Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout111606 DH Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING NOVEMBER 16, 2006 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Director's Hearing was called to order on Thursday, November 16. 2006 at 1 :30 p.m. in the Main Conference Room, located at 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California. Principal Planner Stephen Brown presiding. Also present was Senior Planner Stuart Fisk, Assistant Planner Katie LeComte, Special Projects Engineer Annie Bostre-Le and Minute Clerk Jill Dickey. Item No.1: Plannina Aoolication PA06-0101. a Home Product Review for 108 sinale-familv homes with four oroduct woes on 26.0 acres aenerallv located on the north side of Deer Hollow Wav. aooroximatelv 800 feet east of Peooercorn Drive Principal Planner Stephen Brown convened the meeting at 1 :30 pm. Assistant Planner Katie LeComte, gave an overview of the project with staff recommendatiqns. The project proposes four floor plans and three distinct architectural styles. The architectural styles include Spanish, Traditional, and Craftsman. All the proposed architectural styles are consistent with the architectural design manual within the Redhawk Specific Plan. As conditioned the project exceeds all design requirements of the Redhawk Specific Plan and the proposed elevations achieve a high quality appearance, compatibility with surrounding development and strong character which fully achieves the design principles contained within the Redhawk Specific Plan. The proposed project has been determined to be consistent with the previously approved EIR and is categorically exempt from any further environmental review per CEQA Section 15162. Staff did receive a letter from the Redhawk HOA regarding their concern with the perimeter and interior fencing for the project. Staff has reviewed the fence and wall plans and would like to recommend an additional Condition of Approval to clarify the material of the retaining walls proposed for Lots 30 and 56 as the materials are not clearly called out on the plans. The builder has indicated that they intend to install retaining walls with materials that are consistent with all the other proposed and existing walls in the Redhawk development. Staff would like to recommend that a condition be added stating that the exterior facing retaining walls proposed on the north side of Lot 56 and the exterior facing retaining wall proposed on the south side of Lot 30 shall consist of a slump stone block wall consistent with all other existing slump stone block walls in the Redhawk community. In addition, the Redhawk HOA has also requested that all street facing wood fencing and wood gates be painted Dunn & Edwards nomadic taupe DE6192; however, staff has reviewed the HOA's requested paint color in comparison to the rightwood prefinished wood fencing which has been proposed by the builder and supports the rightwood stain as staff feels that it better compliments the proposed colors for the project. Principal Planner Stephen Brown opened the Public Hearing at 1 :35 pm , Principal Planner Brown, in examining the Exhibit, had the following questions regarding the landscaping improvement: 1. Why are these lots not covered as far as HOA maintenance?/, I R:\DIRHEARIMINUTES\2006\ 11-16-06 minutes.doc 2. What are the approximate dimensions of the rear of Lot 34 (at the toe of slope going up towards Lot 37)? What is that distance? 3. What is the slope gradient on that? 4. Is there any proposed method for maintenance of the rear of Lots 67, 68, 69, 70? There is a V-ditch. Scott Stites with Centex Homes answered the questions as pertained to the HOAlGold Course Landscape as follows: 1. They are in the process of modifying specifically Lots 41 to 31 to split those from 41 to 35 and have all that area from the toe of slope to the top of slope be HOA maintained so we would add Lots 41 through 35 to the HOA maintenance. 2. Around 30-40 feet. 3. Slope gradient is 2 to 1. 4. We reviewed Lots 41-35 and 62-72 and we are in the process of modifying HOA maintenance easements behind those lots to include everything from the tract boundary to the front edge of the V-ditch so from the front edge of the V-ditch up the slope would be HOA maintained and then from the edge of the V-ditch, closest to the house, down to the toe of slope would be home owner maintained. We felt that would split up that slope enough to not only provide the home owners the ability to utilitize a portion of their lot, but also maintain the landscaping to an adequate level for the HOA. Principal Planner Brown asked if the Applicant had a chance to review the Conditions of Approval and if he was in agreement with the conditions. Scott Stites with Centex Homes responded that they received the staff report and have briefly reviewed the staff report and they did review the COA's. They had a couple of comments that are completed in a letter that he read, associated with two items that they noticed on the Draft Conditions of Approval: 1. Item #21 - requests the modification of that paragraph to state that three copies of construction, landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for review by the Planning Department. 2. Item #26 - requests to modify that sentence to state "...HOA landscaping shall be completed for inspection Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permit for those lots adjacent to HOA landscaped areas..." Principal Planner Brown asked Applicant to clarify request. Scott Stites replied they would like to be able to pull building permits prior to the approval of the construction, landscaping and irrigation plans. They are 95 percent complete with these construction, landscaping and irrigation plans; however, we are concerned that they may not be 100 percent approved prior to the construction plan check approval. R:\DIRHEARIMINUTES\2006\11-16-06 minutes.doc 2 Scott Stites also stated that they actually over looked a couple of other previous items. . 1. Item #17 - the wall and fence plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits. There is a slight difference in how it is stated; they have no problem with the wall and fence plans being submitted for review and approval. 2. Item #21 reads that it should be reviewed and approved. They would like to be able to submit for review and approval. They should be able to accomplish that in the next week to 10 days the submittal portion but they're concerned about the approval time frame. Assistant Planner Katie Le Comte stated that Item #17 - the wall and fence plans have already been approved. Scott Sties stated that they don't take any exception to Item #17 but they do to Item #21. Principal Planner Brown asked about Item #26 and what the Applicant's request is. Scott Stites replied Item #26 is included within Prior to Release of Power, Building Occupancy or Any Use Allowed by the Permit so this item is stating that it shall be completed for inspection Prior to Issuance of Building Permits, however, it's included within Prior to Release of Power Building Occupancy and again it is a time frame and time sensitive issue. They would like to be able to pull permits prior to the completion of the HOA landscaping. Principal Planner Brown asked of staff, if the wording is incorrect on Item #26 or is it standard? Assistant Planner Katie Le Comte replied that Item #26 is standard condition. It could be moved to the Prior to Occupancy Release section. Principal Planner Brown granted the Applicant's request to Item #26 and ruled will on Item #21 later. He then asked if the Applicant had any more comments on the conditions or any other observations. Scott Stities replied no, not on the conditions or observations. Principal Planner Brown asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak on the project. Michael Dufresne, 45565 Via Puebla, Temecula, California 92592 stated that with all due respect to the Planning Department who wrote out that the project is exempt from further environmental review, he would contend that the previous environmental documents that may have been adopted or amended do not fulfill the environmental review requirements of this current project. He stated that he does not oppose the project; he feels that there are solutions to the issues (noise, air quality, transportation/circulation/degradations). He felt that CEQA guidelines Sections 15162 and/or 15164 must be reconsidered. Ren Welch, 45648 Via Puebla, Temecula, CA 92592 stated he wrote a letter to the Planning Director about this and it appears that she didn't receive that letter so he read what was said to her in that letter regarding this project. He spoke of issues regarding traffic and slime in the gutter caused by the storm drain having been placed downstream rather than upstream (a serious problem in getting traction). Their request is that action be taken to prevent Via Puebla from becoming a through street. R:\DIRHEARlMINUTESI2006l11-16-06 minutes.doc 3 Principal Planner Brown stated that judging by the Tract number, the Tract was probably approved 10 years ago. Annie Bostre-Le, Public Works Department stated that the County approved Tract in 2003; the grading plans. Principal Planner Brown asked if there were any others wishing to speak and/or if the Applicant had any rebuttal comments on the issues that were brought up by the previous speakers. Scott Stites, Centex Homes wanted to reiterate that this forum was for a Home Product Review and that is what they expected at the time. Principal Planner Brown closed the Public Hearing and recommended approval of Planning Application No. PA06-0101 subject to the Conditions of Approval and modifications as follows:. Condition.# 17: Cont~f1t\>Vmremainthe same.' Condition # 21: G9nt~f'!t WillrlillIlainthlil same. Principal Planner Brown asked the Senior Planner, Stuart Fisk, if these are typical Conditions of Approval and what the downside would be for Item #21. Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner stated this is one of our standard Conditions of Approval that we apply to every project. Our goal is to make sure to receive the landscape plans and have them well under way before you get to building permits so that we're not waiting until the last minute; when we get to this point where there is a mad rush occupancy becomes issues. conditlon# 26 - determinEidthat this is really not !tnjllll!l~}'!f'!d ttlafthe.wording wouiC! IJEl modifililC!to Qhanglil th~\oVQrC! 1>JJltdlng"t() "QQCUPalJQ1~ Principal Planner Brown stated that we also need to address the inclusion of those extra lots for HOA coverage and asked the Applicant to read off those lot numbers that would be included in the coverage by the HOA. We will add an additional condition requiring that the plans reflect that HOA maintenance of those slopes. Scott Stites, Centex Homes stated the construction plans for the HOA landscape which we should be receiving shortly will include HOA maintenance of Lots 41 through 35 inclusive. Those slopes from the toe of slope to the top of slope will be HOA maintained in their entirety. The second group of homes are 62 through 72. These construction drawings will show HOA maintenance from the tract boundary westerly to the western edge of the V-ditch or the far edge of the V-ditch and everything within that area will be HOA maintained and everything from the edge of V-ditch to the toe of slope will be homeowner maintained. R:\DIRHEARIMINUTES\2006\ 11-16-06 minutes.doc 4 - Principal Planner Brown also directed the Applicant to prepare an Exhibit to return to us by Monday showing the inclusion so we can have an Exhibit (8.5 x 11 ") to put in the Conditions of Approval. There being no further business, hearing was adjourned at 2:14 p.m. St~rinci~ ' R:\DIRHEARIMINUTES\2006\11-16-06 minutes.doc 5