Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout031908 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 79, 2008 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 p.m., on Wednesday, March 19, 2008, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Harter led the audience in the Flag salute ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Carey, Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Harter, and Telesio Absent: None PUBLIC COMMENTS Referencing the Mills Act, Mr. Otto Baron, Temecula, relayed his dismay with the City and its destruction of historic buildings in Old Town. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1 Minutes 1.1 Approve the Minutes of February 20, 2008 2 Director's Hearing Case Update 2.1 Approve the Directors Hearing Case Update for January 2008 MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Harter seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exceation of Commissioner Guerriero who abstained on Item No. 1.1. 3 Request for Direction from Planning Commission reaarding Zoning for Public Charter Schools as requested by Julian Charter School Junior Planner Lowrey provided a PowerPoint presentation, highlighting the following: • Definition of Public Charter Schools • Current Zoning • General Plan • Analysis • Conclusion R:\MinutesPC\031908 In response to the Planning Commission's queries, Junior Planner Lowrey responded: • There are three charter schools within the City of Temecula • River Springs Charter School was granted approval from the Riverside County Board of Education which was initially associated with Eagle's Peak Charter School (now separated) Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that the Planning Commission is being asked to ensure consistency between the uses of charter schools versus public/private schools. Junior Planner Lowrey noted that the proposed Eagles Peak would be located on property zoned Service Commercial. River Springs is located in a Light Industrial zone, and Vallejo a Residential zone. Junior Planner Lowrey advised that the schools are operating under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) which was approved by the Riverside County Board of Education. Junior Planner Lowrey noted that initiation of the Development Code Amendment will provide a separate use entitled "Schools, Public Charter (kindergarteri through 12'" grade), so that Charter Schools are defined, delineated and consistent with its present use in the Public Institutional Zone under "Schools, Public (elementary, junior high, and high school)" in order to alleviate ambiguity regarding zoning for Public Charter Schools. Assistant City Attorney Curley stated that this item would not be a public hearing; that the Commission is being requested to provide generalized guidance and impressions of land use changes; and relayed that the Commission is not being asked to make any land use changes or binding administrative record that would indicate a detailed process with respect to any land use changes. Speaking on behalf of the Jillian Charter School, Executive Director of Julian Charter Schools Cauzza, clarfied the following for the Planning Commission: • Eagles Peak Charter School would be sponsored by Julian Union High School District; that Julian Charter School is sponsored by Julian Union Elementary School District; and that River Springs Charter School is sponsored by the Riverside County Office of Education • As of 2006, charters schools were directed to comply with local building codes • Sixty five percent of charters schools start in churches • She would be hopeful that the Planning Commission consider the proposed facility • Public schools receive its funding from the State and private schools receive its funding from private individuals • Students currently attending Julian Charter School come from Temecula Valley, Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos, Escondido, Bonsall, Menifee, Lake Elsinore, and home- schooling; noting that students would not need an infra-district transfer • Charter schools offer personalized learning for students that would not receive it from a traditional public school; advising that Temecula Valley would be a centralized region to serve the surrounding cities; noting that Julian Charter School would be in compliance with all State laws Mr. Dave Gallaher, representing Temecula Valley School District, relayed that although the Temecula Valley School District would not be in opposition to Julian Charter School, the school R:\MinutesPC\031908 district relayed its opposition to a Development Code Amendment that would expand zoning for Public Charter Schools. In response to Commissioner Telesio's query, Mr. Gallaher noted the fact that Julian Charter School has a large amount of enrollment which would show its need by local and surrounding communities. For Commissioner Harter, Mr. Gallaher noted that Temecula Valley has not rejected any charter schools that have approached them, but did advise that one charter school disbanded. Mr. Larry Markham, representing Julian Charter School, relayed the following • Julian Charter School is not here to discuss its location • The request before the Planning Commission would be whether or not to modify the Development Code to allow charter schools the same privileges as private schools • The operational aspect of charter schools or where the students come from would not be the issue before the Planning Commission • The question before the Planning Commission would be whether or not the Planning Commission would support staffs recommendation • Riverside County Code does not make a distinction between public or private schools • The request to amend the City's Development Code would help put other charter schools already established in the City into compliance • Julian Charter School would be in full agreement with all imposed Conditions of Approval Adding clarification to what staff is recommending, Assistant City Attorney Curley reiterated that the Planning Commission's position would be to determine whether or not the Development Code be amended to provide separate uses entitled "Schools, Public Charter" in order to remain consistent with its present use. For Commissioner Harter, Junior Planner Lowrey stated that the Development Code treats colleges and universities differently than public and private schools. Relaying that her daughter is a student of Julian Charter School, Ms. Amanda Grillo, Fallbrook, spoke highly of Julian Charter School and noted its positive aspects. Advising that Temecula Valley School District was approached by Julian Charter School for its support, Ms. Sue Miller Hurst, Temecula, relayed support for the school and its request to amend the City's Development Code; and noted that Julian Charter School offers special education. Mr. Peter Minegar, Temecula, stated that although his kids have had success at Temecula Valley School District, he did understand the importance and need for this type of education. Mr. Tom Fenton, Fallbrook, relayed his full support of this type of education program. Mr. Brian Frunk, Murrieta, representing M.S.S. Properties, relayed his support of the requested amendment to the City's Development Code to accommodate charter schools. Ms. Etysia Luke, Sun City, informed of her daughter's success with Julian Charter School. R:\MinutesPC\037908 Adding clarification, Assistant City Attomey Curley stated that the Planning Commission would be at a public policy level, not a site spec level, not an applicant right issue; the Planning Commission is being asked to recommend a legislative action; that the proponent is requesting that the Planning Commission find a need to revise the zoning laws and recommend to the City Council that the City undertake the zoning law changes that would provide a separate use entitled "Schools, Public Charter" (kindergarten through 12'h grade) in order to be consistent with its present use. Not having done research, Assistant City Attomey Curley stated that he is not aware of a non- Temecula Valley School District school being considered a "private school". Wdh respect to Land Use issues, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed the following: • The City needs to explore the relationships between the different types of schools • Expressed concern with displacing opportunities for employment and transdioning over to lower intensity non-employment producers • . Queried if the Development Code be amended to reflect where schools should be located • Queried on whether or not he City impose a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for schools the City would have jurisdiction over • Would be of the opinion that Industrial Zones would not be an appropriate location for a school as well as the Highway Tourist Zone Concurring with Commissioner Chiniaeffs comments, Commissioner Harter noted that although he would be a proponent of charter schools in general, he did relay his concern with the amount of schools popping up. Commissioner Carey concurred with the comments made by Commissioner Chiniaeff and Harter. Noting that the current zoning should be reviewed and amended, Chairperson Telesio noted the following: • He would be of the opinion that the impacts of a charter school versus a regular school would not differ • There would appear to be a market for charter schools and its beneficial affect upon the community Commissioner Chiniaeff reminded the Commission that the City does not have jurisdiction over the Temecula Valley School District. After much discussion, the Planning Commission recommended the following to the City Council for consideration. All schools be reviewed and be conditioned in the same manner (with the exception of TVSD) schools under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) The City explore the placement of schools and its relationship to surrounding uses A CEQA analysis be imposed At this time, the Planning Commission took a five minute break. R:\MinutesPC\031908 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS New Items 4 Planning Application No. PA06-0337, for the Old Town Visioning proied. which provides goals and recommendations to address community concerns regarding the vision for future development in Old Town and suggests a comprehensive revision to the Old Town Specific Plan to implement these goals and recommendations By way of PowerPoint Presentation, Senior Planner Fisk highlighted on the following aspects of staffs report: • Location • Project Description • Goals o Historic Core o Streets o Building Heights o Architecture o Murrieta Creek Walk o Infrastructure o Residential Neighborhoods o Parking o Economic Development o North Area of Old Town (vicinity of Moreno Road) With respect to parking, Principal Planner Richardson noted that one of the recommendations was to resurvey parking from the February 2007. The parking as resurveyed in December 2007 prior to Christmas which indicated that the parking demand was the same or less as the February 2007 survey. Principal Planner Richardson also noted that this item was reviewed by the Old Town Local Review Board with the consensus to move staff's recommendation forward. For the Planning Commission, Senior Planner Fisk noted that the future civic center parking structure will be free to the public. At this time, the public hearing was opened. By way of overheads, Mr. AI Rattan, Temecula, commended staff for their efforts in the visioning project; relayed his dismay with the exclusion of Pujol Street as part of the visioning project (Historic Core); stated that more consideration would be needed with respect to south of arches; stated that there will be a lack of parking spaces (north of Main Street) at build-out; and relayed his disappointment with the architect and his inexperience with California and a downtown plan. Mr. Walt Allen, Temecula, thanked Assistant City Manager Johnson and staff for their efforts with the proposed visioning project; relayed his support of the project but did express concern with Recommendation 2: Streets should not be an either/or goal but rather aboth/and goal; relayed his concern with the Recommendation: Future development should a) orient building activity to the street, b) create a clear street edge, and c) preserve existing and reclaim vacated alleys where possible; advising that staffs recommendation would not be realistic, Mr. Ed Dool, Temecula also thanked staff for their efforts with respect to the Old Town Visioning project, but did express concern with the unbalanced parking surveys conducted by the City; and encouraged that a shuttle service for Old Town be considered to handle future growth. R:\MinutesPC\031908 At this time, the public hearing was closed For the Planning Commission, Assistant City Manager Johnson relayed that the Planning Commission is being requested to recommend that the City Council make an amendment to the Old Town Specific Plan (OTSP) to implement the recommended goals; stated that the goals are a result of the six workshops raised by residents, business owners, and development community; that an amendment to the OTSP will take a year to complete; that the goals would provide general guidance as well as the creation to fomrbased codes that will address the relationship between building facades and the public realm. Requesting clarification of what the Planning Commission is being asked to recommend, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that it would be difficult to recommend that the City Council consider an amendment to the Old Town Specific Plan, per staffs goals, when form-based codes have not yet been created; noting that it would be his opinion that having the form-based goals developed first would give an understanding of its implementation process and how it would affect a change to the OTSP. Understanding Commissioner Chiniaeffs concern, Assistant City Manager Johnson agreed that form-based codes would have to be developed first in order to implement staffs goals. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Principal Planner Richardson advised that staff thoroughly reviewed the existing OTSP with respect to what could be built based on square footages of land in the speck plan which equates to 4million square feet; noting that the preferred scenario would equate to 2.5-million square feet; relaying that the high intensity scenario would be lower than the development intensity then what could be built under the existing specific plan. As per Keyser-Marston, Assistant City Manager Johnson stated that in order to ensure that Old Town is viable and functional, 50% of new development would need to be residential placing it any place throughout Old Town; noting that residential would be a downtown residential, rather than a traditional residential; relayed that the intent would be to have more residential on the west side of the creek as well as a strong residential element throughout the east side of the creek. With respect to parking, Assistant City Manager Johnson noted that the Master Plan Parking study will identity parcels that would need to be acquired by the City early-on for service parking for the short term and structured parking for long term. Principal Planner Richardson added that parking surveys be conducted on a yearly basis to determine the utilization. To alleviate concerns of creating an amendment to the OTSP without having developed form- based codes and acquisition of parking parcels, Assistant City Manager advised that more research will we undertaken as well as additional workshops will be held; and added that a work shop with respect to creating form-based codes can be conducted. Concurring with Commissioner Chiniaeffs concerns and comments, Commissioner Guerriero encouraged the idea of implementing a shuttle service to serve in Old Town. Commissioner Guerriero also concurred with the Old Town local Review Board's suggestion of the City purchasing properly with spark-like setting to place its historic buildings. R:\MinutesPC\031908 6 Relaying that there will be a problem with parking if the City does not acquire parking parcels for the future, Commissioner Carey would be in full support of a trolley and/or shuttle bus for Old Town. For the Planning Commission, Assistant City Manager Johnson relayed that the City will be operating a free trolley system in the near future that will service Temecula residents. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that he would not be prepared to make a recommendation to the City Council wfthout seeing how staffs goals will be implemented. In an effort to clarify, Principal Planner Richardson relayed that the recommendation will create a new public review process holding workshops that will cover building masses, a parking management study, and design guidelines. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended to the City Council that staff move forward to seek an amendment to the Old Town Specific Plan (OTSP) to see how staffs goals can be implemented. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion voice vote reflected unanimous aooroval. Assistant City Attorney Curly briefly updated the Commission with respect to S8343 Act. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Ubnoske informed the Planning Commission of the upcoming State of the City. ADJOURNMENT At 8:58 pm, Chairman Telesio formally adjourned to Aoril 2. 2008 at 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. John elesio Chair an `~~~ u~ ~ Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning R:\MinutesPC\037908