic report. COMMISSIONER BLAIR stated that she would like to see the conditions as described by Mr. Thornhill. Commissioner Blair questioned if a trespass occurred and a liability resulted, could the Conditions spell out that the applicant would be held responsible. JOHN CAVANAUGH stated that this would be a voluntary agreement between the two businesses. He added that Opto 22 could post "No Trespassing" signs on their property as a protection against liability. COMMISSIONER FAHEY commented that these issues the Commission was raising would not have to be addressed if this was an appropriate use. She added that although the C~$y needs a facility like that proposed, it is not appropriate for the Business Park. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to leave the public hearing open and continue Conditional Use Permit No. 6 to the meeting of April 1, 1991, to allow staff to address the issues discussed, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Ford COMMISSIONER FAHEY requested that staff provide an update on the structural improvements to the building. PCMIN3/04/91 -4- MARCH 7, 1991 PLi%NNING COI~ISSION HINUTES HARCH 4, 1991 2. SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME PiqRCEL M/%P NO. 22629 2.1 Proposal for second extension of time for four parcel subdivision of 4.8 acres. Located on the west side of Green Tree Lane (approximately 300 feet north of Pauba Road). STEVE JIANNINO provided the staff report. Steve Jiannino amended the Conditions of Approval as follows: under "Prior To Issuance Of Grading Permit", add 13 A) to read "If grading is to take place between the months of October through April, erosion controls will be required. Erosion Control Plan and notes shall be submitted and approved by the Engineering Department." CHAIRMA~ CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 7:05 P.M. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND questioned the requirement for paving of the roads. GARY THORN~ILL stated that Ordinance 460 did not require the paving of roads in rural areas. He added that these were County standards for County rural areas and even though the City is incorporated, they are still dealing with the County standards. COMMISSIONER HOAGLA~D expressed a concern that not requiring the roads to be paved would be in conflict with the proposed general plan. C~AIRMANCHINIAEFF questioned if the Commission could make the recommendation that the streets be paved based on a determination of health, safety and welfare to the public. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised the Commission that because this item was not a Vesting Tentative Map, the Commission was not restricted to a health, safety and welfare determination; however, the Commission could make a recommendation that an additional condition be included requiring the streets be paved. Mr. Cavanaugh added that if the Commission choose to entertain any other conditions, the item should be continued because the applicant was not present to concur. Mr. Cavanaugh requested that the Commission state what street improvements they would recommend. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND stated that he would like to see at the minimum, a paved road with a cul-de-sac at the end. PCMIN3/04/91 -5- MARCH 7, 1991 PLi~lqNING CO~OIISSION MINUTES IO. RCH 4, 1991 DOUG STEWART advised the Commission that the current standard for secondary access is 28 foot minimum without curb and gutter. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to leave the public hearing open and continue Second Extension of Time for Parcel Map No. 22629 to the meeting of March 18, 1991, to propose and discuss with the applicant the additional condition requiring pavement of the cul-de-sac, seconded by COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Ford 3. PLOT PLAN 217 3.1 Proposal to construct a two-story retail/office structure totaling 15,343 square feet on a 1.2 acre site. Located at 41460 Sanborn Avenue, Temecula. CHARLES RAY presented the staff report. Mr. Ray advised the Commission that the staff report referenced a requirement for Class II bike racks in a enclosed, secured area which was specified in the ordinance; however, this enclosed, secured area has not been enforced nor addressed on any other project before the Commission to date. Mr. Ray stated that staff's recommendation would be for a standard Class II bike rack. Mr. Ray also indicated an error on Page 2 of the staff report, which requested seven bike racks; however, staff was recommending the report to read five bike racks. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 7:20 P.M. RUSSELL RUMANSOFF, Herron and Rumansoff, 530 St. Johns Place, Hemet, representing the applicant, concurred with the modifications to the bike rack requirements. Mr. Rumansoff clarified his understanding of Condition No. 26 with staff, and stated relative to Condition No. 40, the capital improvement fees, the developer expressed an opposition to waiving his right to protest any increase. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND suggested that staff may want to delete Condition No. 52 which was redundant to Condition No. 50. PCMIN3/04/91 -6- MARCH 7, 1991 PLi~N~N~ COI~ISSION NINUTES I~,RCH 4, ~99~ CHARLES RAY concurred that Condition No. 52 could be deleted. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND moved to close the public hearing at 7:35 P.M. and Adopt the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 217, and Adopt Resolution 91-(next) approving Plot Plan No. 217; based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval as modified by staff, deleting Condition No. 52 and requiring five Class II bike racks in a location suitable to the Planning Director, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Ford 4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 25981 4.1 Proposal to subdivide 3.01 acres into three residential lots. Located south of Pauba Road and East of Showalter Road. STEVE JIANNINO presented the staff report. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND expressed a concern for the requirement for street improvements to Pauba Road and Showalter. CHAIRM~N CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 7:45 P.M. WILLIAM KOUVELIS, 30675 Pauba Road, Temecula, California, applicant, addressed the Commission's questions. Mr. Kouvelis explained to the Commission that he had built his home on one of the parcels and had plans to deed over the other two parcels to both his children to build their homes. He added that although there were limits as to what they could do financially, they wanted to cooperate with the Commission on any requirement for street improvements. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND questioned if the applicant had obtained off-site grading easements from the adjacent property owners. Mr. Hoagland was also concerned with the amount of grading that was being shown and questioned if the applicant fully understood the requirements. PCMIN3/04/91 -7- MARCH 7, 1991 PLi~NN~NG COMH~SS~ON H~NUTES l~d:tCH 4, 1991 DOUG STEWART stated that although he did not know if the applicant had received those easements, Condition 29, 37 and 38 of the Conditions of Approval addressed the requirement for the applicant to obtain those grading easements. MIKE BENESCH, Benesch Engineering, 28991 Front Street, Temecula, advised the Commission that the applicant was given an estimate of the costs for grading, etc., and they felt that they could afford the improvements; however, should the Commission condition the project for street improvements, the costs could double, which would impose financial difficulties on the applicant. PETER KOUVELIS, 30675 Pauba Road, Temecula, questioned if a two parcel split might be accomplished with less grading and street improvement requirements. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to continue Tentative Parcel Map No. 25981 to April 1, 1991, to allow staff to address the Commission's concerns regarding access, grading and the Condition the Commission would be looking at for the paving of Showalter, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR. COMMISSIONER HOAGLAHD stated that he supported the motion to continue, but to support the project, he would want to see a condition requiring some paving of Pauba. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Chiniaeff NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Ford 5. PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT GARY THORNHILL discussed the following items with the Commission: Commissioners who drew one year terms will be up for re-appointment June 4, 1990. The two Commissioner's appointments is scheduled to presented to the City City Council on May~4, 1991. * General Plan proposals are due March 8, 1991. Committee will review all the proposals and make a selection. PCMIN3/04/91 -8- MARCH 7, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION HINUTES MARCH 4, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSIONS COMMISSIONER HOAGLAND advised Gary Thornhill that the "Proposed Agenda" was very useful. OTHER BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to adjourn at 8:10 P.M, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY and carried unanimously. The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be held on Monday, March 18, 1991. !'-~ Dennis Chiniaeff Secretary PCMIN3/04/91 -9- MARCH 7, 1991