Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout111891 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1991 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order Monday, November 18, 1991, 6:00 P.M., at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman John E. Hoagland. PRESENT: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Director of Planning Gary Thornhill, Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske, Planner Charles Ray, Deputy City Engineer Doug Stewart, Robert Righetti, Department of Public Works, and Minute Clerk Gail Zigler. PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA GARY THORNHILL advised of the following: Item 4, applicant has requested a continuance off calendar. Item 5, continued to December 2, 1991. Item 7, continued to December 2, 1991. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey MINUTES 2.2 Approval of minutes of November 4, Commission Meeting. 1991 Planning COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF amended Page 4, first paragraph, seventh sentence, " ...... Rancho Highlands was sold and the homeowners..."; Page 4, sixth paragraph, third sentence, "December 16, 1991, per staff recommendation,"' ! Page 5 and Page 6, Items No. 6 and No. 7, Commissioner Chiniaeff stepped down due to a conflict of interest; Page 7, after motion, "Commissioner Chiniaeff rejoined the Commission". COMMISSIONER FORD amend his motions for Items No. 6 and No. 7 to read, ""Prior to the issuance of grading permits, applicant shall relocate and transplant all specimen oak trees. Prior to issuance of grading permit, a qualified arborist shall prepare a letter report outlining the relocation and replanting procedures. In the event the trees do not survive transplanting, the applicant shall be required to replant ten, minimum 24" box oak trees for every one lost"; and add, "landscaping of the slopes and compatibility of materials with regards to the grading shall be reviewed and approved by staff prior to the issuance of a grading permit." AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3. PLOT PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE 192 3.1 Proposal for center signage/freeway sign on the west side of Front Street, north of lower Highway 79. CHARLES RAY summarized the staff report. LOUIS KASHMERE, applicant, 19555 Camino De Paz, Murrieta, stated that he needed the 45' height for the sign in order to clear the bridge. Mr. Kashmere presented the Commission with pictures of the proposed sign location. Mr. Kashmere added that staff had some question about the canopy spandrel and offered to removed the spandrel off of the east and west side of the building. COMMISSIONER FORD stated that although he did not want to deny the project, he did not like the sign at the height being proposed by the applicant and suggested that the applicant look at the sign at a lower level, stating that he thought the sign would be more effective below the bridge. Commissioner Ford asked if the applicant had contacted Cal Trans for freeway signage indicating "Gas, Food, etc." at next off ramp. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF concurred with Mr. Ford's comments stating that he would be in favor of the sign at it's original proposed size and location, but at a lower elevation. Commissioner Chiniaeff added that he agreed with the applicant's recommendation to remove the canopy spandrel from the west side of the project. GARY THORNHILL asked if the Commission wanted the sign to remain a pole sign or a monument sign. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF suggested that staff work that out with the applicant. Commissioner Chiniaeff added that the applicant needed to push to get the freeway signage with logos from Cal Trans. DOUG STEWART offered that staff would be willing to work with the applicant and direct him to the appropriate resources at Cal Trans to look at the freeway signs. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF moved to approve the spandrel, removing the colored band on the west side of the building and approve the sign as was originally proposed with the exception of lowering it to a height visible under the freeway bridge west bound on Highway 79 on a pedestal mount to match the building, based on the findings contained in the staff report and make an additional finding that it be consistent with the future general plan making signs set at heights that are workable and in reasonable accordance with state law and the sign that is being proposed not be a detriment or interfere with the future general plan of the City, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Blair ABSTAIN:I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey Commissioner Fahey arrived at 6:25 P.M. and was no longer considered absent. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5598 AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 25063 4.1 Proposal to change zone classification from R-R-2 1/2 to R-1 and subdivide 20 acres into 68 residential lots and 1 open space lot. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stepped down due to a conflict of interest. GARY THORNHILL advised that the applicant has requested a continuance to February 17, 1992, and staff is concerned with the length of time requested. He added that staff failed to see what compelling reasons may PCMIN11/18/91 -3- 11/20/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1991 exist in that point in time that may not exist today that would change staff's recommendation. CHARLES RAY summarized the staff report. CHAIRMkN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 6:35 P.M. LARRY MARKHAM, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula, representing the applicant, advised that the project is having financial difficulties which has precluded proceeding forward with the processing; however, there were also overriding general plan issues in the area involved. Mr. Markham added that this area had received several approvals for R-1 type densities and this was one of two projects in the area, the other sent back by the council to wait for the general plan. Mr. Markham stated that they expect the financial difficulties to be resolved in the next three months, which may coincide with the land use portion of the general plan and may offer some answers to the density questions. STEVE DOULAMES, 39055 Liefer Road, Temecula, supported the proposed zone change, and stated that R-1 is consistent with what his idea of the area would be. JOHN FLAHIFF, 39918 Amberly Circle, Temecula, pastor of the Christ Presbyterian Church that owns the property at the corner of Liefer and Nicolas, spoke in favor of the project and added that Tim Timmons, pastor of Rancho Christian Church, and pastor George Simmons, Temecula House of Praise, also supported the project. DENNIS FITZ, 39910 Jeffrey Heights Road, Temecula, overlooks the parcel, and spoke in opposition to the proposed project density. Mr. Fitz submitted a letter of opposition. COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated that there were enough unanswered questions about what this area is going to look like to support the request for continuance; however, it is not certain that they will be answered enough by February to address this project beyond a denial. Commissioner Fahey moved to continue off calendar, at the request of the applicant, to February, seconded by CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND. COMMISSIONER FORD asked what were the consequences of a continuance and a time as far as the mapping process and being able to work out some of the questions and also as PCMIN11/18/91 -4- 11/20/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1991 far as being able to look at the general plan. GARY THORNHILL advised that he did not see any problem with a continuance; however, with past history in this area and the actions by the Commission and the Council, this project seemed inconsistent with respect to parcel size. ROBERT RIGHETTI stated that in the process of reviewing this project, staff did write-up a number of conditions on this project and explained them as follows, to give the Commission an idea of the magnitude of some of the improvements that would be associated with the project: all streets would be required to be improved fully within the boundaries of the subdivision; on the east and west side boundary lines, in the channel that is to traverse the property, engineering will require that a bridge be constructed in order to provide both primary and secondary access. That would require that two bridges be constructed within that subdivision; improvements to the channel along the park site which will require some substantial grading both on the boundary of this site and off; the drainage course that does traverse the project, about two thirds northerly, will require some off site improvements as well, in order to make this site work; the secondary access that would be provided to the east and then come back to the north to line up with Leifer Road would require working into the property next door; required project to provide paving all the way to the existing paving (Calle Medusa) that will require a substantial amount of off site work; if they do not provide onsite septic systems, they will have to provide offsite facilities, a sewer line. All of these requirements amount to a sizeable investment, which would have to be offset by the price of the homes. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND stated that he would be willing to honor the applicant's request for a continuance; however, he added that he was reluctant making decisions on changes of zones prior to completion of the general plan. Chairman Hoagland added that he would support the continuance under the condition that it is the applicant's responsibility to bring the item back before the Commission. Additionally, Chairman Hoagland questioned the cost of processing the item over again. GARY THORNHILL stated that if the applicant does not substantially change the application, staff will process it; however, if the application substantially changes, then staff would look at reprocessing fees. PCMINll/18/91 -5- 11/20/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1991 COMMISSIONER FAHEY added that if the Commission doesn't have a clear direction on land uses in this area, she would hesitate to address zone changes for this area. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: i COMMISSIONERS: Blair ABSTAIN:i COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF rejoined the Commission. TELEVISION/RADIO ANTENNA ORDINANCE 5.1 An ordinance establishing regulations for Television Radio Antennas city wide. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to continue the Television/Radio Antenna ordinance to the meeting of December 2, 1991, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 ABSENT: i Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland None Blair 6. PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 4 (PUP NO. 4) 6.1 Proposed 3,744 square foot occupancy of existing M-SC structure for church uses. CHARLES RAY summarized the staff report. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND asked for clarification on which suite the applicant would be occupying. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 7:00 P.M. PASTOR ALBRECHT, 25445 Knollwood Drive, Murrieta, stated that he did not know for sure which suite they were leasing. Mr. Albrecht expressed concurrence with the staff report. Mr. Albrecht introduced a representative from the regional board of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Senate to address the public facilities impact fees. PCMIN11/18/91 -6- 11/20/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1991 JIM CLAUSEN, 2002 Avenue of the Trees, Carlsbad, member of the California Mission Board, advised that the applicant would be leasing Suite N. Mr. Clausen stated that he felt that the Public Facilities Fee applies to the developer and not the tenant who is proposing to occupy an existing development and would propose that the applicant not be impacted by these fees. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND questioned Condition 6 which limits the hours of operation. JIM CLAUSEN stated that the applicant would also disagree with that requirement. GARY THORNHILL advised that Condition No. 6 could be deleted. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF questioned the conditions requiring proof of flood mitigation charges and proof of underlying traffic mitigation fees and stated that he did not feel it was a fee that should be applied to each new tenant. ROBERT RIGHETTI advised that the county was remiss about collecting these fees. He added that although staff was not conditioning the applicant to pay, the building could not be occupied until the fee was paid. GARY THORNHILL stated that when this condition was drafted it did not look at tenant improvements. After discussing the matter with the city attorneys, it was felt that staff should think about the linkage or nexus requirement that the state law requires be made when imposing any conditions on a project and if a finding can be made that there is no nexus or no linkage between the condition being imposed and the impact the project makes, you may not be required to impose that condition on the project. Gary stated that it was staff's feeling that it is very difficult to make that decision because there is an impact, therefore, staff would recommend that the Commission not impose the public facilities fee. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF questioned if Condition 18 applied to this proposal. MIKE GRAY, County Fire Department, stated that Condition 18 did not apply and could be deleted. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to close the public hearing at 7:30 P.M. and approve Public Use Permit No. 4, subject PCMIN11/18/91 -7- 11/20/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1991 to the findings in the staff report and deleting Conditions 6, 8, 9, 10, and 18, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stated again, he did not feel that the public facilities fee should be applied to tenants. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Blair 7. VARIANCE NO. S 7.1 Proposal for variance to city sign code to allow 2 free standing signs at project location, 29760 Rancho California Road (North side of Rancho California Road, between Lyndie Lane and Moraga Road). CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND advised that the applicant submitted a letter requesting a continuance. had COMMISSIONER FORD moved to continue Variance No. 8 to the meeting of December 2, 1991, seconded by COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Blair Planning Director Report GARY THORNHILL reported on the following: * PCMIN11/18/91 Joint city Council/Planning Commission meeting on Monday, November 25, 1991, 7:00 P.M. at City Hall. Staff is evaluating the current review process. Introduced newly hired city planners: David Hogan, Advanced Planning Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner --8-- 11/20/91 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1991 Planning Commission Discussion COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF questioned if it was necessary to open the public hearing on items that were to be continued. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that the procedure that the Commission could do, rather than open the public hearing, the Commission could move to continue the item to a date certain. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF expressed a concern about the findings for their conditions and the reasons why the Commission voted a particular way. Other Business None ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONER FORD moved to adjourn to a special meeting of November 25, 1991, 7:00 P.M., City of Temecula City Hall, 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, seconded by COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF. Se%retary PCMIN11/18/91 -9- 11/20/91 W~en we bough'. our house on Ca',~e G~raso~ we checked with the p~annlng departmen? te determine !,,",e oo~enT~ai Zoning fc, r o.,.r ant ~,L~rrounding iand We were told that the c:~/o~ T~mecula did not adopt ~:,e ,~ ¢;~, and that the Nicholas Road area was being reviewed to dec.mine ¢ lower, denslty was more ap~opnate for the area. Whde we bought our five acres w~*,n The hope of further subdivision. we did so not knowing if we could ever change the zoning from 2 !/2 ac:es per ;or !f ;t d~d nor ch, ange a~ leas! the area would have ~ts rural atmosphere j'eserved The ~eastest asses~ Temecuta has ~s the open space and r~al ~ *~' ' ........... ,. w~-e hoj?,~ ~ha, our ~ea would be zone simiair to the ~e&,-~y h2usm~ 7a;~s w;tP, too many high density ~acts Temecu~a ~s a~?:?:F.e- .~ ..... : ~ .... ',.'~'¢ want people to move to Temecula f~ aesthetic 5u,/:t.%e ;~'c9s: -;.:...~e ';% t~e least amount of money. which seems to be the iota are much m~e ameana~.:e to custom'h~ses tha~ Qu~' a~e ;ors Not or4v ;es~itan~ conges:~o¢~ :~obiems reduced but thene~g~bochood -"+~ ~ the Z'~,*m.~ ~,~-- *.h'.s parcei one .~f the !argest ,,~ the area. wfil set the tend f~ the geveiopment of ~ne ~ea. As ~oposed t~ w~ ~o~ ~y ruin the rural ch~act~ of the ~ea --.?.oo~c as a 'buffs" ~t will have ~ar ,'~.~,'~ a~ec~ on ,u,u,e deveiopn3e~; ,o ~,,~ eas~ we :ar*¢~ w'l~ only ~ead to the ¢~**,~,,**'*~ -~ ~'~ density tract housmq We fee~ half a~e ~ot-w'ou;a 3e much m~e desirable and wou~c .ultimately De as benefic~a! to thls and future developers .:'.-e o~:;y needs to iook at Meadowv~ew wr,'~e comp~ab;e houses as those sold ~n 'facts * ,~,.n,h ....... .~n~ hun.~ed ' dc!;a:'s ·