Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout081996 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1996 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, August 19, 1996, 6:06 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairman Fahey presiding. PRESENT: Fahey, Miller, SlaveR, Soltysiak, Webster ABSENT: None Also present were Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Rubin D. Weiner, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Joseph Kicak, Senior Planner Dave Hogan, Senior Planner John Meyer, Associate Planner Matthew Fagan, Project Engineer Mike Boone, Associate Engineer John Pourkazemi, and Minute Clerk Pat Kelley. PURl IC Cr~MMFNT-~ Chairman Fahey called for public comments on non-agenda items at 6:09 P.M. There were no requests to speak. COMMISSION RU.~INrS~ 1. A4~rowl of Agenda Chairman Fahey stated it is necessary to continue Item 6, City Wide Design Guidelines, as the consultant could not attend to~ight's meeting. It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Miller to approve the agenda as amended continuing Item 6, City-Wide Design Guidelines, to the September 16, 1996 meeting. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 2. ADprowl of Aug-st 5. 1996 Min-tes It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the minutes of August 5, 1996, with the following amendments: Page 3, last paragraph, first line - ...understanding that the areas the fees ~re paid in as mitigation and not used... Page 4, fifth paragraph, - Chairman Ea]~... R:\PLANC(~\MINUTES\1996\081996.PC 9/3/96 klb i PL~,NNIN~ ~r~MMIR~IrlN AUGUST 19. 1996 Page 5, third paragraph, add Rhe stated she cannot s~[DJ~ort the DrQject if it has an eight foot wall from the c,,rb. Page 6, paragraph I "The wall to be given...with a brick cap on top;" Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske will listen to the tape to determine if the motion was "finished" or "brick". Page 6, paragraph 2 "Landscape plan as submitted...is accepted with additional landscaDe per st,ff recommend,tion ,hove -rid beyond the wall of trees... Page 7, 2nd paragraph, Commissioner Webster stated in the fourth WHFRFAS of the Resol!ltion. the wording following August 5. 1996. '~t a d,Jly noticed Dublic hearing as Drescrihed hY law. ~t which time interested Dersons h~d ~n op.0ort-nity to testify either in sl!pport nr in oppnsition' should be deleted Page 7, fourth paragraph: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: F~hey. Rlaven. Webster NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Miller. ;nltysiak The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 3. Planning A~,01ication No. 96-0140 IRevise Tentative P~rcel M~tD :34085) Senior Planner Dave Hogan presented a proposal to revise a previously approved tentative parcel map. This revision reduces the number of lots from 62 to 10 and one (1) remaining 18-acre lot. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan, Subdivision and Landscaping Ordinances, and conditions of approval have been placed on the project to assure development will occur to City Standards. Since the Conditions of Approval were written, the following changes have been made: Condition 9 - As the proposed project is not within the boundaries of archeological site CA-Riv-237, this condition should essentially be reworded to match Condition 10, but changing the words paleontologist to archeologist and fossil to artifacts. Condition 35, fourth line - should read "Western Bypass Corridor" and/or "Medians in accordance... Condition 37, third line - should read ...District for ~ny improvements proposed on the Riverside ~o,nty Flood ~ontrol r~istrict right-of-way for approval prior... R: \DLANCOI~!\MINUTES\1996\O81996.PC 9/3/96 klb 2 P! ANNIN~ r:-nMMI.~-~InN AU~! IRT 19. 1~96 New Condition 48 - r~eveloper shall deposit with the Fngineering nepartment a cash sum as established Der acre as a mitigation fee for traffic signal irn~acts. Add Conditions 53, 54, 55 & 56 as requested by other agencies, regarding their development requirements. Staff recommends approval based on the above. Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 6:20 p.m. Max Harrison, 41975 Winchester, Temecula, representing the applicant, Westside City 1, came forth to give a brief presentation and to answer any questions. They would like a review of Condition 26b regarding the sidewalk requirement for Diaz Road. The Murrieta Creek Park Pilot Project handout, which is informational only, illustrates the proposed equestrian trail, walkways, and bike trail along Diaz Road. Sidewalks, therefore, do not seem necessary on both sides of Diaz Road. It is recognized the General Plan requires sidewalks, but the applicant would like a study of the necessity for sidewalks in an industrial park area where on-street parking is not allowed. They have 350 undeveloped acres in this area and sidewalks will cost approximately $300,000. It is thought that money could be spent on other improvements, such as the park which is a community effort. There are over 30 different individuals and 12 different groups involved in this park project. The park should happen within a year as a funding mechanism has been found; particulars will be updated at a later date. Commissioner Slaven clarified it is being proposed that it is not necessary to place sidewalks on this property because of the park on the east side of Diaz Road. Mr. Harrison replied yes. Commissioner Slaven inquired about what happens past this property. Mr. Harrison answered they own all the property to the city limits with the exception of a parcel owned by the City and the park concept is for the entire length of the creek to south of Clinton Keith Road. Chairman Fahey clarified sidewalk specifications are in the General Plan and the Planning Commission cannot address the sidewalk issue for this particular project and she believes Mr. Harrison was expressing a concern that this issue be addressed when reviewing changes to the General Plan. Mr. Harrison replied that was his intent. Commissioner Webster asked if the owner was going to prepare new CC&Rs or use existing ones. Mr. Harrison replied the existing recorded CC&Rs will be revised to be in conformance with the General Plan. Commissioner Soltysiak stated on existing developed property, there is a jogging trail over the fault setback in the green belt area. He asked if that concept was being extended through this property. Mr. Harrison replied "no, an amendment to our Development Plan 90- 1 which reflects the proposed linear park on Parcel Map 21383 will be requested at a later date." Commissioner Slaven questioned the meaning of Conditions 27f and 29. Regarding Condition 27f, Mr. Hector Correa, engineer for the applicant, replied Public Works is making certain there is a tangent long enough to allow for a smooth transition back into the R:\PLANC0~4\MINUT£$\1996\081996.PC 9/3/96 klb 3 P! ANNINn cr~MMI-~AION AII~,,IIAT 19. 1996 centerline of Diaz Road. Regarding Condition 29, Mr. Harrison answered staff wants to make certain driveways do not come onto Winchester Road and Diaz Road, which are limited access roads. This project's access is provided by Zero Road and Remington Road. Chairman Fahey closed Public Comments at 6:32 P.M. It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Miller to readopt the Negative Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map 24085; adopt PC Resolution No. 96- approving PA96-0140 to revise Tentative Parcel Map No. 24085 from 62 lots to 10 lots and one remainder parcel; and approve Planning Application No. PA96-0140 subject to attached Conditions of Approval and as amended. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 4. PI;nning Application No. PA96-01R3 (~.onrlition;I IJse Permit - F;st Track Commissioner Miller excused himself from this item because applicant Jan Weilert is a client. Associate Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report recommending approval for construction and operation of a 20,512 square foot boat sales and repair facility on the west side of Front Street with a reduction of one (1) required parking space. This property will merge with the existing Jan Weilert RV Sales and Service Facility to the north and be one parcel and the merger must be recorded as part of the building permit. Since the staff report was prepared, letters were received from Riverside County Flood Control District and from Churchill Buildings, a property across the street from this project. Staff recommends the Flood Control letter be included as a condition of approval in the same manner as the Fire Department and Water District. Concerns raised by Churchill Buildings will be brought before the Public Traffic Safety Commission by Public Works staff. Overall, 21 percent of the site is to be landscaped. Although the Landscape Code calls for one (1) tree per 30 feet of frontage, applicant will be allowed to group the trees for visibility purposes. Based on conversation with the City Attorney, deletion of one parking space wording should be deleted from the Resolution as the issue can be resolved at staff level. Commissioner Slaven inquired about the type of fencing along the back and the south sides. Mr. Fagan stated he understood it would be wrought iron. Commissioner Slaven questioned if there is sufficient navigation room for large motorhomes to be serviced. Mr. Fagan replied motorhomes would not be serviced at the proposed facility's service bays. Commissioner Webster asked if existing eucalyptus trees were to be replaced along the south and west sides. Mr. Fagan replied not entirely. The City's Landscape Architect R: \PLANCO!~4\MINUTES\1996\081996. PC 9/3/96 klb 4 would like a tree screen placed behind the service bays on the south side so they are not so visible to future development. Commissioner Webster asked if Condition 10 meant no parking in circulation driveways. Mr. Fagan replied these are fire lanes which should not be blocked and parking would be an enforcement issue. Commissioner Webster inquired if an emergency evacuation plan, as required by CEQA documents, should be included in Condition 54. Mr. Fagan responded that although mitigation measures are not always listed in the Conditions, it is understood there must be compliance with all mitigation measures. Commissioner Webster asked if there is a condition that requires applicant to pay for Western Bypass Corridor Assessment District. Planner John Pourkazemi replied this property is outside the boundaries of that District. Commissioner Soltysiak asked how the westerly fence line was established relative to the creek. Mr. Fagan answered it was based on Flood Control dedication needs. The exact location of the property line needs to be resolved with the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. Commissioner Soltysiak stated moving the property line five (5) feet may require offsetting the building. Mr. Fagan replied it seems possible the building could be moved a bit to meet the minimum standards of 24-foot driveways and five-foot landscape area, but the potential exists that the buildings may have to be offset. Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 6:47 p.m. Michael Robinson, architect, 616 E. Alvarado Street, Fallbrook, representing applicant Jan Wellerr, stated this project was established on the existing facility. There was a dedication of 100 feet for drainage when the existing building was built and the back property line was extended through the proposed project. Due to the Flood Control letter, there is uncertainty as to where that line will now fall since there is some discrepancy between previous information and this current letter. The building may have to be downsized to adjust for different conditions. Commissioner Slaven asked how many 15 gallon and 24" box sycamore trees are planned as shown on the landscaping plan. The applicant's Landscape Architect replied the 24" boxes were planned for the street front and two (2) 15' sycamores in the parking area. Commissioner Soltysiak stated that if the Flood Control District's flood way location is as stated, development cannot occur within that flood way. Engineer Bert Domingo replied the FEMA map, which is the official delegation of flood way, was used to determine the line. The applicant will be working with Flood Control to resolve their concerns. Commissioner Webster inquired if the existing dumpster shown on the site plan is to be used for both buildings. Mr. Robinson replied it was. R:\PLANC(I~4\HINUT£S\1996\081996.PC 9/3/96 klb 5 PI ANNIN~-- ~rtMM!.~.~InN A!Jn~I.~T 19. 1996 Commissioner Soltysiak asked if the canopies shown on Exhibit H show up on the elevations. Mr. Robinson replied they do not as the canopies were asked for after submittal of the elevations. Mr. Robinson stated existing wrought iron fencing will continue into this project. He is aware staff wants the sycamore trees to screen the southwest corner and the back side of the service bays. Chairman Fahey closed public comments on this public hearing item at 6:50 P.M. Commissioner Webster stated in addition to the CEQA item being added to the Conditions of Approval, all sycamore trees must be 24' box trees. Commissioner Soltysiak asked whether or not this site plan would come back for Commission approval if significant changes occur as a result of Flood Control requests. Chairman Fahey responded Staff can make minor changes and asked staff their idea of minor vs significant. Mr. Fagan replied minor would be when there are no real changes in the plans, but shifting occurs in order to meet the intention of the ordinance. If there is a 15 to 20 percent reduction of building which definitely affects the site plan, the plan would come back for Commission approval. On the parking issue, staff can consider up to a 15 per cent reduction. Commissioner Slaven remarked losing 15% of 63 parking spaces means nine (9), which is the total number in the back area. Mr. Fagan stated the loss would probably be in the corner where there are 12 spaces. She stated she does not agree to reducing parking due to the concern about on-street parking raised by Churchill Buildings nor to giving a blanket approval to reduce parking by 10/15 percent. Mr. Hogan stated if one or two parking spaces are lost and a minor adjustment to building size was made, it is hoped the Commission would find that a minor change to the overall site plan as long as the layout and interaction of the pieces on the site are the same. Commissioner Soltysiak asked if the square foot ratio for parking was being met. Mr. Fagan replied if parking spaces are eliminated and the building is not downsized, the ratio is not met. Mr. Robinson stated one of the requirements is to drain everything to the street. An alternative would be to change the slope so drainage goes to the creek and parking could remain as shown. Chairman Fahey reiterated various concerns: if the number of parking spaces are reduced, the building must be downsized so the parking space ratio is met; evacuation plan as specified in CEQA be added; sycamores be 24" box trees; Staff to clarify language in Condition 6 to make certain sycamores tie into current landscaping; and clarify that wrought iron fencing will be carried onto this project. Commissioner Webster added Riverside County Flood Control District's letter needs to be added to the Conditions. R:\PLANC(~\MINUTES\1996\081996.PC 9/3/96 P~ ANNIN~ ~--rtMMIRRInN AUn~ ;RT 1~. 1996 It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA96-0132; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Agplication PA96-0132; and to adopt PC Resolution No. 96- approving PA96-0132 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval and the amended conditions. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: I COMMISSIONERS: Miller PI;nning Application No. PA95-0043 (~ener;I Plan ! ;nd Use M;I.0 Amendment No. ~ and ?oning MSD Amendment No. 1: and ch;nges to statistical t~bles in the General Plan ! and Use Fiemerit Senior Planner Dave Hogan stated since the adoption of the General Plan, concerns have risen regarding inappropriate zoning designations. Additionally, changes to the General Plan Land Use Map, updates to tables in the Land Use Element and amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map are needed. Staff's recommendation is for the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council approval of the following changes. Proposed changes are: Property No. 1. APN 911-150-039 has an existing General Plan land use designation of Open Space/Recreation; proposed. General Plan designation, Low-Medium Density Residential. After Flood Control determined property was not needed, it was sold to a private individual, who would like to develop a duplex or triplex on the 12,000 square foot property. Commissioner Miller asked about its frontage on North General Kearney and the approximate lot sizes to the left and right as he has not noticed 12,000 s.f. lots or duplexes/triplexes in that area. Mr. Hogan replied the property had approximately 65 feet of North General Kearney frontage and the lots in that area are in the six (6) to seven (7) thousand square foot range. Commissioner Miller inquired why the property could not accommodate two separate houses on two different lots -- with one being a flag lot. Mr. Hogan replied since the property does not have direct access to Sierra Madre, a duplex or triplex was more beneficial, but two houses are a possibility. Commissioner Miller asked what would have to be adopted to allow for two houses. Mr. Hogan replied a change in the General Plan designation and zoning to Low-Medium Residential and if there is sufficient area, the owner would be able to build two detached houses. R:\PLANCQ~[\MINUTES\1996\081996.PC 9/3/96 klb 7 P! ANNINn c. tlMMI.~.~ItlN AUn! L~T 1-q. 1996 Commissioner Soltysiak asked if the low-medium density designation requires detached houses. Mr. Hogan answered setback limits are required, but there is a provision for a planned development overlay and development standards would be reviewed upon receipt of an application. The Commission's concern that two units on that site have to be detached units can be communicated to the owner. Chairman Fahey called for Public Comments at 7:16 P.M. There were no requests to speak. Property ~A. ?R ~nd ~. APN 945-110-001. 945-110-003. ANr~ 945-110-003. respectively, have existing General Plan Land Use Designation of Neighborhood Commercial; proposed General Plan designation, Low Density (I.D) Residential or Office Professional. The properties are located at the southwest corner of Pauba Road and Margarita Road. After Staff report had been drafted, a letter, dated July 23, 1996, from Mr. Willy Un was received opposing a change in zoning, and a copy of the letter was given to the Commissioners. Chairman Fahey asked if them was a current approved development plan covering only one lot. Mr. Hogan replied them had been and it has expired. Commissioner Slaven added the applicant has exhausted all extensions and the plan covered only the corner lot with a driveway shared between Lots 2C and 2B. Lots 2A and 2B virtually go downhill with almost no flat land. Commissioner Webster asked for the justification to change Neighborhood Commercial to LD or Office Professional. Mr. Hogan stated the City Council was concerned that an Neighborhood Commercial designation might not be an appropriate land use, a compatibility issue had risen, and residents in the area had expressed concern. Commissioner Soltysiak inquired where Neighborhood Commercial is most desirable in the General Plan and if there was other Neighborhood Commercial zoning in the Paloma del Sol area. Mr. Hogan replied Neighborhood Commercial is designated on properties in close proximity to residential areas. It is differentiated from Commercial by the scale of businesses allowed - Neighborhood Commercial is for smaller businesses. There is Neighborhood Commercial zoning at the southeast corner of Butterfield Stage and Pauba Road and at Margarita Road and Highway 79S. Chairman Fahey clarified that in the last round of General Plan changes, concerns for this Iocation's zoning were expressed by citizens. When the City Council looked at the full General Plan, they asked staff to have the Commission look again at this particular site at the next round of General Plan changes. Chairman Fahey called for public comments. Larry Markham, 41250 Winchester Road, Suite L, Temecula, representing owners Yang & Yang, APN 945-110-002, stated this lot (the middle property) was zoned commercial in 1981 and that designation has been reconfirmed a number of times over the past years. The property's only access is Pauba Road and Margarita Road. With the high school, sports park, and fire station in that area, there is a high intensity of lights, acoustic issues, and heavy traffic; none of which lends itself to a residential zoning. The Pauba Road/Margarita Road intersection is not compatible with any type of residential use, especially large lot R:\PLANCO!~[\HINUTES\1996\081996.PC 9/3/96 klb 8 P! ANNIN~ ~-rIMMISRIr~N AII~U~T 19. 1996 residential. This lot is also inappropriate for Office Professional zoning. Property has been shifted from CPS (Scenic Highway Commercial) to Neighborhood Commercial and is restricted further by the Development Code which will address the neighborhood's concerns. To now consider one acre residential or Office Professional is inappropriate. Substantial economic impact will result if the zoning is changed. Within Paloma del Sol, Neighborhood Commercial properties back up to residential lots and this property does not. According to his overlay of the zoning map, the westerly parcel (2A) request for Neighborhood Commercial zoning has never been granted. Commissioner Slaven asked why Office Professional is inappropriate. Mr. Markham replied Office Professional is generally for large parcels on major streets with accompanying support services. Additionally, office vacancy rates in Office Professional are one of the highest of any commercial or industrial use in Temecula. Chairman Fahey asked if there is any other use that might be more amendable to these properties; i.e., skilled nursing home. Mr. Markham answered that these parcels fall under the new Development Code and design guidelines must be met to minimize any impact. Lou Lightfoot, Land Use Planner, 702 Civil Center Drive, Oceanside, representing owner of Parcel APN 945-110-003, Ted Zonos, explained a project was approved in 1991, had three extensions and now as the economy is strengthening, the zoning issue comes up again. There is a major topography separation -- a drainage course o- between this property and adjoining residential properties. Noise, lights, traffic, and access issues make LD residential inappropriate. Office Professional has to be located adjacent to other Office Professional, with regional access such as a freeway, on a large lot, and not on an isolated property like this. On Page 2-29 of the General Plan, Neighborhood Commercial is defined as smaller scale business activities which generally provide retail or convenience services for neighborhood residents. He said this property meets all the criteria for a Neighborhood Commercial designation. Page 2-7 discusses land use compatibility and indicates it will be a growing issue as new residents come in with a different view than the people who developed the General Plan The buffering and site design plan have been previously addressed on this particular property to resolve the compatibility issue. Commissioner Soltysiak asked the location of the proposed day care center. Mr. Lightfoot responded it was on the southeast corner of Margarita Road. AI Ogle, specializing in leasing and land sales, 2011 Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad, spoke on behalf of Mr. Ted Zonos, Parcel APN 945-110-003. If this property is rezoned to LD or Office Professional, it will be have no economic use or value. There is a 19% vacancy factor in office properties in Temecula. For Office Professional zoning, there is no supporting services and this is a secondary location. Michael Tidus, 4 Park Plaza, 16th Floor, representing Ted Zonos, stated he supported the remarks of the previous speakers. Mel Copeland, 31286 Santiago Road, Temecula, recommended a change of zoning to Office Professional and the properties could still be developed into a center containing grocery store, restaurants, convenience markets, etc. The general provisions of the Development Code state health, safety, welfare, and general prosperity are to be promoted. Allowing any R: \ PLANCO~W\MINUTES\ 1996\ 081996. ~>C 9/11/96 klb 9 PLANNINn ~nMMIRRIrIN AII~!IRT 1~. 1996 of the previous mentioned businesses in this location does not support intent of the Code. Health is not promoted when sellin~ alcohol, cigarettes, beer and wine and possibly drugs in close proximity to high schools. Safety, traffic accidents have already occurred. Children would be crossing Margarita Road to make purchases. General prosperity, residential property values will go down. There is nothing comparable to living in the quiet and safety of a residential neighborhood instead of the noise, congestion, and crime of a strip mall. He supported changing the zoning to LD residential. Mary Costello, 31300 Cala Carrasco, Paloma del Sol, Temecula, supported the LD zoning change. Kathy Dean, 30909 Corte Arroyou Vista, Villa Monte Homes, Temecula, requested all three parcels be changed to low density residential. Alan Phillips, 43150 Corte Almonte, Paloma del Sol, Temecula expressed concern for facilities with extensive recreational activities located in Paloma del Sol near Pauba Road and Margarita Road. Lynn Cude, 31438 Santiago Road, Temecula, stated she lives five (5) parcels from these parcels. The surrounding area is primarily designated for children. She would like this to be rezoned LD residential which is compatible with the rest of the community. Ed Hernandez, 43153 Margarita Roa~J, Temecula, said he lives a few lots from the proposed parcels and his main concern is a water easement road behind the properties which goes thru other backyards. He is against retaining the Neighborhood Commercial zoning. Mike Eyler, 31300 Cala Carraso, Paloma del Sol, Temecula, stated he lives directly across from the area and vandalism is a major concern. He stated the property should be rezoned residential. Art Pezka, 43185 Margarita Road, Temecula said he could not find any legal record of the year these parcels were zoned commercial. He said a petition with over 120 signatures in opposition to a commercial designation was given to the City Council in 1994/95. Chairman Fahey noted one individual speaking against the zone change was a local resident. Property R. APN 9:)1-R00-O06. ~-ity of Temec~,la owner. currently zoned Medium Density Residential; propose Public Parks and Recreation as the Community Services District has designed a community park for the site. Chairman Fahey called for Public Comments. There were none. Properties 4 and 5. APN 954-0~)O-005 and 9§R-150-ORR. Rancho ("-alifornia Water I')istrict - owner. are currently identified as Specific Plan even though they are outside Specific Plan boundaries. The proposed change to Public Institutional is a clean-up action and does not require a change in General Plan designation; only a change in zoning. Chairman Fahey called for Public Comments. There were none. R:\PLANC(~4\MINUT£S\1996\081996.PC 9/3/96 klb 10 P! ANNIN~ r:.rtMMISSI~N AU~U.RT 19. 1996 Item 6 eliminate ~eneral Plan land -se density ranges from the City Zoning Map. A possibility exists that showing these ranges on the map legend may create public confusion or misunderstanding. Zoning or development potential is not changed. Commissioner Miller asked about the cost for removing these ranges. Mr. Hogan replied cost will be minimal as the map must be reprinted in the near future and this removal will not create any extra work. Chairman Fahey called for Public Comments. There were none. ! and Use I;lement T~bles 2-~ and 2-3 Updates - Staff is requesting permission to update these non-policy/non-directive summary tables automatically whenever General Plan amendments are approved by the City Council. Chairman Fahey called for Public Comments. There were none. Mr. Hogan stated a correction to the last sentence of the resolution amending the Land Use Map of the General Plan, page 7, is necessary. It should read ...THE GENERAL PLAN" S!IRSTANTIA! I Y IN THF FORM IS ATTACHED TO THIS RESOLUTION AS EXHIBIT A" to allow staff to make final adjustment to the exhibits based on the direction of the Commission. Chairman Fahey asked for clarification as to what actions the Planning Commission is being asked to take tonight in conjunction with amending the General Plan and how often is the General Plan amended. Mr. Hogan replied for General Plan amendments, the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who adopt the final resolution. State law states the General Plan can be amended four (4) times a year. This resolution is the first for this year, but there may be one or two later for the circulation, and open space/conservation elements. For zoning map changes, the Planning Commission also makes a recommendation to the City Council, who makes the final decision via the ordinance process. Commissioner Miller asked if it was clear that 2A is not part of this action. Mr. Hogan stated he would go along with Mr. Markham that 2A is not designated Neighborhood Commercial. Commissioner Webster asked for clarification regarding the Commission recertifying the final environmental impact report and readopting a negative declaration previously prepared. Attorney Weiner stated proper procedures for the CEQA analysis was done by Staff. Environmental analysis has already been done for the aggregate amount of development being considered and therefore, the City would be referring to the original environmental analysis and finding this consistent for the General Plan and zoning amendments. The Commission is not actually recertifying; it is saying the previous EIR is applicable to this project. Mr. Hogan stated staff did an analysis of these changes and found there was no impact beyond that originally identified in the General Plan and any mitigation measures that applied are still applicable. Attorney Weiner stated the Commission should make the finding that environmental review has been done which is sufficient. Chairman Fahey closed the public comments at 8:25 P.M. R:\PLANCO~\HINUTES\1996\081996.PC 9/3/96 ~b 11 P! ANNIN~ ~rIMMIR.~I~N AU~,,! IRT l~q. 1996 Chairman Fahey suggested discussing and resolving any issues on an item by item basis. No. I - Change zoning from Open Space/Recreation to Low-Medium Density Residential - consensus, Low-Medium Density Residential appropriate. No. 3 - Change zoning from Medium Density Residential to Open Space/Recreation - consensus, Open Space/Recreation appropriate. No. 4 and 5 - Change zoning from Specific plan to Public Institutional -consensus, Public Institutional appropriate. No. 6 - Delete General Plan land use density ranges from the Legend of the City Zoning Map - consensus, deletion of ranges appropriate. No. 7 Staff make minor changes to summary tables - consensus, minor changes appropriate. Chairman Fahey stated based on statements heard tonight, zoning for Parcel 2A may be Low Density Residential, instead of Neighborhood Commercial. Lots 2A, 2B and 2C can be dealt with separately. If 2A is zoned LD Residential, it shall remain so. Commissioner Webster stated due to topography and location, he would like to see Parcel 2A remain low density residential and if currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, should be changed to LD. The Staff can clarify the zone designation between the time of this action and before it goes to City Council. All Commissioners agreed LD Residential should remain for Parcel 2A. Commissioner Webster said due to Lots 2B and 2C's proximity to the intersection, topography, and uses for the other intersection lots, Neighborhood Commercial is an appropriate zoning. There is a Development Code in place that will adequately address the concerns raised tonight. Commissioner Soltysiak asked if Neighborhood Commercial was more restrictive than regular commercial and Mr. Hogan replied it was. Due to this site size, a full scale grocery store is unlikely. Chairman Fahey agreed to LD for 2A if that is its present zoning. Based on how Neighborhood Commercial was designed in the General Plan, Neighborhood Commercial is appropriate for this location. Commissioner Miller asked, if the change to LD is approved, is there any topographic reason why it cannot be developed as a residential property. Mr. Hogan answered a house could be constructed on these sites. Commissioner Miller stated he was sensitive to the feelings expressed tonight that Neighborhood Commercial is not optimum. Zoning may have to remain as Neighborhood Commercial with the prevailing thought that a developer will have to submit a plan of high quality and standard before approval will be granted. R:\PLANC(I~4\MINUTF~\1996\081996.PC 9/3/96 klb 12 P! ANNIN~ CnMMISSI~N AI I~11RT 19. 1996 Commissioner Slaven agreed with Gommissioner Miller. It is not appropriate or fair to the owners to change from Neighborhood Commercial to LD or Office Professional. It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Webster to recertify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Land Use Map; to adopt PC Resolution No. 96-~ recommending the City Council approve a resolution amending the Land Use Map of the City General Plan and some of the statistical tables in the Land Use Element of the General Plan; to readopt the Negative Declaration for the City Development Code and Zoning Map for the amendments to the City Zoning Map; and adopt PC Resolution No. 96-_ recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Zoning Map of the City of Temecula with the following amendments. No changes to occur in the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map designations for Lots 2A, 2B, and 2C Resolution recommending amendment of the Land Use Map, last line on Page 7 to read ...THE GENERAL PLAN" RURSTANTIA! ! Y IN FORM IS ATTACHED TO THIS RESOLUTION AS EXHIBIT A. Attorney Weiner's suggested language for staff's recommendation Part I to read 'The Planning P. ommission finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with and result in no greater irn~ct on the environment than the I~revious neneral Plan for which an environmental impact has already been I~repared and certified. Therefore. the Pl;nning P-ommission finds no additional environmental review is re;luired." The same Finding for No. 3 except ...add and certified. The Planning P-ommission hereby finds that the pronosed zone change is consistent with and results in no greater ireDact ~pon the environment than the I~revious zoning map for which a negative declaration has ~lready been adopted. The same language should be put in the WHEREAS Sections of Attachments I and 2. In Attachment 2, PC Resolution, the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs in the WHEREAS Section which talk about adopting new environmental issues should be deleted. Chairman Fahey closed the public hearing at 8:50 P.M. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Commissioner Soltysiak had to leave the meeting at 8:51 P.M. 6. City-Wide !qesign Ruidelines Chairman Fahey suggested Chapters I thru 4 be discussed at the September 16, 1996 meeting, and the remaining chapters discussed at the September 30, 1996 meeting. R:\PLAHC(I'~4\MINUT£S\1996\081996.PC 9/3/96 klb 13 P! ANNIN~ ~nMMI;;InN AI I~11~T 19. 1996 Commissioner Webster suggested Commissioners' questions or issue clarifications be submitted to staff prior to the meeting. Staff would compile end return responses to all Commissioners prior to the September 16, 1996 meeting. That suggestion was agreed upon unanimously. Mr. Hogan asked if the Staff's presentation of the entire Guidelines could be given at the September 16, 1996 meeting and therefore the consultant would only attend that meeting. That suggestion was agreed upon unanimously. Commissioner Miller asked that the Landscape Architect also be present at the September 16, 1 g96 meeting as he has questions about some of the flora selections. P! ANNINP.. MANAP,!:R'~ R!::P~IRT Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske stated she had nothing to report. P! ANNIN~ ~-(1MMIRRIrlN nl~--I There was no further discussion. It was moved by Chairman Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Miller to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 P.M. The motion was unanimously carried. The next meeting will be held September 16, 1996, at 6:00 P.M. at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Linda Fahey, Chair~ Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\PLANC0~\MINUTES\1996\081996.PC 9/3/96 klb 14