Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout110100 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CiTY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 1, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday November 1, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Chiniaeff. ROLLCALL Present: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, and Telesio. Absent: Commissioner Webster, and Chairman Guerriero. Also Present: Director of Planning Ubnoske, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Attorney Curley, Associate Planner Anders, Associate Planner Thornsley, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Agenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of November 1, 2000. MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to approve the Agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster and Chairman Guerriere who were absent. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of September 6, 2000. This Agenda Item was continued to the November 1 $, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for Ultra'ar Gas Station, located at 40720 Winchester Road (Outlot at the Promenade Mall) - Thomas Thornsley, Associate Planner Associate Planner Thornsley presented the staff report (of record), noting that the convenience market would provide a unique atmosphere, that the use does not serve an under-served population, that there will be no entertainment provided with the project, that the applicant was willing to modify the hours of operation; and relayed that with respect to the geographical boundaries, this use was located on the south side of Winchester Road and would be the sole business of this type on that side of the highway, that the proposed establishment was located in an area where there is a significant influx of population during the holiday season, and that the Police Department was not opposed to this use selling alcohol. Mr. Buck Ramsey, the applicant, relayed that he would adhere to an additional condition whereas the sale of single cans of beer would be prohibited; noted that he would cooperate with the City of Temecula with respect to training the sales personnel regarding the prohibition of sales to minors; relayed that he would be willing to agree to a condition whereby the license would be revoked or suspended if during any two-year period there were three violations regarding sales to minors; provided additional information regarding his discussions with Chairman Guerriero with respect to the number of licenses in the City of Temecula; and for Commissioner Chiniaeff, confirmed that he was recommending the additional conditions to staff, and was in agreement with the use being conditioned as noted. Mr. Wayne Hall, 42131 Agenda Street, noted his opposition to this use being licensed to sell alcohol, relaying that in his opinion the sale of gasoline and alcohol was not a good mix; noted that he was pleased with the condition prohibiting the sale of single cans of beer; and relayed his concern regarding the proliferation of licenses in the City of Temecula, and the potential for minors to access alcohol. The Commission relayed concludin,q comments, as follows: Commissioner Telesio noted that as long as the appropriate controls were in place, reiterating the applicant's added conditions, that he would support the Finding; advised that he would be a proponent of the use terminating the employment of an employee found in violation of selling alcohol to a minor; and noted that he would be in favor of a stricter condition than the revocation of a license after three violations within a two-year period. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed concurrence with Commissioner Telesio's comments; commended the applicant for his willingness to add stricter conditions regarding the sale of alcohol; and noted his support of the Finding for this use. Vice Chairman Mathewson noted his appreciation to the applicant for his willingness to limit the hours of operation, to prohibit the sale of single cans of beer, and the willingness to add a condition whereby the license would be revoked if there were three 2 R:PlanComm/minutes/110100 violations within a two-year period, while relaying that these controls were not relevant to the issue before the Commission which was the Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity; relayed that with respect to a Finding of Convenience, that since there were licensed establishments on the opposite side of Winchester Road, he would not support this Finding; and, with respect to the Finding of Necessity, noted that in his opinion there were sufficient numbers of establishments in this particular area selling alcohol, advising that he would not support this Finding. MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to approve the Findings of Public Convenience and Necessity based on the criteria included in the staff report, justifying the Findings. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Vice Chairman Mathewson who voted no, and Commissioner Webster and Chairman Guerriero who were absent. 4 Harveston Presentation Associate Planner Anders relayed that staff has been working with the applicant for approximately a year and a half, advising that at this meeting the applicant would provide an introductory overview of the Harveston Specific Plan; noted that the applicant would desire the Commission to provide input with respect to concerns or questions regarding the plan; clarified that the EIR associated with this project would not be addressed at this particular time; and introduced Mr. Bill Storm, from Lennar Communities, who would be representing the applicant. Mr. Bill Storm, reiterated the applicant's desire for Commission input with respect to concerns, and issues to be addressed; relayed that Lennar Communities was a home builder, noting that this particular plan encompassed the development of a new community inclusive of churches, schools, daycare centers, a variety of housing types, and lots which would vary in size; provided a brief history of the site this project would potentially be developed on; noted the debt the site has accrued due to the improvements associated with the Community Facilities District (CFD); specified that the overall density for the project was 3.48, reiterating the plan to develop a variety of housing products to meet the needs of a variety of potential buyers; and relayed a willingness to meet with community residents in the area. Mr. Mathew Fagan, representing the applicant, presented a PowerPoint presentation; thanked staff for their diligent efforts with respect to this project; provided an overview of the project plan, noting that the lake feature was a focal point of the project; specified the location of the project site; noted the boundaries of the CFD map; presented an aerial photograph of the site and the surrounding properties, noting that this project was somewhat of an in-fill project; specified the existing General Plan Land Use designations on this property which was inclusive of Low Medium (LM), Medium (M), and High (H) Zoning residential areas, Open Space areas, Public Institutional areas, a Service Commercial area, and a large portion of Neighborhood Commercial located at the southeast corner of the Date Street Extension and the Ynez Road Extension; relayed the proposed Harveston Land Use Plan, specifying the external circulation, the internal loop road which would provide access to the planning areas, the three entry points to the project, and a variety of Land Uses; noted that the LM range would be from 3-5 dwelling units per acre, the M-1 would be from 5-7, the M-2 would be from 7-13, and the High would be from 13-20; relayed the Village Center proposal located off of the loop road proximate to the major entry at Margarita Road; referenced the central park system 3 R:PlanCommlminutes/110100 which was inclusive of the lake, the Lake Lark, a Paseo park which connected to the Community park, a Village Green, and a series of mini-parks; noted the variations in the circulation with the Cherry Street alternative, relaying that Date Street would hook up to Cherry Street, Ynez Road would be 'S" shaped in order to meet the standards for this type of road; and provided a density comparison between this Specific Plan's densities and alternate projects in the City of Temecula. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that it would be beneficial to provide information regarding land uses surrounding the property in order to demonstrate the land use densities in the City of Murrieta and the relation to the proposed land uses; and with respect to Planning Areas 9, 10, and 11 noted that these areas appeared to be isolated, acknowledging the drainage channel with the streambed, relaying that there should be consideration to place these proposed units on the Ynez Road side of the project proximate to the Service Commemial area. In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Storm relayed that the developer did not own the commercial property although the developer would be processing and developing this area; and noted the challenges with respect to the referenced planning areas. In response, Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that it may be more appropriate to not include these areas in this community plan. Vice Chairman Mathewson concurred with Commissioner Chiniaeffs comments with respect to the isolated areas. In response, Mr. Storm noted that the applicant was still working on specificity with respect to these planning areas, relaying that the applicant was open to recommendations. In response to Vice Chairman Mathewson's queries regarding the Cherry Street Option Alternative, Mr. Storm and Mr. Fagan provided additional information. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Storm relayed that staff has been in contact with the property owners of the land that would be condemned in order to construct the extension; and for Vice Chairman Mathewson, noted that specificity with respect to the type of residential units proposed in the M-l, and M-2 zoning areas would be addressed at a later point in time. Mr. Fagan noted that Planning Area 11 was placed in the designated location as a buffer area, noting that the applicant would take into consideration the Commission comments. In response, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that it may be appropriate to consider an alternate Specific Plan for this area. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding the area surrounding Planning Area 11. Vice Chairman Mathewson relayed a desire to obtain additional information regarding the CFD and the associated financial issues. In response, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that this issue was a business decision. In response, Vice Chairman Mathewson noted that it was solely his desire to gain background data. Continuing the PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Fagan provided an overview of the type of residential product types envisioned, noting the architectural forward design which would be potentially utilized in either the M-1 zone or in the LM zone; via photographs, relayed the visually pleasing streetscape, the sidewalk setbacks, the recessed garages, the rear access points, the design elements that create the appearance of a single-story unit on a two-story dwelling, the porch elements, and the proposed alleyways. Mr. Storm provided additional information regarding the residential areas proximate to the lake; for Commissioner Chiniaeff, relayed that the road would travel half way around the lake on each side, noting that there would be a continuous pedestrian trail; for Vice Chairman Mathewson, relayed that the boating on the lake would be for private use only, while the public could walk around the lake, utilize the parks, and fish; and in response to Vice Chairman Mathewson's queries, advised that due to the proposed front design elements, residents would be encouraged to gather at the front of the houses. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding the garages depicted in the photographs, noting that there was access to the front and the rear of the garages. Continuing the PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Fagan presented the multi-family type products which would be proposed adjacent to the Village Center area; noted the relationship of the buildings to the street. Mr. Storm advised that these photographs represented the theme of the architectural style (i.e., New England, Cape Cod style), noting that the Specific Plan would provide a clear definition of architectural styles and themes, relaying the potential for a commercial element to be tied in to the multi-family area (i.e., first floor offices). For Vice Chairman Mathewson, Mr. Storm relayed that in the multi-family area, the units would be facing the street, and 'that the parking would be in the rear. In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Storm relayed that the manner of mixing the commercial element with the multi-family area had not been determined at this point in time. Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended that there be consideration to separate the multi- family area in order to reduce the high concentration in one single area. In response, Mr. Storm relayed that he would investigate the matter. Mr. Fagan noted the wide vadety of housing options this project would offer, For Vice Chairman Mathewson, Mr. Storm concurred that there was a market for single- story homes, while noting that empty nesters were opting for two-story homes at this time, noting the desire for the master bedroom to be downstairs, and additional bedrooms upstairs for their children and grandchildren; advised that he would be reluctant to dictate to the builders with respect to the construction of a certain percentage of single-story houses, while noting that single-story homes were encouraged; and relayed that there were numerous architectural treatments that could be implemented to provide the appearance of a single-story home with a two-story unit. Vice Chairman Mathewson relayed that single-story homes would meet the demands of individuals desiring a smaller starter home, and seniors who do not desire to travel up and down stairs in their home. In response, Mr. Storm relayed that he would investigate and bring back additional information. Mr. Fagan noted that in the LM Zone there would be various larger lots (up to 10,000 square feet), advising that if there was a market for one-story homes that there would be opportunities for the builders to construct large single-story footprints on the larger lots. Commissioner Telesio relayed a concern with respect to the final end product, noting that it was not the desire of the Commission to solely allow the market to dictate what will be constructed in the City boundaries, recommending that there be further definition regarding this matter. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Fagan advised that the Specific Plan would be a specific tool to create product similar to the product depicted in the photographs, noting that it was necessary to provide a certain amount of latitude to the builders to construct a saleable product; and advised that various elements which would be implemented into this project (i.e., the architectural forward elements, rear access features) were not currently being constructed in this area, relaying the market risks associated with these implementations. Commissioner Telesio noted his concern with the potential for a differential between the housing depicted in the photographs (which were high-end products) and the actual housing developed at this project site, advising that the architectural features included in the Specific Plan would be of vital importance to him. In response, Mr. Storm noted that these elements were important to the developer, as well; advised that it was the intent to develop architecture similar to the products depicted in the photographs, relaying that in order to compensate for the lower market prices in this area verses in Orange County, that the builder might opt to not construct 4-sided architecture where certain areas were not visible; relayed that the builder would be directed to emphasize architectural elements where it was within view; noted that the Specific Plan would be very specific, relaying that one of the only elements not covered was a requirement to construct a certain percentage of one-story homes; and advised that when the Commission reviewed the architectural guidelines and the development standards that there would be a greater level of comfort. Vice Chairman Mathewson concurred with Commissioner Telesio, noting that the expectation level has been raised per the housing product presented in the photographs of the PowerPoint presentation; and relayed the importance of addressing the architectural elements in order to ensure that the final product was what was anticipated. Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that the housing depicted in the photographs was for the purpose of demonstrating the concepts of the housing type, and not the exact housing product to be developed in the City of Temecula; and clarified that in his opinion, the photographs were presented in order to solicit comments regarding certain elements (i.e., the architectural forward element, the alleyway feature). Vice Chairman Mathewson cladfied that the expectation was that there would be a variety of elements creating a diverse appearance, and that quality architecture would be implemented. Mr. Storm provided additional information regarding required important design elements, while noting that various elements would be optional; and confirmed that the photographs were presented for the purpose of demonstrating concepts, noting the applicant's desire to achieve a final product similar to that depicted in the photographs. 6 R:PlanCommlm~nute~110100 Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that in response to the Commission comments, it might be necessary to hold a workshop addressing the process of development from the Specific Plan to the final product. Mr. Fagan relayed that the applicant would provide a PowerPoint presentation regarding the details of the project, noting that there would be efforts to clarify the process of going from Point A (the Specific Plan) to Point B (the final product). Commissioner Telesio provided additional information regarding the expectations of the product standards, relaying that the Commission would most likely request to have the Product Review conducted at a Commission level. Continuing the PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Fagan presented an overview of the Village Center type of Commercial Center, advising that this element was not included in the General Plan, but was a result of a decision by Lennar Communities to create a special element within this community; noted that the core of the Village Center would encompass up to 20,000 square feet of retail space, noting the plan to provide various services within the project to service the residents residing in the development, as well as visitors to the site (i.e., having a cup of coffee after visiting the lake); relayed that it was anticipated to place the multi-family area on the southern side of the Village Center; and .noted the potential church and daycare site, the congregate care facility site, the roundabout (i.e., traffic circle), the private recreation facility, and the numerous pedestrian connections. Mr. Storm relayed that it was anticipated that the Village Center would be an active core in the community; and for Vice Chairman Mathewson, specified the potential parking areas. Mr. Fagan presented the Open Space Plan from the Specific Plan, noting the central park component, the lake, the lake park, the paseo park which connects the lake park to the community park, the green landscaped development zone along the loop read, the landscaped zones along the major entries and streets; noted that the proposal along the major roads of Margarita Road, Date Street, and Ynez Road was to have the sidewalk separated from the street; relayed that on the outside of the loop road there would be a meandering walkway, and on the inside there would be a curb adjacent walk; advised that the lake, the lake park, and other facilities (the Village Club, the Village Green, the parks, the existing VVinchester Creek Park, the open space trail areas) encompassed approximately 74.1 acres of open space. Mr. Fagan noted that based on touring alternate lake projects, that there appeared to be a lot of community activity around the lakes, noting the family activity, the people rollerblading, jogging, pushing strollers, and fishing; and via an illustrative, noted that there would be a trail around the circumference of the lake with some housing products backing on to the lake, relaying that there would be pedestrian access to the lake and to the Village Center, noting that there would be transit facilities in the project, advising that the densities located in this particular area aided in supporting the transit proposal. Mr. Storm provided additional information regarding the proposals proximate to the lake. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Storm relayed that the width of the sidewalk surrounding the lake would be approximately 10 feet. In response, Commissioner 7 R:Plan Corn m/minut es/1101CO Chiniaeff recommended that the sidewalk be widened and that there be a separation for walkers verses the bicyclists, and rollerbladers. In response, Mr. Storm advised that to widen the sidewalk would create a mass of concrete, relaying that there may be an alternate plan that could address this issue, noting that the applicant would investigate the matter. Via overheads, Mr. Fagan presented the proposed amphitheater located at the south end of the lake; highlighted the private recreation facility (the Village Club). Mr. Storm relayed that the facility would be in the 7,000-8,000 square foot range with a multi- purpose room, potentially a semi-commercial kitchen, office space, and the pool area, noting that the boats would be kept in this area. Mr. Fagan highlighted the proposed Community Park which would be a 16-acre facility, noting that the plan would be finalized as the road alignments were worked through (i.e., the selection on either the Date Street or Cherry Street connection), relaying that this park would provide a buffer between the channel commercial area; noted that the facility would be inclusive of lighted ball fields, concession stands, a tot lot, and parking provisions per TCSD's advisement; relayed that this facility would net only meet the active needs of the residents, but of the surrounding community, as well; via overheads, presented the Paseo Park plan which served to create a pedestrian link from the Lake Park to the Community Park; relayed the mini parks proposal, noting that these parks would be located at the entries to the neighborhoods and would be inclusive of sitting areas, and barbecues. Mr. Storm provided additional information regarding the mini parks in the neighborhoods, relaying the concept to develop varied architectural themes in the neighborhoods (i.e., East Coast architecture, Cottage style architecture) which would be tied to the landscaping theme and reflected in the mini parks. Mr. Fagan relayed the expanded landscape development zones which would be a minimum width of 32 feet on the outside, and 20 feet on the inside and would be located along the loop road, noting that these areas would be separated from the road; and highlighted the proposed bike lanes in the street. Mr. Storm provided additional information regarding efforts to create a pleasing visual affect on the loop road. Via overheads, Mr. Fagan relayed the proposed open-ended cul-de-sacs, noting that the Specific Plan would provide detailed standards with respect to these elements; highlighted the Arroyo Park which met the mitigation measures for the Resource Agencies, noting that this area would be maintained in a natural state and would encompass an approximate 13-acre site. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Storm relayed that the applicant was not certain as to the point in time that this area appeared as was proposed, reiterating the Army Corps of Engineers requirement for the applicant to restore the site to its original condition. Via overhead slides, Mr. Fagan presented an illustrative site plan, providing information regarding circulation, noting the encouragement of pedestrian travel. Mr. Storm provided additional data regarding the revised major entry way, noting that per staff recommendation modifications were made, relaying the 20-foot median located in this area, the loop read, and the relocation of the amphitheater. Via overhead slides, Mr. Storm provided an overview of the Maintenance Plan, noting that the Community Park would be maintained by TSCD, that the medians and signals 8 R:PlanCommlminutes/110100 surrounding the project would be maintained by the City, that the Paseo Park, the Lake Park, the amphitheater, and the landscaped area proximate to the loop road would be owned by the HOA, with a landscape maintenance easement that would entail the City maintaining this area via TCSD, clarifying that this maintenance would be paid for by the homeowners; relayed that the easement adjacent to the school site and the multi-family area would be maintained by the City with the cost being funded by the homeowners; and noted that there were some areas which would be maintained by the Business Association, namely the Service Commercial area, and the Neighborhood Commercial area. In response to the applicant's queries, Vice Chairman Mathewson recommended that the applicant sum up the concluding comments, noting that additional workshops would be held to address specific areas of concern, Commissioner Chiniaeff noting that two Planning Commissioners were absent from this meeting. Ms. Jane Morgan, representing the applicant provided an overview of the circulation plan, providing additional information regarding the parking standards on site; noted that the project has incorporated both the Date Street and Cherry Street connections into the EIR analysis since the City Circulation Element had not been updated which would designate a specific connection, noting the provision for arterial right-of-ways; provided additional information regarding both of the connections; relayed that in comparison to the average daily trips (ADT's) anticipated with the Winchester Hills Specific Plan at this site, that this project would generate 5,000 ADT's less than the anticipated ADT's; provided additional information regarding the proposal to include landscaped parkways and separated sidewalks in this project plan, noting the traffic calming measures that would be implemented (i.e., the roundabouts); relayed the plan for narrower residential streets for the purpose of slowing residential speeds; and advised that additional detail would be provided when the EIR was presented to the Planning Commission. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding the potential Cherry Street connection, and the potential for the applicant to provide off-site mitigation if there was an inability for either of the connections to occur. Mr. Fagan provided concluding remarks, as follows: relayed the proposed bicycle plan, and the transit plan; noted that the four-stage phasing plan would be further addressed at a future point; presented the project components, noting the General Plan Amendment, a Development Agreement, the Specific Plan, an "A" Map which corresponds to the planning areas, and alternate areas which would be addressed in the EIR, which the Commission would most likely receive next week, along with the "B" map which would include Iottings for the LM, M-l, and M-2 Zoning, advising that additional maps would follow, along with Development Plans and Conditional Use Permits data; provided an overview of the project timeline, noting the plan to hold community meetings, additional workshops, and to present the project to the Planning Commission in February, and to the City Council in March; and relayed additional information regarding the applicant's continuing efforts. Mr. Ron Bradley, representing the applicant, provided a history of this particular site, and the City's efforts with the developer with respect to this property; noted that it had been clarified at an early stage that no City staff member or Councilmember could commit to future Planning Commission or City Council actions; and noted the costs that the 9 R:PlanComm/minutes/l 101 applicant has agreed to accrue in association with this site; and advised that the applicant has fulfilled ail the promises made to the City regarding this property. Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended that subsequent workshops address the Design Guidelines, and the Circulation issues. Vice Chairman Mathewson concurred with Commissioner Chiniaeff, noting that an additional issue to be addressed should be the Village Center proposal. Commissioner Telesio concurred with the previous Planning Commission recommendations. COMMISSIONER REPORTS For Commissioner Telesio, Attorney Curley confirmed that it was the intent of the State that the Planning Commission's subjectivity be part of the review process while determining whether the Findings of Public Convenience or Necessity exist. Vice Chairman Mathewson noted that he would be out of town for the November 15, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. With respect to the Wolf Creek Project, Vice Chairman Mathewson requested to have the agenda packet distributed as soon as possible. For Commissioner Telesio, Director of Planning Ubnoske provided additional information regarding the status of the Wolf Creek Project, noting that a report would be provided at the November 15, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the agenda for the November 15, 2000 Planning Commission meeting would be full. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the Planning Department was conducting second interviews for a Senior Planner. ADJOURNMENT At 8:27 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, November 15, 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Ron (~ue-rriero~ Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning 10 R:PlanCommlminutes/110100