Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout082102 PC Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, August 21, 2002, 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 Oihasso. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff. Absent: None. Also Present: Director of Planning Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Curley, Redevelopment Director Meyer, Development Services Administrator McCarthy, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Principal Planner Hogan, Associate Planner Papp, Associate Planner Rush, Associate Planner Thornsley, Project Planner McCoy, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1. Approve the Agenda of August 21, 2002. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve Minutes from July 31, 2002. R:PlanCommlminutes/082102 Chairman Chiniaeff recommended that the order of the Agenda (Item No.1) be revised, and that Agenda Item NO.6 be considered after Item NO.3. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-2, subject to the recommended modification to Item NO.1 (revising the order of the Agenda in order that Item NO.6 be considered after consideration of Item No.3). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 Planninq Application No. PAOO-0507-Hampton Inn. for the desiqn and construction of a 70-room four storv hotel buildinq on a 1.35-acre vacant parcel located to the adiacent west of the Winchester freewav off ramp next to the Comfort Inn Hotel at the rear of the Rancho Temecula Plaza. - Michael McCov. Proiect Planner 11 RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PAOO-0507 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; and 3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - HAMPTON INN SUITES) TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A FOUR STORY, 70-ROOM 41,900 SQUARE FOOT HOTEL BUILDING ON A 1.35 ACRE VACANT PARCEL, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET EAST OF JEFFERSON AVENUE AND 200 FEET NORTH OF WINCHESTER, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-282-007. Staff provided an overview of the proiect plan By way of overheads, Project Planner McCoy presented the staff report (of record), noting that this item was continued from the June 5, 2002 Planning Commission meeting for recommended revisions regarding the landscape, architecture, pedestrian access and circulation plans; relayed the Planning Commission's previous concern regarding the request for a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) increase; with respect to the proposed FAR increase, noted that it was the applicant's opinion that the enhanced architectural treatments met the criteria (per the Development Code) to qualify for the increase in FAR; noted the added condition requiring that the false balcony treatments be placed on all of the windows (with the exception of the ground floor guestrooms) to effectively screen the vent covers; with respect to the landscape plan, advised that it was staff's recommendation that additional evergreen trees be added along the eastern perimeter adjacent to the freeway offramp and that an entry treatment be provided, and that it was R:PlanCommlminulesl082102 2 the applicant's revisEld proposal to add additional evergreen trees along the eastern property line as well as against the building, and to add a water fountain element at the entrance of the building; clarified that it was staff's opinion that the revised landscape plan more effectively met the criteria for the FAR increase; with respect to the pedestrian access issues, noted that the City Building Official has revised the applicant's requirement for provision of ADA access from the public right-of-way based on the State Architect's finding that this particular parcel was landlocked, and that access would be provided via vehicles, reading into the record the added condition stating The disabled access from the existing private access driveway to the main entrance of the building is required; the path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross-slope, travel-slope, striping and signage and provide all the details on the plans; and advised that the applicant has revised the site plan which now denotes the pedestrian access pathway from the parking lot between the landscaped area in the parking lot, as well as an additional access path from the east side of the property to the west side. Staff addressed the queries of the Commission For Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner McCoy noted that based on the landscape plan the added fountain treatment did not have seating; relayed that there would be decorative paving in the entryway; confirmed that the required sidewalk (necessary in order for the project to meet the Development Code standards) has been added along the front parking row; and noted that the revised landscape plan included additional evergreen trees, relaying that the project has also been conditioned to add large cedar trees to the front planters to replace the fern pines. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Project Planner McCoy confirmed that it was staff's opinion that the added architectural enhancements (i.e., the substantial amount of added stone veneer) met the criteria for the FAR increase; reiterated that while staff had conditioned the project to add the false balcony treatments on all the windows (with the exception of the first floor windows), it was the applicant's desire to include these elements solely on the windows in the inset sections; and relayed that this particular project plan included adequate parking provisions. Commissioner Guerriero noted his continued concern regarding the traffic impacts associated with the project. For Commissioner Guerriero, Project Planner McCoy provided the revised color board; noted that the applicant has been conditioned to provide a visual representation of the water treatment for staff's review and approval prior to implementation, Director of Planning Ubnoske clarifying that staff had requested the applicant to provide the visual for the Planning Commission presentation. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the Development Impact Fees (DIF) for this particular project would be utilized for various projects, that approximately $20,000 of the approximate $151,000 in DIF fees would be utilized towards a signal project at this location, that the potential traffic project (which has yet to be approved by the City Council) would limit access from left-turning motions, that there would be a dual left-turn lane from Jefferson Avenue onto Winchester Road (traveling east), and that most likely there would be a signal on the north side of the Santa Gertrudis Creek (both locations providing opportunities for U-turn motions); R:PlanCommlminulesf082102 3 and advised that these traffic improvements were part of the City's Capital Improvement Projects as well as part of the Harveston Project's mitigation proposal and would most likely be completed within an 18-month period. The applicant's representatives presented the proiect plan Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, noted the applicant's concurrence with the Conditions of Approval; specified the revisions to the project since the item was continued, which included an added hand pavement stamped-concrete walkway, and an enhanced landscapEl plan; noted that the applicant was not opposed to staff's recommendation to add the false balcony treatments to all the windows (with the exception of the first floor windows); advised that the applicant's representatives met with Senior Engineer Moghadam to discuss traffic issues at this particular location, noting that direction was provided by staff that it would not be appropriate for this project to move forward and implement improvements at this one area which was part of an overall Capital Improvement Project; noted that a median would be installed which would address the turning movement impacts; with respect to the parking stalls in question, clarified that the stalls were part of this parcel's private property, noting that the reciprocal egress/inwess easement was for the driveway and not the parking; noted that the applicant would not be opposed to bring the fountain treatment design plans back to the Planning Commission; for Commissioner Telesio, relayed that the applicant had offered the use's meeting room for community use; with respect to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding provision of a seating element at the fountain, relayed that it was his understanding that at the previous meeting there had been a recommendation for provision of outdoor seating (i.e., a table) which the applicant would most likely place at the south end of the building in lieu of a portion of landscaping. In response to Commissioner Olhasso's queries regarding the letter submitted on this date of August 215', which relayed the concerns of Mr. Jim Un, owner of the adjacent inn, Mr. Markham advised that the applicant would explore relocating the trash enclosure area, which was presently proposed proximate to the neighboring inn's pool. With respect to the colored elevation, Mr. Markham noted that the elevations were lost during transit from the City of Fresno. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Markham relayed that it was his understanding that the proposed roof treatment was a more suitable element for the project than alternate roof designs placed on inns in the eastern United States; and relayed that if the fountain element was relocated to the north, a seating element could most likely be added. Mr. Vince Didonato, landscape engineer representing the applicant, addressed the suggestion to relocate the courtyard in order to include a seating element, noting that a courtyard element was pedestrian-oriented and that the sole access to this area would be from across the driveway and would not be particularly conducive to pedestrian orientation, and that the proposal was designed for the fountain treatment to serve as an accent element rather than a pedestrian-oriented area with seating; for Commissioner Mathewson and Chairman Chiniaeff, specified the areas where enhanced paving was proposed; relayed that he was not opposed to staffs recommendation to increase the size of the 15-gallon trees to 24-inch box trees; clarified his opinion that this landscape plan was exceptional, noting that this project had no street frontage, and that all of the landscaping was placed around the perimeter of the building, and that the entry had R:PlanCommlminutesl082102 4 been accented; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, confirmed that additional evergreen trees were added on the back of the project proximate to the freeway. The public was invitE!d to comment Mr. Ken Westmyer, :31870 Calle Redondela, representing Mr. Un, owner of the Hampton Inn, noted that it was his opinion that if the building was reduced in order that the FAR not be increased (which was his recommendation), the reduced TOT tax collected would not have a significant impact; noted concern regarding the lack of information regarding the project, and the potential for left-turning movements exiting the parking lot being prohibited which would create negative impacts; queried the rationale for staff now concurring with the proposed building footprint with the few improvements the applicant incorporated, opining that this project plan did not include an exceptional architecture or landscaping plan, and that the proposed building size was inappropriate for the parcel; and requested that the Planning Commission deny the applicant's request for a FAR increase. The Planninq Commission offered c10sinq comments While Commissioner Guerriero relayed appreciation to the applicant for the added enhancements to the project, he disagreed with staff that this project encompassed outstanding architecture, recommending that there be additional enhancements due to the high visibility of the project from the freeway; advised that it was his opinion that no additional vehicle congestion should be added at this location due to the existing traffic impacts; concurred with Mr. Westmyer that a reduction in the building size (e.g., reducing the building to three stories) would not have significant financial impacts on the City of Temecula; recommended that there be additional landscaping; noted that he could not adequately review the project for approval or denial without additional information regarding the fountain element design; relayed that the project offered no community amenities; opined that the concerns of the Comfort Inn property owner should be taken into consideration due to this business' support of the City of Temecula for years; and relayed that he was disappointed that the applicant had not initially proposed the wrought-iron treatments on the entire project's windows (with the exception of the first floor), as recommended by staff. Commissioner Mathewson concurred that the proposed building size was too large for this particular site; in comparing this project to alternate recently approved projects in the City of T emecula, concurred that this proposal did not have an exceptional landscape or architectural plan; and noted that without being able to review the fountain design plan he could not support the FAR request. Concurring with the previous comments, Commissioner Telesio advised that although "exceptional" was a subjective term, it was his opinion that this project was more "standard" than "outstanding"; acknowledged that this was a difficult lot; noted that a pitched-roof element (which had been implemented on some of this company's eastern projects) should have been explored, as was discussed at the previous meeting; for informational purposes, recommended that projects should be enhanced prior to Planning Commission presentation, noting that the Planning Commission has raised the bar with respect to design expectations; and concurred that he could not support the request for an increase in the FAR with this particular project, as proposed. R:PlanCommlminutesl082102 5 In response to Commissioner Olhasso, Director of Planning Ubnoske concurred that determining whether a design plan was outstanding was a subjective determination; relayed that the Dev,elopment Code does not define exceptional architecture, that on this particular project the Planning Commission requested that the applicant revise the project, specifically that stone veneer be added, as well as enhanced paving, and a sidewalk which that applicant has incorporated into the project plan; and recommended that the Planning Commission take into consideration the direction relayed to the applicant at the last meeting by the Planning Commission and whether the applicant has incorporated these revisions into the current proposal. Commissioner Olhasso noted that the applicant did implement the revisions into the project that the Planning Commission had recommended. For Commissioner Olhasso, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding the timing of the proposed traffic improvement projects at this location. In light of the traffic improvements proposed proximate to the project site, and since the applicant incorporated the recommended revisions into the project plan, Commissioner Olhasso advised that she could support the project. Chairman Chiniaeff noted that the project only need meet one of the warrants denoted in the Development Code to justify a FAR increase; reiterated that the applicant did implement the recommended revisions of the Planning Commission into the project plan; and suggested that the project be restricted from occupancy until the median was in place. Additional discussion ensued regarding the traffic projects Lennar (the Harveston Project) would be implementing as part of its Development Agreement. Commissioner Mathl~wson relayed that the Planning Commission recommendations expressed at the June 5, 2002 meeting were simply suggestions, and that the Planning Commission was providing direction to the applicant that the architectural and landscape plans needed to be onhanced if the applicant was desirous of a FAR increase; and clarified that implementation of the Planning Commission's recommendations was not a guarantee for approval, Commissioner Telesio concurring, advising that not all of the recommendations had been implemented, clarifying that the justification for the FAR increase was implementation of an exceptional plan, recommending that the applicant either provide an exceptional plan or reduce the FAR, which was echoed by Commissioner Guerriero. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to continue this matter. (Ultimately this motion died for lack of a second.) In response to Commission discussion, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that if the Planning Commission was not in agreement with the resolution for approval, which included the proposed FAR, then it was recommended that the Planning Commission provide direction in order that staff could bring back a resolution with the Commission findings. R:P1anCommfmlnutesJ082102 6 FAILED MOTION: In order to gauge the Commission's support, Chairman Chiniaeff moved to approve the FAR proposed with this particular project. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion for discussion purposes and voice vote reflected unanimous denial of the motion due to all the Commissioners voting no. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to continue this item to the October 2, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero. (Ultimately this motion passed; see the top of page 8.) Commissioner Guerriero clarified that the applicant should bring forward to the October 2nd meeting additional information regarding the design of the water element. Mr. Markham relayed his desire for clarification regarding the Planning Commission's direction; noted that all the hotels in this area with the exception of Temecula Creek Inn have exceeded the FAR; advised that the Code allows for an increase from .3 to 1.; relayed that hotels and mini-storage uses by the nature of the uses typically exceed the FAR; reiterated the concept of proposing a three-story building, noting that with the reduction in parking, additional landscaping could be added; noted that the Code only required that one of the criteria be met to qualify for a FAR increase, advising that the difference between proposing a hotel use verses an office building use was that the City benefited economically from the added revenues generated from the TOT; relayed the applicant's confusion in requesting direction from the Planning Commission and that after implementing these recommendations the Planning Commission did not express support of the revised project plan; and advised that if he had understood the importance of the pitched-roof element, the feasibility of implementing this element would have been investigated. Commissioner Olhasso suggested that the applicant submit the feasibility study, which would then become public record, advising that if the fourth story of the building was needed due to financing issues the Planning Commission could take this issue under consideration. Noting the diligent efforts of the applicant with the project plan, Mr. Markham reiterated the constraints of this particular site, relaying that a hotel use was most likely the most appropriate use for the site; advised that the applicant did offer to contribute funds toward the Jefferson Avenue Median Project as a community amenity, relaying that since this project was included in the City's CIP, the Public Works Departmental staff directed the applicant not to pursue this concept since the project would be addressed within the CIP. For clarification, Commissioner Telesio relayed that the Planning Commission was seeking an exceptional plan to warrant the FAR increase, advising that while the pitched roof was suggested, since the Planning Commissioners were not architects there could be no commitment to support the proposal without reviewing the plan, recommending that the applicant bring forward the most outstanding plan feasible if the FAR increase was going to be proposed. For clarification, Mr. Markham noted that the applicant's rationale for not including the plan to place the false balcony treatments on every window was due to the applicant's architect's opinion that it would be more visually pleasing if this element was placed solely on the windows in the inset area. R:PlanCommfminutesl082102 7 At this time voice vote was taken reflecting unanimous approval. Having revised the order of the Agenda, it was noted that at this time the Commission considered Agenda Item No.6. 6 Planninq Application No. PA01-0324 (Conditional Use Permit) A proposal to desiqn, construct and operate a qolfinq educational facilitv that includes classroom and pro shop buildinqs. and a nine-hole public qolf course with drivinq ranqe, located on a vacant 22-acre section of the Unfield School propertv on the south side of Rancho Vista Road. north of Pauba Road. between Meadows Parkwav and Marqarita Road - Michael McCov. Proiect Planner RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a Resolution Entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-032 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM BASED ON THE INITIAL STUDY AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0324, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN AND OPERATE A GOLFING ACADEMY AND NINE-HOLE PUBLIC GOLF COURSE WITH DRIVING RANGE, A 3,000 SQUARE FOOT PRO- SHOP, AND A 1,900 SQUARE FOOT CARETAKER'S RESIDENCE ON A 22-ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO VISTA ROAD, BETWEEN MEADOWS PARKWAY AND MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 955-020-002 Commissioner Telesio advised that he would be abstaining from this item, and ergo left the dais. Staff presented the [)roiect plan By way of overheads, Project Planner McCoy provided a detailed overview of the project, highlighting the location, and the surrounding uses; specified that the Professional Golfers College would accommodate between 110-130 students, would conduct classes Mondays through Fridays between 8:00 A.M. and 11 :00 A.M., and in the afternoon would be open for public recreational use; advised that night course lighting could extend the use of the facilities to 9:00 P.M. seven days a week, and that staff was recommending that one of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Conditions address the restriction of the hours of the golf course facility to 9:00 P.M., seven days a R:PlanComn'VminutesJ082102 8 week unless a Special Event Permit was obtained from the Planning Department; provided additional information regarding the lighting proposed on this project, advising that staff has conditioned the project for no night lighting due to expressed community concern, advising that if the Planning Commission deemed the night course lighting as an acceptable component of the project then the previously mentioned condition should be removed and the course lighting could be approved in conjunction with the project approval; relayed that the applicant was seeking a thirty-eight percent (38%) parking reduction, and that staff has determined that the project meets the criteria for up to a fifty percent (50%) parking reduction (per Code Section 17.24.020); noted the architectural design of the college and pro-shop buildings; presented the material samples, advising that staff has added conditions (Condition Nos. 13 and 14) to address concerns regarding the quality of the vinyl material proposed for the decorative shutters and siding; for Chairman Chiniaeff, clarified that the applicant has agreed to provide an alternate siding sample material; advised that staff is additionally recommending that a condition be added for Prior to the Issuance of a Grading Permit to require that the applicant submit to the Public Works Department verification of the specific permits and agreements denoted on page 1 of the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit D in the staff report) as well as a condition regarding the recommended protocol survey denoted in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (all of which have been completed with the exception of the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey); and presented a cross section of the topography of the project. Staff addressed the Planninq Commission queries For Commissioner Guerriero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding the drainage course associated with the project, advising that no siltation or contaminants shall be carried downstream; and Project Planner McCoy noted that the golf ball trajectory study had been included in the agenda packets. In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner McCoy and Principal Planner Hogan provided additional information regarding the lighting impacts, confirming that there was a potential for a negligible amount of spillage of light onto residential properties, advising that the lumens generated outside of the project would be less than the lumens that a streetlight generates. The applicant's representatives provided an overview of the proiect Dr. Tim Summerville, President of the Professional Golfers Career College, highlighted the proposal to construct a night-lighted practice golf facilityldriving range and a nine- hole golf course, and the goal to have a permanent facility (on the Unfield School property) for the golf students, as well as and the youth in the community. Mr. Ken Crawford, Chairman of the Board of Unfield School, relayed the future plan to expand the Unfield School Campus, noting that since the school would not be utilizing 20-25 of its acres, offers were entertained for the use of that excess land, and that the school preference had been the Professional Golfers Career College facility due to the use being the most compatible use. Continuing his presentation, Mr. Summerville noted the numerous public members in the audience who were present to support the project; specified the project's benefits to the community, as follows: 1) The project would provide the neighborhood a beautiful R:PlanCommlminutesJ082102 9 campus which would raise property values. 2) The Professional Golfers Career College was nationally accredited and internationally recognized. 3) Over 900 students have graduated from the 2-year program, including students from 28 foreign countries. 4) The project would provide Valley Junior Golf Association ( a non-profit organization) with a permanent home, contribution towards the salary of a full-time PGA golf professional to be hired as its director, an office, and no-cost secretarial help. 5) The night lighting would provide parents an opportunity to play golf with their children, emphasizing the need for youth-oriented recreational facilities in Temecula, 6) The project would benefit neighboring residents due to the road being widened to four lanes at Rancho Vista Road; provided an overhead of the project site as exists and a rendering of the site with the project; and advised that the facility was proposed to be lighted until 9:00 P.M. Mr. Mike Marchetti, representing Musco Sports Ughting, by way of overheads, noted the differentials between golf course lighting and alternate sports field lighting, relaying that the golf course utilized lower foot candles; advised that the higher the lighting poles the more downward the lights could be aimed, noting the proposal for fifty foot poles; presented a photograph of an alternate lighted golf course project; provided an overview of the manner in which the lighting was controlled, noting the external visor which was customized for each project; relayed the guarantee of specified light levels on the surface, as well as off site, advising that the lighting could be adjusted to address negative impacts; specified the location of the lighting structures; for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that there was no specified quantitative amount of spillage of light which was deemed a specific acceptable standard, advising that this was typically addressed on a project-by-project basis and was determined by how near the neighbors were to the property; via spill scans, provided additional information regarding the maximum and horizontal light spillage; for Chairman Chiniaeff, confirmed that the resident who initially had concerns regarding the lighting had been provided additional information and subsequently wrote a letter (which was included in the agenda material) acknowledging his receipt of this information; and provided comparison data between the lighting impacts at the existing sports park and the anticipated impacts from this particular project. Mr. Summerville provided additional information regarding night lighting at this facility as well as alternate facilities, advising that the applicant did not have knowledge of one neighboring resident being opposed to the proposed lighting. Mr. David Knowe, the project's designer and landscape architect, provided an overview of the proposed golf course facility and landscape plan, specifying the location, number, and size of the proposed plantings (which included 321 trees, over 2,000 shrubs, and 750,000 square feet of turf), the planned use of reclaimed water, and the proposed 9- hole golf course with lakes, streams and waterfalls; for Chairman Chiniaeff, specified the landscaping and berming proposed along Rancho Vista road, along the eastern portion of the project and along the Unfield School site, noting the view of the project form the neighboring homes; and specified the building design with the proposed smooth vinyl siding. At 8:22 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 8:30 P.M. R:PlanCommfminutesl082102 10 The public was invited to comment The following individuals spoke as proponents of the project: . Ms. Carmen Latrekia 31533 Corte Pacheco . Mr. Richard Dierking 42889 Via Alhama . Mr. Dan Atwood 26631 Ynez Road . Ms. Alexandrea Packham no address provided Mr. Christopher Reynolds 32483 Via Destello . Ms. Carla Boyd 30030 Rancho California Road . Mr. Mike Nelson 22959 Giant Fire Canyon Lake . Sr. John J. Gyves 41614 Margarita Road . Mr. Don Myren 31395 Corte Mallorca . Mr. Bob King P.O. Box 891777 . Mr. Gary Washburn 905 West Lakeshore Lake Elsinore . Mr. Scott Arnold 39467 Long Ridge Drive Mr. Alex Michaels P.O. Box 2250 . Mr. John Telesio 31760 Via Telesio . Mr. Jonathan Ferrell 32065 Rock Elm Drive Wildomar . Mr. Matt Ferrell 32065 Rock Elm Drive Wildomar The above-mentioned individuals spoke in support of the project, relaying the following comments: o This proposal would vastly improve the site; The lighting would serve as a crime-preventative; Noted opposition to widening Ranch Vista Road until the road is paved all the way through; Offered support of night lighting until 9:00 P.M.; Requested that the lighting be monitored; The project was well-designed; The recreational aspects of the project would be a benefit to the community's youth; Commended the applicant for its provisions to Valley Junior Golf Association, a non- profit organization; Noted that the lighting would provide opportunities for youth to share recreational time with their parents; Relayed the need for a lighted golf facility, noting the lighted fields for alternate sports activities; The project would increase neighboring property values; This particular proposal encompassed a project which provided a combination of academics, athletics, recreation, and vocational training in an aesthetically pleasing setting; Thanked the parents and youth for taking the time to express support for the project; Provided additional information regarding the insignificant amount of light spillage with the proposed lighting; The lighting was a vital component of the project and provided a competitive advantage for the golfers; Requested that there be consideration to preserve the minimal habitat (a few specifically located trees) of the red-tailed hawks inhabiting a portion of the project site; and Urged the Planning Commission to approve the project. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o R:PlanCommlminulesl082102 11 The applicant relaved concludinq comments Mr. Summerville thanked the residents who took the time to attend the hearing and offer support for the project, and in particular support for the night lighting. Mr. Dave Wakefield, representing the applicant, noted the following requests for modifications to the Conditions of Approval: . That Condition Nos. 8 and 9 (denoted on page 16 of the staff report) which prohibits night lighting and restrict the hours of operation be deleted; . That Condition No. 35 (denoted on page 22 of the staff report) regarding restricting access to the project to right-in/right-out movements be deleted (staff concurred with the deletion of Condition No. 35); That Condition No. 99 (denoted on page 29 of the staff report) regarding provision of an 18-foot wide easement be deleted (staff concurred with the deletion of Condition No. 99); And for informational purposes, relayed that the applicant would be conducting a pre- construction survey of the land (which was not required), which would address comments made during the public comment period. At this time Chairman Chiniaeff closed the public comment portion of the meeting. The Planninq Commission offered c10sinq remarks For Chairman Chiniaeff, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information with respect to Condition NO.9 (regarding parking), Director of Planning Ubnoske clarifying that since the project would be subject to the CUP,and that if there were negative impacts the issue could be addressed with the permit. In response to Director of Planning Ubnoske, Mr. Kent Brown, Executive Director of the Professional Golfers College, relayed that since the college was vocational in nature all the students were not on site everyday; referencing research conducted, relayed that during a two-week period there had never been more than 50 vehicles at the college; noted that there were ten weeks during the year when students were not on campus at all; relayed the applicant's desire to open the facility to the public when students were not utilizing it; provided additional information regarding the parking needs of the golfers; clarified that the use would not need 107 parking stalls, acknowledging that off-site parking was restricted, and that parking would be monitored; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, noted that the hours of operation would be from 9:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. For Commissioner Guerriero, Project Planner McCoy noted that the applicant has agreed to provide an alternative material for the siding and the decorative shutter features, Principal Planner Hogan relaying that Condition Nos. 12 and 13 address this issue. In response to Commissioner Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that staff's concern regarding the siding material was based on the quality i.e., the appearance and maintenance of the material, relaying that the applicant would be bringing in a similar material of a higher quality. R:PlanCommlminules/082102 12 . . . Commissioner Guerriero thanked the residents for taking the time out of their busy week to address their comments to the Planning Commission, and demonstrate their support of the project; and relayed gratitude to the applicant for proposing a much-needed recreational facility in the City of Temecula. Principal Planner Hogan recommended that Condition NO.8 be revised to indicate restriction of the night lighting to 9:00 P.M.; and concurred with the applicant regarding deleting Condition NO.9. Principal Planner Hogan noted two typographical errors in the Development Plan Conditions of Approval, recommending that revisions be incorporated, as follows: that in Condition NO.4 (regarding compliance with the Conditions of Approval) the phrase Development Plan or be added prior to the phrase "Conditional Use Permit;" that in Condition No.5, the phrase Development Plan replace the Phrase "Conditional Use Permit"; and advised that in Condition Nos. 12 and 13 (regarding the vinyl material), the phrase shall be provided should be added, as well as in indication that the applicant shall submit the material to the Planning Department. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendations subject to the following revisions: Add- The revisions to the Conditions of Approval recommended by staff and specified in the two above paragraphs; . Allowance of the night lighting; and Deletion of Condition Nos. 35 (regarding right-in/right-out access) and 99 (regarding the provision of an easement), as requested by the applicant and approved by staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Telesio who abstained. At this time the Commission resumed the regular order of the agenda, considering Item No.4. 4 Planninq Application No. PA02-0260 A proposal to chanqe the General Plan and Zoninq desiqnations from Very Low Densitv Residential to Professional Office on a 2.75-acre parcel. located Southwest corner of De Portola and Marqarita Roads - Emerv Papp. Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 02-0260; 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:PlanCommlminuleslO82102 13 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0260, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AND A ZONE CHANGE FROM VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ON 2.75 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DE PORTOLA AND MARGARITA ROADS, AND GENERALLY KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 959-050-007. Associate Planner Papp provided an overview of the staff report (of record), highlighting the rationale for the request to change the General Plan and Zoning designations on this parcel; advised that the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association (HOA) was opposed to the proposed change; provided the results of the traffic and noise analysis associated with the proposed change, advising that the amendment would result in lesser impacts in terms of noise, and the traffic generated would enable the roadway at the intersection to remain at a Level of Service A; and provided additional information with respect to the proposed amendment being consistent with the City's Grow1h Management Plan. In response to Commissioner Guerriero's queries regarding the HOA's concern regarding the desire that the applicant install block wall, Associate Planner Papp noted that staff could not make a recommendation regarding this issue without a proposed development plan, advising that once a plan was submitted, this issue could be addressed; for Chairman Chiniaeff, noted that environmental restraints could be imposed on the amendment proposal if it had been determined that the traffic impacts would be significant, which was not determined, Principal Planner Hogan providing additional information regarding imposing environmental restraints, advising that if it was determined in the Negative Declaration that there was the potential for land use incompatibility, then as a mitigation measure a wall could have been required along the western property line. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that with this amendment an environmental restraint map would not be required since there was no proposal for a subdivision of land. Associate Planner Papp relayed that there would be a required 25-foot setback adjacent to residential areas, advising that the General Plan does not require that any future development application for this parcel implement a significant transitional buffer. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Assistant City Attorney Curley provided additional information regarding the restrictions, which could be imposed on this proposal. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Associate Planner Papp specified the boundaries of the HOA. Associate Planner Papp noted the location of the alternate parcels in this area, which had been changed to Professional Office, advising that there had been no requirement to construct a buffer wall. R:PJanCommfminutesJ0821Q2 14 Mr. Mike McNeff, Pastor representing Valley Christian Fellowship, the owner of the parcel, concurred with staff that discussion regarding installation of a block wall would more appropriately be addressed at the time a Development Plan was submitted; for the record, submitted the signatures of all the adjacent property owners who border this parcel, specifying the location of these particular parcels; and for Commissioner Telesio, provided additional information regarding the adjacent property owners' support of the request to re-zone this particular property. The following individuals spoke in support of the proposed revised general land use designation at this particular site: . Ms. Nancy Austin . Mr. Kevin Johnson . Mr. Guy Romero . Ms. Claire Johnson . Mr. Jim Shuntz . Mr. Vicente Gchaerria Real Estate agent for the applicant 30707 Centaur Court 41685 Hawthorne Murrieta 30707 Centaur Court 30800 La Ray Lane 31775 De Portola road The above-mentioned individuals spoke in support of the proposal, relaying the following comments: o The marketing efforts revealed that the proposed zone change would be the best use for this parcel; This property was not well-suited for residential; With the zoning as Office Professional, the City would have more control over development of the parcel; Since the parcel would remain within the Los Ranchitos HOA boundaries, the HOA would have input on future development of the property; The church, which was the property owner, would be able to find a parcel for the future development of a church use with this zone change since this parcel could be more easily sold; Advised that if the parcel was viewed in relationship to the surrounding area, the rezoning appean3d to be more appropriate; and Noted opposition to the construction of an 8-foot wall (which was a recommendation of the HOA.) o o o o o o Mr. Larry Markham, representing the Los Ranchitos HOA, via distributed supplemental agenda material, specified the concern of the HOA with this proposal, in particular the impact the proposed rezoning would have on De Portola Road and the next properties to the west, specifically the potential for additional zone changes; provided a history of nearby properties which have had zoning changes; additionally noted concern with regard to various permitted uses within Professional Office zones; advised that the HOA had specified that with the installation of a block wall, and restricted access to De Portola Road (i.e., the parcel taking access off of Margarita Road) the HOA supported the proposed change; with respect to the environmental document, relayed that the traffic impacts of this zone change would be significant, advising that in his opinion the CEQA document was inadequate and that he would provide these points of.concern in writing; recommended that concurrent to the processing of the zoning change, a dedication of access restriction on De Portola Road should be processed, suggesting that the applicant's previous offer of payment be replaced with an offer to pay for the cost of a R:PlanCommlminutesl082102 15 block wall; recommended that this item be continued for 60 to 90 days; for Commissioner Mathewson, specified previously referenced residential properties which take access off of Margarita Road, confirming that the parcel on the adjacent side of De Portola was a vacant parcel; specified the boundaries of the HOA parcels; for Chairman Chiniaeff and Commissioner Mathewson, reiterated that the HOA would be agreeable to the applicant installing a block wall along De Portola Road and the property line in lieu of the monies offered to the HOA, specifying that the wall would not need to be installed until the parcel was developed, reiterating that with this requirement and the dedication of access restriction the HOA would be supportive of the zone change. Additional discussion ensued regarding the discussions between the applicant and the HOA. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that if this matter was forwarded to the City Council, the City Council would most likely be addressing CEQA issues (based on comments expressed at this hearing), advising that at that time the Council could either take action, or send the matter back to the Planning Commission for review of the CEQA issues; noted that if it was the Planning Commission's desire that accommodation be provided to the HOA's concern that there could be language indicating this desire in the recommendation to the City Council; noted that it was the Planning Commission's charge in this matter to review the request and determine whether this request was consistent with the fundamental planning documents of the City, i.e., the General Plan and zoning; and confirmed that any issue between the private parties was external to the Planning Commission's jurisdiction. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding the access issue, advising that it would be more appropriate to consider access being revised at the time a development plan was submitted. In response to additional comments, Mr. Markham specified the environmental concerns of the HOA's traffic, and public safety, noting the need for additional mitigation. In response to queries, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that staff would desire the opportunity to further explore the environmental issues of concern. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries as to why the HOA had not specified its concerns during the comment period, Mr. Markham relayed that as a Board, the month of July was dark, and the mail was received at a Post Office box, advising that at the August Board meeting eight out of nine Board Members had voted to oppose the zone change, as proposed, For Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. McNeff advised that the HOA would be able to maintain certain control over the property based on the CC&R's which was a separate issue from the rezoning issue; provided additional information regarding the discussions between the HOA and the applicant; while noting that it would be the applicant's preference to move forward with the HOA's support, relayed the HOA had had ample time to address its queries during the public comment period of the environmental process; and advised that full disclosure would be provided with a new property owner. Commissioner Guerriero advised that it would be more prudent for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation after receiving all the associated information R:PlanCommlminules/082102 16 including the documents the HOA would be submitting regarding environmental concerns. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue this item to the November 20, 2002 meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson. (Ultimately this motion passed; see below.) Commissioner Telesio relayed that the issues of concern presented at this hearing would be more appropriately addressed during review of a future development plan, and not during the request for rezoning due to the lack of a nexus. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff was unaware of outstanding CEQA issues, having first heard these concerns at tonight's hearing; and advised that it would be appropriate to continue this item in order to obtain the information from Mr. Markham and for staff to analyze this issue. Assistant City Attorney Curley provided additional information regarding the benefit of the Planning Commission obtaining additional information regarding the potential environmental impacts. Chairman Chiniaeff commented on the types of conditions which could be placed in the development plan for this parcel when presented, recommending that this item be moved forward to thl~ City Council. In response, Commissioner Guerriero reiterated his desire for the Planning Commission to have all of the information prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting approval of the motion with the exception of Chairman Chiniaeff and Commissioner Telesio who voted no. For Mr. McNeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that at the November 20th hearing the applicant did not need to provide additional information, but that the Planning Commission was interested in obtaining and reviewing additional information regarding the assertion that there would be an increase in traffic. 5 Planninq Application No. PA02-0157 A Planninq Application for two Tentative Tract Maps (TM30681 and TM306821 and one waived Parcel Map (PM306041 for a total for seventeen sinqle-familv dwellinq units on 2.17 acres of land. located on the north and south side of Sixth Street (922-052-004. 005. 006. 007. and 0101; Submitted bv Affirmed Housinq Partners. located on the north and south side of Sixth Street and north of Pujol - Rick Rush. Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0157 pursuant to Section 21080.14 of the California Environmental Quality Act; 5.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: R:PlanCommlminuleslO82102 17 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-029 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0157, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30681 SUBDIVIDING TWO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS INTO NINE SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ON 1.17 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PUJOL STREET AND SIXTH STREET, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 922- 052-010 AND 922-052-011 5.3 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-030 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0157, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30682 SUBDIVIDING FOUR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS INTO SIX SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ON .81 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SIXTH STREET AND FELIX VALDEZ ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 922-052-004, 005, 006, AND 007 5.4 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-031 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0157, A WAIVED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 30604 SUBDIVIDING A SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT INTO TWO SINGLE- FAMILY LOTS ON .19 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SIXTH STREET AND PUJOL STREET, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 922-053-004 Associate Planner Rush provided an overview of the project plan (per agenda material), highlighting the location, the subdivision proposal and the proposed density range; noted staffs recommendation that the Planning Commission grant a reduction in the minimum lot area, advising that it was staff's opinion that the proposed project would not be feasible without the development concession; recommended that the name "Affirmed Housing Group" be replaced in the resolutions to correctly indicate "Affirmed Housing Partners Temecula LLC"; and advised that Redevelopment Director Meyer was available for questions from the Planning Commission. R:PlanCommlminutesl082102 18 Ms. Ginger Hitzke, representing Affirmed Housing Partners, relayed that she was available for questions from the Planning Commission. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 6 Planninq Application No. PA01-0324 (Conditional Use Permit) A proposal to desiqn. construct and operate a qolfinq educational facilitv that includes classroom and pro shop buildinqs. and a nine-hole public qolf course with drivinq ranqe. located on a vacant 22-acre section of the Unfield School propertv on the south side of Rancho Vista Road. north of Pauba Road. between Meadows Parkwav and Marqarita Road - Michael McCoy. Proiect Planner RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a Resolution Entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-032 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM BASED ON THE INITIAL STUDY AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0324, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN AND OPERATE A GOLFING ACADEMY AND NINE-HOLE PUBLIC GOLF COURSE WITH DRIVING RANGE, A 3,000 SQUARE FOOT PRO- SHOP, AND A 1,900 SQUARE FOOT CARETAKER'S RESIDENCE ON A 22-ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO VISTA ROAD, BETWEEN MEADOWS PARKWAY AND MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 955-020-002 It is noted that this item was considered out of the order of the agenda, after consideration of Item No.3; see page 8. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS Commissioner Guerriero, echoed by Chairman Chiniaeff, commended the planners who presented projects at tonight's hearing for their excellent work. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Plannin~l Ubnoske updated the Planning Commission regarding the staff recruitment process. R:PlanCommlminulesl082102 19 ADJOURNMENT At 10:19 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next reClular meetinCl to be held on Wednesday, SeDtember 4. 2002 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. ./ "- ~'hA' ~sk- Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning ~w, Dennis W. Chiniaeff, Chairman R:PlanCommlminutesl082102 20