Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout011601 CC Minutes Jnt. MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP JANUARY 16, 2001 CALL TO ORDER The City Council and Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular joint workshop at 7:00 P.M., on Tuesday, January 16, 2001, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers: Naggar, Pratt, Stone, Roberts Planning Commissioners: Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Guerriero. Absent: Councilmember: Comerchero Planning Commissioner: Webster ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Councilman Naggar. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS Councilman Stone advised that Mayor Pro Tem Roberts and he had participated in a South County tour, sponsored by Lennar, to review architectural designs and streetscapes, noting that the tour was educational, informative, and will assist in the evaluation of this particular and future projects. Mr. Stone encouraged each Councilmember and Commissioner to partake in such a tour. COUNCIL/COMMISSION BUSINESS 1 The Roripauqh Ranch Specific Plan RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Consider the information provided by staff and provide direction to staff. Briefly reviewing the staff report (of record), Deputy City Manager Thornhill reviewed the purpose of this workshop, noting that staff will present information to the City Council and P~anning Commission in an effort to obtain direction and input with regard to this project, noting that the obtained information would then be incorporated into the Specific Plan and the design of the project. At this time, Mr. Thornhill introduced Project Planner Naaseh, who proceeded with a detailed overview of the project, clarifying the following: R:\Minutes\011601 1 · That the applicant has worked with staff in an effort to revise the old Specific Plan in order to achieve a higher quality development in the City; · That previous City Council/Ad hoc Committee direction was to process the Specific Plan based on the importance of the Butterfield Stage Road connection from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Rancho California Road; that it was determined that the fiscal impacts of this project would be minor; · That this project was originally submitted in the 1990s and since has undergone numerous Land Use Plan changes; that original Land Use Plan was submitted at over 2,000 dwelling units; that the Plan has been driven by a number of constraints on the site: Open space area requirements as per AD 161; Fixed alignment of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road, which will dictate how the land use patterns will be developed on this particular site; · Other constraints include the fixed location of Nicolas Road, which dictates the location of the loop road; another fixed location is Calle Chapos s is the Long Valley Channel, and the open space areas; · That the proposed density for this Specific Plan will be two dwelling units per acre and that the General Plan permits up to three dwelling units per acre; that a total of 1,700 dwelling units are being proposed, including the 381 apartment units or multi- family units; · That the lot sizes will range between 5,000 square feet to 21/2 acres; · That the area to the east (existing 21/2 acre lots) will be buffered by 1-acre, 10,000- square foot and 6,000-square foot lots; that the area to the south (5-acre lots) will be buffered with 20,000-square foot lot; that the elevation of the perimeter of the project is significantly higher and, therefore, the proposed buffering would be viewed as adequate. Mr. Naaseh requested City Council/Planning Commission input with regard to the buffering issue; · That the Village Center would be located next to the 21/2-acre lots; that after reviewing the land use pattern and location, it was determined that the Village Center should only be located at the major intersection at Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road and the commercial core. At this time, Public Works Director Hughes addressed major components of the road system, which would be the backbone of this project, noting the following: · That the projected $20 million, financed through the Communities Facilities District (CFD), will fund the infrastructure improvements for this project - the primary improvements would include Murrieta Hot Springs Road (full width as an arterial roadway for the project's connection with Butterfield Stage Road); Butterfield Stage Road from Murrieta Hot Springs Road down to the southerly project limits of Roripaugh (full street improvements - 4-lane major collector); project boundaries of the Roripaugh project to Rancho California Road to include the westerly half of Butter'field Stage Road; easterly half of Butterfield Stage Road along that route would remain in the County of Riverside and no available funding is foreseen in order to complete the easterly half of this improvement; discussions with the County have included the County's participation in City improvements, especially in the grading costs of the east side; · That the City is actively pursuing available grant funding to as well complete the east side; that if the County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) were available, the easterly half would be a viable project to be funded by such source funding; R:\Minutes\011601 2 · That three east/west connections are being included in the CFD from Butterfield Stage Road into the existing roadway system - Nicolas Road, Calle Chapos, and La Serena Way; that once these connections are completed as well as Murrieta Hot Springs Road and the connection to Rancho California Road, it will provide a major connection for the City in providing an alternate north/south route; that the projected average daily trips, at buildout, is estimated at 35,000; · That another major component of the CFD is the drainage channel - the undercrossing. Providing additional information as it relates to density, Project Planner Naaseh noted that Low/Medium Density includes 240 acres at a total of 886 dwelling units and that Low Density (more rural) includes a total of 155 acres at a total of 265 dwelling units. Mr. Wes Hyland, representing the applicant, project consultant, advised that at the last Planning Commission workshop, this project was proposed at 2,058 dwelling units. Mr. Hyland proceeded with providing background information with regard AD 161, noting that the initial fiscal analysis proposed to fund a portion of the school fees by a CFD and a portion of improvements by the CFD; that after further discussions with the City, a desire was expressed to have the CFD fund as much of the road improvements as possible; that the applicant has agreed to this and has committed the necessary funds ($20 million) to construct the facilities and, in addition, has agreed to pay off the AD 161 debt used to build portions of Winchester Road and improvements of Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. In closing, Mr. Hyland stated that the applicant has attempted to address issues raised by the City and has provided the means to accomplish these issues. By way of overheads, Mr. Kevin Evertt, representing the applicant, further described the Roripaugh Specific Plan, commenting on the habitat hub and the various neighborhoods of the Plan (Villas, Vineyards, Village Center, and habitat, which will include two 3.6 acre lots). Mr. Everett advised that the residents of Nicolas Valley will not be able to see the Villas (property located above the Nicolas Valley); that the Vineyard lots (east and south) are located higher than the Nicolas Valley lots and that the closest home would be 10' to 15' above the existing residences; that the Village Center (46.6 acres) will consist of a maximum of 15 acres of commercial, a maximum of 381 apartment units, a fire station, a religious institution (5 acres), along with other traditional uses of linkage. Further commenting on the project, Mr. Everett noted the following: School Sites have been approved by the School District - 20-acre middle school site and 12-acre elementary school site; that the applicant has met the park requirements by providing three park sites - 10.4 acre, 10.1 acre, and 3.0 acre parks; Linkages include the following: · Biketrail system · Trail system (MWD easement) to link the Village Center and parks · Pedestrian pathway system around loop road as well as 15' easement for horse trail system · East side of property will have a 15' easement for an equestrian riding system to link with the UCR property and to Johnson Ranch and to the outskirts of the habitat. Mr. Evertt noted that the road system in the Villas area will be a Iccp road system - one which is not growth inducing - and that no roads will enter into the surrounding perimeter. R:\Minutes\011601 3 By way of diagrams, Mr. Pat Hersch, landscape architect, further elaborated on the three proposed parks -a passive 10.1-acre park, an active 10.4 acre park, and a 3.0 neighborhood park, commenting on location and correlation to the school and advising that the walkway system through Murrieta Hot Springs Road through the Village Center will as well link the three parks. City Council Discussion For Councilman Naggar, Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that because of resident concern with regard to growth inducing, Calle Contento will be eliminated from the Circulation Element and that because of the number of trips carried through that area, staff had agreed with the elimination. Mayor Pro Tern Roberts as well noted that Calle Contento has been a dirt road which recently has been asphalt paved but not to City specifications; that the road runs through the citrus/vineyard district; and that he would concur with eliminating Calle Contento from the Circulation Element. It was noted, for Councilman Naggar, that the proposed open space area has been designated as habitat, which would be dedicated to the County and then maintained by a non-profit agency for permanent habitat; and that the open space area will be fenced off; and that any issue regarding the habitat area will have to be approved by the Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Councilman Naggar noted his support of providing some Iow-impact uses for the open space area. For Councilman Naggar, Project Planner Naaseh advised that the multi-family component (381 apartment units) is being proposed on the south side of the Village Center and that, at this point in time, no other details have been presented. In response to Councilman Naggar, Public Works Director Hughes advised that Murrieta Hot Springs Road would ultimately be improved to a four-lane arterial road; further elaborated on the Butterfield Stage Road improvements, advising that it is estimated that Butterfield Stage Road will carry 34,000 trips per day which would be equivalent to Margarita Road, south of Winchester Road; that if the County were not to proceed with its improvements, a two-lane facility (which would accommodate 16,000 to 18,000 trips per day as long as restricted access be maintained along that route), south of Roripaugh Ranch project would be sufficient; that the 34,000 trips per day is a forecasted figure for buildout which will not be reached for many years. Further addressing Councilman Naggar's questions, Mr. Hughes advised that the completion of Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road projects would provide another alternate route for the residents and, therefore, SR 79 South, Rancho California Road, Margarita Road, and Winchester Road would actually experience a reduction in traffic trips. In the long-term range, Mr. Hughes advised that it would be expected that Butter[ield Stage Road would continue north from Murrieta Hot Springs Road and eventually connect at SR 79 North (outside of City limits), dependent on how that road will be established, it could function as an Eastern Bypass and in that case, added trips would be expected on SR 79 North. As this project proceeds, Councilman Naggar requested that a comprehensive trail diagram be provided in order to determine how it would incorporate with the City's Trails Master Plan and encouraged the applicant to meet with the City's Trails Master Plan consultant. In response to Councilman Naggar's concern with regard to future school funding, Deputy City Manager Thornhill and City Attorney Thorson advised that City's are limited in the imposition of additional school impact mitigation measures and, therefore, the State had adopted a large R:\Minutes\011601 4 bond issue to fund school construction. Mr. Thorson noted that a more detailed explanation of alternative with regard to that issue would be provided at a later time. Mr. Hyland reiterated that the applicant has been negotiating two school sites with the School District, particularly the construction of the Elementary School. Councilman Naggar requested that a timeline of this project be provided. Councilman Pratt commented on the autoculture and the need for public transportation as well as public education. For Mr. Pratt, Mr. Hyland advised that buildout of the project is estimated at 5 to 7 years for most sections of the project with some being completed within the 7 to 9 year range. Commenting on the City's partnership with the Temecula Valley Unified School District in maximizing the use of sports fields, Councilman Stone suggested that the proposed active park be located adjacent to the school fields; questioned whether consideration had been given to reversing the location of the park with the school in an effort to provide buffering for the residents in Planning Area 22; questioned whether the sales tax revenue generated by the proposed 15-acre commercial area could support City services for the estimated dwelling units and whether the proposed 15 acres would be sufficient to accommodate the needs of the residents; noted that the multi-family units would buffer the 7,200 square foot lots in Planning Area 13 if some of the density in Planning Area 12 were reduced to create a larger commercial core; expressed concern with locating two parks across the street from each other, viewing it as poor utilization of open space; stated that he would prefer a passive park closer or adjacent to the school in Planning Area 6 or somewhere within the Plan around Planning Area 21; and suggested the utilization of paseos to link parks to the open space area. For Councilman Stone, Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that AD 161 will not be funding the internal street; that the General Plan incorporated traffic studies of this project at a density of three dwelling units per acre which would equate to a total of 2,400 dwelling units, noting that the proposed dwelling units will be 20% less; and that all assumed improvements, as per the General Plan, are being completed, noting that a minor change with the alignment of Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Community Services Director Parker stated that the project meets the Quimby requirements. Project Planner Naaseh advised that Nicolas Road has been downgraded to a 78' right-of-way and that Johnson Ranch (approximately 5,000 units) has been deleted. For Councilman Stone, Project Planner Naaseh noted that a new traffic study is being completed and that the proposed development will be phased as necessary to aid the traffic study and the Development Agreement. Deputy City Manager Thornhill stated that similar conditions, as those imposed on Wolf Creek, would be imposed on the proposed project, specifically as it relates to permitting development based on Level of Service as to the pulling of building permits and that AD 161 will have to be in place prior to pulling a building permit. Plannin,q Commission Discussion For Councilman Naggar, Chairman Guerriero advised that a fire gate will be installed at Calle Contento. R:\Minutes\011601 5 For Mr. Guerriero, Public Works Director Hughes noted that the Circulation Element does not reflect the installation of landscaped medians for the arterial roads. Mr. Guerriero relayed his desire to have landscaped medians installed. Project Planner Naaseh clarified that the applicant is in the process of completing a trails map which would be intended to provide connections through sidewalks, trails, design of the subdivision, adequate pedestrian access to all schools, parks, and open space areas. Further addressing the project, Chairman Guerriero requested the option for senior housing; commented on the need for an additional high school; expressed concern with splitting the two larger parks, noting that Wolf Creek is providing a 40-acre park; and stated that the proposed buffering of 1/2 acre parcels for lots 17 and 19 would be inadequate. In response to Chairman Guerriero's suggestion, Deputy City Manager Thornhill suggested that a senior housing component with increased density be considered at the Butterfield Stage Road/Nicolas Road intersection in exchange for reducing densities at the lower-end of the project. Mr. Thornhill also noted that another Police Substation is not being proposed. For Commissioner Mathewson, staff noted the following: · That the project buildout would be at approximately 1,700 units and 5,100 individuals; · That the CFD would adequately fund the major backbone infrastructure as planned but that it would not include the east half of Butterfield Stage Road which is located in the County; · That the proposed open space drainage (east of Butterfield S~age Road) will not be a grass channel; · That a 5-acre religious institution in the Village Center will be a permitted use, commenting on built-in time limits. In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, Public Works Director Hughes advised that the Circulation Element reflects Butterfield Stage Road as a restricted access corridor. Mr. Hyland, representing the applicant, noted that the grading of the roads would have to be completed in conjunction with the land adjacent to it, advising that the dirt for the roads, particularly Butterfield Stage Road, will come from the adjacent land. It was noted that the first phase of the panhandle would include Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Butterfield Stage Road to Nicolas, and Nicolas. Project Planner Naaseh, for Commissioner Chiniaeff, advised that staff would further explore the County's Land Use Plan and would provide information at a later date. With sufficient elevation change, Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that the proposed buffering of Y2 acre lots to the existing 21/2-acre to 5-acre lots would be sufficient. For Mr. Chiniaeff, it was noted that the originally Johnson Ranch was to function as the Village Center. For Commissioner Telesio, Project Planner Naaseh advised that Planning Areas 8, 9, 10, and 11 have been designated as permanent habitat areas; that currently no other uses are permitted for these Areas; and that any changes from the current use would have to be approved by the Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Public Works Director Hughes informed Commissioner Telesio that approximately 90% of the necessary easements for both east and west halves of Butterfield Stage Road have already R:\Minutes\011601 6 been obtained and that some slope encroachments along with some right-of-ways still need to be acquired. Public Comments Mr. Bob Larson, 39673 Granja Court (resident to the east of the project), representing the Neighborhood Watch Group, advised that the Group has neither taken a position in support or opposition of this project; advised that over the past years, the Group has met several times with the project representatives; stated that the project representatives have been accommodating, informative, and responsive; and commended the applicant on his efforts to reduce the originally proposed density. With regard to the project, Mr. Larson relayed the following desires of the residents: · No through street to Calle Contento · Uniform bordering on the east end versus a chainlink fencing · No street lights in bordering areas -transition street lights into the higher-density areas · Increased buffer for the south end Commending the developer on the planning of the equestrian trails, Mr. Kenneth Ray, P.O. Box 891333, Temecula (property owner of a 5-acre parcel at the far southwest corner, adjacent to the panhandle), informed the Council/Commission that he does not oppose the project and stated that diligent planning efforts have been put forth with regard to it. Mr. Ray requested grading and layout modifications to avoid severe erosion problems on his parcel and to the two 21/2-acre parcels to the east of him. In closing, Mr. Ray expressed concern with regard to school funding and requested that no street lights be installed on the panhandle. Mr. Bill Vazzana, 39605 Avenida Lynell (located on the easterly side of the proposed project), requested that 21/2-acre parcels be placed along the southerly and easterly border and relayed his opposition to extending Calle Contento. Mr. Ed Picozzi, 31480 Nicolas Road, questioned the Council/Commission as to what considerations have been given to the existing residents on Nicolas Road as it relates to their change in lifestyles as a result of this project. Although Dr. John Mize was not present, City Clerk Jones informed the Council/Commission of a video Dr. Mize had presented to staff in hopes that it would be shown this evening. At 8:47 P.M., Mayor Pro Tem Roberts called a recess and reconvened the meeting at 9:00 P.M. Council Discussion In response to Councilman Stone, Deputy City Manager Thornhill commented on the difficulty with reversing the location of the park and school, commenting on staff's efforts to work with the Temecula Valley Unified School District to achieve better school access, noting that placing the school site along the highway would restrict the ability to provide more than one or two access points and that placing the school site at a more internal location would create better and more access points. Mr. Thornhill as well commented on staff's desire to provide internal linkages such as a pedestrian bridge across Planning Area 24 from the lower Planning Areas. R:\Minutes\011601 7 Respecting the School District's decision as to location of the school, Councilman Stone requested that the athletic fields be located to the west side in order for the City and the District to work out a partnership with lighting. With regard to the proposed project, Councilman Stone noted the following: · Would not favor the chainlink fencing along the open space corridor · Desirous of quality streetscape as well as paseos to line open space areas to public parks · Commercial area in Planning Area 12 to be expanded from 15 acres to a minimum of 20 acres · Could support Planning Area 27 to a multi-family senior living facility · Park in Planning Area 27 to be adjacent to the school site and connected to Murrieta Hot Springs Road and adjacent to the school fields in Planning Area 6 if possible ,, 20,000 square foot lots completely extended around the perimeter from the east to the south and transition 20,000 to 10,000 square foot lots without minimizing the density · Development to be phased with finished infrastructure · Overlays on the Specific Plan indicating what would be impacted along the periphery of this Plan · Supports light transitioning from denser residential to the more rural areas · Supports a fire wall at Calle Contento · Incorporate traffic calming architectural standards · Construct homes with front accessibility and garages in the rear In response to Councilman Stone, Public Works Director Hughes advised that AD 161 would be paying for the infrastructure improvements to Nicolas Road but that those improvements would not include full street improvements such as curbs, cutters, etc; and that Nicolas Road was intended to be a 110' right-of-way but that it is being proposed to lower it in classification to a 78' right-of-way. For Councilman Pratt, Mr. Pat Hersch further described the location of the open space areas as well as the view fence. Mr. Pratt relayed his opposition to the ehainlink fencing and requested the developer to participate in public transportation efforts. Mayor Pro Tem Roberts relayed his support of pedestrian linkages from Planning Areas 19 and 20 to the school site and requested that such linkages should be discussed and possibly included in the trail system; noted that in order for the equestrian trails to be functional, they must be properly designed; requested a Homeowners Association horse arena and facilities; and expressed support for not extending Calle Contento. Relaying his support of transitioning the street lighting, Councilman Naggar concurred with minimizing street lighting for the larger parcels as well as the smaller parcels in an effort to retain the rural atmosphere. Mr. Naggar encouraged staff and the developer to address the multi-family component in the early stages of the project and requested that staff discuss with the appropriate agencies the possibility of a passive use for the open space areas. Commission Discussion In an effort to better accommodate the children and to achieve better accessibility, Commissioner Telesio suggested that the school sites as well as the park sites be located more internally of the project, removing those sites from the main streets; encouraged the use of R:\Minutes\011601 8 parkways to narrow streets to create traffic calming as well as enhancement to the neighborhoods; and relayed his support of a multi-family component with senior facilities in order to address that need in this community. Providing input with regard to the proposed project, Commissioner Chiniaeff stated the following: · Placement of future land use signs in an effort to avoid problems with individuals not knowing what will be constructed on future sites such as multi-family housing, etc. · Designation of Village Center should be removed and should be redesignated as Neighborhood Commercial · Supported either 15,000 or 20,000 square foot lots as buffering for the east and south sides Because of the substantial amount of elevation change, Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that he would not view Planning Area 15 as a high-density area. With regard to this project, Commissioner Mathewson stated that if the dwelling units in Planning Areas 17 and 18 were reduced in an effort to obtain larger lots in placement for a second multi-family component in Planning Area 13, the following concerns would be raised: · Land use transition to the adjacent 7,200 square foot lots to the east · Increased number of dwelling units by 15% of overall project Mr. Matthewson echoed concerns as to the size (smallness) of the Village Center; relayed concerns with future school funding such as at the time of buildout; desirous of additional active ball fields; recommended that street lighting be addressed in the lower-density parcels; encouraged pedestrian linkages (paseos, parkways, smaller streets) throughout residential neighborhoods for traffic calming effects; and expressed concern with the County not completing the eastern portion of Butterfield Stage Road and its impacts on Rancho California Road. In closing, Chairman Guerriero made the following comments with regard to the proposed project: · Would favor a senior housing element in Planning Area 13 · Increase the commercial area from 15 acres to 20 to 25 acres · Concerned about the lack of usable open space - no regional park in the area · Encouraged the School District to explore property for a future high school site · Landscaped medians on Butterfield Stage Road · Address street lighting · Would favor Overlays for the area off Nicolas Road · Would favor pedestrian linkage connection to the school site from Planning Area 19 In response to Chairman Guerriero, Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that staff would address Mr. Ray's drainage concerns to ensure the grading plan satisfies his concerns. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Looking forward to proceeding with this project, City Manager Nelson expressed appreciation to the City Council and the Planning Commission for the valuable comments and input. R:\Minutes\011601 9 ADJOURNMENT At 9:34 P.M., Mayor Pro Tem Roberts formally adjourned the Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop to the next City Council regular meeting on Tuesday~ January 23~ 2001, 7:00 P.M., and to the next Planning Commission regular meeting on Wednesday~ January 17~ 2001~ 6:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ATTEST: Jeff Comerchero, Mayor R:\Minutes\011601 10