Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout101806 PC Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18, 2006 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a. regular meeting at 6:00 p.m., on Wednesday, October 18, 2006, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Guerriero thanked Ms. Craig for the prelude music. ALLEGIANCE Chairman Guerriero led the audience in the Flag salute. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Carey, Telesio, Harter, Chiniaefl, and Chairman Guerriero. Absent: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS No public comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Minutes of September 20, 2006. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Harter seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSION BUSINESS 2 Director's Hearina Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Receive and File Director's Hearing Update for September. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to receive and file this report. R:\MinutesPC\101806 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS New Items 3 Plannina Application No PA06-0213. a Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit. submitted bv Clearwater Waterpark Development. for the construction of a 13.000 sauare foot water park on approximatelv 15 acres consistina of pools. slides. and other tvpes of water rides. other buildinas and an associated parkina lot. located at the northwest intersection of Ynez Road and Countv Center Drive By way of PowerPoint Presentation, Associated Planner Damko highlighted the following: o Location o Site Plan o BufleringlLandscaping o Architecture . o Slides/Water Rides o Conditional Use o Environmental Determination In response to Commissioner Chiniaefl's query regarding CC&Rs, Assistant City Attorney Lee stated that the CC&Rs would be between the property owners and the Homeowners Association, advising that the City would not be involved. For Commissioner Telesio, Associated Planner Damko noted that the proposed project would generate less traffic than any other permitted use. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Dan Hunter, representing Clearwater Waterpark Development, oflered the following comments: o That the project would be a family-oriented attraction o That the target market would be parents and children 12 years of age and younger o That the applicant would be investing over 13.million dollars in the proposed project o That the proposed property will be highly landscaped and well maintained o That it would be the opinion of the applicant that the project will have a positive impact on the community, enhancing the City of Temecula o That the admission fee would eliminate questionable characters o That the perimeter will be secured o That the applicant would be of the opinion that there will not be individuals loitering iri the parking lot o That the parking lot will be monitored throughout the day o That the applicant has been sensitive to the number of parking spaces and therefore, has exceeded the City's parking standards o That the traffic resulting from the proposed project will be ofl peak from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. o That water parks have evolved into the preferred form of family recreation; and that such facilities would be clean, safe and provide wholesome family interactive fun R:\MinutesPC\101806 2 o That the core of customers would be generated by the local community and would not be based on tourism o That the proposed project would work on a seasonal schedule open to the public approximately 110 days a year from Memorial Day to Labor or Day o That the attractions at the proposed water park will be safe, multi rider attractions that parents and children will enjoy together o That Clearwater Development would focus on safety and family-oriented entertainment o That the pay only parking lot will be a self-contained and controlled environment o That the parking lot will be monitored by security to ensure the safety of the guests and the positive image of Splash Canyon in Temecula o That the teens of Temecula will be interested in the employment opportunities of Splash Canyon in Temecula o That the proposed project will be employing 300 youth each summer o That Splash Canyon would be a positive community partner that would make contributions to the community by providing fundraising events o That Wild Rivers Irvin has had long-term relationships with charitable organizations o That during the ofl-season, Clearwater Development will make the facilities available to the Temecula Fire Department and other law enforcement agencies for training purposes o That Clearwater Development would be providing a first-class, family-oriented form of recreation. For the Commission, Commissioner T elesio advised that he. had an opportunity to attend a meeting with the applicant, Council Member Naggar, Director of Planning Ubnoske, and a representative of the business park. In response to Commissioner Telesio's questions, Mr. Hunter and Mr. Briggs offered the following comments: o That the rides in the park would be targeted for parents with children 12 years and younger o That the business performa would be based on Temecula and the surrounding areas, and that Splash Canyon would not be dependent on tourism o That the park will be built, managed, and maintained with the assumption that there were no parents in the park to supervise their children o That the park will be fully staffed o That an electronic locating system will be put on the kids for tracking purposes o That 15 plus fulltime employees will be maintaining the park throughout the year o That during the off-season there would not be water in any of the pools o That the applicant would consider using the parking lot for a park-n-ride during the ofl- season il that would be the desire 01 the Planning Commission o That the cost of parking will be separate lrom the cost of admission, but could be incorporated into one lee if necessary. For Commissioner Harter, Mr. Briggs noted the following: o That there would be park security 24 hours a day when the poqls are operational; and that during the winter hours there would no night security in the park R:\MinutesPC\101806 3 o That the applicant would not anticipate to have problems in the park, but that if a problem were to arise, the applicant would take measures to provide security and resolve the problem o That in the event that the parking lot would reach its capacity, prearranged parking from another business would be an option, but that this would not be anticipated o That Splash Canyon in Temecula would not be selling alcohol on site. Referencing Commissioner Carey's queries, Mr. Hunter noted the following: o That based on a Noise Study that was prepared, the project would generate a maximum noise level of 65 dBA at the property lines with mitigation measures, which would be less than the maximum threshold limit of 70 dBA specified in the General Plan Noise Element o That the applicant will establish a noise complaint response program and will respond to any noise complaints received o That the applicant would provide its own security o That the proposed water park would be anticipated to generate significantly less traffic on an annual basis than any other allowed use o That security would be employed by adults, not teenagers. In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments, Mr. Briggs noted that the applicant will be installing center islands going into Ynez Road. Mr. Briggs noted that if patrons were to park on the north side of the proposed park, the applicant would be willing to staff the area with security or construct a 7' block wall and advised that there will not be a drop-ofl area provided. . Chairman Guerriero expressed his enthusiasm with the applicant's willingness to address any traffic or parking issues that may arise and that he would request that the signage program be brought back to the Planning Commission for review. Mr. Hunter relayed that with regard to signage, the desire would be to have freeway visibility and a monument sign that would be consistent with the City's Development Plan. Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that a Condition of Approval could be imposed to have the applicant return with its sign program for the Planning Commission to review. By way of overheads, Mr. Joshua Hunter pointed out for Commissioner Chiniaefl the various emergency exits that would be imposed on the project and noted that there would be a reciprocal parking agreement in place with an adjacent property owner. For Chairman Guerriero, Mr. Briggs noted that trauma equipment, and an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) will be on the park premises during working hours, and advised that AED equipment will also be on site. At 7:00 p.m., the Planning Commission took a break and returned to the dais at 7:07 p.m. At this time, the public hearing was opened. The following individuals spoke i[1 opposition to the proposed project: R:\MinutesPC\101806 4 o Mr. Tim Sommerville, Temecula o Mr. Norman Nelson, Temecula o Mr. Urs Aeberli, Temecula oMs. Jan Nelson, Temecula o Mr. Rob Leanza, Temecula o Mr. Dave Wesley, Murrieta o Ms. Vickie Walker, Temecula o Mr. Jesse Simms, Temecula The above-mentioned individuals opposed to the proposed project for the following reasons: o That the proposed water park would create a negative aflect on the adjacent businesses o That although a water park would enhance the community and provide employment opportunities for the City's youth, the location would not be ideal o That the ingress and egress at the proposed site would not be adequate to accommodate the traflic that the proposed water park would create o That the proposed project would not be consistent with the surrounding area o That teenagers loitering and skateboarding in the parking lot would be of great concern o That the proposed project will create noise congestion, vandalism, and safety concerns for the adjacent businesses o That patrons of the proposed project will be parking in the parking lots of the adjacent businesses o That the proposed project will create a negative impact and a depreciation of homes for the Harvestori Community. Clarifying for the speakers, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the proposed project would be a private project and that the City would not be participating in this project. At this time, the public hearing was closed. Further clarifying, Associate Planner Damko noted that the closest Harveston home would be located more than 1,800 feet away from the proposed project. Oflering a rebuttal, Mr. Briggs noted the following: o That the price of the admission would be determined by the height of the patron o That a season price will be oflered to the residents of Temecula o That the proposed project would be a local-driven amusement park, noting that only 4 percent of the patrons will come from outside of the community o That the season of the proposed water park cannot be extended; that the season would be tied to the school district's school year; and that once school is in session there would not be any patrons to attend or employees to work o That due to site limitations, the proposed park cannot be expanded. Mr. Hunter noted that the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan, Deveiopment Code, and Design Guidelines and would encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed project. R:\MinutesPC\101806 5 Stating that although he would not be opposed to a water park in the City of Temecula, Commissioner Chiniaeff did express concern with the location and the traffic impacts it may have on the adjacent businesses. Commissioner Harter stated that from his personal experience with the Wild Rivers in Irvine, the water park would be a well-run, maintained facility that would provide many employment opportunities for Temecula's youth as well as provide wholesome family entertainment; and therefore, he concurred that the proposed use may create traffic, but that the traffic would be less in the four month period than it would be with any other permitted use. Concurring with Commissioner Chiniaefl's comment that the proposed project may create some traffic impacts on the adjacent businesses, Commissioner Carey stated that any other permitted use would generate more impacts on a daily basis; and relayed that he would be in favor of the proposed project, noting that it would be a benefit to the community. Referencing potential traffic impacts that may be created by the proposed project, Commissioner Telesio reiterated that the site would be zoned Service Commercial and that Sports and Recreational Facilities would be permitted with a Conditional Use Permit; that the proposed water park would be consistent with the City's General Plan, Development Code, and Design Guidelines, and would generate less traffic than any other permitted use. Commissioner Telesio also reminded the Commission that the facility would only be open from Memorial Day to Labor Day 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Echoing Commissioner Telesio's comments, Chairman Guerriero was also of the opinion that the proposed use would be a benelit to the whole communi1y; and that it would be a permitted use that would generate less traflic than any other permitted use. MOTION: Chairman Guerriero moved to approve staff recommendation. Commissioner Harter seconded the motion. (Following additional discussion voice vote reflected unanimous approval.) It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to impose the following on the applicant: that another emergency pedestrian gate access toward the center of the park (southerly property line); that signage be brought to the Planning Commission for review; that the applicant provide a park-n-ride on the property during its off season; and that the applicant consider an inclusive price for admission and parking. At this time, the voice vote on the previously made motion reflected unanimous approval. R:\MinutesPC\ 101806 6 PC RESOLUTION NO. 06-59 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 06-0213, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SITE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 13,000 SQUARE FOOT WATER PARK ON 15.4 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF YNEZ ROAD AND COUNTY CENTER DRIVE CONSISTING OF POOLS, SLIDES, AND OTHER TYPES OF WATER RIDES, CONCESSION STANDS, GIFT SHOP, PARTY ROOM, CHANGING ROOM WITH LOCKERS, RESTROOM, PICNIC AREAS, SERVICE YARD, AND PARKING LOT. THE WATER PARK WILL BE OPERATING APPROXIMATELY FOUR MONTHS OF THE CALENDAR YEAR. THE PARK WILL BE OPEN FROM MEMORIAL DAY TO LABOR DAY FROM 10:00 A.M. TO 8:00 P.M. IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THE PARK WILL RETAIN 15 FULL TIME STAFF AND 300 SEASONAL EMPLOYEES. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS For Commissioner Harter, Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that the colors of the windows and doors at the Hooter's restaurant would remain the same and that the columns would be repainted. In response to Commissioner Carey's question regarding the colors of Marie Calendar's Restaurant on Ynez Road and Rancho California Road, Director of Planning Ubnoske stated that the owner of the restaurant was given a choice to either repaint the restaurant to the approved color palette or leave it as is and appeal to the Planning Commission; and noted that staff has not heard the owner's response. Commissioner Carey thanked staff for the installation of a safety fence around the BJ's Restaurant on Ynez Road and also expressed concern with the amount 01 used RVs and boats in the parking lot of the Home Depot on SR 79 South. Referencing Commissioner Carey's concern, Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that Home Depot is not in compliance with the City's Development Code and therefore, is being charged $1,000 a day until compliance is met. The Planning Commission welcomed newly hired Junior Planner Lowrey. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that the City's Principal Planner position will be opened as of Sunday, October 22,2006. R:\MinutesPC\ 101806 7 ADJOURNMENT At 8:00 p.m., Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned to November 1. 2006. at 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. ~(4~ Ron Guerriero Chairman 7l~/~'?N~ Detibie Ubnoske Director of Planning l>~- R:\MinutesPC\ 101806 8