Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout012792 PC Minutes~INUTES OF ~ REGULAR MEETIN~ OF THE CITY OF TEMECUL~ PLANNING COl~IISSION MONDAY, ~ANUARY 27~ ~992 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order Monday, January 27, 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: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey Also present were Assistant City Attorney John Cavanaugh, Director of Planning Gary Thornhill, Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner John Meyer, Planner Mark Rhoades, Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan, Deputy City Engineer Doug Stewart, Gary King, Community Services Director, Robert Righetti, Department of Public Works, and Minute Clerk Gail Zigler. PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND reviewed the agenda and advised that Item No. 7 would be continued off calendar at the request of the applicant. GARY THORNHILL advised that Item No. 11 would be continued to the meeting of February 3, 1992. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to approve the agenda as amended, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey COMMISSIONER FAHEY arrived at 6:08 P.M. 2. MINUTES 2.1 Approval of minutes Commission Meeting. of January 6, 1992 Planning PLANNIN~ COMHISSION HINUTES JANU~.~Y 27, 1992 COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to approve the minutes of January 6, 1992, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PROPOSED SUMMARY VACATION OF NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD 3.1 Proposed summary vacation of North General Kearny Road, the northeasterly Temecula City Boundary, northeasterly of Nicolas Road. ROBERT RIGHETTI summarized the staff report. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to AdoDt Resolution No. 92- (next) recommending the City Council adopt a resolution summarily vacating that portion of North General Kearny Road as recommended by staff, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None e SELECTION OF SUBCOMMITTEES COMMISSIONERS TO GENERAL PLAN TECHNICAL 4.1 Selection of two commissioners, one each to serve on the Land Use and Economic Development technical subcommittees. GARY THORNHILL advised that the two appointed members would be meeting in early March to review the data, and provide direction and expertise in the committees' area of focus. After data is received from all the subcommittee meetings, the Planning Center will prepare the draft general plan elements. The technical subcommittees will then meet to review and comment on the draft elements in early May. PCMIN01/27/92 -2- 01/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 27, 1992 COMMISSIONER FORD volunteered to sit on the Land Use subcommittee and COMMISSIONER BLAIR volunteered for the Economic Development subcommittee. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to approve the appointment of Commissioner Ford and Commissioner Blair to the General Plan Technical Subcommittees, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS e APPEAL NO. 19, APPEAL OF SIGN (PPA 248) 5.1 An appeal of the Planning Director's Denial of an application for two wall mounted signs. Applicant is West Dallas, located at the Tower Plaza Shopping Center, 27469 Ynez Road. MATTHEW FAGAN summarized the staff report. CMAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 6:20 P.M. MARK TUCKER, West Dallas, stated that they were told during lease negotiations with Bedford, that their sign would be approved. When they designed the sign, staff advised them that they would accept one sign, "West Dallas Western Apparel". Mr. Tucker noted that 49% of his business was boots and he would like to advertise "boots" along with "western apparel". COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF asked the applicant if they could put all the wording on one sign. MARK TUCKER advised that there was an Edison electrical wall that was interfering with the sign being one sign with all wording. Mr. Tucker added that he was not aware until just prior to the meeting, that staff was not recommending the two signs. GARY THORNHILL commented that the real concern besides the number of signs, is the precedent the sign could set for a menu display. PCMIN01/27/92 -3- 01/28/92 PLANNING COI~IBSION MINUTES JANUARY 27, 1992 CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND stated that with the location of "West Dallas" and the Edison electrical wall, this sign is not effective for northbound traffic on the highway. GARY THORNHILL suggested putting one sign at the northerly end of the building which included all that the applicant was proposing. MARK TUCKER stated that if he would have to get with his sign designers to address this suggestion. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND advised Mark Tucker that he was asking the Commission to overturn the ordinance and the Commission does not have that authority; however, there may be other avenues to explore with staff such as applying for a variance to the ordinance. G~Y THORNHILL suggested that the Commission continue this item to the second meeting of February to allow staff time to explore other alternatives. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that the Commission must act on the appeal as it was submitted, which does not prevent the applicant from coming back to the Commission with another proposal. COMMISSIONER FORD stated that he thought that some consideration should be given to the applicant regarding fees, due to the misunderstandings. GARY THORNHILL stated that staff could work that out with the applicant. COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearing at 6:45 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 92-(next) denying Appeal No. 19 of Administrative Plot Plan No. 248, based analysis and findings contained in the staff report, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND stated that he would support the motion with the understanding that the applicant will be able to work on some other options with staff. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stated that the major finding to look at would be 5(c). GARY THORNHILL clarified that there will have to be extraordinary circumstances in Mr. Tucker's situation to support the variance. PCMIN01/27/92 -4- 01/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: JANUARY 27, 1992 Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 6. PLOT PLAN 242/PM 26664 6.1 Proposal to subdivide 7.1 gross acres into three parcels and construct three industrial buildings totalling 104,577 square feet. Located at the southeast corner of Rancho Way and Business Park Drive. MATTHEW FAGAN summarized the staff report. Matthew Fagan 'advised that Condition No. 61, Page 28 of the staff report should be deleted and replaced with the following Condition: No. 61 - Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall submit proof of provision for maintenance and repair of all on-site drainage facilities and landscaped parkways as directed by the Department of Public Works. This condition shall be superseded by the recording of alternate CC&R's with the final map. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 6:55 P.M. IDA SANCHEZ, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula, representing the applicant, requested that Plot Plan Condition No. 16 be modified to delete "Prior to occupancy". Ms. Sanchez also requested that staff consider a dimenimous finding for Condition 29 of the Plot Plan and Condition 22 of the Parcel Map. JOHN CAVANAUGH indicated that staff would not be willing to make that finding. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF questioned the wall along the easterly portion of the property. IDA SANCHEZ indicated that the applicant was conditioned to put that wall in by the County. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF asked that staff include that condition as well. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stated that he would like staff to ensure that the landscaping along Rancho Way looking down PCMIN01/27/92 -5- 01/28/92 PL~TRING COMHISBION MINUTES JANU~Y 27, 1992 the backside of the building be fairly dense. ROBERT RIGHETTI read the following two paragraphs to be included on Page 24 after the "Public Works Department": The following are the Public Works Department's Conditions of Approval for this project and shall be completed at no cost to any government agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the Condition shall be referred to the Public Works Department. It is understood that the developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. Mr. Righetti stated that these two paragraphs should also appear on Page 34, inserted just before the heading "Prior to recordation of the final map". COMMISSIONER F~HEY moved to close the public hearing at 7:00 P.M. and Adopt the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 242 and Parcel Map No. 26664 Amendment No. 2 and recommend AdoDtion of Resolution 92-(next) approving Plot Plan No. 242 and Resolution No. 92-(next) approving Parcel Map No. 26664, Amendment No. 2 based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report and modify the Conditions of Approval by deleting "Prior to Occupancy", Condition No. 16; continuous block wall on the easterly side of the property; replace Condition No. 61 as read by staff and add Condition by Public Works Department, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PLOT PLAN 233, REVISED NO. I 7.1 Proposal to construct a 1,270 square foot outdoor playground and patio addition to the southern elevation of the subject building. Applicant Bernard Karcher/BKL, Inc. GARY THORNHILL advised that the applicant was requesting a continuance to allow time to clarify outstanding issues between themselves and the owners of the property. PCMINO1/27/92 -6- 01/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 27, 1992 COMMISSIONER FORD moved to Continue Plot Plan 233, Revised No. 1 off calendar, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 8. THIRD TIME EXTENSION PARCEL MAP NO. 22629 8.1 Proposal for third extension of time for a four lot residential subdivision on 4.8 acres. Located on the west side of Green Tree Lane, 300 feet North of Pauba Road. MATTHEW FAGAN summarized the staff report. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 7:05 P.M. ROBERT VAN HOUGHTON, Centennial Engineering, 28480 Highway 74, Suite E, Romoland, questioned the Quimby Fee Requirement and stated that he concurred with the staff report. GARY-THORNHILL advised that the requirement for Quimby Fees was in the original conditions, this was just a rewording of the requirement which would replace the previous condition. BOB PIPHER, 41825 Green Tree Road, Temecula, stated that he thought that both this development and the next proposed development should be brought together somehow. KENNETH WILCH, 2440 S. Hacienda Heights, Hacienda Heights, California, representing the applicant on the next project, questioned why this developer was not required to do road improvements to obtain access off of Green Tree Road. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND suggested that Mr. Wilch discuss this with staff. JOHN TELESIO, 31760 Via Telesio, Temecula, indicated that he has been supportive of this project since it's inception. He stated that the developer had agreed that the centerline of Via Telesio would be offset to have the road width placed within the easement favoring the south PCMIN01/27/92 -7- 01/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 27, 1992 side and asked that staff reaffirm that understanding. ROBERT RIGHETTI indicated that staff concurred with Mr. Telesio's understanding and the project has been conditioned to reflect that understanding. Also, Condition 11, Item A, notes that staff reduced the street section to 24' even though a typical street section is 36'. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to close the public hearing at 7:20 P.M. and Reaffirmthe previously adopted Negative Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map No. 22629 and Approve the Third Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 22629, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 26521 9.1 Proposal for a 10 Lot Residential Subdivision on 11 acres. Located on the northeast corner of Green Tree Road and Grapevine. MARK RHOADES summarized the staff report. Mark Rhoades modified the following Conditions of Approval: No. 33 - "Prior to recordation of the final map the applicant or his assignee shall conform to Ordinance No. 460.93 Quimby by paying in full to the City of Temecula TCSD the fair market value of .13 acres of land as determined by the TCSD. The following item is a point of clarification from the Public Works Department and reads as follows "In order to relieve any ambiguity of Condition of Approval No. 80, staff recommends that the condition be revised to read as follows: No. 80 - A 28' wide paved access road to Pauba Road via Green Tree Road shall be provided within a recorded road easement as approved by the Department of Public Works. A turn-around bulb with a 38' minimum radius shall be provided at the intersection of Green Tree Road and Grape Vine. PCMIN01/27/92 -8- 01/28/92 PLANN'rNG COI~?SB'rON H~'NUTES J~NUiI~Y 27, 1992 CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF asked if staff met with the applicant to discuss alternative access routes. ROBERT RIHHETTI stated that staff did meet with the applicant and the engineer and looked at Green Tree from Pauba, driving that area in the rain. No decisions were made at that time as to other alternatives. CHAIRMAN HOAHL~ND opened the public hearing at 7:25 P.M. KENNETH WILCH, 2440 S. Hacienda Boulevard, Hacienda Heights, representing the applicant, stated that the outstanding issue at the last two hearings was the off- site improvements and the width of those improvements. He added that they did not discuss the extension of Grapevine out to Pauba. Mr. Wilch added that they had been trying to work with the homeowners but they were strongly opposed to that. The way the conditions were written it still gave the applicant the option to do that; however, the rewording of the conditions reads that the only option is to take Green Tree to Pauba. Mr. Wilch stated that the understanding that they had during discussions in the field was that they would be required to provide a 24' width road and Condition No. 80 now reads 28' wide paved secondary access. COMMISSIONER FAHEY expressed confusion regarding the applicant's concern regarding the width of the private road, which she understood as a requirement for the turnaround bulb. MR. WILCH stated that he did not have a problem with the turnaround bulb, but with the width requirement for the 36' streets he felt was excessive for the rural environment. ROBERT RIHHETTI stated that staff considered this as the primary access to the subdivision which was why they planned the roadway as proposed. The County is considering a new policy, which states the larger type parcels will provide for a 28' road. Mr. Righetti stated that many private street residents are asking the City to take over maintenance of their roads and in order for the City to do that, they have to be brought up to City standards, which can be very costly. This road does serve as a residential collector road. BOB PIPER, 41825 Green Tree Road, Temecula, advised that 97% of the residents in this area have requested that the area remain rural, which would be a 24' road without PCMIN01/27/92 -9- 01/28/92 curb, gutter, street light and sidewalk. He also asked that the developer's CC&R's be mixed with the existing CC&R's. JOHN TELESIO, 31760 Via Telesio, Temecula, stated that he concurred with the applicant's points regarding the rural environment of this area. DON/%LD GURMAN, 41725 Calle Cedro, Temecula, stated that he was against the City's requirement that the applicant install curb, gutter, sidewalks and street lights. TONY BARRY, 41837 Calle Cedro, Temecula, stated that he was opposed to curbs, gutters, street lights and sidewalks. Mr. Barry also expressed a concern that Calle Cedro could be damaged during construction and requested provisions be written to ensure the road is returned to its present condition if such damage occurs. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF asked Condition 80 were in conflict. if Condition 38 and ROBERT RIGHETTI stated that Green Tree Road for the area along the front of this project, would be designed to City standard No. 104, Section B, but this is where the actual improvements would fall in the actual centerline of the street. He clarified that the curb and gutter was to be on Rancho Vista, not Green Tree or the private street. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stated that he thought there was a shorter route to get out of this development and the Commission has indicated in the past that they are looking for some sort of paved route for emergency vehicles. COMMISSIONER FORD stated that he was concerned that improvements are being done; however, the roads still do not meet City standards. CHAIRMAN HOA~LAND stated that the City did not know if there is going to be a rural standard in the future. He added that he felt that the development had to have a paved access. ROBERT RI~HETTI advised that on Page 17, just after Department of Public Works it should say "Prior to recordation of the Final Map". Additionally, Mr. Righetti stated that two paragraphs were not added and read them as follows: PCMIN01/27/92 -10- 01/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 27, 1992 The following are the Public Works Department's Conditions of Approval for this project and shall be completed at no cost to any government agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the Condition shall be referred to the Public Works Department. It is understood that the developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Sub-division Map Act any sub-division which is part of an existing assessment district must comply with said section. MARK RHOADES clarified that Conditions 22 and 33 would be deleted and the Condition he read during the staff report would be added. MARK RHOADES asked if Conditions 48 and 50 applied solely to Rancho Vista Road. DOUG STEWART stated that the only street that gets full street improvements is Rancho Vista Road. He modified Condition No. 50 to read "Street lights, curb and gutter, sidewalks shall be provided only along Rancho Vista Road adjoining the subject site, etc". All other street standards will be referred back to Conditions No. 36 - 40. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at 8:00 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 92-(next) Adopting the Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map No. 26521 and Adopt Resolution No. 92-(next) approving Tentative Tract Map No. 26521, and delete Condition No. 22, delete No. 33 and replace with Quimby Act Condition as read, modify Public Works Section, Modify and amend Condition 80 as read, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND declared a recess at 8:00 P.M. reconvened at 8:10 P.M. The meeting CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND stated that he would like to clarify why the Commission voted in favor of staff's PCMIN01/27/92 -11- 01/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 27, 1992 recommendations. Chairman Hoagland stated that he voted in favor of staff's recommendation to provide a paved access back this development for emergency vehicles. COMMISSIONER FORD stated that this was a sub-division tract map and the sizing of the lots, and following what the Council recommended on previous approvals, was to lean toward rural standards as they relate to larger lots. Both the City staff and Planning Commission has agreed that certain improvements have been reduced within the tract; however, offsite, they have been conditioned to provide a paved access which is Green Tree. The improvements that have been reduced are street lights, curb and gutter and sewer. 10. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 18; AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 219, AMENDMENT NO. Z 10.1 Proposal to amend the boundary of the Paloma Del Sol (formerly the Meadows) Specific Plan to include Planning Area No. 36. Located on the southeast corner of Margarita Road and DePortola Road. MARK RHOADES summarized the staff report. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 8:20 P.M. KEITH MCCANN, JR., 43121 Margarita Road, Temecula, made comments and requested modifications to the following: Condition No. 8 requires an archeological study be done on the property which he stated he felt was redundant. Mr. McCann referred to the property being in use for many years. Condition No. 15 requires the submission of a biological report; however, areas No. 10 and No. 25 are the only two areas showing evidence of potential K-Rat habitat. Mr. McCann advised that disking is being done to the property on a regular basis for fire mitigation. Condition No. 16 requested verification of the requirement for payment to Fish and Game, which he requested to be put off until Plot Plan submission of approval. Staff indicated that they would not be willing to amend that Condition. PCMIN01/27/92 -12- 01/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 27, 1992 MR. MCCANN questioned what staff considered the meaning of a "strip center", referring to the memo by Gary Thornhill to the Planning Commission. MR. MCCANN reviewed the landscape exhibits with the Commission. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF asked Mr. McCann if he received a copy of the letter from the School District and if he had any problem with the letter. MR. MCCANN stated that yes he did have a problem with the letter. Mr. McCann stated that he felt the School Board may not have had all the facts relating to the proposed project and the overall area when preparing their recommendation. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND asked if the applicant would be willing to amend the Specific Plan to include Area No. 1. MR. MCCANN stated that if it would make it more efficient then he had no problem with it. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND stated that he was very concerned with this 2 1/2 acres developing prematurely. LETTIE BOGGS, representing the Temecula Valley Unified School District, 31350 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, clarified the comments and recommendations made by the letter from the school district. She stated that the primary issue is the health and welfare of the students and staff at this site. The items that were marked were reasons of environmental safety, as well as attractive nuisance issues, unsuitable neighbor issues and traffic impacts. The way that staff marked the criteria was to create a buffer area between the school and the commercial area to the south and east of the area. COMMISSIONER FORD stated that he had a problem with the school district telling the City that you could not have a plumbing shop because some trucks will be coming into it, or you cannot have a fast food business because the kids would want to go there or a mail order business because there may be some shipping involved. NAYREE DAVIS, 28895 Vallejo, Temecula, speaking on behalf of the Los Ranchitos Homeowner's Association, stated for the record they were in opposition to a zone change at this time. Ms. Davis stated that if the Association were in favor of this zone change, which they are not, it PCMIN01/27/92 -13- 01/28/92 PL~'NING CON~fTSSTON MINUTES ~ANU~RY 27, '~992 would be the responsibility of the Association to strongly oppose a possible City sanctioned zone change, before the CC&R issue is resolved first. Ms. Davis added that in order to build anything other than a single family dwelling, the Association would have to provide the legal consent of 51% of the voters. CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF stated that he did not feel it was the City's obligation to step in and enforce the CC&Rs. This property is located at the intersection of two major arterials and surrounded by another forty acres of commercial development approved in the Specific Plan and this is not the location for a residence. KEITH MCCANN stated that he met with Bob Coslens, of the Temecula Unified School District on December 12, 1991, and asked what the school district's concerns were and Mr. Coslens stated that they were only concerned about beer and wine, therefore in the planning stages, the school districts concerns were recognized. GARY THORNHILL clarified that the City did not represent anything to the applicant with respect to the school district's wishes. COl~4ISSIONER CHINIAEFF stated again that he did not feel that this was an appropriate place for a residence. Mr. Chiniaeff also stated that he thought that the school board's list is very prohibitive. Commissioner Chiniaeff added that he was concerned about the development of this property in concert with the surrounding property. Mr. Chiniaeff stated that he thought it was premature to zone this property commercial until the general plan has been completed. COI~fISSIONER FAHEY stated that she also thought is was premature to re-zone this area prior to the completion of the general plan. Commissioner Fahey stated that she felt that the commercial would be in conflict with the residential as well as the school. COF~ISSIONER FAHEY moved to Deny Change of Zone No. 18; and Specific Plan Amendment No. 219, Amendment No. 2, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR. COMMISSIONER FAHEY amended her motion to close the public hearing as well at 8:55 P.M., COMMISSIONER BLAIR concurred. PCMIN01/27/92 -14- 01/28/92 PLiqNNTN(3 COI~fl'BBTON MTNUTES J~qUi%RY 27, 1992 The Commission decided to take a roll explain their reasons for voting recommendation. call vote and for staff The clerk took a roll call vote as follows: COMMISSIONER BLAIR: YES Development could be inconsistent with the general plan. Would prefer that the Commission wait and work within the confines of the general plan. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF: YES COMMISSIONER FAHEY: YES Property will eventually be commercial; however, the determination of how it fits into the larger scheme is best determined in the general plan and that process is yet to be completed. Premature change of zoning in light of the absence of a completed general plan. While the residential area is in conflict and not appropriately buffered with plan c o m m e r c i a 1 , commercial would not be appropriately buffered next to the school either so there is a conflict there. Also, since this is a discretionary action, that while the Commission does not have to vote and consider the CC&R's, the Commission has PCMIN01/27/92 -15- 01/28/92 PLkNNING COHHISSION MINUTES J~NUARY 27, 1992 COHHISSIONER FORD: CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND: NO YES the privilege to do so. Ms. Fahey concluded that she was not in favor of overriding the CC&R's. Believes that the project will be consistent with the future general plan because of the nature of the residential being surrounded by other commercial. Due to the fact that the roads are major arterial roads and will carry large volumes of traffic, it creates a natural separation. The CC&R' s which are existing on it are a function of the homeowner · s, that will have to be worked out with the applicant, and the Commission is not to be concerned with the CC&R' s. Also, this project could be brought into a consistency level with the Specific Plan commercial with what is proposed there if properly conditioned. Believes that this is a premature zone change. There is a possibility that it may be commercial at sometime; however, it may not be and what the ultimate PCMIN01/27/92 -16- 01/28/92 PL~NIN~ COI4141SS~ON HINUTES J~UARY 27, 1992 solution in the general plan is, is not clear now. It would be tragic to jump into a decision at this time, with a better solution in the near future. 11. OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS ORDINANCE 11.1 Interim Ordinance establishing regulations for Outdoor Advertising Displays city wide. COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to continue Outdoor Advertising Display Ordinance to February 24, 1992, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 12. AMENDMENT OF ORDINANCE 90-19 12.1 Proposal by the City of Temecula to amend Ordinance 90-19 establishing decision making authority for sub-division and land use applications, City of Temecula City boundaries. GARY THORNHILL reviewed the revised Approval Authority Ordinance. After Commission discussion, the following amendments were recommended: No. 3 No. 8 No. 11 No. 18 No. 20 No. 21 No. 22 No. 23 No. 24 No. 27 Planning Commission Approval Planning Director Approval Planning Commission Approval Planning Commission Approval Planning Commission Approval Exceeding six months, Planning Commission Approval Planning Commission Approval Planning Commission Approval Planning Commission Approval Planning Commission Approval PCMIN01/27/92 -17- 01/28/92 PLANNING COHNISSZON MTNUTEB JANUARY 27, 1992 CHAIRF~%N HOAGLB/~D opened the public hearing at 9:30 P.M. RUSSELL RUF,%NSOFF, 27349 Jefferson Avenue, representing the Temecula/Murrieta ABC Expediting Committee, indicated their support of staff's approach to streamline the approval process. LARRY MAR~, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula, concurred with staff's approval authority proposal. STEVE ALQUIST, 31265 Infield, Temecula, Vice President of the Economic Development Corporation, concurred with staff's recommendation to streamline the process. PAT PARTON, 38605 Highway 79, Temecula, Executive Assistant for the Economic Development Corporation, very supportive of this process. GARY THORNHILL stated that parking adjustments are done at staff level. He also stated that any time there is an accompanying general plan change or re-zoning, everything will trail with that application and go on to the highest approval authority. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to continue Ordinance 92- (next) to the meeting of February 3, 1992, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT GARY THORNHILL updated the Commission on the following items: * Meeting scheduled for January 29, 1992, to select the firm for the Old Town Redevelopment Committee. * Planning Commissioner's Institute April 9 - 11, 1992 in Anaheim. * Growth Management Seminar in Sacramento, February 20, 1992. * Possible joint luncheon with the Murrieta Planning Commission. PCMIN01/27/92 -lS- 01/28/92 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 27, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER BLAIR asked what the follow-up procedure is for requests requirements. Commissioner Blair indicated that the landscape screening for Wincston Tires winchester s implemented as requested by the Commission. She also stated that the landscape plantings at Costco were not what the Commission had stipulated. GARY THORNHILL stated that staff would follow-up on those two items. COMMISSIONER FAHEY advised that she would not be present at the meeting of February 24, 1992, due a previously scheduled vacation. OTHER BUSINESS JOHN MEYER advised of the following joint City Council/Planning Commission meetings regarding the general plan: February 5, 1992 February 26, 1992 March 25, 1992 Commissioner Hoagland stated that he would not be attending these meetings due to previous commitments. Commissioner Fahey stated that she would not be present at the meeting of February 26, 1992, due to a previously scheduled vacation. ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to adjourn at 10:00 P.M., seconded by COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF and carried unanimously. //-- ~ec~tary The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be held Monday, February 3, 1992, 6:00 P.M., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. PCMIN01/27/92 -19- 01/28/92