Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout021391 PC/TTC Jnt. Minutes MII~TES OF A ~OINT MEETING BETWEEN THE PY.,~'~ING COl~,~ISSION THE TI~FFIC ~ TI~,NSPORTATION COI~ISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECUL~ HELD FEBRUARY L3t L99~ A special joint meeting between the Planning Commission and the Traffic and Transportation Commission of the city of Temecula was called to order Wednesday, February 13, 1991, 6:00 P.M. at the City Hall, 43172 Business Park Drive, Temecula. The meeting was called to order by Planning Commission Chairman Dennis Chiniaeff. PRESENT: 3 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff PRESENT: 5 TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS: Godnick, Guerriero, Roberts, Sander, Johnson Also present were Gary Thornhill, Acting Planning Director, Doug Stewart, Deputy City Engineer, Mark Greenwood, Staff Representative, Police Sergeant Jim Domenoe, Battalion Chief John Winder and Minute Clerk Gail Zigler. PUBLIC COMMENT None TI~FFIC ~ PL~%,~'NING COI,fi~ISS!ON BUSINESS 1. STOP SIGN REQUEST FOR INTERSECTION OF YNEZ, MOTORCAR PARI~AY ~ ACS SOUTH DRIVEWAY° 1.1 Approve staff recommendation. DOUG STEWART provided the staff report. Staff's recommendation: Approve the interim 4-way stop controls on Ynez Road at Motorcar Parkway and the southerly driveway of ACS and authorize the traffic department to re-stripe. COMMISSIONER ROBERTS expressed a concern for the safety of the northerly driveway. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON expressed a concern for traffic back-up during peak hours and suggested that a traffic control officer be incorporated during those hours at this inter- section. DOUG STEWART stated that staff had discussions with ACS regarding the use of a traffic control officer. A PC/TCMIN2/13/91 -1- FEBRUARY 15, 1991 JOINT PLiS, lqlqlN~/T~FIC COI~SSlON NEETIN~ FEBRUbY 13, 1991 decision by the City Attorney was that it would not be of specific community benefit, therefore ACS would have to pay for this traffic control officer, which they were not willing to do. Mr. Stewart added that there were safety concerns in placing a traffic control officer at this location. Mr. Stewart also stated that the agreement with ACS was that all employees would be bused from the facility to the employee parking area and there would be no pedestrian crossing. COMMISSIONER FORD questioned the placement of traffic signals at this intersection. DOUG STEWART advised that the signals were in the design stages and must be in place prior to occupancy of the new facility. COMMISSIONER ROBERTS recommended a speed zone change for this Ynez Road. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF concurred with the need for a traffic control officer during peak hours as well as the change in speed zone. COMMISSIONER FAHEY suggested posting "No Pedestrian Crossing" signs at the intersection. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the meeting for public comments. HAYOR RON PARKS suggested placing temporary signals at this intersection. LARRY MARKHAM suggested that since the area the intersection is located is a construction zone, the speed limit could be lowered and signs posted with the lower speed limit. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to approve staff's recommendation to install an interim 4-way stop sign and re-stripe the intersection, seconded by COMMISSIONER SANDER with the amendment that speed limits for construction zones be posted. COMMISSIONE~ FAHEY concurred with the amendment to the motion. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Fahey, Johnson, Sander NOES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Godnick, Guerriero, Roberts PC/TCMIN2/13/91 -2- FEBRUARY 15, 1991 ~O~NT PLP~NNING[TRP, FF~C CONI~88~ON NEET~NG FEBRUARY ~3, ~99~ The motion failed due to lack of a majority vote. COMMISSIONER FORD moved to approve staff's recommendation to install an interim 4-way stop sign subject to staff's reviewing the use of temporary signals, review speed zone change to 35 or 40 MPH. and that ACS maindate "No Pedestrian Crossing" at the intersection, seconded by COMMISSIONER F2~HEY. After discussion of the vehicle codes and speed zoning, CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF requested if the maker of the motion would amend the motion to "review speed zone change to a Construction Zone". COMMISSIONER FORD approved the amendment, and the second concurred. AYES: 8 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Fahey, Ford, Godnick, Guerriero, Johnson, Roberts, Sander WESTERN CORRIDOR BY-P~8 RO2~D 2.1 Receive and file staff report. ~ARY THORNHILL presented a staff report on the current status of the western corridor by-pass road, which is presently proposed to run from the Temecula/Murrieta city limits, behind Diaz Road and Business Park Drive and Johnson and Johnson Business Park, cross over Rancho California Road, run behind the Crystal Ridge Business Park and come out somewhere at the end of Old Town and Highway 79. Gary Thornhill added that staff would like direction from the joint commission, and then staff would put together a written report with recommendations and propose a formal request for a decision from the City Council. CHAIRMAN CHINI&EFF indicated that road as shown on the map runs through a piece of property that he has a interest in. L~.RRYMARKHAMgave a presentation on the development of this road. He stated that it's objective was to route the traffic generated from the industrial and business areas to the freeways without going directly through town to utilize the Winchester and Rancho California Road freeway ramps. PC/TCMIN2/13/91 -3- FEBRUARY 15, 1991 ~O~NT PL~,'N~NG/TI~FF[C CON~SS~ON NEET~N~ FEBrUarY ~3, ~99~ He stated that one of the concerns was how to carry the road over Rancho California Road due to the significant grading issues. He added that they were looking a possibly a bridge over Rancho California Road with ramps, and they were also looking at tiered lanes. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned how the road will be incorporated into Murrieta. GARY THORNHILL indicated that there will be public meetings at which staff will ask for involvement of the City of Murrieta. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the meeting for public comments. FRED WEISHAUPLE, City of Murrieta, expressed a desire to work with the city of Temecula on the development of this by-pass road. He added that he felt there was a possibility that the road could extend to Lake Elsinore; however, he did not want to see the road run through Hayes Street. He also stated that he would like to see the traffic studies include Date Street, which is proposed as a future freeway ramp street. ROGER GUNLIFFE-OWENS, Chairman of the interim Traffic Committee for Murrieta, indicated that they are presently looking at a circulation element and are interested in working with the City of Temecula. CHAIRMAN CHINI&EFF stated that the joint Commissions will be waiting for the report by staff on the E.I.R. and traffic studies and requested that the Traffic Commission be kept abreast of any hearings that are coming up regarding the Western Corridor. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the Traffic and Transportation Commission, seconded by CHAIRMAN JOHNSON. /~~cretar~ PC/TCMIN2/13/91 -4- FEBRUARY 15, 1991 RESOLUTION NO. 91-1tl A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING OF REVISION NO. 2 TO PLOT PLAN NO. 10579 TO OPEN A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED "GUEST USE" ONLY RESTAURANT TO THE PUBLIC ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 8.7 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFONIA ROAD AND YNEZ ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR IS PARCEL NO. 9/4q-020-001 WHEREAS, Bedford Properties filed Revision No. 2 to Plot Plan No. 10579 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Revised Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Revised Plot Plan on February 25,1991, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Revised Plot Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findinqs. That theTemecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. (2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: (a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. STAFFRPT\PP10579. RP2 6 {b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, Ic) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances, B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County. including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time. the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan, C. The proposed Revised Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code. to wit: {1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan, (2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: a) There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 10579 Revision No. 2 as proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances, D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following findings can be made: a) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. STAFFRPT\PP10579. RP2 b) The overall development of the land is 7 designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. (2) The Planning Commission, in approvingthe proposed ReviSed Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit: ae There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the City's General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State Law due to the fact that the project is in conformance with existing and anticipated commercial land use and design guideline standards. be There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future and adopted General Plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that it conforms with present or planned land use of the area and is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan and Specific Plan 180. Ce The proposed use or action complies with State Planning and Zoning laws, due to the fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as "allowed" within the existing Specific Plan Designation of Office/Professional. de The site is suitable to accomodate the proposed land use in terms of size and shape of lot configuration,parking circulation and access due to the fact that adequate area is provided for the proposed use and parking and circulation as designed are in conformance with City Standards, also internal circulation, traffic conflicts and landscaping were addressed in the original Conditions of Approval of Plot Plan No. 10579. ee The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare due to the fact that the proposed project is compatible with surrounding land uses and conditions stated in the approval are based on measures necessary to reduce or STAFFRPT\PP10579. RP2 8 gJ eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on the surrounding property because it does not represent a significant change to the original approval or the present or planned land use. Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and documents associated with this application and are herein incorporated by reference due to the fact that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibit and Conditions of Approval.' E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. SECTION 2. Environmental Coml~liance. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Revision No. 2 to Plot Plan No, 10579 to open a previously approved "guest use" only restaurant to the public located on the southwest corner of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No, 9q~-020-001 subject to the following conditions: A, Exhibit A. attached hereto. SECTION 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of February, 1991. CHAIRMAN STAFFRPT\PP10579. RP2 9 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 25th day of February, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFF R PT\PP10579. RP2 10