Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout102902 CC/PC Jnt. Workshop Minutes MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP OCTOBER 29, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The City Council and Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular joint workshop at 7:30 P.M., on Tuesday, October 29, 2002, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers: Planning Commissioners: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone, and Roberts Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chiniaeff Absent: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS No comments. CITY COUNCIL/COMMISSION BUSINESS 1 General Plan Land Use Discussion RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Review the Land Use planning issues and provide direction. Principal Planner Hogan introduced Mr. John Bridges, consultant from Cotton/ Bridges/Associates, who would present the General Plan Land Use Update. The consL~ltant provided a PowerPoint presentation re.qardinq the update of the General Plan Via a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Bridges noted the designated Land Use Categories in the updated proposed General Plan, as follows: · Provided a detailed overview of the draft update to the Land Use component of the General Plan (as per supplemental agenda material entitled Temecula General Plan Update), highlighting development density, and the land use categories, noting that both the rural, and vineyard/agriculture categories had been added during the update process. · For Chairman Chiniaeff, relayed that neither the existing General Plan nor the updated General Plan denoted Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for single-family attached housing R:\Minutes\102902 1 Continuing the PowerPoint presentation (as per supplemental agenda material), Mr. Jeff Goldman, consultant from Cotton/Bridges/Associates, relayed the following regarding Land Use elements in the updated General Plan: Highlighted the proposed Land Use Policy Map, the three types of land use focus areas, i.e., mixed use overlay areas (additionally referencing the document entitled Land Use Policy Working Paper), the rural preservation areas, and the future growth area; and Requested input from the City Council and Planning Commission regarding whether proposed designated rural areas should be categorized as such, advising that this component was added due to input from the community and the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). The consultants and staff addressed the queries of the City Council and the Planning Commission regarding Land Use, as follows: For Councilman Naggar, Mr. Goldman provided additional information regarding the denoted density ranges (per the table on page 5 of the document entitled Land Use Policy Working Paper) for the Mixed Land Use Overlay designations, relaying that these were feasible density ranges for the mixed-use housing development desired. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Goldman noted that efforts were still in process regarding the Circulation Element portion of the plan, confirming that the designated densities would provide direct input into the Circulation Element. For informational purposes, Mr. Bridges clarified that most of the area within the presented Mixed Use Overlay Area locations were currently developed which would generally preclude new development unless there was a strong incentive for developing mixed use; relayed that with the proposed density designations, it was anticipated that no more than forty percent (40%) of these mixed use overlay areas would have residential development at a future point. Commenting on the Mixed Use Overlay areas, Mayor Pro Tern Stone opined that at the Palm Plaza location (at Winchester/Ynez Roads) future residential development did not appear to be appropriate, whereas in the Target Shopping Center (at Rancho California/Ynez Roads) consideration of this component appeared to be beneficial, providing an economic stimulus. For Councilman Comerchero, Mr. Goldman relayed that in the development of the density ranges for the Mixed Use Overlay areas, discussions with the CAC and the need to satisfy State regulations (in terms of the housing element) were taken into consideration, confirming that every location would most likely not be developed at the higher density range. With respect to the Mixed Use Overlay area located south of Old Town, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed, for Councilman Comerchero, that the previously considered Specific Plan for this area was dormant at this time. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Stone's and Councilman Comerchero's comments, Mr. Goldman provided additional information regarding the Mixed Use Overlay Area located at Winchester/Ynez Roads, noting that the center's proximity to the Guidant use aided in providing attractive opportunities for mixed use; advised that with the development of R:\Minutes\102902 2 mixes uses, typically public transit increased, advising that in the Circulation Element portion of the plan, non-automobile traffic options would be incorporated; and expanded on the relationship between higher densities and public transit. Deputy City Manager Thornhill clarified that the Mixed Use Overlay Areas were not expected to be developed for 10-15 years, advising that this concept was fairly well established at this time in urban areas; and noted that the overlays provided opportunities for the future in the City of Temecula. In response to Mayor Roberts' queries, Principal Planner Hogan relayed that the Mixed Use Overlay boundaries designated on the map were not final, confirming that the boundary areas south of Old Town would most likely be revised, in particular the hillside area not being included in the mixed use overlay boundary, confirming that this was the appropriate time for input regarding the land use components of the plan. Commenting on "Sprawl" (i.e., the recent use of the term in a newspaper article), WRCOG, and State requirements as these items relate to density, Councilman Naggar noted that while he could support the proposed higher densities at the Jefferson Avenue location, he was reluctant to support establishing these four Mixed Use Overlay Areas with the proposed densities in the General Plan due to the appearance of granted entitlement, recommending that the sites be considered on a case-by-case basis, further commenting on the impacts of developing mixed uses at the four designated overlay areas. In response to Commissioner Guerriero's queries, Deputy City Manager Thornhill provided additional information regarding the relationship between performance standards, (i.e., height, bulk, FAR), and the Mixed Use Overlay Areas. Acknowledging the concern expressed regarding provision of needed infrastructure in place prior to the development cf the higher densities, Deputy City Manager Thornhill reiterated that it was not probable that 30 units per gross acre along the entire Mixed Use Overlay Areas would be developed; and recommended that there be consideration to assign a maximum number of units to particular planning areas in additional to requiring performance or environmental standards if this was the desire of the City Council and the Planning Commission. Further commenting, Mr. Bridges relayed that when traffic impacts for the updated General Plan were analyzed, data would reveal areas where there would be additional capacity which would allow for additional residential development, advising that the additional permitted development would be limited to the capacity of the roadway system; concurred that there should be a designated maximum number of units permitted; and additionally noted that language could be added to the plan stating that the Mixed Use Overlay Development could only be approved by the City wherein certain performance standards were met, which would maintain the authority to determine whether the mixed use was appropriate on a case-by-case basis. Assistant City Attorney Curley provided additional information regarding performance criteria being applied per State Law, which provided flexibility to the landowners as well as control to the City. Mr. Bridges relayed that language could be added to the plan stating that the Mixed Use Overlay Areas would require a greater scrutiny of review for approval due to the nature of R:\Minutes\102902 3 this type of development. Principal Planner Hogan noted that the designated Mixed Use Overlay Areas would be for the purpose of demonstrating the potential for mixed-use development, clarifying that the overlays would not provide a right to develop mixed use, but that this type of development could be approved if certain criteria were met. Responding to Councilman Naggar's queries, Deputy City Manager Thornhill specified that including the Mixed Use Overlay in the General Plan would benefit the City due to the following: the Mixed Use Development would introduce needed vitality into various shopping centers, would promote future mass transit, would change traffic trip distribution, and would aid the City in meeting State regulations regarding the Housing Element; advised that there were safeguards which could be put in place to preserve the City's authority regarding these areas if it was the City Council's and the Planning Commission's desire to include these overlay concepts in the General Plan. With respect to Palm Plaza being designated as a Mixed Use Overlay area, Commissioner OIhasso relayed that while she would be reluctant to place residential units in this area it was her recommendation that staff explore the feasibility of a hotel use at this location; with respect to the Mixed Use Overlay Area designated at Rancho California/Ynez Roads, noted her support of a mixed use development at this location, specifically recommending that development of subsidized senior housing be investigated. Concurring that of the four designated Mixed Use Overlay Areas, the Target and Tower Center could accommodate such, Commissioner Telesio relayed that the overlays for the alternate centers may be premature; concurring with Councilman Naggar's statement that there was a mechanism in place for reviewing and approving a mixed use overlay currently, queried the purpose of placing the overlays in the General Plan due to the potential for confusion regarding entitlements and property rights. Further commenting on the development of mixed use, Chairman Chiniaeff recommended consideration of this type of development at the property located at Overland Drive/Ynez Road; noted that it was his opinion that the Mixed Use Overlay area designated on Jefferson Avenue was too elongated of a site with too much property involved which could create a hodge-podge of development, unless it was aggregated by the Redevelopment Agency; concurred that Tower Plaza was more suited for mixed use development, recommending that since Tower Plaza was within the Redevelopment Agency that aggregation be explored as well as provision of incentives to create a mixed use development; cited alternate areas which would be appropriate for mixed use development; and concluded that with respect to the four recommended sites for mixed use development, and that Area Nos. 1 and 2 be removed, recommending that there be a focus on one or two locations in order to evaluate the success prior to consideration of other areas, and that that an additional site be added (the property across from Guidant at Overland Drive/Ynez Road). Councilman Pratt concurred with Commissioner Olhasso's recommendation to investigate the development of senior housing at the Palm Plaza. For Councilman Pratt, Deputy City Manager Thornhill clarified the relationship between the Housing Element and the State requirements, noting the importance of the City providing opportunities for specific types of development. Mr. Bridges advised that with respect to R:\Minutes\102902 4 the regulations, it was vital that an adequate amount of land be made available for high density development; and for Councilman Pratt, noted that it was anticipated that various areas would be redeveloped to provide for affordable housing. At this time Mayor Roberts invited the public to speak Ms. Suzanne Zychowicz, 40242 Holden Circle, requested that the negative traffic impacts in the northern portion of the City be addressed, specifically that the opening of the closed streets in the Meadowview area be explored due to the likely significant improvement inn circulation; recommended that there be funding provided to analyze the circulation in the Meadowview area at this time; and requested that if the Meadowview area would continue to be closed for another 13 years, that she be notified. Continuing the PowerPoint presentation (as per supplemental agenda material), Mr. Goldman provided additional information regarding the updated General Plan as it related to the designated Rural Preservation Areas, as follows: · Specified the four locations designated for Rural Preservation. Requested input from the Planning Commission and the City Council regarding the designated planned land uses as it related to rural preservation; Noted that the purpose of these designations was to reinforce that this rural development was what all entities desired for these areas. The consultants and staff addressed the queries of the City Council and the Planning Commission regarding the designated Rural Preservation Areas, as follows: For Mayor Roberts, Principal Planner Hogan provided the rationale for designating the area within the wine country as a rural preservation area although portions of this property were outside the City boundaries, noting the importance of documenting the City's vision for this property, and in clarifying that the City has not addressed any unplanned growth, Deputy City Manager Thornhill advising that the City planning document (e.g., the General Plan) would reflect what the County has planned at this time, noting the importance of memorializing this plan. Principal Planner Hogan relayed that the language used to describe this area i.e., wine country, could be revised to reflect a broader phrase clarifying the inclusion of the equestrian properties. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that staff would send a letter to the Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians in order to encourage their involvement in the Rural Preservation Designation No. 4 at Rainbow Canyon Road and Golden Oak Ranch. Chairman Chiniaeff concurred with the designated Rural Preservation areas, recommending that although development should be discouraged in these areas, circulation improvement projects should not be restricted due to the overall benefit to the City. For clarification, City Manager Nelson relayed that there was no recommendation to expand the City of Temecula's sphere of influence in this area. R:\Minutes\102902 5 It was the general consensus of the City Council and the Planning Commission to concur with the designated rural preservation areas. Continuing the PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Goldman relayed the designated Future Growth Areas in the proposed updated General Plan, as follows: · Noted that the proposed land use plan depicts the desires of the City of Temecula. Specified the location of the Future Growth Area (i.e., the French Valley), which was east of Winchester road, south of Keller Road, west of Washington Street, and north of the City boundaries. · Relayed the proposed land use designations for the growth area. Councilman Naggar opined that there should be additional commercial designated areas; and recommended further exploring adjacent land use compatibility, particularly between the Industrial and the Low Medium Residential. Concluding the PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Goldman provided statistical data charts denoting population and housing unit estimates and forecasts comparing that which was currently in existence, that which the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) had forecasted, that which was reflective of the existing General Plan, and that which reflected the proposed updated General Plan (which would be decreased if several of the proposed Mixed Use Overlay Areas were removed). The consultants and staff addressed the queries of the City Council and the Planning Commission regarding the updated General Plan, as follows: For Mayor Roberts, Mr. Goldman relayed that the updating of the Circulation Element was still in process. In response to Councilman Naggar, Deputy City Manager Thornhill and City Manager Nelson confirmed that the General Plan Circulation Study would include the Meadowview area. For informational purposes, Commissioner Olhasso relayed that SCAG population estimates have been consistently Iow for the Inland Empire, recommending that for more accurate information Dr. Husing's data be utilized. Mr. Goldman thanked the City Council and the Planning Commission for their helpful comments regarding the updated General Plan. R:\Minutes\102902 6 ADJOURNMENT At 9:18 P.M., Mayor Roberts formally adjourned the Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop to the next City Council regular meeting on November 12~ 2002, 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: R:\Minutes\102902 7