HomeMy WebLinkAbout062001 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 20, 2001
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M.,
on Wednesday June 20, 2001, 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 Chairman Guerriero.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, and Chairman
Guerriero.
Absent:
Commissioner Telesio.
Also Present:
Deputy City Manager Thornhill,
Director of Planning Ubnoske,
Assistant City Attorney Curley,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Senior Planner Hazen,
Senior Planner Hogan,
Associate Planner Anders,
Project Planner Naaseh,
Project Planner Rush, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Agenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of June 20, 2001
Chairman Guerriero relayed that it had been recommended that Agenda Item No. 3 be
considered last, after consideration of Agenda Item No. 4.
R:PlanComrWminutes/062001
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the Agenda of June 20, 2001, as
amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected
approval with the exception of Commissioner Telesio who was absent.
2 Director's Hearincl Update
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Receive and File
The Planning Commission received and filed this update.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Plannin¢
Planninc
Planninc
Planninc
Planninc
Plannin¢
Plannin¢
Application No. 00-0419 - General Plan Amendment for Harveston
Application No. 99-0418 - Harveston Specific Plan No. 13
Application No. 99-0418 - Development Code Amendment
Application No. 99-0418 - Specific Plan Zoninq Standards
Application No. 00-0189 - Harveston Environmental Impact Repod
Application No. 99-0245 - Chancle of Zone
Application No. 99-0446 - Development Aqreement
Planninq Application No. 00-0295 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29639
Planninq Application No. 01-0030 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29928
Planninq Application No. 01-0031 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29929
Planninq Application No. 01-0032 - Tentative Tract Map No. 30088
Patty Anders, Associate PlannedSaied Naaseh, Project Planner V/Dave Hoqan,
Senior PlannedDebbie Ubnoske, Director of Planninq. Continued from May 16, 2001
and June 6, 2001.
This item was heard out or order, after consideration of Agenda Item No. 4; see
page 7.
4 Planninq Application No. PA01-0105 Minor Conditional Use Permit Appeal)Rick
Rush, Proiect Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0105 (Minor
Conditional Use Permit) pursuant to Section 15332 of the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
4.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
R: Pla n Comm/mJn ut es,/062001 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-018
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA01-0105 (Minor
Conditional Use Permit-APPEAL), UPHOLDING THE
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING'S DECISION TO APPROVE
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA01-0105 THE
EXPANSION TO THE TEMECULA VALLEY R.V. TO
INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING USES: RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE SALES, RENTAL, AND STORAGE, BOAT
STORAGE, AND TRUCK RENTAL LOCATED AT 28897
OLD TOWN FRONT STREET AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL #'S 922-110-018 AND 922-110-
019;
4.3 Or Adopt a Resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE APPEAL
OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA01-0105 (Minor
Conditional Use Permit-APPEAL), REVERSING THE
DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING'S TO
APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA01-0105
THE EXPANSION TO THE TEMECULA VALLEY R.V. TO
INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING USES: RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE SALES, RENTAL AND STORAGE, BOAT
STORAGE, AND TRUCK RENTAL LOCATED AT 28897
OLD TOWN FRONT STREET AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL #'S 922-110-018 AND 922-110-
019.
Staff Presentation
Presenting the staff report (of record), Project Planner Rush highlighted the issues
related to this appeal, relaying the Planning Director's decision to approve a Minor
Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) for the expansion of the Temecula Valley RV use,
noting the project's location, the General Plan designation and zoning for the site (i.e.,
Service Commercial), the appellant's request that the Planning Commission deny the
request for this CUP, or amend the landscape plan to increase the proposed
landscaping, the appellant's opinion that this use was not compatible with the
surrounding uses; specified the landscape and site plans, noting the location for the RV
display, and the RV storage area; relayed staff's opinion that this particular project will
enhance the physical character of this area; and provided additional information
regarding the required ten-day noticing for this project.
Addressing the Commission's questions, Project Planner Rush confirmed, for
Commissioner Chiniaeff, that the requirement was for 12 feet of landscaping along Old
Town Front Street, and a 5-foot landscaping buffer between the adjacent property, and
R:PlanCommJminu~s1062001 3
that this project was not required to landscape twenty percent (20%) of the site, noting
that the applicant will be landscaping ten percent (10%) of the developable land;
provided additional information regarding the northerly landscape strip, specifying the
paved area; confirmed that there would be a wrought iron fence along the southern
boundary which would be consistent with the existing wrought iron; specified that the RV
rental trucks would be stored along the back portion of the property; and for Chairman
Guerdero, noted the four sets of parking stalls that were designated for storage only.
In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed the
restrictions related to altering the conditions for this use.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner Rush confirmed that the screening
(view-obscured netting with the installation of vines) on the 8-foot fencing was required
per a condition placed on the project at the hearing in order to ensure immediate
screening of the fence, noting that the project was additionally conditioned to install 24-
inch box trees of a fast-growing species; and for Commissioner Chiniaeff, specified the
location of the chain-link fencing.
Enumerating his concerns, Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that on the plan, the
placement of chain-link fencing was not clearly differentiated from the placement of the
wrought iron fencing, that only two trees were denoted on the southern boundary,
clarifying his queries regarding making recommendations with respect to landscaping;
and relayed that the primary issues in the appeal were the use not being compatible with
the surrounding uses, and the lack of landscaping.
For clarification, Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that since landscaping was one of
the issues denoted in the appeal, it was within the Planning Commission's jurisdiction to
address landscaping issues.
In response to Chairman Guerriero, Project Planner Rush clarified Condition No. 12
(regarding landscaping), noting that the project was required to provide adequate
screening along the entire southern property line; for Commissioner Chiniaeff, relayed
that while the condition did not specify the installation of a landscaped hedge, the
Planning Commission could recommend revision of the language to require a hedge.
The Appellant Addresses the Planninq Commission
Mr. Paul Dohrman, 3821 Shoal Creek, Murrieta, the appellant, noted his ownership and
co-ownership of two parcels on Old Town Front Street; relayed his concerns regarding
this proposal, as follows: that this use (a storage yard) was not compatible with the area,
that this site should be landscaped at a minimum of 20%, that the setback should be
increased, that the storage area should be screened to prevent visibility from the street,
and that it was his understanding that the RV sales would only encompass the sale of
used RVs and not new vehicles, which would create a negative visual appearance; and
via overheads and supplemental agenda material, provided photographs of the existing
Temecula RV use in Old Town.
In response to Mr. Dohrman's queries, Project Planner Rush clarified that the phrase
boat sales denoted on the resolution was a typographical error and that the language
should solely indicate boat storage; and advised that the dump station had been
removed from the proposal.
R;Pla n Cornn~rnin ut e s/062001 4
For Mr. Dohrman, Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that a CUP was not limited with
respect to time, relaying that these permits run with the land.
In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Dohrman confirmed that at his property site
in Old Town there was an outdoor storage area, which was not screened from view.
For the record, Chairman Guerriero noted the Planning Commission's receipt of a letter
from Mr. Lester Del Hotel dated June 19th, which outlined his opposition to the approval
of the CUP. It is also noted that two letters were submitted dated June 20th, from Mr.
James Bollard, and Mr. Michael W. Strode/Mr. Charley Black detailing their opposition to
the expansion of this use.
The Appellee {Applicant) Addresses the Planninc] Commission
Mr. Matthew Fagan, representing the applicant, provided the rationale for the expansion
project, noting the applicant's efforts in working with staff regarding this particular
proposal; relayed that the applicant has always been open to discussions with the
appellant (both before and after the hearing); clarified the proposed screening;
concurred with staff's comments; and requested the Planning Commission to uphold the
Planning Director's decision based on the appeal having no merit.
Addressing the Planning Commission's questions, Mr. Guy Kinsman, representing the
applicant, confirmed, for Commissioner Chiniaeff, that the applicant would be agreeable
to utilizing the newly developed parcel for RVs, and the existing developed site for truck
rentals; noted that at this time the rear of the site is the truck rental location; relayed that
while after hours on Sunday afternoons, trucks were dropped off on the street, that by
8;30-9:00 A.M. the trucks were generally back on the property.
Mr. Erik Kitley, representing the applicant, noted that he was equally concerned
regarding the view from the street, noting his desire to create a good impression for his
customers, opining that his property was second only to one other property (which he
stated was Mr. Dohrman's property) with respect to pleasing visual impacts.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner Rush confirmed that staff was
comfortable with the proposal to have the first two rows designated RVs for sale in order
to screen the back storage area, noting the restrictions under the CUP if this area was
not used, as stipulated.
The Public in Invited to Speak
Mr. Charlie Nichols, 41540 Via Del Monte, noted his concurrence with Mr. Dohrman, the
appellant, specifically relaying that this use did not provide a positive visual impact for
the entrance into Old Town, advising that the value of the property on Old Town Front
Street will decrease with the development of this project.
Mr. Dan McAlister, 25871 Hobie Circle, Murrieta, Old Town Front Street property owner,
noted his opposition to the project due to its nonconforming use, opining that this
particular proposal would conflict with the recently City-funded Old Town Renovation
Project; and clarified that the previously mentioned tenant (on his co-owned property)
who maintained an outdoor storage area for boat sales, was a highly restricted use.
R:PlanComm/minule~062001 5
The Appellee's {Applicant's) Rebuttal
Mr. Kitley, relayed the similarities between this use and the previously-mentioned boat
sales use, querying why the owner of the property would be in opposition to the
development of a comparable use.
The Plannincl Commission's Closincl Comments
Providing additional information regarding the flooding issues related to Murrieta Creek,
which are being addressed, and ergo, most likely was stimulating interest in these type
of properties, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed a brief overview regarding the site; and
advised that this use was permitted per the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and
that the property owner had a right to expand.
With respect to the project, Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended the following:
With respect to the landscaping plan which was addressed in Condition No. 12, that
the language be revised to ensure a mixture of both deciduous and non-deciduous trees,
That the project be conditioned to require that the area depicted as an RV display
and sales area would be restricted to RVs only, and
That the Planning Commission uphold the Planning Director's decision.
Concurring with Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments, Commissioner Mathewson
advised that this use was compatible with the surrounding uses, recommending the
following revisions:
That Condition No. 11 (regarding the site-obscuring netting) be modified to require
that there be high quality slats, in lieu of the netting material, and
That the southerly landscape be enhanced.
Director of Planning Ubnoske requested that in the Planning Commission's motion, there
be direction to remove the word boat sales from the resolution, as well as from the
Conditions of Approval.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to close the public hearing; and to deny the
appeal, revising the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit, as follows:
Modify-
That the language referring to a dump station be deleted.
That the word boat sales be removed from the resolution and the conditions.
That Condition No. 11 (regarding screening) be revised to require the
installation of view-obscuring vinyl slats.
That Condition No. 12 be modified to specify that the 24-inch box trees
installed be both deciduous and evergreen, as determined by the City's
Landscape Architect.
That the area on the site plan denoted as the RV display (which extends
approximately 132 feet back from the street) be reserved for RV display only, and
no truck storage.
R:Pla nComrWminut e s/062001 6
That all rental truck storage be located on the adjacent property to the north.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected
approval with the exception of Commissioner Telesio who was absent.
At this time the Commission considered Agenda Item No. 3.
Planninc
Planninc
Planninc
Planninc
Planninc
Planninc
Planninc
Planninc
Pianninc
Planninc
Application No. 99-0416- Harveston Specific Plan No. 13
Application No. 99-0418 - Development Code Amendment
Application No. 99-0418 - Specific Plan Zoninq Standards
Application No. 00-0189 - Harveston Environmental Impact Report
Application No. 99-0245 - Chanqe of Zone
Application No. 99-0446 - Development Aqreement
Application No. 00-0295 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29639
Application No. 01-0030 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29928
Application No. 01-0031 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29929
Application No. 01-0032 - Tentative Tract Map No. 30088
Patty Anders, Associate PlannedSaied Naaseh, Proiect Planner V/Dave Hoqan,
Senior Planner/Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planninq. Continued from Ma,,' 16, 2001
and June 6, 2001.
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR
THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED
ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,
AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE
HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED EAST OF
INTERSTATE 15, NORTH OF SANTA GERTRUDIS
CREEK, WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND SOUTH
OF THE CITY LIMIT (PLANNING APPLICATION 00-
0189).
3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
R:PlanComm/minute~062001 7
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE FOLLOWING:
1) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE
HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 00-0419);
2) THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 13
(PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0418);
3) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE
HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING
STANDARDS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-
0418);
4) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A CHANGE
OF ZONE TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
OF THE CITY (PLANNING APPLICATION 99-0245);
AND
5) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A CODE
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 17.16.070 OF THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 99-0418);
ON PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 550
ACRES LOCATED EAST OF INTERSTATE 15, NORTH
OF SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK, WEST OF
MARGARITA ROAD AND SOUTH OF THE NORTHERN
CITY LIMIT, AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS
ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 910-261-001.
910-110-013, 910-110-015
910-110-027, 910-110-076
910-060-009, 910-120-005
911-630-001, 911-630-002
911-640-002, 911-180-002
911-180-008, 911-180-009
AND 911-180-028;
910-110-020.
910-100-007.
910-120-007.
911-630-003.
911-180-003.
911-180-015.
910-261-002,
910-110-021,
910-100-008,
910-120-008,
911-640-001,
911-180-004,
911-180-023,
3.3 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
R:Pla nComm/minute ~'062001 8
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0295
- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29639, THE
SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY 550 ACRES INTO
91 LOTS WHICH CONFORM TO THE PLANNING
AREAS, OPEN SPACE AREAS, SCHOOL AND PARK
SITES OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN;
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0030 - TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 29928, THE SUBDIVISION OF
APPROXIMATELY 40 ACRES INTO 140 RESIDENTIAL
LOTS AND 21 OPEN SPACE LOTS IN PLANNING AREA
7 OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN; PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 01-0031 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
NO. 29929, THE SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY
20 ACRES INTO 118 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 3 OPEN
SPACE LOTS IN A PORTION OF PLANNING AREAS 3
AND 4 OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN; AND
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0032 - TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 30088, THE SUBDIVISION OF
APPROXIMATELY 9.18 ACRES INTO 38 RESIDENTIAL
LOTS AND 8 OPEN SPACE LOTS IN A PORTION OF
PLANNING AREA 4 OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC
PLAN LOCATED EAST OF INTERSTATE 15, NORTH
OF SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK, WEST OF
MARGARITA ROAD AND SOUTH OF THE CITY LIMIT,
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 910-261, -
001, 910-261-002
020, 910-110-021
007, 910-100-008
001, 911-630-002
002, 911-180-002
008, 911-180-009
180-028.
910-110-013, 910-110-015, 910-110-
910-110-027, 910-110-076, 910-100-
910-060-009, 910-120-008, 911-630-
911-630-003, 911-640-001, 911-640-
911-180-003, 9'11-180-004, 9'11-180-
911-180-015, 911-180-023 AND 911-
Noting the complexity involved with the matters associated with this project (i.e., issues
related to the Conditions of Approval, and the Development Agreement) Assistant City
Attorney Curley relayed that there were a few points yet to be resolved among the
parties; advised that it has been requested that the Planning Commission commence
this hearing, but take no final action regarding the applications, in order to allow staff and
the applicant to continue efforts to resolve these matters; and in light of the Planning
Commission's upcoming full agendas, queried whether the Commissioners would be
available for a July 12, 2001 meeting scheduled solely for the purposed of addressing
the Harveston project. In response, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to
take no final action regarding this item at this time, and to continue this matter to July 12,
2001.
Addressing Commissioner Chiniaeff's queries regarding the Planning Commission's
authority with respect to the Development Agreement (DA), Assistant City Attorney
R:PlanComm/minutes/062001 9
Curley noted that when the DA was presented to the Planning Commission in its
substantial form, the Planning Commission could make recommendations, and that if
there was a consensus, the comments would be forwarded to City Council with the DA
document for their consideration.
Staff Reports Presented
Via overheads, Associate Planner Anders presented the project plan (of record),
highlighting the specific location, the adjacent properties, and the twelve (12) planning
areas within the 550-acre site with eight (8) different land use classifications (i.e., four
residential classifications, service commercial, park, school, and a mixed use overlay
zone); provided an overview of the lake, and the lake park which was proposed at the
heart of the community, comprising approximately 17.3 acres; noted the 307 acres of
residential land with a variety of densities, the mixed use overlay zone (which included a
Village Green), the 16.5-acre community park, the 13.8 acre Arroyo Park, the 12-acre
elementary school (which is under construction at this time), and approximately 112
acres of service commercial area; specified that there were two out parcels that were not
under the ownership of Lennar Communities; with respect to densities, relayed that this
project proposes 1621 attached, detached, and clustered residential units, as well as
300 multi-family units (apartments) for a total of 1,921 units; specified the four different
residential planning areas, noting the variances within each area with the largest lots
located in the Iow medium (LM)density area which proposed 3.5 dwelling units per acre,
with a minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet, and an average lot size of 5,000 square
feet, whereas the smallest lots would be located in the medium density (MD) -2 zone,
advising that the overall project density would be 3.4 units per acre, and the overall
residential density would be 6.3; with respect to the Village Center concept which allows
a mixed use component, relayed the applicant's efforts to achieve a live/work/play
opportunity, as wel~ as a variety of uses (i.e., retail, restaurant, office, daycare,
workshop, and a private clubhouse), specifying that this area would allow a maximum of
20,000 square feet of commercial\retail, and 15,000 square feet for the Village Club, and
included an additional 1.6 acre Village Green (which is an outdoor amphitheater); noted
that this center would be pedestrian-oriented in terms of site design, architecture,
signage, and walkways, and was strategically located adjacent to the high densities
which would aid in the support of the commercial uses; with respect to the landscape
plan which would provide 74 acres of open space/recreation area and comprised
thirteen percent (13%) of the total acreage, noted the trails which would connect the
service commercial area, the community park, the paseo, the lake park, through the
Village Center, to the school, and to the exterior boundaries of the property, relaying the
sidewalks located on both side of the loop road; noted that while the community park
design was conceptual, the following elements would be included: four lighted
baseball\softball fields, two full-size soccer field overlays, a large snack bar\restroom
facility, and parking; relayed that the 13.8 acre Arroyo Park would be a re-creation of a
riparian environment, planted with native California species; with respect to the
architecture, specified that this particular Specific Plan has defined architectural forward
elements requiring the homes to be built to these standards (i.e., 50% of the homes in
the LM and the M-1 zoning classifications were required to be architecturally forward),
noting the goal of the Specific Plan to have individual neighborhoods with their own
design and character, comprised of no more than 50 homes, while maintaining continuity
within the communities by linking the architecture, the landscaping, the colors, the walls,
and the entry statements; provided an overview of the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) conducted for this site, noting that with respect to air quality, it was determined that
R:PlanComm/minutes/062001 1 0
a statement of overriding consideration was necessary; with respect to the two out
parcels which are not owned by Lennar Communities, but are within the Specific Plan,
noted that with the staff-initiated Zone Change and General Plan Amendment the
parcels will have a land use designation and zoning of Low Medium (LM) Density
residential, relaying that the 1.3-acre triangular portion will additionally be excluded from
the Specific Plan due to its irregular shape and size, and will be re-zoned as Light
Industrial (LI); and advised that the General Plan Amendment will reflect the Cherry
Street alignment (per Ca[trans' most recent direction).
Presenting the details of the Development Agreement (DA), Project Planner Naaseh
relayed following: that this document was the culmination of discussions between staff
and the applicant, as well as input from the Subcommittee; that the owners involved in
the DA with the City of Temecula were Lennar Homes, Inc., and Winchester Hills I LLC,;
that the term of the agreement would be ten years (with minor variances); that via the
DA, a new Community Facilities District (CFD) would be formed; that the applicant will
receive Development Impact Fee (DIF) credits, and Transportation Uniform Mitigation
Fee (TUMF) credits, and the City will receive improvements in exchange for these
credits; that the shuttle program was included in the DA (with a contribution up to
$300,000), as well as the applicant's contributions for Fire equipment (in the amount of
$150,000); advised that the interchange right-of-way dedication was a critical component
of this agreement, noting that at this time Caltrans is in the process of developing a
Project Study Report (PSR), which when approved will reveal the alignment of the
interchange (which was expected to be approved in late 2001), clarifying that language
has been added stating that if Caltrans has not approved this alignment by January of
2003, that the City Engineer will determine the alignment, and that prior to 2003 that
there will be restrictions with respect to developing certain areas which may be used for
the future alignment.
For clarification, Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that since the DA document was
a work in process at this point that the final agreement may vary from the one presented
at this time; and noted that the interchange issue would be addressed.
Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended that there be a complete traffic circulation Poop
with Ynez Road going up to the Date Street area. In response, Deputy Director of Public
Works Parks clarified that the alignment of Date Street and Ynez Road are not
determinable until the alignment of the interchange is known, noting that the City is
working with Caltrans regarding the determination of this alignment, reiterating that it
was expected to be approved by the latter part of this year.
Continuing his presentation regarding the Development Agreement (DA), Project
Planner Naaseh noted the acceleration of numerous improvements, relaying that while
at eleven (11 ) intersections the project's impacts would be less than 100%, the applicant
has agreed to provide 100% of those improvements at their cost; noted that four (4)
intersections will be improved prior to the Issuance of Building Permits; and relayed that
the applicant would additionally be improving Margarita Road.
in response to Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that staff was
of the opinion that waiting until January of 2003 was an ample timeframe for Caltrans to
make a determination regarding the interchange, reiterating that if at that point no
decision has been made, the City Engineer would make a determination, making a
specific area available for the interchange. Providing additional information, Assistant
R:PlanComm/minute~062001 11
City Attorney Curley relayed that Caltrans has jurisdiction over the freeway corridor,
noting that the surrounding properties would not be contingent upon Caltrans' plans,
relaying the cooperative efforts of this applicant. Further commenting regarding this
issue, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed the effods of staff and the
applicant via the Development Agreement to restrict the development in this area until a
determination is made by Caltrans, providing additional information regarding the
process if Caltrans did not make a determination by 2003, and then opted to not utilize
the right-of-way selected by the City Engineer; and relayed that there has been, and
would be, continuing discussions with Caltrans regarding this issue.
Concluding her presentation, Associate Planner Anders provided additional
specifications regarding the tract maps, highlighting the densities, the lot sizes, the rear
access of various lots with architectural forward designs, the variety of site layouts, the
open-ended cul-de-sacs, and the open space areas; and provided information regarding
the Community Management Enhancement Plan, noting the goal to encourage the
public to utilize the Harveston shuttle system, and thereby further reduce traffic impacts.
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Project Planner Naaseh specified the DIF credits the
applicant would be receiving.
In response to Commissioners Chiniaeff and Mathewson, Development Services
Administrator McCarthy relayed that the applicant would be receiving fifty percent (50%)
Quimby credit for the mini-parks, and would receive no DIF credits for these particular
elements, one hundred percent (100%) Quimby credit for the community park, one
hundred percent (100%) credit for four (4) acres of the Winchester Creek Park, fifty
percent (50%) credit for the lake park, fifty percent (50%) credit for the Village Club, and
fifty percent (50%) credit for the Village Green.
Applicant's Presentation
Mr. Bill Storm, representing Lennar Communities, provided an overview of the 1.5 year
planning process with the City, including the numerous workshops presented to the
Planning Commission, and the various entities' review which have been involved during
this course; noted that Mr. Ray Becker would provide a PowerPoint presentation, and
subsequently the applicant's representatives would be available for questions of the
Planning Commission; advised that with this project would be a Lifestyle Management
Organization (LMO) created to encourage a sense of community via various activities
which was an important element due to Lennar Communities' goal to not just develop a
project, but a community, and with this particular project, a community with diverse
housing opportunities.
Thanking staff for their efforts with respect to this project, Mr. Ray Becker, representing
the applicant, provided a PowerPoint presentation, relaying the following information:
The existing General Plan was compared to this particular proposal.
The goal to create hometown character via a variety of architectural styles,
neighborhood gathering places, open-ended cul-de-sacs, landscaped parkways,
narrower streets, enhanced lighting and mailbox elements, and a Village Center
core which was pedestrian-oriented.
R:Pla[~Co m~minute s/062001 12
The proposed parkland and open space areas, providing a detailed overview of the
lake, the outdoor amphitheater, the community park, the Paseo park (which
provided linkage), the loop road with extensive landscaping, and the Arroyo Park.
The requirements for managed growth that this project addresses, detailing the
agreement with the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD), the plethora
of improvements completed via the CFD totaling a cost to the applicant in the
amount of $14.4 million, and the additional infrastructure improvements the
applicant has agreed to complete which are included in the DA at an additional cost
of $22 million.
The connectivity elements implemented in an effort to create cohesiveness.
Addressing the comments of staff, Mr. Becker clarified that with respect to the overall
Tentative Tract Map which was referenced as a financing map, that this was a full
Tentative Map; concurred with Assistant City Attorney Curley's comments, advising that
with the staff's continued cooperation, the applicant and staff will be able to work
together to resolve the few disagreements; and with respect to the CFD, clarified that the
CFD would not be financing all of the off-site improvements.
Public is Invited to Provide Comments
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the project:
Mr. Ed Burke
Mr. Mark Broderick
30944 Wellington Circle
45501 Clubhouse Drive
Representing Channell Commercial Corporation
The above-mentioned individuals were not in favor of the project for the following
reasons:
The impacts of the project (i.e., buffering, the access to the proposed park) with
respect to the facility backing the project (Channell Commercial Corporation) with no
resolution at this point in time.
The proposed zoning changes.
Concerns regarding the alignment of Ynez Road.
The significant impact related to traffic circulation, and air quality.
The small lot sizes, and the high densities proposed.
The General Plan use designation changes, which circumvent the Growth
Management Plan.
The impact on water resources (i.e., the lake) in light of the shodages.
Recommended that the interchange be constructed Prior to Occupancy.
For Mr. Burke, Chairman Guerriero noted that the Planning Commission had receipt of
his written correspondence.
In response to Mr. Broderick's comments, Commissioner Mathewson clarified that the
applicant was receiving no credits for the lake element.
The following individuals spoke as proponents of the project:
Mr. John Dedovesh 39450 Long Ridge Drive
Ms. Jennifer Thurmond 39811 Knollridge Drive
R:PianComrn/minutes/062001 1 3
r~ Mr. Rodolfo Martinez 43714 Buckeye Road
[] Ms. Pamela Voit 43922 Carentan Drive
The above-mentioned individuals were in favor of the project for the following reasons:
z The project is well planned and family-oriented, and would be beneficial to the City.
,/ The negative traffic impacts are primarily due to the impacts from the County
development.
¢ Delighted with the new school, the project concept with the pedestrian links, which
creates a sense of community and permanence, the lighted fields, the parks, the
lake, and the innovative architecture.
· .' The need for diversity and growth, and the well-organized cultural activity
enhancements, which this plan addresses.
¢ Commended the developer for going above and beyond the requirements.
· .' This project would bring new amenities to the City that will enhance the community.
¢ The traffic solutions offered (i.e., transit opportunities).
· ,The LMO that was a wonder[ul concept aiding in fostering a sense of community.
· 'The commercial area, which would address various, needs of the project residents,
thereby reducing traffic.
Mr. Jim Miller, representing the City of Murrieta, clarified that he was not opposed to the
project; relayed that he had distributed a letter with attached exhibits to the Planning
Commission and staff, detailing the concerns of the City of Murrieta; with respect to the
Cherry Street Interchange project, noted that per discussions with Caltrans, it appeared
that an alignment determination would soon be decided, relaying that Caltrans desired a
joint resolution between the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta, endorsing the alignment,
which has not yet occurred; and due to the freeway improvements necessary to meet
the projected growth, recommended that this project not be exempt from Transportation
Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
At 8:28 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 8:37 P.M.
Commission CIosin(I Comments
In light of the fact that this item was being continued, Commissioner Chiniaeff advised
that he would postpone his comments until additional information was received.
Noting that there were some minor issues regarding the Specific Plan that he desired to
have addressed at the July 12, 2001 meeting, Commissioner Mathewson relayed the
following:
With respect to the overall density, recommended that the applicant consider
revising the densities in the northern property area where currently that are two (2)
M-1 designations, recommending that this are be modified to reflect LM
designations.
With respect to the out parcels and the 1.5 acre parcel, and the adjacent property
owner's desire that this area not be a park area, but maintain an LM residential
designation, recommended that there be consideration to incorporate this into the
community park.
R:Pia nComm/minule s/062001 14
With respect to the Quimby requirements, noted his satisfaction that the applicant
has gone beyond the requirements, providing additional open space and
recreational opportunities throughout the project.
With respect to the lake use, acknowledged the liability concerns, recommending
that there be consideration for the lake to be open to the public, requesting the
Planning Commission for input.
In response, Chairman Guerriero relayed a desire for clarification regarding the rationale
for the lake use not being open to the public.
For the Planning Commission, Mr. Storm noted that at this point in time, there are no
insurance carriers willing to insure the facility if it is publicly used, relaying that in
researching this issue with respect to other lake uses, that there were no lakes allowing
public use of the water surface area; provided additional information regarding staff's
concerns regarding opening the lake use up to the public; and for Chairman Guerriero,
clarified that the area surrounding the lake would be open to the public, and was
conditioned as such.
Addressing Commissioner Mathewson's queries, Mr. Becker advised that the applicant
was making efforts to allow the public to fish on the lake, confirming that the Menifee
Lake was restricted to HOA use only; provided additional information regarding the risks
associated with public use, reiterating the research conducted regarding every
community lake in southern California; clarified the difference from a liability perspective
regarding granting the public use of the lake; and for Commissioner Chiniaeff, relayed
that the lake would not be fenced.
in response to the Planning Commission, Director of Community Services Parker noted
that staff would provide additional information regarding the restrictions related to public
use of the lake.
Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that if a lake were to be publicly used, it would need to be
a larger facility, advising that in his opinion, the homeowners should exclusively utilize
this particular lake.
Chairman Guerriero noted that if the lake were not open to the public, it would not meet
the criteria qualifying as a public amenity.
Continuing his comments, Commissioner Mathewson relayed the following:
That he was enthusiastic with the project, noting concern regarding whether the
proposal presented would actually be implemented into the project, recommending
that the Design Guidelines, the Conditions of Approval, and the DA have standards
that aid in ensuring that the presented concepts are actually developed.
In response to Chairman Guerriero's queries regarding the landscape buffer along the 1-
15 freeway, referencing the agenda material Associate Planner Anders advised that this
issue has been addressed, noting the requirement that the elevation facing the 1-15
freeway would be required to have equal architectural detail as the main elevation,
clarifying that this view would not be compromised, additionally noting the 50-foot
landscape setback requirements.
R:Pla nComr~'minut e s/062001 1 5
For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Bob Davis, traffic engineer representing the
applicant, provided additional information regarding the Institute of Traffic Engineer's
(ITE's) recommended procedures, which indicated that the regression equation
methodology be utilized due to the certain factors that exist, detailing the data points
utilized; provided assurance, that in his opinion, the numbers used for this study were
appropriate, noting that additional discounts have not been factored in for reduction for
transit, or internal trips; and with respect to the rates utilized for the service commercial
area, relayed the composite rate utilized which resulted in a slightly lower trip generation
for the PM peaks, and provided a higher trip generation for the AM peaks.
Concluding his comments, Commissioner Mathewson relayed the following:
With respect to school funding for the expansion needs for James Day Middle
School, and Chaparral High School, and the recent significant shortfall with respect
to State funding, requested that the applicant provide additional information
regarding these particular issues at the July 12th meeting.
Director of Planning Ubnoske requested the Planning Commission to provide any
additional questions to staff as soon as possible in order for the remarks to then be
forwarded to the applicant, and so the issues could be addressed at the July 12, 2001
meeting.
In response to Director of Planning Ubnoske, Commissioners Chiniaeff and Guerriero
relayed that it would be their desire that the applicant consider modifying the Design
Guidelines, and include language in the Specific Plan in order to address enhancing the
commercial area, in lieu of referring back to the Development Code standards.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to continue this item to the July 12th Planning
Commission meeting. Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote
reflected unanimous approval.
Chairman Guerriero relayed thanks to all the residents who expressed their comments
regarding the project, additionally expressing gratitude to staff for a job well done with
respect to this particular proposal.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to continue this item to the January 31,
2001 meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff and voice vote
reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster who abstained.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
Commenting on the recently installed monopole tree (i.e., the camouflaged
antennae), Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that the project looked great, noting
that the integration with the surrounding tall trees improved the aesthetics.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson's comments regarding the negative
visual impact with respect to the tarps on the site proximate to the Embassy
Suites and the freeway, Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that the City would
be adopting a new grading ordinance to address these types of issues.
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding
the fines imposed by other agencies on developers if grading and erosion control
standards are not adhered to, advising that at this time staff is working with this
particular developer to install interim landscaping; for Commissioner Mathewson,
advised that the new ordinance is complete in its draft form; provided a brief
history of the site; and specified that the tarps on this site would most likely be
removed within a three-month period of time.
Chairman Guerriero noted the hazards associated with traveling eastbound
Rancho California Road at Ynez Road, relaying that he witnessed a near
collision.
In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that he would
address the issue with Senior Engineer Moghadam.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Updating the Planning Commission regarding staffing, Director of Planning
Ubnoske relayed that offers have been made to two planners, advising that one
of the planners is expected to begin work on July 2, 2001, and the other in
approximately two weeks; and additionally noted that second interviews were
being conducted for a long-range planning staff member.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:20 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to the next adiourned
reqular meetinq to be held on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 at 6:00 P.M., in the City
Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Ron r
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske,
Director of Planning
R:PlanComm/min u res/062001 17