Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout073090 CC Minutes MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL AND THE TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION HELD JULY 30, 1990 A joint meeting of the Temecula City Council and Planning Commission was called to order at 6:58 PM in the Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. Mayor Ronald J. Parks presiding. PRESENT: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: 0 PRESENT: 4 ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Munoz, Parks None Fahey, Ford, Hoagland, Chiniaeff Blair Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field, Assistant City Attorney John Cavenaugh and Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek. PI.EDGE OF AIJ,EGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Planning Commission Chairman Dennis Chiniaeff. PUBLIC COMMENTS Sydney Vernon, 30268 Mersey Court, spoke regarding the new schedules for Temecula Valley High School and the middle schools in the district. He said he feels the City Council needs to address school overcrowding, which necessitates classes starting at 7:10 AM, when considering any new developments in the City. Ray McLaughlin, 30025 Front Street, addressed the Council and Commission regarding the current building taking place along LaSerena Way. He stated that the development being constructed by Buie Corporation and the amount of grading which is taking place at that site has created an extreme noise and dirt problem for the adjacent properties. He also said the grading has caused neighboring properties to lose the scenic views they had previously enjoyed. Minuates 7/30/90 1 DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Current procedures and authority for consideration of discretionary projects. City Manager Dixon outlined the issues to be discussed during the joint meeting. He said the policies that need to be developed would be discussed and he suggested that similar joint meetings be held as often as necessary to address concerns and the directions in which the Council and Commission will wish to go. He then introduced Gary Thomhill, who presented a staff report outlining the types of projects which are reviewed by the City. He explained tentative maps, both tract and parcel maps; plot plans, also known as site or development plan reviews; Conditional Use Permits and the development review process from application to final City Council action. City Attorney Scott Field reviewed the current County of Riverside approval process. He also explained examples of types of zoning and methods for changing zoning. He outlined the factors that make up a specific plan, which are sometimes referred to as planned unit developments (PUD's). Chairman Chiniaeff suggested that the Planning Commission should review residential parcel maps because in many cases the Commission is more aware than staff of the political considerations in these cases. Councilmember Lindemans said he feels that when an extension of time is requested on tentative maps the City Council should have another opportunity to examine the conditions of approval. He also questioned the difference between certificates of compliance and substantial conformance. Gary Thomhill defined the two and advised that all substantial conformance applications were being reviewed with the Planning Commission. City Manager Dixon discussed the various options available to the Council and Commission relative to the amount of authority each body might have in approving planning matters. He said the time frame required for projects to be completed would be a very important consideration. Mr. Dixon pointed out that if the Council decided to look at all cases, additional cost and well as time would be involved. Mayor Parks asked what a typical cost might be for a public hearing before the City Council in a matter which has already been approved by the County. City Manager Dixon replied that this could cost approximately $1,000. Gary Thomhill, in response to a question from Commissioner Fahey, said the County has sent the last of the active cases to the City. He said he believes there are about 75 cases to be dealt with. Minuates 7/30/90 2 City Attorney Scott Field outlined four options available to the City Council for defining the areas of authority for approving planning matters as follows: Planning commission would be authorized to hear and approve all subdivision development applications with a simple right of appeal to the City Council. o The Planning commission would act as an advisor agency only. They would simply make recommendations to the City Council with the Council making all final decisions. The smaller projects would go to the Planning Commission for final approval and larger projects would go to the Council for final approval. The example given was projects under 50 acres or commercial projects under 50,000 square feet would go to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission would have final authority on all projects but each City Councilmember would have the right to appeal any Commission decision. This would be accomplished by having an action memo go out to the Councilmembers the morning following the Commission meeting describing each action taken. This would give the Councilmembers eight to nine days to make a decision on whether or not they wished to have the Council hear a specific matter. Mr. Field advised that staff recommended option three. Councilmember Mufioz said he would like to see a combination of options three and four considered. Chairman Chiniaeff said option two is not acceptable to the Commission because it does not utilize them at all. Councilmember Moore suggested perhaps the Council might consider option four with a limitation on the number of appeals each Councilmember can file. Mayor Parks said he would support option three and any appeals of Commission actions should be received from opponents and proponents of a project. City Manager Dixon recommended that the four options should be discussed by the Planning Commission to formulate a recommendation to the Council. Chairman Chiniaeff suggested that the City Manager make this recommendation to the City Council based on the comments expressed by the Council and Commission. Minuates 7/30/90 3 RECESS Mayor Parks declared a recess at 8:30 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 8:40 PM. DISCUSSION ITEMS (Cont.) Consideration of the necessity for interim land use development policies and/or guidelines as a "stop gap" measure until the adoption of the City's General Plan. The Council and Commission agreed to take a straw vote on each of the policies rating them from A to C, with A indicating the highest priority. o e o Construction on slopes; establishment of "blue line" or policies relative to maximum slopes or slope/density formulas. Rating (B) Landscaping; establishment of standards for coverage, setback, and consideration of policies relative to drought resistant (Xeriscape) materials. Rating (C +) Parking in impacted areas of town (e.g., "Old Town"). Rating (B) Buffering of agricultural lands from urban encroachment. Rating (A+) Acceptable service levels at impacted intersections and design capacities as these issues relate to the approval of new development projects. Rating (A) General traffic circulation within the City; policies requiring adequate traffic circulation for land use decisions. Rating (A) Parks and recreation issues and standards relating to their development. Rating (A) Consideration of development decisions as they relate to the adequacy of services (e.g., schools, water, sewer, etc.). Rating (C) Mass Transit issues as they relate to new development (i.e., Bus turnouts, provisions of bus shelters, etc.). Rating (B-) Development Guidelines 1. Architectural guidelines to assist architectural styles. Rating (B) developers and staff in ascertaining appropriate Minuates 7/30/90 4 I.andscape guidelines to encourage xeriscape materials and to provide guidance relative to the design and installation of plant materials (including bonding and inspection provisions). Rating (B-) Design guidelines for "Old Town" addressing such issues as parking, extent of the historic district, curbs and gutters, landscaping, architecture, etc.) Rating (A) Councilmember Mufioz suggested adding other policy priorities as follows: 10. Establishing a policy related to signs. Rating (A) 11. High density development related to the general plan and zoning. Chairman Chiniaeff suggested adding the following priority: 12. SWAP being used as more than a planning guideline. Rating (B) Rating (B) CITY ATTORNEY REPORT None given. CITY MANAGER REPORT None given. COUNCIL REPORTS None given at this time. COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Ford asked staff to provide information on the matter of hiring an engineering firm for the Ynez Corridor Mello Roos. Chairman Chiniaeff asked for information on when the sphere of influence study will be completed. He also asked if the issue of placing an additional feeder road on the West side of the City is to be addressed by the Commission. City Manager Dixon responded that the matter of a West-side road would be a consideration during the general plan discussions. Minuates 7/30/90 5 ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to adjourn at 9:26 PM to a regular City Council meeting to be held at 7:00 PM on July 31, 1990 at the Temecula Town Center. The motion was unanimously carried. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: Ju~Greek, Deputy C~ Minuates 7~30/90 6