Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout061995 PC Agenda AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION June 19, 1995, 6.'00 PM Rancho California Water District's Board Room 42135 Winchester Road Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Ford ROLL CALL: Fahey, Slaven, Webster and Ford PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. CONSENT ITEM JUNE GREEK, CITY CLERK, WILL SWEAR IN STEVE FORD AND NEWLY APPOINTED TIMOTHY JAY MILLER AS COMMISSIONERS. COMMISSION BUSINESS I. Approval of Agenda 2A. Approval of minutes from the November 7, 1994 Planning Comm'tssion meeting. 2b. Approval of minutes from the December 5, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. 2c. Approval of minutes from the January 9, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. 2d. Approval of minutes from the January 23, 1995 planning Commission meeting. 2e. Approval of minutes from the February 6, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. 2f. Approval of minutes from the March 6, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. 2g. Approval of minutes from the March 20, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3. Case No.: Development Code Applicant: City of Temecula Proposal: Review of the Development Code Planner: John Meyer Recommendation: Recommend Approval Next meeting: Due to the 4th of July holiday, the next meeting will be July 17, 1995, 6:00 p.m., Raneho California Water Distriet's Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecnia, California. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT ITEM #2 PLANNING COMMIgSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 1994 MINUTES OF REGULAR Mr.~l eNG OF THE CITY OF ir. MECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1994 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Banning Commission was called to order on Monday, November 7, 1994, at 6:02 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecule, Celifomie. Chairman Steve Ford presiding. PRESENT: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Slaven, Webster and Ford ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Fehey Also present were Banning Director Gary Thornhill, Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz, Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz, Assistant Banner Matthew Fagan, Associate Banner Dave Hogan and Recording Secretary Barbere Maltby. PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. APPrOval Of Aaenda : It was moved by Commissioner Blair and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to approve the agenda as presented. The motion carried as follows: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Slaven, Webster and Ford 0 COMMISSIONERS: None I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Minutes 2.1 l Minutes of July 18, 1994 Commissioner Blair commented that on Page 2, Item No. 4, should read: It was moved by Commissioner Fahey... Page 5, second from last paragraph, should read: Commissioners Fahey, Salyer, and Blair... Page 6, second paragraph, should read: Recommended individual noticing of residents of apari,.ents be conducted. Pt,ANN1NG COMMISSION MINVrI~ · Commissioner Ford commented that on Page 6, third paragraph, should read: It was moved by Commissioner Hasgland to approve staff's recommendation, however, because of the need for further discussion Commission Hoegland withdrew his motion. It was moved by Commissioner Blair and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to approve the minutes of July 18, 1994 as amended. Page 8, third paragraph, second sentence, should read: reimbursement when improving property other than their own... The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, eleven, Webster and Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey 2.2 Minutes of August 1, 1994 It was moved by Commissioner Blair end seconded by Commissioner Slaven to approve the minutes of August 1, 1994 The motlon carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Slaven, Webster and Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: 'Fahey 2.3 Minutes of September 19, 1994 It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the minutes of September 19, 1994 The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Slaven, Webster and Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey 3. ADDrevel of Julv 28.1994 Johnson Ranch Plannine Commission Workshop Minutes It was moved by Commissioner Blair end seconded by Commissioner Slaven to approve the minutes of July 28, 1994 Johnson Ranch Planning Commission Workshop Minutes. November 7. 1994 ]q,ANNING COMMISSION MINu-rm'-4 The motion carried as follows: November 7. 1994 AYES: 4 NOES: 0 ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Sisyen, Webster and Ford COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: Fahey Director's HoeriM Uodate Planning Director Thornhill presented the report which was received and filed. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 5. Plannine Aoolication No. PA94-0112 Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report. Commissioner Webster asked, in regards to the improvement plans C-45, whet the heights of the two monument signs are. Mr. Fagan replied that they ware limited by The Conditions of Approval to 6 feet. He also ask if the existing sign was to be relocated or removed completely? The question was referred to the applicant. Commissioner Blair asked the square footage of the exiting sign, Mr. Fagan replied it is the same as the proposed sign, 86 square feet. Commissioner Slaven asked if the new sign will be facing the same direction. Mr. Fagan replied that it would. She also asked if it will be taller then surrounding structures. Mr. Fagan informed her it would be. Commissioner Fahsy arrived at 6:17 P.M. Robert Fiscus, 2050 South Santa Cruz, Anaheim, representing the applicant stated that the existing sign will be removed. The two monument signs, on site, will carry the price and brand. Commissioner Fahey asked if there are options other than posting increasingly higher signs to make them visible. The question was referred to the Ranning Director, Gary Thornhill. He stated that staff has looked at the way other jurisdictions have treated these signs and that the other signs are outside of Caltrans right-of-way. He further stated that the City of Yorbe Linda was contacted regarding one of their signs. They informed him that they were on private property. Commissioner Ford asked about the signs on Highway 78 in Escondido. Director Thornhill agreed to contact the City of Escondido to find out how they obtained approval of the signs. It was moved by Commissioner Blair and seconded by Commissioner Fahey to delay Item No. 5 until Director Thornhill reports back to the Commission the first meeting in December, 1994 on the method used by the City of Escondido to obtain approval for their signs along the freeway. I[:~rum2s~II0794,PLN 3 Pt~ANNING CO~V!IRSION ~flNl~Ts~ Nov,.mher 7. 1994 The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Slaven, Webster and Ford COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 6. Plannina Aoolication No. PA94-071 Craig D. Ruiz presented the staff report. Commissioner Slaven asked whet guarantees am there that alcohol will not be sold at any of the facilities in the "Strip Mall". Assistant City Attorney Grog Diaz informed the Commission that the sale of alcohol is regulated by the state. He also stated the sale of alcohol is not s legitimate ground for denying a permit. It may be considered as an overall welfare standard but it may not be the only factor. Chairman Ford ask if certain businesses could be excluded. Assistant City Attorney Diaz said you would have to chenge the Zoning Code. Director Thornhill said the development code, neighborhood commercial designation, will be tighter in the future and would be binding when it is approved on this parcel. Commissioner Slaven ask when the development code would be reviewed. Director Thornhill said around February. AI Ogle, 7063 De Marigosal, Bensail, California, representing the Applicant, stated that the project meets with all the requirements under the General Plan and City requirements and also meets with the zoning regulations. Commissioner Blair asked about plans for tenants in the site and the possibility of a convenience store. Mr. Ogle responded no convenience store would be included due to the close proximity of the school. He further stated that a Veterinarian, a beauty salon, a snack shop, and a dental group were tenant prospects. Commissioner Slaven asked if the owner of the property had any intention of cleaning it up. Mr. 0gle responded that ASAP has been contacted for a quote on clean up. Mr. Dave Gallagher, Temeculs Valley Unified School District, 31350 Rancho Vista Road spoke in opposition to alcohol sale. Mr. David Farion, read a letter from Tad Scholcott in opposition of the project. Mr. Farion spoke on the issue of traffic. Mr. Arthur Zippoka, no address, spoke in opposition. Mr. Roger Couday, 31438 Santiago Road, Temecula, California, spoke in opposition. ~iiau~llO'/94~,N 4 lq ~ANNING CO MM~.SION ]MnO~FF-~ Nov~nher 7. lq94 Mr. Melvin Coplin, 31286 Santiago Road, Temecule, California, spoke in opposition and asked if the zoning can be changed. Director Thornhill replied that the project is consistent with the General Ran and oannct be changed. Gall Hockstar, 31249 Siena Bonita, Temecula, California, spoke in opposition. She also spoke conceming noise pollution, traffic, end the safety of small children walking to school. Chairman Ford asked how children would get to school if fencing is placed along the Eastern Municipal Water District easement line. Grace Pelke, 43185 Margarita Road, (hushand, Art spoke in her place), asked if the City could put a church or nursery, instead of · "Strip Mall" at this site. Chairman Ford read a letter from Darrel end Marsha Cudey who was in opposition. Mr. Ogle, speaking in rebuttal, stated that an offer from a Service Station was turned down because the applicant wants to keep the area attractive. Chairman Ford closed the Public Hearing at 7:11 P.M. Commissioner Fahay stated that nothing has changed from the original package. Chairman Ford asked questions about stop lights, Assistant Engineer, John Pourkazemi responded that the capacity of Margarita road is Level of Service "A" and will be 110 feet full width which would include 4 travel lanes and bike lanes. :' He said Pale Road will be 88 feet, (4 lanes), which will also be Service Level "A". A signal is scheduled to be installed in 1995/1996whether the project goes in or not. Chairman Ford ask when the widening of Pale Road would take place. Mr. Pourkazemi responded that 1996/1997 is scheduled. Commissioner Webster asked how many extension of time are permitted. Director Thornhill responded that three, one-year extensions of time are all allowed and this is the second for the applicant. Commissioner Fahey commented that the enclosure did not include the full project plans and it would be helpful to the Planning Commission to review the package to be sure that it is consistent with the newly adapted General Plan. Commissioner Blair ask how much leeway on the extension of time the commission has. Director Thornhill stated that he would have to consult with the city attorney. Chairman Ford stated the full allotment of time was spent on the original project. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Blair to obtain the full package of the project, to include the minutes, for the Commissions review and to continue the December 5, 1994 meeting. R:~,fumI~XllO'B4-1aLN 5 Pt.ANNING COMMISSION MINtTl~-~ Nov~m~r 7. 1994 The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Slavon, Webster and Ford COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: None F~ecesa Chairman Ford declared a recess at 7:40 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 7:49 P.M. 7. School Mitioetion Prooram Resolution Associate Planner David Hogan presented the staff report Commissioner Fahey asked if there is any way to protect the city if the school district does a poor job of managing funds and city development is impacted or slowed down due to s short fall of funds. Mr. Hogan responded that Section No. 2 of the resolution outlines which projects would be exempt. Commissioner Webster asked if a separate approval is required when the mitigation plan comes before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hogan stated the mitigation plan will come beck to the Planning Commission for approval. Chairman Ford expressed concern that the Commission did not receive a copy of the County Resolution 93-131. Chairman Ford stated that he did not see a provision for an annual review. He further stated that there was no joint amendment clause, no recision, no suspension, no supersede clause or subsequent clause. City Attorney Diaz stated this is an agreement not a contract and these features are not normally necessary. Chairman Ford reiterated his concern and stated that the object was to structure an agreement between the City and School District for a common good, and an annual review should be included in the agreement. Mr. Diaz stated it could he added with no problem. Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 8:09 P.M. David Gallagher, representative for Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUCD) came before the Commission to answer any questions. Dennis Chiniaeff, Kemper Community Development, 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 202, Temecula, stated he wanted to work with the community and the School District to ensure facilities are in place. Phil Oberhandslsy with Lorenz, Alhadeff, Cannon, and Ruse representing Kemper Community Development, requested that the Commission defer action at this time, to a workshop to discuss the language to be used. R:~ut.~110'/94.PLN 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUT~ November 7. 1994 Mr. Larry Markham, representing Johnson Machinery, requested 8 continuance until they have had time to review the document. Mr. Dave Gallaghar stated that the mitigation plan requires the School District to pursue all avenues of funding. Commissioner Farmy asked Mr. Gallaghar about the surrounding taxes for both new and old homes. Mr. Gallagher stated that the home pays for the schools. Commissioner Ford asked Mr. Gallaghar if the School District would have a problem with a yearly review of the mitigation, Mr. Gallaghar suggested a review on s project by project basis. Commissioner Ford ask if the District would be willing to forward a copy of the mitigation agreement. Mr. Gallaghar responded that the City has a copy of the County agreement which is needy identical. Chairman Ford closed the public hearing at 8:37 P.M, Commissioner Slaven ask if there is a notification requirement. Director Thornhill stated that the newspaper would be notified. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded Commissioner Blair to approve staff recommendation as follows: Establish a program to mitigate the impacts to local school facilities from new development. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, and Webster NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Ford and Sisyen ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None R'.~famms%l10794.PLN Planning AoDlication No, 94-0081 (Rot Plan) Assistant Planner, Matthew Fagan presented the staff report. Commissioner Webster ask if there is a proposed median st Jefferson Avenue and Front Street that would preclude a left hand turn coming out of the West entrance. Mr. Fagan stated that per the General Plan, Jefferson Avenue will require a raised median, however, this project will not be required to put it in. Chris Grant with The Allen Group, representing Federal Express, 12188 Waverly Downs Way, San Diego came before the Commission to answer any questions. Chairman Ford asked Mr. Grant if he accepts the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Grant stated he did. PI.ANN]NG CO M~RSION Nov~nhe~ 7. 1994 Commissioner Sisvan asked to have the chain link fence, located in the beck, replaced with wrought iron. Commissioner Blair also supported having wrought iron fence all the way around. Chairman Ford stated he feels chain link fencing in the beck area is sufficient. The applicant stated that they put landscaping in to cover the chain link fence end although they would rather not put wrought iron fencing all the way around the property they, would consider it. It was moved by Commissioner Fahay and seconded by Chairman Ford (for discussion) to approve staff recommendation and approve Planning Application No. 94-0081 Discussion included whet type of landscaping would cover the chain link fence. The motion carried as follows: Approve construction of a 25,556 square foot distribution facility. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Slaven, Webster end Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Vendor's Ordinance It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Sisyen to continue Item No. 9 to the meeting of December 05, 1994. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Slaven, Webster and Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PLANNING DIRECTOR'B REPORT Director Thornhill reported the following: A Workshop is scheduled for the Old Town Project to be held at the Community Recreation Center, November 22, 1994 at 7:00 P.M. Consultants for the Nicholas Valley study have been selected. Recruitment for the Old Town Main Street Coordinator is in process. The Auto Mall Marque sign is being reconsidered at the request of the auto dealers. R:~,!iame~II0'/94.FLN 8 PLANNING COMMYgSION MINUT~ PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Blair ask if she could get materials to her sooner. OTHER BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT Chairmen Steve Ford declared the meeting adjourned et 9:45 P.M. The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be held on Monday, December 5, 1994, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecule, California. Novmnher 7. 1994 Chairman Steve Ford Secretary P,:~linu2s~l10'194.PLN 9 PLANNING COMI~$ION MINUTES DECEMBER S, 1994 L ~6gOZ · uT!s ,91~ · Ilelsu! ol uo!ss!wwo:::) eql Aq le^ojdde peT, senbej 'luewuedeC] ;ueuJdoleAeC] A1JedoJd UOJAeq3 'eJqeH rl 'PALE qoee8 'S 00SL '~s!nbuJIoH Auer · leAoJdde spueuJwoooj jjm, S 'AOMOejj Oq~, UJOJJ ~,08dLu! IBnS!A eql pU8 UT.S ,St~ S,UOJAeq3 JO/O,!l!q!S!^ eLI~, UO UO!;eWJO,tU! pm, UOSOJd ,tZe~,S J?eI9 euoN pjo-I 'Jel. sqeAA 'UeAelS 'Aeqe-i :SM:INOISSIININO3 L :IN3S~tV :S~d=INOISSIININO3 0 :SgON :SMSNOISSIININO3 tr :SSAV :s~olloJ se pe!jjeo u0p, oLu · peAojdde seM epueBe eq; Je~sqeAA Jeuo!ss!,,,uJo3 Aq pepuooes pue ueAelS Jeuo!ss!tu,,,o::) Aq epetu uo!;ouj e uO epueDV jo leAoJoaV ' L SS'dNIS118 NOISSIININO0 'AJe~,ejoeS Bu?pJooeM 'AqllelN ejeqje8 pue ueOe4 ~eq~elN Jeuuelcl ;um, s!srV 'uosjoqj. Je~,ed Aeu~o3~V A~.3 'll!qu~oqJ. AJeO Jo~oej!C] 6u!uueld ejea~ ~,uesejd oslV J!el9 :SM;INOISSIININO3 L :J.N]SBV pJo-I 'Je~sqeM 'ueAelS 'Am-led :SM:INOISSiININ03 tr :~NSSqitd 'jepjo o~. Ou!3,eeuj et~ pelleo pjo:j eAelS uetuj!eq3 .e!ujoj. fie3 ,elnoeuJej. 'peoM Je~seqoug,~A BE LCI~ 'u ooa pjeo9 s,~2ms!O Jele/%A e!uJo;!le::) oqouett eu~ ~e "lN'd 00:9 'Y661 'S Jeq,,,eoeO 'AepuolN uo Jepjo m, Petleo SeM uo.mslwuao0 8uluueld elnoetuel ;o A~.;) eq~ ;o ~u.Qeetu jelnDej V 1;66 i '9 MgEI~BOaQ NOIS$11NINO0 DNINNV'Id V'lll0~!ffilSJ. 40 AJ. IO qHl 40 ON~IN M'erlI1DaN V :10 5:JIJ'INIIN PLANNING COMM~SION MINU'I~-~ DEC3~{RER S. 1~ Commitloner Slaven mind ~ would li~ to avid diffemm levels a~ ~ng heigh~ of ~gM ~sible frm ~ freeway. S~ recommended t~ sign ~ moved back 5-10% Commi,ioner Webster expmmd c~em w~ ~ ~ight lim~. Commitloner Fahey ~atad s~ is willing to approve ~ ma~mum height of 40' bm did not warn to set a precedem on heig~ above ~'. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commi,ioner Slaven to approve the installation of the Charon sign no hig~r t~n ~'. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slavan, Webster, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Blair Plannino Aoolication - 94-0071 Staff presented the staff report. Commissioner Webster asked if the new Development Code would have any effect on the future tenants. Director Thornhill answered there would be some limitations due to stronger restrictions being proposed. AI Oggle, 7063 Maripos8, Bonsall, spoke on behalf of the applicant Mr. Zonos. He stated this project is consistent with the General Plan and the zoning ordinance. He requested Commissioner approval. Commissioner 'Slaven asked about cleaning up the property which she feels is an eye-sore. Mr. Oggle stated that ASAP Clean-up Service has submitted a quote which was given to the property owner. Commissioner Webster requested the clean-up be included in the condition of approval. John Hackstar, 31249 Tierre Bonita, Temecula, spoke on behalf of the Chaparral Area home owners as well as the local home owners surrounding the site. He cited 150 letters in opposition to this project. David Farrian, 31125 Pauba, Temecula, spoke in opposition to the project. R%Minutes.po%120594 2 · uo!suelxe ue Auep o) s!seq le0el ou sg eJeql s),uewejgnbej fie Pell~Jln; seq ~,ueo!ldde ue ueqf~ lnq 'le^ojdde ;o eeluejen6 ou s! eJeql pe~,senhej s! uo!sue3xe ue ueq~ leql 'p~ooe~ eql Joj pe)eis pJo=l Jeuo!ss!tutuo3 · je~eq sseoojd eq~ Ru!pue~sjepun uo uo!lewjo,~u! e^!eoej pue leetu ol pe~,.~u! eq plnOM SJeUMO ewoq ~,sql peiJodej ii!qtuoqJ. JoZoeJ!O 'eeje eq; u! pedole^ep eq plnoo 1eqM MOU'4 o~ sepo3 ~uetudole^eQ u! ~o~ ~ool ol 3eqM UO SJeUMO AlJBdoJd ejmnj eql e~,eonpe ae33eq ol Moq ueld o~, ~e~s pe~,og~!p Aeqe=l Jeuo!ss!tu,,,o3 · jm, ueo eql u! sesseu!snq ,to sad/4 eq~, Ou!uo!l!puoo le ~1ool o~, y,e~s peloeJ!p ue^elS Jeuo!ss!,,,uJo3 · l!ouno3 A~,!3 eq~, Aq pelpueq eq plno~ pue 6u!uoz eql jo UO!~,elO!A · eq plnoM s!ql pejeMsue II!quJoqJ. Jo:ioeJ!O -enss! s!ql ensjnd ol fJels peloeJ!p pue dn-ueelo eq~, ql!M tueouoo pe~,e;,s Je;,sqefv% Jeuo!ss!uJuJoO · pe~,!o!los eq plnoM sseu!snq elqejoneJ Aluo leql se~ esuodsej s,elBoO ulN 'pello~luoo eq plnOM S!ql ~Oq pe~lse ueAelS Jeuo!ss!tutuo3 · jm, ueo eq~, u! eseel o~, pe~!,,,jed eq plno~ sesseu!snq elqe~ouoqs!p ou pue ee4e gq;l eoueque Aluo plno~ loe.fojd eq~ leq~ pepuodsej Jeu~ao eqz jo jleqeq uo 'llesuo8 'el660 IV 1,oe[ojd eql o~, uo!l!soddo u! e~ods '81noetuel 'ozuolN 13 eiJo3 9S LEt 'poo~ueeJO Ajjel' · l~e!ojd eq~, ol uop,.Isoddo u.i e:~ods 'elnoeuJeJ. 'peo)4 eqned gL90S 'Sfil!Ae(:] 11!8 · loe!ojd eq~ ol uo.P.!soddo u! mJods 'elnoetue4. 'peoM el!Je6JelN g 8 L g~ 'e~lled 3Jr · pe!uep eq :loe.fojd eq~, pe]senbN pue ue~plNo iletus jo A;,e,tes etp, Joj sjeeJ pessexlxe 'elnoetue£ 'peon eqned L gO L; 'le:finoqS e!qqe(3 .pesodojd s! ;! se ioe[ojd eq~, ~su!eOe e~ods 'elnoe,,,el 'peoM eqned L SO L; 'le'41noqS pe/ -~e.fojd Xuep uo!ss!wwo3 eu~ peZsenbej 'elnoetueJ. 'oose~o3 elle:3 $;;t~ t g ';eeMS peJ8 'loe.loJd eLI10:), uO..QWOddO u! e)iods 'elnoe,,,e~ 'lJno3 ell.mPue~D Og i Lg 'uouoa leeqo!lN · jelueo le!ojetutuoo s!ql Auep ol uo.ms!tu~uo:) eq~ pqse 'elnoeuJeJ. 'peo~j oOe.queS Og L ig 'AqJpA ele(] PLANNING COMMIRSION MINU'r~-~ D]~x~K~4R~I~ S. 1994 It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Ford, to approve 0071 a second extension of time for Rot Plan, #226 subject to the conditions of approval. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fehey, Slavan, Webster, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Blair Director Thonhill reported that staff is working on the Development Code which will apply at the time this project pulls permits and he will review the land use with staff at that time. Chairmen Ford called for a five minute recess. The meeting was reconvened by Chairman Ford. 5. Vendor Ordinance Staff presented the Vendor Ordinance. Several revisions were discussed by City Attorney Greg Diaz. Penalties will be similar to traffic ticketa. Commissioner Webster asked if the vendor is required to own the property where they work. Staff answered no, but, an original signature from the property owner giving permission to use the property is required and staff will add a standard requirement to the Ordinance. Commissioner Slaven asked if prohibiting the sale of alcohol could be included since the existing language seems vague. Staff responded this is a judgement call since it is a Temporary Permit. Commissioner Ford had several concerns about strobe lights and height of signs. Staff will include accessories as pertinent uses in the language dealing with height limits, It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Fahey to recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration for the City of Temecula regarding the Vendor Ordinance recommending approval of the City of Temecula's Vendor Ordinance #95-05 with the changes as noted and to now close the public hearing. R'~Viinutee.pc%120594 4 ]q,ANNING CO]VIMTRS[ON 1V!INUTF.~ The motion carried 8s follows: DFCk'MR~R 5. 1994 AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fshey, Slavon, Webster, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Blair The next meeting of the Planning Commission is January 9, 1995 - 6:00 P.M. to discuss the Johnson Ranch only. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commisison is January 23, 1995 - 6:00 P.M. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Planning Director Gary Thornhill reported on the following: A workshop on the Buffman Project will he conducted on Wednesday, December 7, 1994, at the C.R.C. A Joint City Council Meeting to discuss the Murrieta Creek, between Murrieta and Temecula is scheduled for Tuesday, December 6, 1994, at 6:00 P.M. at the City of Murrieta. The American Planning Association, Estate Division is conducting a Legislative Update on January 19, 1995, at the South Coast Management District in Diamond Bar. A Joint Transportation Committee Meeting is scheduled for January 8, 1995, at 4:00 P.M. at the City of Murrieta. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to adjourn the meeting. The motion Was unanimously carried with Commission Blair absent. Secretary Chairman Steve Ford R%Minutes.po~120594 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 9, 1995 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 9, 1995 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, January 9, 1995, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District's Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairman Steve Ford called the meeting to order. PRESENT: 5 ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Blair, Fehey, Sleven, Webster COMMISSIONERS: None Also present were Planning Director Gary Thornhill, City Attorney Peter Thorson, Associate Planner Salad Naaseh, Assistant Planner Mathhew Fagan and Recording Secretary Barbara Maltby. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Aooroval of Aoenda " On a motion made by Commissioner Blair and seconded by Commissioner Slaven the agenda was approved. The motion carried as follows: COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Slaven, Webster, Ford COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: None Plannino Aoolication No. PA94-0137 Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner, reported this Application was previously adopted as an urgency ordinance with a conditional use permit. The time limit expires February 9, 1995. Staff recommends the Commission adopt Resolution No. 95- to amend sections of the Riverside County Ordinance as adopted by the City of Temecula. Commissioner Webster asked staff to verify if the urgency ordinance would be superseded by the City Development Code. Commissioner Ford was concerned with the deletion of massage parlors from the ordinance. R:Minutee.pc%010995 1 AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 2. PI,ANNING COMMIRSION MINIT1T-q .IANI. TARY 9, 1995 PUBLIC COMMENTS None. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Sisyen to adopt Resolution No. 95- as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING SECTIONS 9.1, 9.50, 10.1, 11.2, AND 11.26 OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 348, AS ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA, REQUIRING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NIGHTCLUBS, TEEN CLUBS, DANCE HALLS, BARS AND COCKTAIL LOUNGES, BILLlARD HALLS, AND VIDEO GAME ARCADES The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Sisyen, Webster, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 3. Plannina AoDlication No. 0180.181.183.184. end 185 Staff presented s detailed report on the Johnson Machinery Company proposed project st the Northeast corner of the future intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Plans were shared with the Commissioners. Chairman Ford opened the Public Hearing at 7:30 PM. Jim Fergus, representative for Johnson Machinery Company, addressed the Commission and explained this will be a long-term project and a beautiful community for Temecula. Mr. Fercus reported on the successful workshop held with the community. Bob Davis, Wilber Smith Association, shared the traffic circulation study of the Johnson Ranch. Mr. Davis presented the traffic circulation studies completed on the surrounding area roads. John Yager, Johnson Machinery Company, reported on the Anzs Road issue. Anza Road is not incEuded in the specific plan and should be deleted from the circulation element. The Commission expressed several areas of concern and presented Questions to the representatives, which included the following: R:Minutee.po%010995 2 Pt.ANNING COM~tI,~SION I~NU'FF.~ J,~NU,~Y 9. 1~ Commi~io~r Fa~y q~i~ ~ ~k R~d traffic i~ea~, ~ En~ronmemal altem~ves, ~e Sam Gu~es Crek o~n sam area, nd. requiremere of Fresh Valley Airpo~, a~ wildlife ires. Commitloner Slavart expremd c~ce~ regardi~ i~rea.d traffic, rMd improvemama a~ a~edal rMds, reclaimed water f~ Mrk areas, wo~ ~ke r~fs, a~ Fire Deemant facil~y located near enough to ~e developmere. Commi.ioner Slaven also wanted to c~e for ~e raced ~t in ~ ~llage Center, ~nners and pennants ~ prohibited. Staff responded ~t this could ~ recommended to the Ci~ Council. Commi.ioner Web~er expre.ed c~e~ abo~ impa~ to Vegetation in ~ EIR included, the CaI-Tra~ alte~U~ ~udy on Highway 79 and ~e A~a RMd i.ues of e~sting Right-Of- Way and alignmere. Commissioner Webster requested ~aff find o~ t~ current ~atus on ~e ~rget num~rs for build-o~ within the c~y boundaries and in the sphere of influence. Commissioner Ford questioned the re~ru~uring densiW tra~fer am~g planning areas, how Anza Road affe~ the General Plan, multi family unit densiW and who would enforce CCR's on 5 acre ~rcels. Commi.ioner Ford would like m~e definite la~uage to restrict ~es in the 5 acre parcel sites. ommissioner Ford opened the Public Hearing at 8:45 PM PUBLIC HEARING William Vazzana, Lynell Road, Temecula, expre.ed concern with the A~a Road configuration. He has no objection to the project. Cindy Bush, 32775 Bootleg Road, WinchaSer, spoke in favor of maimaining the rural area, in opposition to the prqje~. Mike Nolton, 39130 hla ~sta Drive, Temecula, expreBed concern wiffi traffic flow and red improvements. He generally spoke again~ the project. Commissioner Ford e~ended the meeting of ~e Ranning Commi.ion to 9:30 PM. Ken Barnes, Berenda Road, Temecula, stated his concam w~h the Sam ~rga rita water shed. In favor of lesser density in the proje~. Adrian McGregor, 34555 Medara De Playa, spoke in favor of the ~ral area ~ing maimained. David Robinson, 39600 Aveinda Arizona, Temecula, spoke against t~ project. R:Minute~,,po%010995 3 N,ANN~G COMMaSION lV~NUTF.~ .I~NUARY 9. 1998 Dave Gallaher, 31350 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, representative of the Temecula Valley School District cited a need for a school Facility Mitigation Agreement with the developer contingent on the School District approval. Mr. Gallaher presented a letter from legal council requesting this Agreement to be entered into the record. David Barnes, Berenda Road, Temecula, spoke against the project. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Blair to continue the public hearing to the February 6, 1995 meeting of the Banning Commission. The motion carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5 COMMISSIONERS: 0 COMMISSIONERS: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Farmy, Sisvan, Webster, Ford None None Commissioner Ford called for a 5 minute recess st 9:20 PM. The meeting of the Temecula Planning Commission was reconvened at 9:25 PM with Commissioner Ford presiding. The next meeting of the Temecula Planning Commission is scheduled for January 23, 1995, 6:00 PM a Rancho California Water District's Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temacula, California. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Planning Director Gary Thornhill presented the following information: The Legislative Update Conference is on January 19th for Commissioners interested in attending. Interviews for the Old Town Main Street Director's position are completed and a Director will be chosen shortly. · The Buffman Project will be voted on at a special election on March 7, 1995. It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Fahey to adjourn meeting of the Planning Commission at 9:35 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. Secretary R:Minutee.po~010995 Chairman Steve Ford PLANNING COMlvHgSION MINUTES JANUARY 7.3, 199S MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 2.3, 1995 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, January 23, 1995, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District's Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairman Steve Ford called the meeting to PRESENT: ABSENT: order. COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slaven, Webster, Ford, Blair None Also present were Planning Director Gary Thornhill, City Attorney Peter Thorson, Associate Planner Salad Naaseh, Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz, Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan and Recording Secretary Barbara Maltby. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. ADoroyal of Aaenda It was moved by Commissioner Blair and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to ' approve the agenda. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Slaven, Webster, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 2. Provide Direction to Staff Reoardino the Size and Desion of the Proposed Sionaoe for Plot Plan No. 248. Yellow Basket Craig Ruiz presented the height elevations for the revised design of the Yellow Basket sign. Steve Etchinson, sign contractor and representative for the applicant, 27620. Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, requested approval on the sign as designed as it was within the legal limit on size. Angelo Buseankas, owner of the Yellow Basket, requested approval of the logo colors as this is the trademark of the restaurant. Russell Rumansoff, 27349 Jefferson Avenue, recommended approval of the sign logo and size. Commissioner Ford closed the Public Hearing. PLANNING COMMI,~SION MINITrI~,~ J~,lqI~ARY 23. 199S Commissioner Webster stated he didn't see · problem with the logo but was concerned with the size of the sign. Commissioner Blair stated she would prefer to approve the original size of the sign, Commissioner Slaven was in agreement with the size but is not pleased with the logo, Commissioner Ford was reticent to approve anything larger than originally approved. The Commissionere gave direction to staff too try making the esthetics of the sign more pleasing; and directed the applicant to reduce the size of the sign to the size shown on the approved building elevations, Director's Hearina Uodats Planning Director Thornhill had nothing further to add to the agenda staff report. Public Use Permit No. 6. Amendment No, 6 Matthew Fagan addressed the Commissions concerns as follows: · Traffic · Building Facia · Landscaping to mitigate visual and noise impacts · Timing of Infrastructure · Neighbor Concerns · Driveway placement · Light impact Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Fahey was concerned that the lighting met with Police Department requirements, Staff will explore this and bring it back to the Commission. Commissioner Slaven also expressed concerns with the improvements on Nicolas Road end the traffic study results. Commissioner Webster is concerned with the drainage and flood easements. Commissioner Ford questioned the location of the sewers and when they would be built. P:.~f~qV.~F!~)I2~5.PC ~1~5 ~Zw 2 PI,ANNING COMMISSION 1M1NUTR'~ JANUARY 23. Larry Markham, Winchester Road, Temeculs, spoke on behalf of the applicant and responded to the concerns. He also reputed on the meeting with the neighbors and felt it was successful in addressing their concerns. PUBLIC H;ARING Doug Kevp, 23995 Carencho Road, Temecula, spoke as EIder of the Church of Christ and requested approval for the Use Permit. Dennis Fitz, 39910 Jeffrey Heights Road, spoke as a resident of the area and recommended against approval for the Church. Steve Hahn, 31290 Tommy Lane, said he would like agreements on the Conditions of Approval requiring a residential area of 2 1/2acre minimum. Robarts Mahoney, 31299 Tommy Lane, sent a letter via Steve Hahn to read to the Commission against the project being allowed in a residential area. Larry Markham, Winchester Road, Temecula, responded to questions and cited the owner's willingness to comply with the following conditions: Fencing the perimeter To gate the driveway which would preclude after-hours admission Types of trees included in the landscaping plan Offer to vacate Tommy Lane to turn it into a private street Commissioner Webster expressed concern with the type of fencing and stated he didn't think chain-link was very attractive. The applicant agreed to leave the choice of fencing material to the discretion of the Planning Director. Chairman Ford closed the Public Hearing st 6:55 PM. It was moved by Commissioner Webster and seconded by Commissioner Fahey to recommend approval as specified with the following provisions: 1 ) Modifying fence around property. Type of fencing material is to be st the Planning Director's approval 2) A gate to be installed at the driveway and 3) Condition//70 is rescinded. Commissioner Blair amended this motion to include the specification of wrought iron fencing in the front and coated chain link at the perimeter, subject to the Planning Director's approval. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Sisvan, Webster, Ford COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: None :Iq,ANNING CO]~VITRSION MINT.1TF',q Chairman Ford called for · recess of 10 minutes at 7:00 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 7:15 P.M. Chairman Ford presiding. 5. 1995 Plannino Aoolication 94-0062 Salad Naaseh presented the report on the Silver Hawk specific plan to reduce the density from high to low-medium density. Staff recommended approval with conditions. Chairman Ford opened the Public Hearing at 7:30 P.M. Sanford Edwards, 110 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, representing the owner requested approval to reduce density. Mr. Edwards asked the Commission to remove Condition 4'13 - School Mitigation Plan makes the project exempt. Pat Keller, 39201 Salines Drive, Murrieta, spoke representing CSA 143 which oversees landscaping maintenance. The CSA is concerned with the future responsibility of maintenance of landscaped areas. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey end seconded by Commissioner Ford to recommend adoption of Resolution 95-003, approving Planing Application 0062 and to remove Condition #I 3 as it pertains to school facilities. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 NOES: 1 ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slaven, Webster, Ford COMMISSIONERS: Blair COMMISSIONERS: None Plannino Aoolication No. PA94-0097.Tentative Parcel and Plannino Aoolication No. PA94-0095. Conditional Use Permit Commissioner Ford stepped down due to a potential conflict of interest. Commissioner Fahey presided. Craig Ruiz, Assistant Planner, reported on the site as it pertains to the City's General Plan. Staff also presented the landscape plan and a detailed plan on the proposed Village Center including lighting, neighbor concerns, color of Chevron's sign, bike trails, bus turn-around and wall signs. Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Webster requested information on the status of the Memorandum of Understanding with CaI-Trens. Planning Director Thornhill responded he would be receiving an answer soon. ]'T,ANNTNG COM1VRRSJON MINUTI~.q JANUARY ?,3. 1995 Commissioner Fahey opened the PuNic Hearing. PUBLIC HEARING Chris Smith, 12625 High Bluff Drive, San Diego, applicant, addressed the Commission, introduced his associates and requested approval of the project. Don Shull, architect for Land Grant Development, presented a detailed site plan to the Commissioners. Jeff Michael, 44676 Clover Lane, Temecula, requested denial of the project. Nancy Hughes, 32002 Via Sarone, Temecula, requested adequate walls and landscaping be provided to hide the back side of buildings, air-conditioners and noise. Wendy Michaels, 44676 Clover Lane, Temecula, requests the center be off the highway for better pedestrian access. Commissioner Blair stated she would like to re-visit the concept of the big boxes and would like the developer to be more creative in aligning this with the Village Center atmosphere. Commissioner Slaven said she has design issues to be resolved such as screening of loading doors/plants along the beck side of the buildings/air- conditioning units hidden/and the colors of blue and grey. Commissioner Fahey asked staff to research screening the big boxes and the location of the theater. It was moved by Commissioner Blair and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to continue PA94- 0097, Tentative Parcel Map and PA 94*0095, Conditional Use Permit to the Planning Commission meeting of March 6, 1995. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Slaven, Webster, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Planning Director Thornhill cited the following for the Commissions information: * Planners Institute is scheduled the third week in March, All Commissioners are invited. ~,.I~NUTB~mm395_W:: ~le'~ 'row 5 pI,ANNING COMMISSION MINUTF,~ JANUARY 23. · Wednesday, January 25th - Spaghetti Factory dinner/workshop on Economic Development City Attorney Peter Thereon, presented an update to the Commission on the new section of the State Conflict of Interest Code. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to adjourn the meeting be adjourned to the next meeting: February 6, 1995, 6:00 P.M., Rancho California Water District's Board room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Carried unanimously. Chairman Steve Ford Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 6, 199~ MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1995 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, February 6, 1995, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District's .Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairmen Steve Ford called the meeting to order. PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Fahay, Slaven, Webster, Ford, Blair ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Also present were Planning Director Gary Thornhill, City Attorney Peter Thorson, Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz and Associate Planner Salad Naaseh. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. ADDrOVal Of Agenda It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Fahey to approve the agenda. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slaven, Webster, Ford, Blair COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: None 2. ADoroyal of Minutes It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to approve the minutes of November 7, 1994, with the following corrections: Page 5 - Comment from Gall Hockster should read M.W.D. easement wav Page 8 - Commissioner Webster's comment on item #8 reads Jefferson/From Street or Jefferson/Sanborn? Commissioner Fahey withdrew the motion and Commissioner Slaven withdrew the second to approve the minutes. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to continue the approval of minutes of November 7, 1994, to the February 20, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. The motion carried as follows: Minutee.pG%020696 I PLANNING COMMaSION 1V~3'!NG F~RUARY 6. ~9~ The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slaven, Webster, Ford, Blair COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: None 3. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PA94-0138. Revised Conditional Use Permit Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz presented the staff report detailing the applicants request for revision of existing use permit. Staff recommended approval. The Public Hearing was opened at 6:20 P.M. Robert Jackson, representative of the applicant Mr. Hill, spoke to request approval by the Commission. The Public Hearing was closed at 6:20 P.M. It was moved by Commissioner Fahay and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to approve PA 94-0138, Revised Conditional Use Permit. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slaven, Webster, Ford, Blair COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: None 4. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 0180. 181,183, 184. AND 185 Associate Planner Salad Naaseh presented the staff report on the proposed Johnson Ranch project. Staff presented the revised "Conditions of Approval" resulting from the meeting of December 9, 1994. Beryl Yasinosky, Management Assistant, spoke to the Commission to endorse the Johnson Ranch project based on the parkland dedication requirements. There has been a verbal agreement to enter into a proposal with the City of Temecula which includes the following: 1. Applicant will receive credit against the park component for the Development Impact Fee. 2. The fee credit granted to the applicant would be equal to 100% of the parks improvement in excess of the actual Quimby requirements for the 15 acre community park and the 3.6 acre village parks. Ivinutes.po%020695 2 :lq.ANNING COMMISSION ~G F~RUARY 6. 199~ 3. No credit will be granted for the 27 acre neighborhood parks or no credit will be granted for improvements to Tucalota Craek, but a 7 acre credit will be given. 4. In the event the amount of the improvements exceed the park fee, the developer would assume thee risk and no additional consideration would be granted by the City to compensate in excess of cost. 5. If the developer improves the parks for less than the overall park fee credits the developer would pay the balance of these additional park fees Two options for granting the park improvement credits would be as follows: 1. Option of ~100,000 per acre credit for the 15 acre community park and the 3.6 acre village parks which amounts to 3.3 million dollars or 2. The developer would provide construction cost estimates for each of the park sites and those estimates would be subject to approval of the City. If the density of the over-all project is reduced to the mapping stages the parkland development actual dedication requirement would be reduced proportionately. She stated the Community Services Staff recommends approval of the Johnson Ranch project. Commissioner Fahey spoke with concern on the Anza Road requirement. Staff responded that this is a two-lane improvement from Boral Road along the eastern boundary connecting to "A" street and off site to Buck Road. : Commissioner Webster requested an update of approved dwelling units for the specific plan in the sphere of influence. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:30 P,M. Jim Fergus, representative for Johnson Machinery, spoke to the Commission on the significant issues resolved with staff~ He reported the applicant's position was that the Anza Road connection was not needed. Commissioner Webster raq uested clarification on the design guidelines pursuant to the proposed Development Code. Staff responded that a Condition of Approval addresses this concern. Staff also concurred that the zoning ordinance will reference the Development Code. Minutes.po%020695 3 PI.ANNING COMMISSION MI;~;~FING FRRRUARY 6. 199~ Jim Gallanne, Project Manager for M.W.D., submitted a letter to the Commission for the record, expressing concern for easements and right-of-way on the Johnson property. The Commission agreed that M.W.D. will be accommodated within the sub- division design, which is covered by "Conditions of Approval". Pete Cruzer, 32660 Priscilla Street, spoke in opposition to the project. Craig Haas, 39433 Colleen Way, Temecula, spoke in opposition to the project. David Robinson, spoke in opposition to the project. Bob Ulich, 11861 Lancewood Drive, Moreno Valley, spoke in opposition to the project. John Martian, 38675 Green Meadow Road, spoke in opposition to the project. John Martian, representing Monty Leismiester, 34653 Medera De Playa, Temecula, who is in opposition to the project. Carolyn Moore in proxy for Mr. & Mrs. Mike Phillips 39400 Calle Contento, Temecula, who are in opposition to the project. Adrian MacGregor, 34555 Madera De'Playa, spoke in opposition to the project. Adrian MacGregor, as proxy for Dennis MacGregor, who is in opposition to the project. Phil Hoxie, Temecula, spoke in opposition to the project. June Maharin, 41460 Calle Contento, Temecula, spoke in opposition to the project. Robert Wheeler, representative for Lake Elsinore/Murrieta/Anza Conservation District, spoke in opposition to the project. Mike Nolton, 39130 Pala Vista Drive, Temecula, spoke in opposition to the project. Helen Lasagna, Nicolas Road, Temecula, spoke in opposition to the project. John Moramarco, 32720 Rancho California Road, spoke in opposition to Anza Road being included in the project. Minutes.pc%020695 4 Iq,ANN'ING COIVIM1,~SION 1VIRRTING I~'RRUARY 6. 1995 Chairmen Ford called for a recess at 8:40 P.M. The meeting of the Planning Commission was reconvened at 8:50 P.M., Chairman Ford presiding. The Public Hearing was re-opened. Maria Guerrero, 33325 Vino Way, spoke in opposition to the project. Carrie Jansen, 39615 Avienda Arizona, spoke in opposition to the project. Ken Barnes, 39695 Berenda Road, Temacula, spoke in opposition to the project. Jim Fergus, representing Johnson Machinery Company, requested direction from the Commission in order to bring the questions to an end. The Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Fahey expressed difficulty in supporting the project due to concerns on the high density, maintaining a rural area, and trail connections to Lake Skinner. Commissioner Blair expressed concerns on the high density, the design not consistent with the surrounding area, drainage issues not resolved, and water and air quality. Commissioner Slaven commended the developer for the work accomplished thus far, however, she agrees with her fellow Commissioner's concerns on the' high density and also the water flow from the dam. Commissioner Webster complimented the developer on a well thought-out plan. His concerns are for the design guidelines, open space area, buffers, and the Anza Road usability. Commissioner Ford expressed confusion as to the annexation areas. Commissioner Ford was concerned with the open space area and would like to see some workability to resolve these issues. He asked the applicant if he approved of the Commission taking a vote now or to continue the issue. Jim Fergus, representative for JohnsoD Machinery Company, respectfully requested a motion in order to take this issue to the City Council. Commissioner Slaven suggested a workshop or joint study session with the City Council. Minutee.pc~020695 5 I't.ANNING CO1V~!~SION IV!~T~NG F~RU~]~Y 6. 199~ It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Blair, to deny Johnson Ranch project as it is proposed to the City Council. Chairman Ford called for discussion. Commissioner Slaven expressed the need for more time to resolve this issue. Commissioner Ford expressed a need for full discussion on fiscal impacts. Commissioner Blair recommended the lot size be increased to 7,200 square feet. Commissioner Webster would like more 1/2 acre to 5 :acre lots in the project. Commissioner Ford asked Mr. Fergus' direction. The applicant stated he would like to resolve the concerns of the Commission. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Blair to withdraw the previous motion to deny the Johnson Ranch project. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Blair to continue the item off calendar and work on the issues of concern, and reschedule a workshop meeting. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slaven, Webster, Ford, Blair NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Planning Director Thornhill will schedule and provide notice to all individuals interested as to the date of the workshop. NEXT MEETING February 27, 1995, 6:00 p.m., Rancho California Water District's Board Room, 42135 PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Planning Director Gary Thornhill reported on the following: '. The February 27th Planning Commission meeting may be a joint meeting with City Council on the Development Code. This is by request of the Council. The 3rd week in March is scheduled for the Planning Institute. He asked if a Commissioner wishes to attend, to advise staff as soon as possible. Minutes.po%020695 6 g690EO%od'tteinu.t~l pJo:l' eASeS uetuJ!eq3 · peujno.fpe eq 8u!},eeLu eq~, 'Aeqe=l Jeuoessgtutuo3 Aq pepuooes pue ueAelS Jeuo;ssguJtuo3 Aq peAOLU SeN~ ~,1 'euoN NOISSIIOSIQ NOISSIININO0 9NINNVld $:66t '9 .IIIYEIIIH:,t,I' D. IMLT:,s:,.smZ NOISZdJAIJA[O;) DNL/~TNt"k[ ~66I '9 S~.I. rlNII~ I~IOISSII~I~03 · AJeleJoeS 8u?pjooeH 'eo?Jcl ueor' pus ueOe:l t~eq~lelN Jeuuelcl luess!ssV 'uosJoLLL Je~,ed/~euJol~V/k~.::) 'll!quJoql AJe9 Jo~eJ!O I}u!uueld eje/~ luesejd oslV :9NON INd OL:9 ~,e peA.uJV J?el8 pJO,.I 'jelsqeN~ 'ue^elS 'Aeqe=l :SI:ISNOISSII/VlNO3 :SM:INOISSII~INO3 :IN:ISgV :.!,NqSql:!d 'jepjo oZ 6u?leeuj eq~, pelleo pJo:l oAe:),S ueuJJ?eq3 'e!uJoLIle::) 'elnoewel 'peoM Je~,seqou!/%A S$: LZ:t~ ',,,ooM pJeo8 s,l~.u~s!(:] Je)e/%A e!uJo,qle3 oqoueH eql )e "lN'd 00:9 'q661 '9 qoJelN 'AepuolN uo Jepjo o~, pollso seM uo.ms?wwo0 8u!uueld elnoewel ,to AI~.;:) eql jo 8u.qeow JelnOej V g66 L '9 HOM'VIRI NOISSllhlliOO ~)NINN'V'Id V"lrl:}:qlr43J, :10 .LLIO :IHI ..aO ~)NIJ.,qalRI I:lV'lrlD9lt V :10 S21 ! qNIMI od'S690f:0%eemup/i%:M :s~ollo,t se pe!jjeo uop, oLu eq.I. 'tunesnl/M elnoetueJ.- L$: L0-~6 'N uo!;eofiddV 6u?uusld eq~, eAojdde o}, J!eI8 Jeuo!ss!tutuo3 Aq pepuooe$ pus Aeqe:l Jeuo!ss!,,,tuo3 Aq peAOn' SRI~ ;I · Jeelo epstu eq fie plno~ stujez lie pue pe~JeJp eq plnot~ ~.uetueejDe eseel e ;eql psims II!quJoql Jo~,oej!(] 6u!uueld ',ueld JolselN oq~, u! posodojd ;,ou, peppe eq o~. LEt/pus ,ugld 4o3selN oq~, u! posoaoja 1T(]. peppe eq o~, .le^ojddV jo suo!l!puoO. u! Z:~# es!Aej ol pm, senbej seN~ JJB1S · ueld JelselN eql jo edoos eq~, s! )! se A1!:3 eq; ~o A4fi!q?suodse~ eq~, s! s!q~ pm, els eH 'Ou.deospueVsqjno/sAe~eA!jp/see~e auRjed o~, se uo!~.eo!,tNe|o 8u!j!nbe~ suop,!puoo 6u!pje6e~ uo!ss!,,,,,,o3 eq3 oZ eHods elnoetual 'uosJeHer 6t~L;~ '~JosuetunM IlessnM · pe~,ou eq plnoqs ;uetulJede(] ej~ eqi JoJ peAjese~ sods 8u.qjed oslV 'pelou os eq plnoqs s!q~, pjoom eql Jo,t 3sttl pelsenbe~ pJo:l ~euo!ss!,,,,,,o3 'ol ~u?,,eje~ se~ pjo4 ~euo.m~.tutuo:3 ;uo,,,noop e~ uo lunoooe o~,u! ue~el ueeq lou peq ~ool/puooes eql ~,eq~ pepuodsN JielS 'sueld Jo sles ONU, UO eBelooJ eaenbs u! eouejeg!p eql lnoqe pe:~se pjo~ aeuo!ss!tuuao3 cJ66L '9 HOMVIN NOIS$11NINO0 E)NINNV'Id V'lrlO31N3.1. od'q690gO%we~nu.q~l%:~ 'AoIleA seloo!N eq~ Jo3t sesn pugl eA!~,euJelle eq) pug s!sAleue slu!ejlsuoo pug se!~,!un3joddo 3jejp eq~, peZueseJd AeJ~o'l SGN ujojj seAl.~,e~,ueseJdeM'Apnls eql Jol punojO~!oeq eq~, peZqOl. lqO!q qo!qN~ uodej JJ, e~ eq~, pe~,uesejd z!nM 6!eJ3 Jeuueld )ue3s!ssV (8600-t~6Vd) Apn;S le!oeaS AelleA seloo!N '~ · Bu!p!seJd pJo:l Jeuo!ss!uJuJo3 ql!~ -uj-d 0G:6 ~,e peueAuooej se~ uo!ss!uJuJo3 Ou!uuelcl elnoeuJe~ eq~ ~o Ou!),eeuJ eLI~L · uJ'd 0Z::6 le ssaoej e Joj peltso Aeqe:l uosjedj?eq:3 pJo-I 3NON 3NON JolsqoN~ 'UOAelS 'Aoqe=l 'J!eI8 :S)4qNOISSILNINO3 L :NIVISFIV :S)49NOISSIININO3 0 :INqSgV :SMqNOISSIININO3 0 :SqON :S~IqNOISSIININO:3 ~ :SgAV :sMolloJ s8 pe!jjeo uop, ouj :Aq ep!qs plnoo euoAje^e seOueqo se pez!uOooej eje~ suje~. 6u!~ollol eq~, uo!ssnos!p Jei4V · s!q~ qOnoJql ~!Jo~ o~, ties pmtse pug ~ol Ou,r4jed eOJel eu~ t~.M uJeouoo · peq J!el8 Jeuo!ss!wwo:3 · sJoloo Ajetu!jd eq~, Ou!bueqo uo qBnoAI1 ~OM o~, Jim peqse ueAelS JmJo!ss!uJuJo3 J,l'ldNI NOI$$11NINO0 'loB[,0Jd eql JO JOAEJ U! 8)10d$ elnoe,,,e.L 'lqO.uM epu.rl S66L '9 HOMVIN NOISSIININO0 i)NINNVld V'INOqlN:3.1. TEMECULA pIANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened at 10:00 PM Dennis Fitz, 39910 Jeffrey Hights Road, stated he was in favor raising density and wants the study to go forward to find alternatives for the property in Nicolas Valley. Helen Lasangna, P.O. Box 1136, spoke against raising density or paving the roads in Nicolas Valley. Tom Koleuch, 5433 W. 117th Street, Inglewood, spoke in opposition to increased lend use in Nicolas Valley. C. E. Edwards, 39675 Nicolas Road, spoke in opposition to increased density. Vic Deforest, 39675 Cantrell Rd., opposed development for economic, environmental and other reasons. Jerry Montante, 31606 Calle Gerasol, was in favor of a possible change in land use due to proposed build-out in the eastern portion of the study area. Lynn Owen, P. O. Box 1991, Nuevo opposed change in the area of Nicolas Valley. Ron Rauch, 25301 Cabot Rd., Laguna, acting as spokesman for owners of nine pamels in the Nicolas Valley stated the group would like to have a separate increased land use designation for their parcels. The public hearing was closed at 10:20 PM Commissioner Slaven asked that staff provide information on the emergency vehicle - passage way on the dirt roads in Nicolas Valley. Commission concerns for staff investigation were as follows: Alternatives in density Roripaugh/Johnson Ranch status Current Assessment Districts and how the changes in future roads will be funded. What standards are included in the Master Plan Clarification on how A.D. 161 was formed Status on flooding end elevation It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Slaven to continue this matter to April 3, 1995. R:%Minutee%O30695.pc 4 TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION The motion carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5 COMMISSIONERS: 0 COMMISSIONERS: 0 COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT MARCH 6, 1995 Blair, Fehey, Sleven, Webster, Ford NONE NONE Planning Director Thornhill reported on the following: Data will be received on the school mitigation plan issue on the 28th of March. · City Council conducted the first reading of the Vendor Ordinance for approval. · Council has awarded the contract for user fees. · Janet Brock has been hired as the Main Street Coordinator and the Planning Department is looking forward to working with her. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION The Commission asked staff to request the Traffic Commission look into the abuse by motorists making "U" Turns by the Wells Fargo Bank on Ynez Road. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Slaven the meeting be adjourned at 10:40 p.m. to e Johnson Ranch Workshop, March 13, 1995 6:00 p.m., Vail Elementary School District's Multipurpose Room, 29915 Mira Loma Drive; Temecula, California. Next regular meeting, March 20, 1995, 6:00 p.m., Rancho California Water District's Board room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairman Steve Ford Secretary R:%Minutes%0306954~¢ 5 PLANNING COMlvHgSION MINUTES MARCH :20, 199S MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 1995 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, March 20, 1995, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho California Water Dietrict's Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, Califomia. Chairman Steve Ford called the meeting to order. PRESENT: 5 COMMISSIONERS: WEBSTER, FAHEY, FORD, SLAVEN, BLAIR ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were Planning Director Gary Thornhill, City Attorney Greg Diaz, Joan Price, Recording Secretary, John Meyer, Senior Planner COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Aooroval of Aoenda It was moved by Commissioner Slavan, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to approve the agenda. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Webster, Fahay, Ford, Slaven, Blair NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 2. Draft Develooment Code John Meyer, Senior Planner, introduced the Draft Develooment Code to the Commissioners. He indicated the Public Hearing will need to encompass three (3) additional meetings. Tonight's meeting will focus on Chal~ter 9.01 - General Provisions; Chapter 9.02 - Establishment of Zoning Districts; Chapter 9.03 - Administration of Zoning; Chapter 9.04- Permits; Chapter 9.05 - Development Plan Process. The commission scheduled the additional meetings for April 3, 1995, May 15, 1995, and June 19, 1995. PUBLIC COMMENT Commissioner Ford asked for public comment on matters not on the agenda. pcmin03/20/95 i PLANNING COMMI,~SION ~G lVIA~C~ 20. 199S Art Pelka, 43185 Margarita Rood, Temecula, addressed the Commissiort on Use Regulation 9.08. Mr. Pelka represented 175 residents who had recommended 11 changes in regards to the Chaparral/Peloma Del $ol developments, They are concerned beoouse only 6 recommendations had been taken into consideration. Draft Develooment Code Proposal John Meyer summarized Chapters 9.01 - 9.05 for the Commission. Staff recommends no changes to the Code. After discussion on several items, language changes, public notice signs, property use, home occupation certification, time extensions for permits, and horticultural activities, the Commission requested staff incorporate them in the Development Code Draft Revisions, PUBLIC INPUT AI Theurich, 30533 Bridgeview Cr, Temecula, representing 429 residents of a Home Owners Association stated they are concerned with the Home Occupation Certification. They wish the Development Code to contain strong language limiting customers, employees, and traffic flow coming in and out of the residences, Kenneth G. Ray, Temecula, said he believes language in the Code should include mitigation for schools due to the impact new developments will have. It is irresponsible to encourage un-controlled growth. Staff responded that section 9.06.05 o Special Use Standards, does not over- crowd schools and section 9.16.04 Sub G o includes adequate provisions for utilities and schools. Larry Markham, 12175 Winchester Road, Temecula, spoke on 9.04 - Permits, regarding the inconsistencies on Use Permits and the language on timelines. He suggests the timelines be consistent, across the boord, good for 3 years with 3 one-year extensions. Staff will review and revise these items as needed, and provide them to the Commission at a later meeting. Commissioner Ford closed the Public Hearing at 8:45 PM. The following items of concern expressed by the Commission will be revised by staff in the Development Code: Impact on Public Schools; Notice of Hearings for Review and Application Timeline; Standard Public Notice Signs; Editing language and the public items will be brought back for action by the Commission at a later meeting, pe~3~0~5 2 PLANNING COB4MIRSION ~,~G MARCit 20. 1995 It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to continue this item to the meeting of April 3, 1995. The motion carried as follows: 5 COMMISSIONERS: 0 COMMISSIONERS: 0 COMMISSIONERS: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT NEXT Webster, Fahey, Ford, Sisvan, Blair None None None. MEETINGS April 3, 1995, 6:00 P.M., Rancho California Water District's Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. May 15, 1995, 6:00 P.M., Rancho California Water District's Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. June 19, 1995, 6:00 P.M., Rancho California Water District's Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey end seconded by Commissioner Slaven to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 P.M. The motion was unanimously carried. Chairman Steve Ford Secretary pcmir¢)3/20/95 3 ITEM #3 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Banning Commission Gary Thornhill, Director of Banningz~/d~- June 19, 1995 SUBJECT: Draft Development Code Prepared by: John Meyer RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Banning Commission review the draft Development Code, take public testimony, and direct staff to make any modifications in order to make a recommendation of approval to the City Council. INTRODUCTION On March 20, 1995, the Banning Commission began the Public Hearing Process for the Temecula Development Code. The Development Code is the primary instrument for implementing the General Plan. Temecula's General Ban is a 20-year plan, while the Development Code and the Zoning Map respond to shorter-term needs and conditions. Each of the residential, commercial, business park, and other land use designations are detailed by land use zones which specify permitted uses, conditional uses, and development standards for each zone. At it's March 20, 1995 meeting, the Commission reviewed and commented on the following chapters of the Code: Chapter 9.01 General Provisions Chapter 9.02 EStablishment of Zoning Districts Chapter 9.03 Administration of Zoning Chapter 9.04 Permits Chapter 9.05 Development Ban Process At it's April 3, 1995 meeting, the Commission reviewed and commented on the following chapters of the Code: Chapter 9.06 Residential Districts Chapter 9.08 Commercial/Industrial Districts Chal~ter 9.12 Public/Institutional Districts Chapter 9.14 Open Space/Recreation District The schedule is as follows: Chapter 9.16 Specific Plan Oveday District Chapter 9.18 Village Center Overlay District Chapter 9.20 Roodplain Overlay District Chapter 9.22 Planned Development Oveday District Chapter 9.24 Off-street Parking and Loading Chapter 9.26 Covenants for Easements Meeting III Moy 16, 1906 June 19, 1995 Consistency Zoning (Zoning Map) General Ran Amendment Chapter 9.34 Definition of Terms Revisions Addendum Meeting IV Juno 19, 199S July 17, 1995 REPORT/PUBLIC HEARING FORMAT This report is intended to provide a brief introduction and background of Temecula's Draft Development Code. The following sections address each chapter individually. Each section contains a purpose summary, a brief description of the key aspects of the chapter, and any recommended changes to the draft section. Although only highlights of the Code are discussed here, staff envisions a broad discussion of each chapter as determined by the commission. Upon completing its review of the code, the Commission will then forward a recommendation to the City Council. Additional Public Hearings will be held by the Council. OVERLAY DISTRICTS The chapters pertaining to the Overlay Districts provide for creative and flexible planning for designated areas around the City. The districts allow for flexibility and relief from both development and use regulations. The Specific Plan, Village Centsrand Planned Development Overlays will all be processed like Zoning Amendments and reviewed and approved based on the findings contained in each chapter. The Floodplain Overlay District is a more technical chapter which is authorized by the State Government Code. The public health safety and welfare is protected through flood damage prevention and floodplain management regulations. SECTION 16. SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAY DISTRICT Purpose This chapter provides the procedures for the adoption and implementation of a specific plan. The purpose of specific plans is to provide comprehensive planning of large areas consistent with the General Plan. Description The Specific Plan Overlay is applied to those portions of the community which because of size, location, and special development opportunities require a coordinated, comprehensive planning approach. The General Plan identified the location of the Specific Ran Ovedays (attached figure 2-5), Those overlays with an aggregate area of 100 or more acres, approval of a specific plan is required prior to approval of any discretionary land use entitlement or issuance of any building or grading permit. Specific plane shall be praperad in accordance wiffi the raquiraments of Section 65451 of the California Government Code and the City's Development Code which contsine some additional requirements tailored to the City's needs and conditione. Specific plane will result in mutually beneficial and creative planning solutione for both property owners and the City. Designated specific plan areas will require detailed plane indicating land uses, circulation, major infrastructure and facilities, open space and perks, and appropriate implementation measures. All specific plane will be evaluated with respect to consistency with the goals, policies, plane and programs of the General Ran. Changes The following changes are proposed: Add Section 9.16.015 Approval Required In areas identified as Specific Plan Overlay (Figure 2-5 General Plan Land Use Element), with an aggregate area of 100 or more acres, approval of a specific plan is required prior to approval of any discretionary land use entitlement or issuance of any building or grading permit. Section 9.16.070 Approved Specific Plane SP-6 Old Town SP-7 Campoe Verdes (Previous Reference: Specific Plan #1 ) SP-8 Regional Center (Previous Reference: Specific Plan 263) SECTION 18. VILLAGE CENTER OVERLAY DISTRICT Purpose This chapter provides the procedures for the adoption and implementation of a Village Center The purpose of Village Centers are to provide a concentration and mixture of compatible uses including: retail, office, public facilities, recreation uses and housing, designed to encourage non-automotive modes of transportation. Description A primary concept of the General Plan is to promote the development of special Village Centers, with an urban character, at key Iocatione in the City. These centers will help to provide a sense of place and focal points for community activity. The location of the Village Centers are shown on a separate map which is an overlay to the General Plan Land Use Plan (attached figure 2-4). The overlay defines the conceptual boundaries of future Village Centers. This map is not intended to preclude the creation of other Village Centers within the Study Area, should they be deemed appropriate by the City. Each Village Center should have design guidelines and development standards to ensure a cohesiveness in development. Several Village Centers are designated within proposed specific plans that will eneure the properties are planned and developed in a comprehensive and coordinated manner. Development densities and intensities for the Village Center Areas are intended to be consistent with those permitted in the underlying designations on the Land Use Plan. Changes No changes are suggested. SECTION 20. FLOODPLa, IN OVERLAY DISTRICT Purpose This chapter promotes the public health, safety and general welfare and minimizes public and private losses due to flood conditions. Description This is a straight forward chapter. The standards and regulations are typical of those found in other zoning ordinances and municipal codes. Changes The following changes are proposed: Section 9.20.020 (f) Help Maintain a stable tax base by providing for the 6eeeRd ~ usa... Section 9.20.030 Definitions, page 7 - insart Substantial Damage Damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby restoring the structure to its pre-clamaged condition would exceed 50 parcent of the market value of the structure. Section 9.20.115- fill in blank with September 3, 1993 Section 9.20.125 - However, where this Chapter and another ~ ordinance... SECTION 22. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERI AY DISTRICT Purpose This chapter provides the procedures for the adoption and implementation of a Planned-- Developments (PD). The purpose of PDs is to provide comprehensive planning of a site while providing certain flexibility or relief from development standards. Descdp~on The Planned Development permits creative mixtures of uses in smaller areas where 8 specific Plan of Village Center is not appropriate. Development standards for Planned Develops are generally the same as for the underlying zoning district. However, modifications to those standards may be approved in order to allow for greater flexibility in reaching the objectives of the Development Plan. Changes No changes are suggested. SECTION 24. PARKING AND LOADING Purpose R:~DEYCODEIDRAFrDC.I'C~ 6/1~95 k~ 4 This chapter establishes the regulations for off-street paring and loading. Description This chapter reflects the greatest departure from typical standards found in other zoning ordinances. Staff's approach was to rethink the amount of required parking. Overall, the parking requirements reflect a reduction in minimum paring requirements. As an example, porking roquiromonts for shopping centers with over 25,000 square feet of gross floor area, a flat rate of parking is established. This will eliminate the need to go back and recount parking spaces even/time a business turns over. The Fire Department has requested the Code be amended to meet current County standards to maintain a 24' wide minimum for all drive aisles. The Development Code allows one-way access to be 12'. The Fire Department is concerned about the ability to access sites in an emergency. Changes Section 9.24.020 (d) {1) Parking Residential Uses - This section will be reviewed as part of the revisions to similar regulation found in Home Occupations and Residential Property Maintenance. Table 9.24 (a) Parking Spaces Required - Under Subsection Commercial Uses - Retail a~d Service, add Floor Covering and Home Improvement to Furniture Stores, Bulk Goods. Section 9.24.020 (d) Parking for the Handicapped - Add language to reflect requirements for Designated Van Accessibility. Section 9.24.050 (a) Parking Space Dimensions - Revise standard stall size to 9xl 8 and make necessary adjustments to table 9.24 (b) Chapter 9.24 Page 15 - Relocate landscape exhibits to Landscaping section. SECTION 26. Covenants for Easements Purpose This chapter provides for conveying easements outside a subdivision process. Description This chapter is adopted pursuant to Government Code Sections 65870 to 65875. The standards and regulations are typical of those found in other zoning ordinances and municipal codes. Changes No changes are suggested. Attachments 1. Figure 2-5 Specific Ran Overlay exhibit from General Ran - Blue Page 7 2. Figure 2-4 Village Center Oveday exhibit from General Plan - Blue Page 7 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FIGURE 2-5 SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAY I~D~VCOD~DP~DC~ ~/1~ ~ 7 SPECIFIC PLAN OVEIt!,.~Y  Approved Specific Plan Areas proposed Specific plan Areas L ~ ,L General Plan Program FIGURE 2-5 CITY OF TEME~ Land Use Element Legend for Spe~fic Plan 0verhy Figur~ 2-~ (Continued) APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS ~. Winchester Mesa B. Rancho Spa and Country Club C. Warm Spr~-~ D. Silverhawk E Mountain View F. Margar/ta G. Rancho I-D~h~ds H. Paloma dcl Sol I. Vail Ranch J. Redhawk 3.1. Rori~su~h Hilk FU'rtrRE SPECIMC PLAN AREA~~ IC Winchester 1800 I. Quinta Do Lago M. Mttr~ta Spr~n~ #1 N. Boml ALpark O. Crown Valley V'fllag~ P. Hot Springs Vlllag~ Q. John~n Ranch R. Roripaugh 800 S. Winchester Hills T. Winchester Meadows Business Park U. Temeeula Regional Center V. C, ampm VeXes W. Old Town X. Unnamed Specific Plan Y. Unnamed Specific Plan Z~,Z~Z~. Unnmncd Spccffic Plan. AA. Murdy ~ch LOCATION ' Eavizomneatal Study Area Bnv/mnmental Study Az~a Em, houmenml Study Aria Sphere of Sphe~ of City of Temecuh City of T~mecuh City of Temecuh Sphe~ Of ln'fiue~ LOCATION Sphere of Influence Sphe~ of Influence Sphere of ~n~ue~ce Sphere of Influence Sphere of wn~ueace Envizonm~ntal Study Sphe~ of l-~ucnce City of Temecula City of Temecula City of Tcmecula City of Tonecub City of Temecuh City of Tcmccula City of T~m~cula City of Tmccuh City of Tcmccuh ~ TI~ narnts of the Future Stroll'to Plan Ar~s are ~ubjea to ehanle. T~l-01~O~-Lt~.t.~ · Da2: November 9, 1993 Pag~ 2-36 A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 2 FIGURE 2-4 VILLAGE CENTER OVERLAY VILLAGE CENTER OVERLAY General Plan Program FIGURE