Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout010692 PC Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR HEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECUL~ MONDAY, ~i~NUARY 6, ~992 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order Monday, January 6, 1992, 6:00 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 Chairman Hoagland advised that Commissioner Fahey would be arriving later during the meeting. Also present were Assistant city Attorney John Cavanaugh, Director of Planning Gary Thornhill, Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner John Meyer, Associate Planner Saied Naaseh, Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan, Robert Righetti, Department of Public Works, and Minute Clerk Gail Zigler. PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND advised that Item No. 4 would be continued to the Planning Commission meeting on January 27, 1992 and Item No. 6 would be continued to the Planning Commission meeting on February 24, 1992. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to approve the agenda, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey MINUTES 2.1 Approve the minutes of December 16, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF amended the minutes as follows: page 11, first paragraph to read, "...by July 1, 1993, whichever comes first; developer shall post a bond with the City or shall show proof that a bond has been posted in sufficient amount to construct the recreation facility; prior..." COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey ABSTAIN: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair Commissioner Blair abstained from approval of the minutes for December 16, 1991, due to the fact that she was not present at that meeting. NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS TELEVISION/RADIO ANTENNA ORDINANCE 3.1 Proposed Ordinance establishing Television/Radio Antennas Citywide. regulations for JOHN MEYER summarized the staff report. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that in view of the FCC's opinion on regulating satellite dish antennas and amateur radio antennas, the previously submitted Television/Radio Antenna Ordinance has been revised. Mr. Cavanaugh stated that under the FCC opinion, any regulations placed on satellite dish antennas must be set forth in zoning ordinances; however, discretionary action can be taken on amateur radio antennas. As proposed, satellite dish antennas and amateur radio antennas will have existing standards and conditions, but any amateur radio antenna in excess of 30' must receive Conditional Use Permit approval. This would give the City the discretionary authority to review these types of antennas when they are above 30', with a maximum height of 65'. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF questioned the reference to Planning Director approval of the C.U.P. in the revision. JOHN CAVANAUGH advised that the C.U.P. would be under Planning Commission approval. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 1992 CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 6:15 P.M. RICK SAVAGE, 43120 Vista Del Rancho, Temecula, spoke in opposition to the ordinance as it was being proposed. Mr. Savage supplied the Planning Commission members with a copy of a recent City of Los Angeles Planning Staff report stating their position on the height of vertical antennas and read from that report as follows, "... however, staff feels that there is a problem with this approach of giving neighbors veto power over proposed antennas which may result in most antenna requests being opposed by at least one neighbor, thereby necessitating a lengthy zoning administrator approval process. These disapprovals may result from real concerns on the part of the neighbors, a misunderstanding of the real nature or purpose of the antenna, fears from radio and television interference, usually unwarranted if the equipment is operated correctly, or even from neighborhood feuds and spite. Perhaps such a vital emergency function should not be subject to the potential blockage or delay. While neighbors concerns are certainly valid, staff feels there is to much danger of misuse and to much power invested in surrounding property owner opinions of such an important service. Also, what is the opinions of other nearby neighbors who would have no input because they are not immediately adjacent. Staff has drafted an alternative ordinance, NXB, (a copy was presented to the Commission members) which permits such antennas up to 65' as a matter of right in all agriculture and residential zones provided they antennas are not used for commercial purposes. There would be no zoning administrator approval process for antennas over 65' in height, the existing yard variance procedure could be used for higher antenna". Mr. Savage stated that the original suggestion to staff was a four step process which is now an eleven step process. ROBERT BERG, 42701 Via Del Campo, Temecula, indicated his opposition to the ordinance as written, and stated that previous versions appeared more acceptable. Mr. Berg offered that a couple of members of the Golden Triangle Amateur Radio Club would be available to work on the ordinance with staff. MICHAEL TUCCI, 42325 Via Consuelo, Temecula, representing the Golden Triangle Amateur Radio Club, RACES, EVAC and ARES, opposed the ordinance as being presented and discussed the technical limitations of a 35' antenna. RON PERRY, 29879 Camino Del Sol, Temecula, representing PCMIN1/6/92 -3- January 7, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 1992 the Public Safety Commission, stated that he has been working very closely with the Police and Fire Department on a Emergency Communications Plan, which relies on volunteer amateur radio operators. Mr. Perry stated that 30' was not an adequate height to clear the many man made objects around the location of the operators, and the 30' height limitation was not in keeping with the Public Radio Bureau. Mr. Perry stated that he would like to see the 65' brought back and requested that the proposed ordinance be continued and the opportunity to work with staff to refine the proposed ordinance. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stated that he felt the 65' height antenna for public safety reasons is important for the amateur radio operators and the C.U.P. process for every antenna over 30' would not be favorable. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to continue Item 3 and direct staff to work with the amateur radio community to develop an ordinance that would allow amateur radio development for 65' antennas without going through the C.U.P. process, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND stated that although he could appreciate the services provided by the amateur radio operators, living in a residential community of small lots, someone may have some concern with a 65' permanent antenna right next to their property. He also stated that there should be some consideration given to existing roof mounted satellite dish antennas as referenced on Page 11. Chairman Hoagland stated that he understood from previous discussions that after two years, these existing antennas would be non-conforming and if these individuals who had the non-conforming antennas came to the City for any type of permit they would be required to bring that antenna into conformance. Chairman Hoagland requested staff to bring back a solution to that problem. COMMISSIONER BLAIR stated that she did not find a problem with the C.U.P. requirement for antennas over the 30' height and she did not feel that the Planning Commission would be overwhelmed with requests for this type of permit and therefore she would not support a motion that directed staff to increase the height to 65'. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND and COMMISSIONER FORD stated that they also had concerns for 65' fixed structures COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF amended his motion by referring Item 3 back to staff and directing staff to work with the PCMIN1/6/92 -4- January 7, 1992 PL~NNZNG CONNISSION MEETING J~IU~RY 6, ~992 amateur radio community to determine heights that will work for them in terms of amateur radio and bring Item 3 back to the Planning Commission with a recommendation at the meeting on February 17, 1992, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey GARY THORNHILL advised that the meeting of February 17, 1992 was a holiday, therefore Item 3 would be continued to the meeting of February 24, 1992. 0 PLOT PLAN 233, REVISED NO. I 4.1 Proposal to construct a 1,270 square foot outdoor playground and patio addition to the southern elevation of the subject building. Located at the N.W. corner of Rancho California Road. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 6:50 P.M. COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to close the public hearing at 6:50 P.M. and continue Plot Plan 233, Revised No. 1, at the applicant's request, to the Planning Commission meeting of January 27, 1992, seconded by COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey 5. PLOT PLAN 86, REVISED 5.1 Proposal to construct a 225 square foot addition to an existing Cablevision structure, add a 120 square foot generator pad and a 1,000 gallon propane tank site. Located at 2526 LaSerena Way, Temecula. MATTHEW FAGAN summarized the staff report. PCMIN1/6/92 -5- January 7, 1992 PLi%NNING CONNISSZON MEETING Ji%NU~RY 6, 1992 COMMISSIONER FORD stated that although the staff report reflects that the generator will be operated under emergency situations only, there is no condition stating such. GARY THORNHILL stated that staff could add a condition that says the generator will be operated under emergency situations only. JERRY SANDERS, 2770 W. Devonshire, Hemet, director of Engineering for Inland Valley Cablevision, concurred with the staff report. Mr. Sanders stated that Inland Valley has run out of room at the site and therefore this request. Mr. Sanders provided the Commission with a history of the site. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF asked the applicant if the propane tank was visible from the street and if it could be moved closer to the satellite antenna. MR. SANDERS stated that the tank would be slightly visible; however, he offered to screen the tank with landscaping. GARY THORNHILL advised that the landscaping plans proposed screening of the tank. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND suggested that the applicant look into a Hospital Critical Muffler for the times when the generator is under use. CHaIRmAN HOAGLAND asked if the applicant concurred with a condition with states that the generator will be operated for emergency purposes only with periodic testing. MR. SANDERS indicated that they would agree to that condition. CARL BENSCOTER, 41466 Big Sage Court, Temecula, expressed a concern to the applicant's comments that they were running out of room at this site. KEN HEID, 41486 Big Sage Court, Temecula, stated that during previous discussions before the Planning Commission, the applicant indicated that they were pursuing a more commercial environment for their equipment and questioned if they were still pursuing a new location. Mr. Heid also expressed his objection to the color that the satellite dishes were painted. PCMIN1/6/92 -6- January 7, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: JANUARY 6, 2992 Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland None 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 15 7.1 Proposed tenant improvement for roller skating rink. Located at 28860 Front Street. SAIED NAASEH summarized the staff report and advised of the amendment to Condition No. 3 to reflect an expiration of January 6, 1993 rather than 1994. CHAIILV,%N HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 7:30 P.M. HELENA LIN JUBANY, 2159 Country Club Drive, Glendora, expressed a concurrence to the staff report. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF asked if there was a minimum size or dimension for a skating rink. HELENA LIN JUBANY stated that there was no minimum size. COMMISSIONER FORD expressed a concern for approving a project that had a maximum occupancy of 200; however, parking spaces for only 107 cars. DEBBIE UBNOSKE stated that the hours of operation were after 5:00 P.M., and many of the occupants would be car- pooling or dropped off, and most of the other businesses in the center close prior to or at 5:00 P.M. GARY THORNHILL stated that staff is aware of the insufficient number of parking spaces, but is trying to work with the applicant on an existing building, while providing a much needed recreational activity for the youth of the community. COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated that she felt the estimate of the parking requirements for the project was adequate. COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at 7:35 P.M. and Adopt Resolution 92-(next) approving Conditional Use Permit No. 15, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the Conditions of Approval as amended by staff, seconded by COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF. PCMIN1/6/92 -8- January 7, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: JANUARY 6, 1992 Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland None CHAIRMAN HOAGL~%ND declared a recess at 7:35 P.M. reconvened at 7:45 P.M. The meeting PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 580, REVISED NO. ~ 8.1 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. SAIED NAASEH summarized the staff report. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND requested comments from the Chief Building Official. TONY ELMO, Chief Building Official, City of Temecula, stated that staff had no approvals and had not given any approvals for any of the portable classroom structures on the site or for occupancy, nor had the County of Riverside approved any. GARY THORNHILL advised that staff has been working with the applicant trying to get compliance on the structures; however, staff was having a difficult time getting some of the information needed and is still lacking some information. MIKE GRAY, representing the County of Riverside Fire Department, stated that they also had been requesting information from the applicant. Mr. Gray advised that the improvements that were done at the site were sub- standard and none of them approved by any of the County agencies. Mr. Gray stated that some of the internal drive aisles were too tight for a fire truck, which presented a health and safety risk. Mr. Gray advised that he also had requested serial numbers for the portable structures; however, those he received did not match up with the portable units. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 8:00 P.M. PCMIN1/6/92 -9- January 7, 1992 PL~NNZNG CONNZSSZON MEETZNG ~J~Ui~tY 6, ~992 KERRY HARTIN, pastor of Rancho Temecula Bible Church, advised the Commission that he and the church had every intention of cooperating with staff and abiding by the laws of the city. Mr. Martin questioned the accuracy of some of the findings as stated in the staff report. Mr. Martin concurred that the internal drive aisles were not the standard 24' in width; however, he pointed out that they had been that way since 1986 and they were given occupancy of the building. Mr. Martin also advised the Commission that the church had already agreed to build the block wall to screen the church from the adjacent residential. Mr. Martin advised the Commission that they had applied for the proper permits for the County and shortly thereafter their case was transferred to the City of Temecula. Pastor Martin concluded by saying that he was present to cooperate with staff and make these buildings as safe as possible. COMMISSIONER FAHEY asked if the applicant was aware that they needed permits in order to occupy the building. PASTOR MARTIN stated that while working with the County they had received a stamped "land use" approval from the County, which staff said the applicant had misinterpreted. LEONARD FOWLER, California Geo Tek, 42030 Avenida Alverado, Temecula, representing the applicant, stated that they did not concur with the findings as contained in the staff report, and discussed the following findings made in the staff report: Item No. 5 - this is a subjective comment and the applicant has been cooperative and asked that it be omitted. Item No. 4 - the chain link fence should not be an issue because the applicant has agreed to build a block wall. Item No. 3 - have never been advised that we did not meet the design guidelines of SP180. Item No. 2 - we are being asked to comply with something we have no access to, the future General Plan of the City. Item No. 1 - there is currently a minimum of 16' drive aisles; however, we are proposing 20' with one-way movement. On September 10, 1991, met with Laura Cabral of the County Fire Department, she instructed us to only PCMIN1/6/92 -10- January 7, 1992 PLANNING COl~ISSION MEETING J~NUi~Y 6, 1992 reconstruct a curb section and gave us her verbal approval of the 16' aisle, which was later rescinded by Captain Mike Gray. COMMISSIONER BLAIR asked how the applicant would mitigate the situation of the basketballs going over the fence without the current 10' chain link fence. CO~ISSIONER FORD asked if the applicant would be willing to condition to one way in and one way out access. L]%RRY FOWLER stated that they would accept that condition and that the parking lot currently is set up as one way only. The following individuals spoke in favor of the proposal and expressed their strong support of the church: LEONARD ROTH, 29605 Solana Way, N 10, Temecula. ROBERT BADDORF, 41399 Avenida Barca, Temecula. CHRISTOPHER ALLEN, 47280 Rainbow Oaks Drive, Temecula. JESUS ZAMORA, 42700 Moraga, 41 "D", Temecula. CARLOS RAMIREZ, 42200 Moraga, 20 "E", Temecula. DEREK THOMAS, 30962 Via Norte, Temecula. BARRY LATTIE, 45547 Tournament, Temecula. JULIE LATTIE, 45547 Tournament, Temecula, secretary to Pastor Martin, stated that he has been more than cooperative with the City and their requests. Ms. Lattie indicated that she had received notification that the State Department of Housing has accepted their requests for inspection and is currently waiting for an inspector to contact them. Ms. Lattie also stated that she was never made aware that the County Fire Department did not have the correct serial numbers on the portable structures; however, she had them and would make them available to them immediately. ROBERT CARLSON, 31019 Corte Arroyo Vista, Temecula. FRED TANTZER, 29738 Vail Brook Drive, Temecula. WILLIAM RENCH, 30624 E. Loma Linda, Temecula. RUDY MENDOZA, 31155 Camino Verde, Temecula. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposal: BARBAI~, HU~HES, 44278 Caba Street, Temecula, adjacent to the church site, opposed the proposal because the church has failed to comply with original property use, which required 6' high dense screening. She added that the church constructed a black-top, basketball court between her property line and the church, with a 6' high chain PCMIN1/6/92 -11- January 7, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 1992 link fence (a 10' portion behind the basketball court to keep the balls coming over the fence) and no room for landscape irrigation, and buses are being parked behind the church. Ms. Hughes said that due to the revisions the applicant has made, she should be afforded at the minimum, a 6' high stone/stucco wall that would afford her property privacy, noise reduction, a trespassing deterrent, protect property values and restrict lighting situations that may be required of the church so that it does not illuminate her property, the 10' fence removed and the buses parked in the front, not the rear, of the property. BOB HINZE, 44264 Caba Street, Temecula, stated that he had no objections to the church or school; however, when he moved to his property, he had understood that the church was going to put up a block wall between the adjacent properties. Mr. Hinze also stated that he felt there should be some skirting around the portable structures. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND asked what needed to be done by the applicant before the Planning Commission could give an approval. GARY THORNHILL stated the following issues needed to be addressed: deciding what type of buffering would be adequate; conditioning the project to protect adjacent property owners from the church site; look at the wall and accompanying landscaping; relocation of the basketball court; prohibiting parking of any vehicles and no additional paving at the rear of the project; comply with standards and satisfy the Fire Department requirements for internal driveways; and get public use permit approved in order to get permits for the temporary structures. COMMISSIONER FAHEY stated that in addition to the many issues as stated by the Planning Director there were also the issues of skirting and meeting the landscape code requirements around the temporary structures; and time frames for the conditions, which perhaps would satisfy the nearby residents and the church members. In lieu of all of the unresolved issues, Commissioner Fahey felt that a continuance would be necessary and moved to Continue Public Use Permit No. 580 to the meeting of February 24, 1992, to have staff address these particular issues with proposed conditions, which would deal with the concerns that were voiced at the meeting. PCMIN1/6/92 -12- January 7, 1992 PLiqNNZN~ COI~SS~ON MEETING J~%'U~Y 6, 1992 JOHN C&VANAUGH reminded the Commission that the Chief Building Official, Tony Elmo, stated that it was uncertain if there were any other violations, just that they structures were constructed without permits. Mr. Cavanaugh suggested that an inspection could be made, with the consent of the property owner allowing the Chief Building official to inspect the structures and see if there is anything wrong with them, or get a inspection warrant from the courts, in order for staff to get a list of what needs to be done to the structures. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF seconded Commissioner Fahey's motion for discussion. MIKE GRAY, Riverside County Fire Department, stated that the portable structures were built under the authority of the State Housing Authority. The applicant has indicated that they have applied for an inspection of the portable structures to the State. That inspection will tell whether these structures were constructed properly, and if not, what needs to be done to bring them up to code. COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stated that although the Commission was not saying that the church should not be where it is, there are some issues that need to be addressed. The block wall and the landscaping are very important issues, and the basketball court should not be where it is. Mr. Chiniaeff also stated that the permit process was set up to address adjacent land uses; however, the church was here first. Mr. Chiniaeff asked that the maker of the motion consider that if the inspection report is not made available by 2/24/92, the item will be continued again. KERRY MARTIN indicated to the Planning Commission and staff that he would be more than willing to have the Chief Building Official inspect the portable structures and bring them up to code. COMMISSIONER FAHEY amended her motion to continue Public Use Permit No. 580 to February 24, 1992, subject to staff having the results of City Staff inspections and State Department of Housing inspections of the portable structures. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PCMIN1/6/92 -13- January 7, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MEET~N~ &ANUARY 6, ~992 MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. HOLIDAY - JANUARY 20, 1992 COMMISSIONER BLAIR moved to cancel the meeting of January 20, 1992 due to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday, and reschedule to January 27, 1992, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT GARY THORMMILL advised of the following: * Thursday, January 9, 1992, interviewing for the consultant for the Old Towne Master Plan for the City of Temecula. * Staff is currently working on the Temporary Sign Ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONER F~EY moved to adjourn at 9:45 P.M. The next meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be held on Monday, January 27, 1992, 6:00 P.M. Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula. Secretary PCMIN1/6/92 -14- January 7, 1992 PLi~ING COMMISSION MEETING JAHUiM:tY 6, 1992 COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to close the public hearing at 7:20 P.M. and AdoDt Resolution No. 92-(next) approving Plot Plan No. 86, Revised No. 1 based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report, and amending the Conditions of Approval as presented, to include a Condition stating that the generator will only be used for emergency and testing purposes and that the propane tank will adequately screened, seconded by COMMISSIONER FORD. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey COMMISSIONER FAHEY arrived at 7:20 P.M. TENTATIVE TRACT HAP 25338 6.1 Proposal for a 28 unit condominium subdivision on 2.56 acres. Located on the southeast corner of Solana Way and Rycrest Drive. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 7:20 P.M. CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND advised that this item was being continued at the Public Works Department's request and asked if anyone wished to speak at this time. FRED TANTZER, 29738 Vail Brook Drive, Temecula, advised that he had not received notification by mail of the public hearing and he was within the 300 foot radius. He added that many of his neighbors had not been notified, as well as, Woodcrest and Sycamore Crest Apartments. Mr. Tantzer stated that the tot lot within the proposed project is inadequate and has no provisions for teenagers. Mr. Tantzer also commented on the failure of other condominium developments in the area. COMMISSIONER FORD moved to continue Tentative Tract Map No. 25338 to the Planning Commission meeting of February 24, 1992, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. PCMIN1/6/92 -7- January 7, 1992