Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout021501 DH MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR FEBRUARY 15, 2001 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Director was called to order on Thursday, February 15, 2001 at 1:30 PM, at the City of Temecula Main Conference Room, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Senior Planner, Don Hazen presiding. Also present were Project Planner Michael McCoy, Associate Planner Thomas Thornsley, Deputy Director of Public Works Ron Parks, Senior Engineer Jerry Alegda, and Minute Clerk Theresa Alvarez. Senior Planner, Don Hazen opened the public hearing for items not listed on the agenda at 1:35 PM. There were no requests to speak. 1. Planninq Application No. PA01-0013 (Development Plan for product review) Project Planner, Michael McCoy presented the staff report for Planning Application PA01- 0013 (Development Plan), a product review of three models for construction on 87 lots within Tract 24187-1. Senior Planner, Don Hazen opened the public hearing at 1:38 PM. Applicant Bill Pentington, Trimark Pacific Homes has read and is in concurrence with the Condition of Approval. Deborah Chdstensen, 32255 Corte IIIora, Temecula, CA she was aware that when they were first approved that the lot size would be between 3500 - 5000 sq ft and that the home size would be a minimum of 2600 sq ft; her concern lies with the lot sizes being too small for the size of homes to be placed on them and with all 2 stories and no one stories would give the appearance of row house, townhouse view from her yard and her neighborhood. Applicant Bill Penington, Trimark Pacific Homes clarified that all of the lot sizes are a minimum of 6,000 sq ft. Senior Planner Don Hazen closed the public hearing at 1:45 PM. Senior Planner, Don Hazen approved application no. PA01-0013 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. 2. Planninq Application No. PA 00-0271 (VTT 26941 ) & PA00-0272 (VTT 23143), Extensions of Time Associate Planner, Thomas Thornsley presented the staff report for both Planning Application No.s PA00-0271 (VTT 26941 ) and PA00-0272 (VTT 23143) Extensions of Time. Senior Planner Don Hazen asked Senior Engineer Jerry Alegria to summarize some of the recommending conditions of approval that are new; conditions being recommended that were not previously applied to the prior EOT R:~DIRHEAR~VlINUTES\2001 \02-15-01 minutes.doc Senior Engineer Jerry Alegria stated that the new conditions relate to when the signals at Crowne Hill Dr., Butterfield Stage, Royal Crest Stage and Pauba and Crowne Hill Dr. must be installed and what they have done is established a threshold of occupancy when those signals would have to be installed at those locations. Senior Planner Don Hazen opened the public hearing at 2:05 PM. Attorney Sam AIhadeff, representing the applicant, 41530 Enterprise Cr South expressed that he would like everyone else to speak and they would respond to the citizens concerns Ed Lindsey, 42375 Camino Merano, Temecula, CA - lots are set on minimum 5000 sq ft and he believes the lot size should be at least 10,000 sq ft because of the impacts to traffic and because of the schools and another concern about dust containment. Roger Jaeger 41325 Billy Joe Lane Temecula, CA - his property backs up to the east of the project. What concerns him is mitigation for wildlife and they would strip the land completely to dirt which they have done for the last 3 years. They are inundated with dirt; they feel the way the developer or owner is not dealing with the dust control on the property. Concerned about what they are going to do architecturally with the homes. Representative Sam Alhadeff clarified the issues about the keno checkerspot butterfly in the area in which Mr Jeager just described to us. The other areas where he spoke about grading, they don't want any habitat to grow there so that Fish and Wildlife will not restrict development because they found 2 butterflies resting on a hill. Heather Crown 41485 Via Del Monte, Temecula, CA - concerned with the impact on the wash behind her home how the properties will be developed. Also wondered whether there will be any equestrian trails in the subdivision. Associate Planner Thomas Thornsley - explained that the grading plans will have to be submitted. Senior Engineer Jerry Alegria - explained that they look at those issues at grading time. Applicant Mary Rauschenburg explained that there are horse trails along Pauba that join the trails that abut Paseo. It is the same kind of set up that is a requirement of a map today, and there are no other interior horse trails designed in this project. Debbie Luzuriaga, 42075 Calle Barbana, Temecula, CA she has questions, are you going to leave the watercourse in the area in the current condition, or are you planning to put improvements in to control it; they have an existing air strip that many of them find appealing and is concerned about the quality of homes that they will have on the 5 acres lots Applicant Mary Rauschenburg, in regards to the watercourse if you are talking about the same watercourse on the estates lots, it will be a untouched and there will be a conveyance to not be developed. It is currently being proposed to leave it in the open stage that is in today. Representative Sam Alhadeff - asked will there be restriction of what will be built on those lots? Applicant Mary Rauschenburg - They will not be building the estates lots. Each house will have its own grading plan and will have to come in for approval by the City; we are only doing the mass grading plan sometime in the near future. Debbie Christensen - mentioned that in her development, their roads are all maintained by the HOA; she confirmed that none of the applicants roads seem to impact her roads. R:~DIRHEAR~MINUTES\2001\02-15-01 minutes.doc 2 Applicant Mary Rauschenburg - answered that none of the developments roads will impact that other development Debbie Christensen- expressed concerns about the airstrip. Attorney Sam Alhadeff responded that the County of Riverside has addressed the issues regarding the private airstrip because it is not in the City of Temecu~a; there are no avigation easements or building restrictions on this property that he is aware. Roger Jaeger - about his grading concerns; what they can expect to happen in this grading process? Can they expect them to strip off the entire acreage? Senior Planner Don Hazen - we have the discretion in this meeting to apply reasonable conditions if they are related to public health, safety or welfare, and there has been substantial testimony taken today that spoke to the issues about the impacts of grading. We have the ability to encourage phased grading; maybe to implement the best standard practices that are available to us to minimize dust control. What will happen next if these maps are approved for EOT is to do mass grading of the site and typically that is an administrative decision that doesn't require a Public Hearing. Terri (last name was not stated or written on request to speak form) 33444 Pauba Rd, Temecula, CA. concerned with the grading of the project. Applicant Mary Rauschenburg, regarding the two vested maps that they are requesting EOT, 26941 the estate maps 23143, clarification on item #100 and clarification on the credits and what would be received, and the additional clarification on item #1d; lastly on item #110 would like to have a discussion on the timing of the traffic signal for Crowne Hill and Butterfield Stage that was just recently added. Representative Sam Alhadeff - The language states "may be eligible for DIF credits" we would like to be "shall receive DIF credits" for that work; requested clarification of Condition #110 would like more detail of the requirements of Mary. Ron Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works, clarified the requirements of Condition #110 regarding the issues of DIF credits; staff cannot impose a condition that says they shall receive DIF credits because DIF credits need to be applied for by the developer. They would be eligible for a portion of the costs of that signal, depending upon the impact that they had on the intersection versus the impact of the whole city on the intersection. He believes staff had gone over that with the applicant and we feel that there is a need for the signals to be installed because of the health & safety issues. The signals that are being asked for are directly associated with this development and the impact of this development located at Crowne Hill/Butterfield Stage Rd, Royal Crest/Butterfield Stage Rd and Crowne Hill/Pauba Rd. Senior Planner Don Hazen questioned Ron Parks - When the condition references the timing of the signals at the 150th or 504th occupancy, is that cumulative occupancy starling from what is already built or from here on in do you start from no. 1,2? Deputy Director of Public Works Ron Parks - It is from here on in, we have already accounted for the 249 units that have been built and the next permit would start with no.1. Attorney Sam Alhadeff - Go back to item #100, hypothetical question. Let's assume that we R:'xDIRHEARXM INUTES~2001\02-15 -01 minutes.doc 3 understand that we have to apply for our DIF credits, but let's assume this traffic signal is being put in and our impacts would allow us to get X as a credits; let's assume for a moment that perhaps there was another project that didn't contribute its percentage. Would they get more than their impact credits? Deputy Director of Public Works Ron Parks - If you start to build tracts out there and start generating additional traffic that will initiate a need to have that signal in; if the project across the street starts developing the traffic first, they will be required to put the signal in and they may be eligible for the Dif credits - it all depends on who is recording maps. But you are conditioned the same as they are to get the signal installed that's what the City feels the need is. Attorney Sam Alhadeff - He was trying to figure hypothetically our impact is 50% some other developments impact is 50%. We would get 50% credit? Because we are impacting it 50% but we are paying for the whole thing. Deputy Director of Public Works Ron Parks - You are getting credit for the 50% you are impacting; you are putting in 100%, you are paying for 50% because that is what you have caused and you are being reimbursed through DIF Credits the other 50%. You would have to pay for the entire signal and be reimbursed through DIF credits the other 50% that you are not responsible for. It could be 25% could be 75%. Applicant Mary Rauschenburg- Regarding the road improvements for Butterfield Stage Road, the same type of question. She clarified the she is to put in the median for the entire length, but is the project eligible for a credit for the poriion that fronts the 249 lots? Ron Parks - He confirms that she is speaking about the raised landscape median. It is eligible for DIF credits for projects that you do not own. He reiterates to her that the wording in the condition needs to say, "shall". He confirms that in the past all projects have applied for DIF credits in this manner have received them. He clarifies that even if this project is not extended, the property owner has to right, once they get the environmental clearances, to clear, grub the site, if they wish. He would hope that in this case that they would do the grading in phases. And what happens when they get a rough grading permit is that they are required to install erosion control landscaping to minimize the dust that is created. Representative Sam Alhadeff- stated that Mr. Jaeger raised the point on the PalomaJPaseo del Sol project that they have looked at dirt for a while. Mr. Lindsey raised the point that the erosion (dust) control is at his home every summer in his living room. Sam states that the City requires every map to have dust control. If there is a dust control issue, they should come in and talk to the Public Works. Deputy Director of Public Works Ron Parks - He doesn't believe that the area that they are talking about has been graded other than discs. This is an incorporated area and there are going to be houses here and were doing the best that we can to minimize the impacts on the surrounding areas as well as the environment; they would do the same thing with this development if they applied for a permit but they need this map before they can apply for a permit. Senior Planner Don Hazen closed the public hearing at 2:50 pm Senior Planner Don Hazen summarized that these are time extension of approved tract maps, and R:',D IR H EARLM IN UTESL2001 \02 - 15 -01 minutes.d~c 4 failure to grant a time extension will basically allow these to expire. In order to reject these extensions, there has to be some underlying reason why we can't allow these maps to record and eventually be built upon. Typically there would have to be inconsistencies with our General Plan, which is not the case here. The property is zoned for residential use and these maps are implementing our General Plan; or if there was a major problem with being able to provide services to this area of the City, and we are able to provide services. There is really no legal reason for not approving these extensions. We take these opportunities to take another look at the previous conditions of approval and update those conditions for reasons of public, health safety; and the staff recommendations and these conditions that have been discussed are such changes that staff has recommended be added to this. Other concerns he has heard in this meeting have to do with the secondary effects such as grading impacts and architectural quality of the homes. He believes that are too many areas in the City where you see large blocks of land that sit exposed year after year. He would like to impose a condition on the maps that to the extent possible require phased grading. Defers to PW Is it all possible to get an overall master grading plan and then allow grading permits to be issued in phases. Deputy Director of Public Works Ron Parks - states it is practical depending upon the balance of cut and fill; there could be an area where they have to remove outside the limits of the area that you are approving or stockpile. Many times as with the Paseo Del Sol, they are mass grading and actually come back and do mass grading of subdivisions and then come back again and do fine grading after they built the houses; that is the process that is allowed. We are currently working on a new grading ordinance that would eliminate that; we are currently working under the County grading ordinance and the county would actually allow them to mass grade the whole thing. Applicant Mary Rauschenburg stated that the City's conditions of approval somewhat contradict the ability to do a whole lot of phasing because they are required to do a park at one end of the project where there are no other homes; access roads to get there; where ever else they do move forward and do another phase they are going to have additional access requirements needed there is only 2 more access points on this tract which is at Royal Crest/Crown/Pauba, so to some extent they are greatly limited to what in our ability to phase just based on the City's requirements of what they have to install the 81 lots that are of record would require a good portion of the site to be graded today for street access on top of the fact that before any of that can be build the other side of the project has to be graded sc that a park can be built. Senior Planner Don Hazen - asks Ron Parks that to minimize the adverse impacts dust etc., are there conditions that we could put on the mass grading permit that we have not done in the past, so we could move towards that direction which we are atready working towards with the new grading ordinance? Ron Parks - explains that one of the things that they have done on some of the custom lots is require matting to prevent erosion and keeps the dust control down but you still have large areas that are flat and they don't normally plant and so that does generate some dust off of those flatter areas; many time they have siltation screen that they put over the flatter areas and that may eliminate some of the dust we could take a look at that when we as do the erosion control plan and maybe something they could do is take a look at staff is too look at dust erosion as well as water erosion. Associate Planner Thomas Thornsley, explains the process for product review once a developer has purchased the property and wishes to develop it. Applicant Mary Rauschenburg - states that she could grade the property right now if she wished but R:~DIRHEAR'xMINUTES~2001\02-15 -01 minutes.doc 5 since she has no intention of pulling grading permits right now. Senior Planner Don Hazen approves application No PA00-0271 based on the findings and adding a condition that prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Public Works and Planning Dept. shall find that all reasonable methods have been incorporated to help minimize unnecessary blowing dust and/or soil erosion added as condition 13 on tract 26941 and this is still consistent with the original environmental review that was done for the site. As for the second application No PA00-0272 for the vesting tract 24143 making similar grading condition as with application no PA00-0271 and number condition #111. Also, both maps were conditioned to explore the feasibility of phased grading at the time of grading plan review. The meeting was adjourned at 3:15 P.M. D'~'n H ~e'n/, S-'~'/en;o;r~la n n e r R:',D IR H EARh'VI1N UTES\2001 \02 - 15-01 minutes.doc 6