Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout022492 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1992 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order Monday, February 24, 1992, 6:05 P.M., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman John E. Hoagland. PRESENT: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey Commissioner Blair arrived at 6:05 P.M. Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Director of Planning Gary Thornhill, Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner John Meyer, Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan, Deputy City Engineer Doug Stewart, Gary King, Community Services Department, Robert Righetti, Department of Public Works, and Minute Clerk Gall Zigler. PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Hoagland advised that Item No. 5 would be continued, Item No. 7 moved ahead of Item No. 3 and Item No. 9 continued. It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Ford to approve the agenda. The motion was carried unanimously with Commissioner Fahey absent. 2. MINUTES 2,1 Approve the minutes of January 27, 1992 and February 3, 1992, Planning Commission Meeting. January 27, 1992 Commissioner Chiniaeff requested that Page 7, Item No. 8, third paragraph, be amended to read "Chairman Hoagland", and Page 9, first paragraph, amended to read "Commissioner Chiniaeff". Commissioner Ford requested that Page 10, seventh paragraph, be amended to read "Commissioner Ford stated that he was concerned that the improvements are to be done; however, the roads still would not meet City PCMIN 2/24/92 -1- 2/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 1992 standards"; and Page 15, first paragraph, be amended to read "The Commission decided to take a roll call vote and explain their decision for recommending denial". It was moved by Commissioner Ford, seconded by Commissioner Blair to approve the minutes of January 27, 1992 as amended. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey February 3, 1992 Commissioner Ford requested that Page 4, sixth paragraph, be amended to read "Commissioner Ford questioned whether the state law applied to projects that were not graded, clarifying that the applicant's project was not graded". It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Blair, to approve the minutes of February 3, 1992 as amended. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey 7. PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 580 7.1 A request to revise the County approved Public Use Permit No. 580 to grant approval for existing mobile structures used as classrooms. Located on the south side of Santiago Road, between 1-15 and Ynez Road. Chief Building Official Tony Elmo presented the staff report and advised that he has inspected the site and uncovered numerous serious health, safety and welfare problems. Mr. EImo reported that the State Inspector visited the site as well; however, the City's concerns were more serious than those reported by the State. Mr. Elmo indicated that he had met with the church officials and explained to them the seriousness of the violations and the importance of getting the repairs done as quickly as possible. Mr. Elmo stated that there will be a time frame for abatement of the repairs presented at the next public hearing. Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 6:15 P.M. PCMIN2/24/92 -2- 2/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 1992 Commissioner Chiniaeff asked if there were actions the church could take to ensure safety prior to completion of the repairs. Tony Elmo stated that he was currently discussing decreasing the number of attendees at the service, possibly requiring additional services, for an interim period of time. It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Blair, to continue Public Use Permit No. 580 to March 16, 1992. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS_' Fahey NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3. SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE NO. 22 3,1 Proposal to construct a ten foot noise attenuation wall on the east side of the site which is adjacent to Interstate 15. Located at 27706 Jefferson Avenue. Matthew Fagan summarized the staff report. Larry Hansen, LLH Construction, Inc., representing the applicant, stated that the wall was being requested to alleviate noise from the traffic along Interstate 15. Commissioner Ford stated that he objects to a ten foot wall adjacent to the freeway. Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that he could not support putting a ten foot high barrier along the freeway. Commissioner Blair stated that she could not support the proposed wall and suggested that landscape treatment might be more suitable. It was moved by Commissioner Ford, seconded by Commissioner Blair, to Deny Substantial Conformance No. 22. Commissioner Chiniaeff clarified that he did not feel it was in the community's best interest to create a concrete barrier along the freeway and the commercial zones. He added that if the reason for the wall was to screen the property, then landscaping could be used. PCMIN2/24/92 -3- 2/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 1992 Chairman Hoagland concurred with Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments. Commissioner Ford stated that he made the motion with the community's best interest in mind. He added that if the applicant had submitted the wall with proposed landscaping, then he might have addressed the request differently. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4. PLOT PLAN 11001, AMENDMENT NO. 3, EXTENSION OF TIME 4.1 Proposal for an extension of time for Plot Plan No. 11001, an approved Plot Plan for a 220 unit apartment complex. Located south of Margarita Road, approximately 400 feet east of Moraga Road and 550 feet north of Rancho California Road. Matthew Fagan summarized the staff report and advised the Commission that Condition No. 26 had been revised as follows "Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a Certificate of Parcel Merger shall be approved by the Planning Department and a Certificate of Compliance shall be recorded". Mr. Fagan advised that staff had received two letters and several phone calls expressing opposition to the project. Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 6:35 P.M. David E. Walsh, David E. Walsh Company, 11777 Bernardo Plaza Court, San Diego, gave a brief summary of the project's history. Mr. Walsh advised the Commission that plans are to file a condominium map on the project during the construction period. George Prine, J.F. Davidson & Associates, expressed concurrence with the staff report and Conditions of Approval. Chris Martinelli, 30255 Corte Cantania, Temecula, clarified that the City Council nor the County had approved this project and stated that the project should be denied until current traffic studies have been done and the condominium project can be presented. Paul Sorrel, 31675 Lei Lane, Temecula, spoke in opposition to high density construction and it's relation to high crime. PCMIN2/24/92 -4- 2/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 24. 1992 Roger VanDorn, 42065 Paseo Sonrisa Del Sol, Temecula, discussed the need of a full time police officer in the area of the project if approved. Mr. VanDom stated that he would also like to see another traffic study done. Bob Coslyn, representing the Temecula Unified School District, expressed opposition to this and any other high density projects until the approval and implementation of the City of Temecula general plan. David McEIroy, 42091 Paseo Sonrisa Del Sol, Temecula, expressed opposition to additional high density. David Walsh responded that after spending three years in the planning process with the County, it was one of the County Planning Commissioners who assisted in presenting the project to the Temecula City Council, with a recommendation for approval. Mr. Walsh added that the project will be paying close to $2,000,000 in fees to the City of Temecula, with a majority of the funds going to the school district. Mr. Walsh concluded by reporting on the vacancy rates for upper end apartments and on the projected growth for Riverside County. Commissioner Chiniaeff asked Mr. Walsh if he would be opposed to a condition requiring the condominium map be in place prior to occupancy. Mr. Walsh stated that he could not comply with that request due to the way he was structuring ownership of the project. He added that the bank was taking collateral on the project as an apartment development. Mr. Walsh stated that the project would be marketed as a condominium for rent. Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that although he is concerned with high density development in this area, he felt that the project is a substantial upgrade to the area. He expressed concern about saying the project is going to be a condominium and controlling that. Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that he felt that providing the one year extension was appropriate. Chairman Hoagland stated that he also was concerned that there is no guarantee that it will be a condominium project. Commissioner Blair stated that although the project looks acceptable, she has some concerns about the recreational areas. She added she has strong concerns that if the project was approved as proposed, it would be an apartment complex, which she did not feel Temecula needed. Commissioner Chiniaeff asked the City Attorney if the project could be conditioned to be a condominium. PCMIN2/24/92 -5- 2/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 1992 John Cavanaugh advised that the approval could be conditioned; however, he was not sure that the condition could be enforced. It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Ford to close the public hearing at 7:15 P.M. and Reaffirm the previously adopted Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 33522; and Adopt Resolution 92-{next) approving the Extension of Time for Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3 based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval, amending Condition 26 as stated by staff. The motion failed due to lack of a majority vote. AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Ford NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Hoagland ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey It was moved by Chairman Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Blair to continue Plot Plan No. 11001, Amended No. 3, Extension of Time, to have staff work with the applicant to satisfy the issue of whether the project will be apartments or condominiums, and bring it back to the Commission as quickly as possible. Mr. Walsh addressed the motion by Chairman Hoagland stating that even if the project were conditioned as a condominium project, there would be a problem enforcing the condition due to the time required to complete the condominium process. Chairman Hoagland clarified that the Commission was proposing that the condominium map be in place prior to occupancy. The motion by Chairman Hoagland to send this item back to staff was carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey 5. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25338 5.1 Proposed 28 unit condominium subdivision PCMIN2/24/92 -6- on 2.56 acres located on the 2/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 24. 1992 southeast corner of Solana Way and Rycrest Drive. It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Blair to continue Tentative Tract Map 25338 off calendar. The motion carried unanimously with Commissioner Fahey absent. 6. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23102 6,1 Proposed second Extension of Time for a 37 lot residential subdivision on 16 acres, located northeasterly of the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and La Serena Way. Matthew Fagan summarized the staff report. Commissioner Chiniaeff questioned if there is a condition for screening a the school parking lot on the westerly boundary of the project. Staff indicated that there was not a condition. Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 7:30 P.M. Brian Esgate, Community Engineering, 5225 Canyon Crest, Riverside, representing Marlbourogh Development, Inc., expressed concurrence to the Conditions of Approval and added that the applicant has already proposed a wall along the the western boundary and concurred with the addition of that Condition. It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Ford to close the public hearing at 7:35 P.M. and AdoPt Resolution No. 92-(next) approving the Second Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23102 based on the findings contained in the staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval, adding a Condition that a decorative block wall six feet in height be installed along the westerly boundary between the tract and the school. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey 8. TELEVISION/RADIO ANTENNA ORDINANCE 8.1 Proposed ordinance establishing regulations for Television/Radio antennas. City wide. PCMIN2/24/92 -7- 2/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 1992 John Meyer summarized the staff report. Chairman Hoagland stated that he did not agree with the three year amortization period applied to existing satellite dishes. John Cavanaugh stated that the amortization period could be removed at this time and dealt with at a later time under the zoning ordinance. Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 7:40 P.M. Robert Berg, 42701 Via Del Campo, Temecula, representing the Amateur Radio Community spoke in support of staff's recommendation. Mr. Berg requested that Page 11, Section 4-D. (a) be amended to read "Antennas in excess of sixty-five (65) feet in residential zones are subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission". John Meyer indicated staff's concurrence with the modification. It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to close the public hearing at 7:55 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 92-(next) recommending adoption of the Antenna Ordinance, entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 6 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ANTENNA REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF ANTENNAS", deleting the three year amortization period for satellite dishes and amending Page 11, Section 4-D. (a) as previously stated. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey 9. OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS ORDINANCE 9.1 Proposed interim ordinance establishing regulations for outdoor advertising displays. City wide. It was moved by Commissioner Ford, seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff to continue consideration of the Outdoor Advertising Displays Ordinance to the meeting of March 16, 1992. The motion carried unanimously, with Commissioner Fahey absent. Chairman Hoagland advised that the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting for March 2, 1992 was canceled. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission would PCMIN2/24/92 -8- 2/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 1992 be held on March 16, 1992, with a joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting on February 26, 1992. PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT Gary Thornhill advised the Commission of the following: * Requested confirmation from Commissioners planning to attend the Planning Institute Seminar. * Technical sub-committees will begin meeting in the second week of March. * Community wide neighborhood meeting in March and a joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting on March 25, 1992. * City Council approved the revised boundaries for Old Town. Will be making a suggestion to the City Council for the Old Town Specific Plan consultant. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION None OTHER BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff to cancel the regular meeting of March 2 and adjourn to a joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting on February 26, 1992, at the Temecula City Hall. The motion carried unanimously with Commissioner Fahey absent. ai~r~man Joh;3 E.gla/~~~~ PCMIN2/24/92 -9- 2/28/92