Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout122000 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 20, 2000 CALLTO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:01 P.M., on Wednesday December 20, 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, Telesio, and Chairman Guerriero. Absent: Commissioner Webster. Also Present: Director of Planning Ubnoske, Senior Engineer Alegria, Attorney Curley, Development Services Administrator McCarthy, Associate Planner Anders, Associate Planner Thornsley, Project Planner Preisendanz, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR I Agenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of December 20, 2000. Chairman Guerriero relayed that it had been requested that Agenda Item No. 3 be heard after Agenda Item No. 7; and with respect to Agenda Item No. 6, advised that this matter would be continued to the January 17, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve the Agenda, as revised. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster who was absent. COMMISSION BUSINESS 2 Director's Hearing Report- receive and file No action was taken with respect to this Agenda Item. 3 Harveston Workshop- Village Center/Parks This Agenda Item was heard out of order; see page '10. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4 Planninq Application No. 00-0276 (Development Plan) to design and construct 15,883 square foot office buildinq (Keeton Building), on a .64 acre lot located at the southwest knuckle of Enterprise Circle north and known as Assessors Parcel No. 909-282-013 - Thomas Thornsley 4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and; 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION No. 2000-041 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0276 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 15,883 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING (KEETON BUILDING), ON A .64 ACRE LOT LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST KNUCKLE OF ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NORTH, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909- 282-0 t 3. Via overhead maps, Associate Planner Thomsley presented the staff report (of record), highlighting the access, parking provisions, architecture with the enhanced articulation, and the landscaped plan which was consistent with the westerly neighboring property; relayed that the applicant had requested two minor exceptions, as follows: 1) a request for a minor reduction in the parking spaces, noting the applicant's proposal for 34 parking spaces, providing additional information regarding the tenants for the building, and 2) a request for a modification of the requirement for a ten foot (10') setback, noting the applicant's proposed nine foot (9') setback at specified locations, providing additional information regarding the rationale for staff recommending approval of these minor exception requests; with respect to the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), noted that the Development Code has a target ratio of .4, relaying that the applicant is proposing a FAR of .57, advising that staff opined that based on the enhanced architecture and landscape plan, that the applicant qualified for the FAR increase, noting the applicant's letter (per agenda material) which outlines the applicant's rationale for meeting the criteria for this FAR Bonus, specifically due to the following components: 1) the operational functions at the site, being a consolidated collection of businesses related to Development, and 2) the project's provision of exceptional architectural and landscape design amenities; noted that this project was an in-fill project and therefore was eligible for a CEQA exemption; and advised that Condition No. 13 (regarding an application for a lot merger) should be deleted, which was inadvertently added to the conditions, but did not apply to this project. For Commissioner Mathewson, Associate Planner Thornsley noted that the FAR Bonus request was minor, relaying that staff opined that this project qualified for the increase primarily due to the architectural enhancements; and confirmed that it was staff's opinion that based on the tenants and the associated activities of these uses, that the reduced parking provisions would be sufficient. Commissioner Chiniaeff commented on the increase in building size (i.e., the FAR Bonus) in conjunction with a reduction in parking, relaying concern with respect to the long term use of this building (i.e., if this tenant was to relocate). In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, Associate Planner Thornsley clarified that the 39 parking spaces (required per Code) took into consideration all of the occupied spaces of the building, noting that the 34 parking spaces proposed were within the parameters of allowable reductions for a request for a minor exception; and via overheads, specified the areas for the proposed nine-foot (9') setback. For Commissioner Telesio, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that there was a standard condition which could be added to this project if it was not included, which states that if there is a change of use at a future point, that the parking revisions would be reviewed by staff, noting that if the parking was inadequate the tenant would not be permitted to occupy this building. In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Associate Planner Thornsley provided additional information regarding the calculations for inhabitable space; applauding the applicant, relayed that the inside dimensions of every room (which the applicant provided) were included in the calculations; via overheads, specified the areas that could be removed from this building in the calculations for habitable space (i.e., the hallways, and the electric room). Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, noted that the applicant concurred with the recommendation to delete Condition No. 13, and was in agreement with the remainder of the Conditions of Approval imposed on this project; with respect to Commissioner Chiniaeff's query regarding reciprocal parking, relayed that there was no reciprocal parking agreement, while noting that there were reciprocal ingress and egress easements, and drainage easements; specified the tenants who would occupy this building, noting that there would be no available space to lease to speculative tenants, providing additional information regarding the parking needs for this site; with respect to the nine-foot (9') setback, provided additional information; for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed additional information regarding the potential for visitors at this particular site, advising that the sole period of time when the parking would be full would be on the rare occasion that there was an office party (i.e., Christmas Party), noting that the parking needs have been determined based on the existing parking needs of the uses; provided additional information regarding the dramatic additional costs to modify the building to be a three-story building in order to provide for additional parking; and for Commissioner Telesio, noted that on-street parking was not prohibited in this area. The Commission relayed closing comments, as follows: Commissioner Telesio relayed that he was pleased with the enhanced architectural design, while advising that the red sandstone veneer would not be his preference; and noted his support of the project. Relaying appreciation with respect to the architectural aspects of this building, Commissioner Mathewson relayed concern with respect to the request for minor exceptions, primarily regarding the parking reduction and the FAR Bonus, advising that in his opinion the building would be under-parked, noting the potential for more than five visitors at one time; with respect to the landscape plan, noted that he did not concur that this plan was exceptional, since it did not meet the minimum standards per the Code requirements; opined that this was too large a building for this lot; and relayed that he would not support the project, as proposed. Further commenting on the parking provisions, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that realistically, the parking on VVinchester Road, back to Enterprise Circle which was utilized by the bank use, would additionally be utilized by this particular property; noted that while he did not concur with the applicant's rationale for a reduction in parking spaces, that it was his opinion that the parking proposed would be adequate, noting that the Code did allow for a request for a minor exception with respect to this issue; and recommended that all the 15-gallon sized trees be replaced with 24-inch boxed trees. Concurring with Commissioner Chiniaeff, Chairman Guerriero recommended that 24- inch boxed trees be installed. In response to Commission comments, Mr. Vince Didonato, landscape architect for the applicant, provided the rationale for the applicant's supposition that the landscape plan was upgraded, noting that there were existing pear and pine trees (approximately 48- inched boxed sized trees) that the applicant was proposing to box and place in prominent locations, advising that the palm trees that would be installed at this site were 8-10 feet in height which was equivalent to approximately a 36-inched boxed size; and relayed that the applicant would be agreeable to modifying the size of the four-to-five 15- gallon sized trees to 24-inched boxed trees, noting that in his opinion the larger tree was not the most suitable, advising that to attain an ultimately healthier large tree, it would be preferable to plant at a 15-gallon size. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that in his opinion the landscape plan was not exceptional; and reiterated that he was not in agreement with the reduction in parking spaces. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Vince Didonato, one of the applicants, noted that he and Mr. Markham worked in conjunction with one anther on numerous projects; and relayed that he never had more than one visitor at a time to his business. Mr. Markham clarified that the applicant had worked diligently with staff regarding the current project proposal, noting the compromises made by the applicant; and provided a history of the landscaping requirements of the adjacent properties. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to close the public hearing; to approve staff's recommendation with the following modifications: -Modify · That the project be conditioned to replace the 15-gallon sized trees with 24- inch boxed trees. · That a condition be added stating that there be a review of the parking provisions upon the change of use of the property. · That Condition No. 13 (regarding the application for a lot merger) be deleted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster who was absent and Commissioner Mathewson who voted n._q_o. 5 Plannin,q Application No. 00-0332(Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan} tn desi.qn, construct, and operate a 16,726 square foot church on 5.2 vacant acres within Planning Area 2 of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan on the south side of north General Kearny Road and known as Assessors Parcel No. 921-090-079 - Rolfe Preisendanz 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-042 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0332 A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A t6,726 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS ON 5.2 VACANT ACRES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 2 OF THE CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 921-090- 079 Via overhead site plans and elevation plans, Assistant Planner Preisendanz provided an overview of the project, highlighting the proposed church use, and the hours operation; relayed the location of the site within the Campos Verdes Specific Plan; specified the buildings on the site plan, the access, the parking provisions, and the adjacent properties; noted the architectural design which was consistent with the requirements of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan Design Guidelines, advising that the varying roof designs would enhance the visual interest; noted that this particular Specific Plan limits the heights of the buildings to 50 feet (50'), relaying that the applicant is proposing a 28- foot (28') high building from the finished floor to the top of the roof line, with the addition of a 29-foot (29') steeple, totaling an overall height of 57 feet (57'); referencing the Development Code, noted the exclusive elements from the calculation of the height of a building; via color renderings, presented the colors and building materials utilized for the proposed buildings; provided additional information regarding the floor plan; and noted the landscape plan which exceeds the standard requirements. For Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner Preisendanz relayed that the EIR analysis for the Specific Plan was reviewed in conjunction with this proposal with respect to the traffic impacts, noting that a church use was identified in the Specific Plan; and with respect to the access, confirmed that there would be one-lane in, and one-lane out, relaying that left-outs would not be restricted, noting that staff did not raise a concern during the review of this project with respect to the need for two outbound lanes (out of the driveway). For Chairman Guerriero, Senior Engineer Alegria relayed that consideration for two outbound lanes (in the driveway) was not addressed during the review of the project. Commissioner Telesio concurred with the need for two outbound lanes exiting the project site. In response to Commissioner Telesio's queries regarding a past approval of a project with a steeple element, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the term variance utilized with respect to that approval was not necessary, confirming that the same reference in the Development Code would have applied. For Chairman Guerriero, Project Planner Preisendanz relayed that the steeple was solely an architectural element; and noted that the landscape plan encompassed 42% of the site, which was not inclusive of the Detention Basin. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Assistant Planner Preisendanz specified the location of the church driveway across from this site. Mr. Kent Cornwall, representing the applicant, noted the need for a church of this type in this area, relaying the standard process whereby after a church population reaches a certain point (100 families), there is a new church (i.e., ward) built; confirmed that the primary use of the site would be on Sundays, providing additional information regarding the traffic impacts; with respect to the proposed driveway width, noted that while the required width was approximately 24 feet (24'), that this driveway would be approximately 34 feet (34') in order to place an additional lane at this location, if deemed necessary; with respect to the potential to have a joint driveway use with the proximate church use, advised that staff had relayed that since that use had previously developed its site plan, that it would not be appropriate for this particular project to impose modifications on that site, reiterating that the applicant widened the driveway width for this particular project; for Commissioner Telesio, provided additional information regarding the potential ratio of inactive members, clarifying that parking was based on the seating capacity in the sanctuary (per the Code requirements), noting that the proposed parking for this site exceeded the standards; and for Commissioner Chiniaeff, confirmed that the steeple was constructed of a metal material, noting that the ends of the building were constructed of a stucco material, and that the mini-storage building would be construct of materials consistent with the main building (i.e., brick). Mr. Tracy Ham, 30026 Santiago Road, representing members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in this area, noted the specific need for this proposed facility; and relayed that this use would be an asset to the community, advising that the site would be utilized for community events (i.e., blood drives, Boy Scout meetings, job fairs). Mr. Robert Ford, 29715 Valle Verde, relayed that his residence was located proximate to this project, noting his support of the project, advising that in his opinion this was the most appropriate use for this particular site. The Commission noted closinR remarks, as follows: Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that in the Campos Verdes Specific Plan this site was designated as a church site; and advised that the proposed project would be appropriate for the site. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that this was a great project; and recommended that there be striping in the driveway for two outbound lanes. Commending the architect for the well-designed project, Commissioner Telesio concurred with the need for this church use in the community; commented on the previous approval for an alternate church use plan with a steeple that extended past the standard height requirements; and noted his support of the project. Commenting on the beautiful architecture, Chairman Guerriero relayed that he was pleased with the proposed project. MOTION.: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to close the public hearing, and to approve staffs recommendation. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion. (Ultimately this motion passed; see below.) Commissioner Mathewson queried whether there would be two outbound lanes added in the driveway area. In response, Assistant Planner Preisendanz advised that staff would work with the applicant to address this issue. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster who was absent. 6 Plannin,cl Application No. 00-0257(Conditional Use Permit) to design, construct, and operate an unmanned Spdnt PCS wireless telecommunication facility at the Ranch(~ California Water District's Norma Marsh Reservoir site located at 41520 Mar.qarit~ Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 940-230-002 - Rolfe Preisendan7 6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0257, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A UNMANNED SPRINT WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY LOCATED AT THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT'S NORMA MARSHA RESERVOIR SITE LOCATED AT 41520 MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 940-230-002 This Agenda Item was continued to the January 17, 200t Planning Commission meeting. 7 Plannin.q Application No. 00-0389 (Development Plan) to desi.qn, construct, and operate a 38,349 square foot industrial building for Nascal Interplex, Inc. on 4.0.q vacant acres within the Westside Business Centre located on the south side of Remington Avenue and known as Assessors Parcel No. 909-370-013 - Rolf~ Preisendanz 7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-043 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0389, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 38,349 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING FOR NASCAL INTERPLEX, INC. ON 4.09 VACANT ACRES WITHIN WESTSlDE BUSINESS CENTRE, PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 24085-3. GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF REMINGTON AVENUE AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909-370-0'13; Project Planner Preisendanz presented the staff report (per agenda material), highlighting the location of the site, the type of manufacturing uses, the hours of operation, the area which would be potential utilized for expansion at a future point in time, the access points inclusive of two driveways, the parking provisions, and the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) which was below the target ratio of .4 for this Light Industrial Zone, which was proposed to be a FAR of .22; with respect to the design of the building, noted the enhanced articulation, specifying the architectural definition at the entry which would provide visual interest, the use of windows and window shapes to break up the massing; provided additional information regarding the colors and materials proposed at this site; noted the front lobby/atrium area inclusive of a sunken planter, the location of the offices, the shop area, the manufacturing area, the outdoor employee lunch area, and the break room; and relayed the landscape plan which exceeded the standard requirements, noting the riverbed-type element along the front of the project, and the additional area proposed to be Decomposed Granite (DG) ((which was designated for potential future expansion). Mr. Walt Allen, representing applicant, noted the benefits of designing a building with a known tenant; for Commissioner Chiniaeff, specified the location of the fault zone; via overhead site plans, provided additional information regarding the potential future expansion area, noting that the applicant was not anticipating immediate growth; and for Chairman Guerriere, provided additional information regarding the components that would be manufactured at this use. For Chairman Guerriero, Project Planner Preisendanz confirmed that the Fire Department did review this project, relaying that staff could provide this data to the Planning Commission. In response, Chairman Guerriero advised that he would have preferred to have the information included in the agenda material, noting his concern regarding the transport of chemicals. In response to the discussion, Mr. Allen relayed that the applicant has provided the necessary data to staff and the Fire Department. For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified that the Fire Department has reviewed and conditioned this project. In response to Chairman Guerriero's comments, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff would include in the agenda packets, data related to the hazardous material for the Planning Commission's review for future projects. The Commission relayed conclusionary comments, as follows: Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended that the Public Works Department further review the fault study for this project; and in response to Chairman Guerriero's concerns, advised that the Fire Department reviewed the hazardous material, noting that issued of concern would be addressed via that review process. Commissioner Mathewson noted that he was pleased with the innovative design elements associated with this project; relayed his support of the project; and echoed Chairman Guerriero's comments, advising that he would recommend that information regarding the hazardous materials be included in the agenda material. Noting that he would concur with the recommendation to include the hazardous material information in the agenda packets, Commissioner Telesio commended the architect for the well-designed project; relayed that the material which was provided regarding this project provided a clearer synopsis for review of the data; and noted his support of the project. Chairman Guerriero relayed his support of the project, while noting his concern regarding not having the hazardous material to review. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing, and to approve staff's recommendation. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster who was absent. At this time the Commission Considered Agenda Item No. 3. 3 Harveston Workshop - Village Center/Parks Associate Planner Anders relayed that the applicant's representative would be presenting the Park Plan and the Village Center concept associated with the Harveston Project. Mr. Bill Storm, representing the applicant, introduced Mr. Don Smith, the Master Planner for the Harveston Project, who would provide the presentation. Mr. Don Smith provided a PowerPoint presentation, highlighting the goals of the project which encompassed the development of a high quality parks and recreation system, a trail system which serves both recreational and transportation needs, and a complete integrated mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, public, and open space land uses. With respect to the overall Open Space and Recreation System, Mr. Smith provided a detailed overview of the Lake Park located in the center of the community linked with a paseo system to provide connection to the Community Park; relayed the series of mini- parks which would be located at the entrances to the neighborhoods; relayed the loop road plan, noting that the trail system along the loop road would provide connectivity to alternate portions of the project; noted the combined school/park site; noted the pavilion located along the lake edge, relaying that there was a park element surrounding the lake; with respect to the south end of the lake, noted the plan for an amphitheater, and the beginning of the Village Center; relayed that the lake activities would potentially include paddle-boating, canoeing, and fishing; noted that a key element to the recreational program was the planned "Beach Club," or "Lake Club," which would be available to residents and would encompass a meeting space, potentially a catering- styled kitchen, and a pool, relaying the plan for distinctive architecture at this site; apprised the Commission of the paseo trails system which connected the lake to the Community Park and would include a ten-foot pedestrian walkway; noted the community Park which was located on the loop read, relaying that this park would have lighted ball fields; noted the intent to create a positive aesthetic element by softening the walls surrounding the project via landscaped elements (i.e., vines); relayed the Arroyo Park Plan which would be a park in its natural state, noting the potential for implementation of pedestrian trails, and a nature center at this site; relayed the entry designs which would be landscaped; and specified the location of the bicycle trail which provided connecting links to the community. Via a continuation of the PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Smith provided an overview of the Village Center concept for this particular project, noting the potential types of commercial uses in this center (i.e., a doctor's office, a dentist's office, coffee shop, deli, florist) in order to serve the basic needs of the residents and to provide a place for community gathering; relayed that the higher density residential units would be located proximate to the Village Center; presented the illustrative site plan, noting the proposed sidewalk cafes, building storefronts on the street, and parallel on-street parking, advising that the center would be within walking distance to most of the residences; relayed that there would be opportunities to place apartments or offices over the commercial development; reiterated the plan for an amphitheater which could be utilized for plays, musicals, weddings, and alternate activities; specified the location of the apartment housing and the smaller lot development proximate to the Village Center; provided additional information regarding the design elements, signage, and lighting, presenting R:PlanCom mlminutes/1220C0 10 photographs of alternate Village Center projects; noted that there would be community facility sites, a church site, and an assisted living area; relayed the location of the proposed roundabout (i.e., traffic circle); and provided an overview of the transit plan. With respect to the use of the lake, Commissioner Mathewson queried whether the boating activities would be limited to the homeowners or would be available to the community, as a whole. In response, Mr. Storm noted that at this point in the plan, the boating would be limited to the homeowners, relaying efforts to implement a public maintenance plan for the park surrounding the lake, advising that if it was determined that the lake, itself, would be maintained by the City, then the boating activities could be open to the public. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that it was his hope that staff would work with the applicant in order for the boating activities to be available to the community. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding the Village Center, Mr. Smith relayed that the plan was inclusive of wide walkways, parallel parking, noting that the street section would be narrow with provisions for one lane for traffic; and advised that the specificities regarding the commercial/residential mixed units had not been determined at this point in time. Commissioner Telesio noted that he was in favor of the applicant pursuing the concept of the commercial/residential mixed dwellings; and concurred with Commissioner Mathewson's comments, noting that it would be an asset to the community if the boating on the lake were open to the public. Mr. Smith requested the Commission to forward any additional comments or questions to the applicant, providing copies of the presentation in order for the Planning Commissioners to note their remarks. Commissioner Telesio relayed that it would be his desire for the Commission to be presented information regarding the actual elements that would be utilized in this project plan, noting that the photographs of alternate developments may set an expectation level that was not realistic, requesting that the applicant clarify the differences between the actual project implementation and the photographs. In response, Mr. Storm relayed that the photographs depicted the design elements that the applicant intended to utilize in this particular project. Commenting on the Lennar Communities homes tour he took in Orange County, Chairman Guerriero noted that Lennar Communities had developed communities that captured numerous desired elements, applauding the treatments to the small lot design, and the higher density areas which provided a pleasing visual appearance; and concurred with Commissioner Telesio, noting that his expectation at this point would be the implementation of a project inclusive of the elements presented in the photographs. For clarification, Mr. Smith relayed that the two projects depicted in the photographs as prototypes (i.e., the Woodbridge Project, and the Santa Margarita Project) were both affordable communities at the time these projects were built. in response to Chairman Guerriero's queries, Mr. Storm relayed that there still was not agreement between the staff and the applicant regarding the timing of the development of the Community Park, noting that discussions were continuing; advised that the lighting issue would be addressed, noting the plan to install the lighting prior to occupancy of residential areas proximate to the park; and advised that since the alignment of Ynez Road, and the Cherry Street overcrossing had not yet been determined by the City, that the exact location of the park had not been finalized. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Storm specified the location of the Stockmar property in relation to this project site. With respect to the phasing of the Community Park, Development Services Administrator McCarthy relayed that staff's efforts were aimed at ensuring that the lighting for this park was installed and operational prior to the construction of any houses proximate to the park; noted that typically TCSD has required active park amenities to be constructed at the twenty-five percent (25%) level of building permits, relaying the importance of this requirement due to the need to mitigate the active sports fields needs of the residents of this project without further impacting the current sports facilities which are operating at capacity levels; advised that the location and phasing of the park has been the developer's option, noting that there have been discussions regarding relocating the park, and modifying the phasing plan; for Commissioner Mathewson, clarified that the twenty-five percent (25%) level of permits would occur during this project's first phase of development, as currently proposed, noting that the developer has proposed to develop the park during Phase III which would be at a level of over fifty percent (50%) of the build out of the project. In response to Director of Planning Ubnoske's request to have the issues of the joint use of the lake addressed, Development Services Administrator McCarthy relayed that TCSD views the needs of the community as outlined in the adopted Parks and Recreation Plan of the City, noting that currently a lake facility has not been identified as a need; relayed that TCSD pursues the needs identified in this plan which are primarily the active sports areas; advised that the City is familiar with the maintenance costs and issues associated with bodies of water due to the existing maintenance of the Duck Pond, clari~ing that the maintenance of a body of water was extremely costly; relayed that with this particular project, the lake and the Lake Park were proposed to be owned by the HOA, noting that it was staff's recommendation that the facilities should be maintained by the HOA; and advised that staff did consider the feasibility of having the HOA maintain the lake, and the City maintaining the Lake Park, apprising the Commission of the negative issues associated with the maintenance of the Lake Park, as follows: water quality issues which would effect the edge of the park, the nuisance birds which would also be in the park, the lack of a satisfactory mechanism for charging the assessment fees for this maintenance, providing additional information regarding Proposition No. 218 which would be applicable for these fees, noting that to raise the fees, as costs increased, an election would have to be held. In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, Development Services Administrator McCarthy noted that the lakes in the Cities of lrvine and Santa Margarita communities are maintained by the HOA, confirming that staff has had discussions with alternate cities regarding lake facilities; and for Commissioner Mathewson, noted that the exact costs for maintaining this proposed lake have not been calculated. In response to Chairman Guerriere, Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified that while the general consensus of staff was that the lake was an amenity, that TCSD pursued participating in the funding of facilities identified in the Parks and Recreation Plan. Chairman Guerriere recommended that since there has been confusion regarding the criteria qualifying an entity as an amenity for the community, that this issue should be clarified for the Planning Commission's information. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that in his opinion the lake constituted an amenity for the community since the public had access to it. Concurring with Commissioner Chiniaeff, Commissioner Telesio noted that even if solely the homeowners were able to utilize the boating facilities on the lake, that the lake was still a community amenity due to the visual aesthetics; and relayed that if the boating was open to the public the lake would be considered a greater amenity. Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified that even though the lake could potential be utilized for private use, that the area surrounding the lake would be open for the public's enjoyment (i.e., to jog, or walk around the lake), advising that staff's primary concern was regarding the City maintaining the lake due to the costs associated with the maintenance, noting that staff could bring back additional information regarding the estimated costs; and reiterated the restrictions associated with Proposition No. 218, relaying the requirement for a two-thirds vote for an increase in fees. Commissioner Mathewson recommended that staff further investigate avenues for the boating activities on the lake to be open to the public, noting that it would be a great opportunity for the community. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Storm advised that if the City did not maintain the lake, the developer stilled planned to install it; noted that in alternate projects, the lake was still the most desirable amenity in these communities; relayed that the lake, the surrounding park, and the landscaping along Margarita Road and alternate areas would be installed during the first phase of development, advising that the Community Park has never been considered vital with respect to this particular project, noting that TCSD had requested that the applicant construct the 16-acre Community Park and that while the applicant was agreeable to installing the 16-acre park, that it was the applicant's opinion that constructing this facility during the first phase was too soon in the program in light of the alternate preposals in the first phase; noted that the applicant's experience with the maintenance of lakes was that 8 acres of lake was less costly to maintain than 8 acres of turf, encouraging staff to further investigate; acknowledged staff's concern with respect to the issues related to the maintenance of the park surreunding the lake (per Development Services Administrator McCarthy's comments), relaying hopes of this matter being worked out; and with respect to ownership, noted that if it would be feasible to have the lake, as well as the park surrounding the lake, publicly owned, that the applicant was flexible with respect to this matter. Senior Planner Hogan relayed that staff viewed the lake as a community amenity as per the General Plan standards, whether this amenity was publicly owned or privately maintained; noted that the maintenance issue would be addressed by the City Council in the final appreval precess; with respect to the Community Park, advised that the timing of this construction was still an issue, relaying that this matter could potentially be addressed in the Development Agreement; clarified that it was staffs opinion that the Community Park would serve to accommodate the active recreation needs of the residents of this development; and noted that both of these park areas could be considered amenities under the General Plan. Commissioner Telesio clarified that the lake facility would be available to the public with the exception of the potential to have the boating available only for the residents. Chairman Guerriero relayed that his primary concern with respect to whether the lake was considered an amenity was based on the relationship to the allowable densities (per the GMP), noting that if the lake was not a community amenity, benefiting the community at large, then the project would be considered at the lower end of the density range. In response, Senior Planner Hogan relayed that unless the developer fenced-off the lake area, staff would consider the lake a community amenity. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that it was his underetanding that an amenity would not be required to benefit the entire community to qualify as a community amenity; and with respect to the Community Park issues, noted that Paloma Del Sol Park was constructed years before the homeowners of that development were utilizing the park, advising that he would take this fact under consideration when determining the timing required for this project to develop the Community Park. For Commissioner Mathewson, Senior Planner Hogan relayed that he would not qualify the developer's Quimby requirements, alone, as an amenity, noting that this particular project would be inclusive of a park, the park imprevements, and active ball fields. Mr. Matthew Fagan, representing the applicant, noted that at the school site there would be a joint use which could address the initial needs for active recreation in the first phase of development; and provided additional information regarding the amenities of the project, noting that the lake would be provision for a gathering place for the community. In response to Mr. Fagan, Development Services Administrator McCarthy relayed that all assessment fees are associated with Proposition No. 218 requirements, providing additional information regarding the restrictions associated with the preposition. Commissioner Telesio reiterated that he did not see the advantage associated with the City owning the lake, noting that if it were owned by the HOA, it would be accessible to the public with the exception of the paddleboats. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that it was his opinion that if the public had access to the boating it would be a great asset. Chairman Guerriero reitereted the relationship between a community amenity and the consideration to appreve a density higher than the lower end of the density range. For Mr. Fagan, Chairman Guerriero clarified that the primary issues regarding the lake was not with respect to which entity maintained the facility, but with respect to whether the public would have complete access to it, relaying that in his opinion if it was not accessible to the public, the lake would not qualify as a community amenity. R: PlanCom m/minutes/122QCO 14 Commissioner Chiniaeff, echoed by Commissioner Telesio, relayed disagreement with Chairman Guerriero's comments, noting that whether or not the public could utilize the paddleboats, this lake would be considered a community amenity, siting alternate lake projects which were gated in order to prevent the public from having access to it. Mr. Storm provided additional information regarding the lake, relaying that if the HOA paid all the costs for the maintenance of the lake it would most likely be their desire to have the use be exclusive, noting that the applicant would be open to the concept of a publicly owned, publicly maintained lake, as well as, the area surrounding the lake. Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that from a realistic perspective, this lake facility would most likely not be able to support the needs of 60,000 City residents. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that it was his desire that access to the lake by the community be maximized, to whatever extent possible. Chairman Guerriero commented on a previous project which was approved by the Planning Commission with the proposed densities due to the amenities included in the project plan, noting that the City Council did not agree with the Planning Commission's determination with respect to qualifying amenities and therefore would not support the proposed densities, clarifying that it was his understanding at this time that for a use to qualify as a community amenity it would need to benefit the community, as a whole. Commissioner Telesio reiterated that in his opinion the proposed lake would qualify as a community amenity. For Chairman Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified that the public would have the use of the lake site, noting that the only restriction that has been discussed was with respect to boating on the lake. Commissioner Telesio recommended that there be investigation as to the.feasibility of imposing a fee on a use-by-use basis for the use of the lake (i.e., boating) to both homeowners and public members. In response, Mr. Storm relayed that the applicant would further investigate this issue. At this time the Planning Commission resumed the regular order of the Agenda, and heard the Planning Director's Report. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Noting that this was the year's end, Director of Planning Ubnoske thanked the Planning Commission for their hard work, relaying wishes for a Happy Holiday Season. For informational purposes, Attorney Curley relayed that if the Planning Commission responded to the request of the Harveston applicant to annotate the handout, that this information be given to Director of Planning Ubnoske in order for staff to keep a log of the concerns and issues of the Commission, advising that staff would forward the data to the applicant. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the period of time for the Planning Commission to appeal a Director's Hearing decisions was 15 days, noting that the Action Agendas could be provided to the Planning Commission. In response, Chairman Guerriero noted that he had received the Action Agendas in the past, querying why the data had not continued to be forwarded. In response, Commissioner Chiniaeff clarified that he did not access his e-mail. Commissioner Mathewson thanked staff for their diligent efforts during 2000, querying whether the Cosco issues had been addressed. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she would check on the matter. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Director of Planning Ubnoske confirmed that it would be helpful if the Planning Commission held onto the data regarding Agenda Item No. 6 (the Sprint PCS wireless telecommunication facility issue) which had been continued. With respect to the recent meeting he attended regarding the selection of a consultant for the General Plan update, Commissioner Telesio requested Senior Planner Hogan to provide an update. In response, Senior Planner Hogan noted that Cotton, Bridges, & Associates was the firm that the interview panel recommended as the primary choice; noted that staff investigated the traffic consultant associated with this firm; and advised that the contractual issues with this consultant had been initiated. Chairman Guerriero relayed that he was looking forward to the Fire Department video presentation regarding the implementation of narrower streets which would be held at a future meeting. Chairman Guerriero thanked staff for a job well done with respect to the 2000 projects. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she would further investigate the feasibility of sending interested Commissioners to the APA Conference. Chairman Guerriero expressed a special thanks to Jean and Elton Ward for their faithful attendance to the City meetings, and wished them a very Merry Christmas. ADJOURNMENT At 9:06 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, January 3, 2001 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Ron G~rri~r Chairman Debbie Ubnoske,~ Director of Planning R:PlanCom m/minutes~ 1220(30 17