Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout071701 CC/PC Jnt. Workshop Minutes MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNE ,D REGULAR JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP JULY 17, 2001 CALL TO ORDER The City Council and Planning Commission convened in an 7:00 P.M., on Tuesday, January 16, 2001, in the City Coun( 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLLCALL Present: Councilmembers: Naggar adjourned regular joint workshop at Chambers of Temecula City Hall, Pratt, Stone, Roberts, Comerchero Absent: ALLEGIANCE Planning Commissioners: Planning Commissioner: Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Guerriero. Olhass! The audience was led in the Flag salute by Mayor Comerchbro. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Councilman Naggar. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS No comments. CITY COUNCIL/COMMISSION BUSINESS 1 The Roripauqh Ranch Specific Plan RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Consider the information provided by staff nd provide direction to staff on the proposed project. Project Planner V Naaseh-Shahry presented the staff report and noted that the purpose of this workshop would be to provide a project status update aqd to obtain direction from the City Council and the Planning Commission with regard to ident!fied issues noted in the staff report and, as well, to obtain input from the community. Referencing the Land Use Plan, Mr. Naaseh- Shahry described the various elements of the proposed annexed area, loop road, park site, Long Valley Chant buffering. With regard to buffering, it was noted that the pr~ 2.5-acre lots with the transitioning to smaller lots and buffed 20,000 square foot lot. R:\Minutes\071901 1 project including the pan handle, el, Fire Station site, density, and ~perty to the east will be buffered by ~g to the south will be a minimum of Environmental Impact Report (EIR) That the EIR was sent out for a 45-day review period which will end July 26, 2001 That the flnahzat~on of the EIR was late by approximately 22 days because of ~ssues encountered with the traffic study / Specific Plan (SP) - that the SP was delayed because of delays ass ciated with the EIR; therefore, there was insufficient time to review the Specific Plan; that the last screen check was received by the applicant on June 26, 2001, Iwhich was 18 days after the time schedule I that a redline copy of the SP has been requ~ested but has not been received; therefore, staff must review the SP page by page that the design gu~deI~nes have been labeled work ~n progress Development Aqreement that several meetings have occurred with the been made with regard to the deal points Deadlines applicant but that no progress has that as a result of delays, it has been difficult to ~neet the set deadlines to ensure the project would be discussed at the August 1, 2001, Planning Commission meeting and then at the August 14, 2001, City Council m~eting that a Community meeting in conjunction with the City Council subcommittee was held on July 9, 2001; concerns expressed by the community with regard to this project re ated to dra nage, traff c, deve opment; in Nicolas Valley, and buffering on the south and east sides of the project, advisinglthat the City Council subcommittee recommended that a minimum of 2.5 acre lot sizes buffer the property to the south and east. City Council/Commission questions In response to Chairman Guerriero, the following informatioh was provided by staff: that a Community Facilities District (a taxng district) will be formed for the proposed project not an Assessment District; that the City has received the formation depbsit amount from the applicants who are funding the financing team and ~n~t~al formation achwhes; that it has been difficult to obtain consensus on the scope of work; that a feasibility study was completed approximately one-year ago which ~nd~cated that the Community Facd~t~es D~stnct (CFD) could fund approximately $24 mdl~on for public infrastructure; that w~th~n the last six months, various improvements have been submitted for ~nclus~on to the CFD for a total requested amount of $44 million; that $44 million wo~ld be an unfeasible amount to be funded; that staff has rehned the hst of ~mprovements to include the backbone ~nfrastructure for Butterfleld Stage Road and Murneta Hot Springs Road for a total cost of $24 million; R:\Minutes\071901 2 , L that there are three property owners includ d Lennar, Callaway 220 that the funding gap for the lower portion of at $2.5 to $3.5 million. in the CFD - Roripaugh Ranch, Butterfield Stage Road is estimated Wishing that the project would have progressed further tha ~ what it has, Commissioner Telesio expressed concerns with regard to sidewalk pavement and parkways. In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, the following was noted by staff: th t t ffh d'l' ti k d th' . I · ta sa as ~gen ywor e on ~sprojec, in order to fast track it but that the applicant has not adhered to the set deadliness · that the General Plan permits 3 dwelling units per acre, allowing 2,400 to 2,500 un~ts for th~s particular project; that the project has been decreased to 1,700 un~ts · that the reduction on the southerly edge to 2.5 acres (for buffering purposes) would reduce the overall density by 80 units noting that if the yield were not available, the financing for Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road would not, as well, be available. In response to Commissioner Mathewson, the following wa~ noted by staff: / · that the southerly edge of the property will ble buffered by a minimum of 20,000 square foot lots with a maximum of 2.5 acre Ibts I Iht f th I n ig o e unresolved issues, Commissioner Mathewson, expressed concern with continuing to fast track a project of this magnitude. Councilman Pratt noted that, in his opinion, the implementation of a public transit system could potentially mitigate major issues of concern with regard to tills project. In response to Councilman Naggar, the following was notec by staff: · that the neighboring properties to the outh have a higher elevation in comparison to the project site · that the incorporation of the Trails Master Pl~.n is being discussed and issues are being explored · that land uses included in the EIR and i the traffic analysis included the Harveston Specific Plan; that the guidelines Ifor analysis require the applicant to analyze any approved projects or projects in the process of being reviewed · that with regard to the CFD, the apphcant would have to find prior financing to fund improvements in excess of $24 million Supporting the accelerated time schedule for the proplosed project, Councilman Naggar commented on the developer's real estate option deadlines as well as addressed the construction of Butter[ield Stage Road, viewing it as a critical component of the City's Circulation System. If this project were not reviewed and approved, by the City within the scheduled timeframe, Councilman Naggar commented on the possibility of this project being reviewed by the County. R:\Minutes\071901 3 Noting that the CFD currently involves three property owners, Mayor Pro Tern Roberts stated that, in his opinion, other property owners should be paying their fair share toward the CFD. In response to Mayor Pro Tern Roberts, Project Planner V N~aseh-Shahry stated that it would be dependent on the quality of the proposed project as to wh~ther or not the proposed deadlines could be met, nobng that the deadhnes for a h~gh quahty p~roject could not be met. Mayor Pro Tern Roberts noted that the neighboring properties on the~ south side are more rural than the properties on the east side. Supporting the continuation of fast tracking th s project, C0unc man Stone commented on the City's need of an Eastern Bypass. Mr. Stone as {Nell referenced numerous off-site improvements as a result of this project - ones whic~ don't have a true nexus to the development (8 traffic signals and landscaped areas along Murneta Hot Springs Road) and as well referenced conditions imposed upon the developer suSh as the funding of the CFD prior to the issuance of the first building permit to ensure financing is in place to construct Butterfield Stage Road and the Fire Station improvements, th In an effort to increase the buffering on the sou ern boundary, Mayor Comerchero recommended that the lot s~zes ~n Planning Area Nos. 211 and 22 be decreased ~n order to compensate for the lost units along the southern boundaw~. Although the applicant was not of the opinion that the number of lost lots (80) could be recovered by the reduction of units in Planning Area Nos. 21 and 22. Applicant's presentation Mr. Kevin Everett, representing the developer Ashby U ~A, noted and commented on the following with regard to the proposed project: · that documents have been supplied to the City, reflecting the need for $44.7 million in improvements (including the Eastern Bypass ~{nd all regional connectors) · drainage improvements- need for a culvert system · Assessment District No. 161 debt of $835,0q0 prior to forming the Community Facilities District · Improvements-funded/unfunded For the benefit of the Council/Commission/and public, ,Mr. Everett highlighted the various elements of the proposed project, commenting on the following: · Neighborhood park · Fire Station site/site cost · Drainage · Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stag( the Development Fee per unit be allocated for advised that staff has recommended that those Station · Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) s · Habitat Fee- donating 201 acres of habitat into · Library fees · Corporate fees · Off-site traffic mitigation · Community Facilities District (on-site $20 million Road - developer would prefer that the construction of these roads but funds be allocated toward the Fire lould be waived he system and off-site $11 million) R:\Minutes\071901 4 Full mitigation of school impacts Average lot size is 6,300 square feet - lot sizes feet) The following individuals addressed the Council/Commi concerns with regard to the proposed project: · Mr. Ladd Stokies 39426 Jessie Cimle · Mr. Hans Kernkamp 39055 Liefer Road · Ms. Sue Gaiser 31300 Nicolas Road · Ms. Anne Kernkamp 39055 Liefer Road · Ms. Sue Knowlton 39130 Pala Vista Drive · Mr. Mike Knowlton 39130 Pala Vista Driv~ · Ms. Terri Harrison 40025Walcott Lane · Mr. Andrew Gallo 39445 Pala Vista Driv~ · Ms. Karen Bales 39340 Jessie Circle · Mr. Tim Messer 39120 Liefer Road · Mr. C.E. Edwards 31250 Nicolas Road · Mr. Ed Picozzi 31480 Nicolas Road · Mr. Richard Harrison 40025Walcott Lane · Ms. Helen Lasagna P.O. Box 1136 · Mr. Ronald Knowles 39675 Cantrell Road · Mr. Bill Vazzana 39605 Avenida Lynell Concerns/comments/suggestions with regard to the propos mentioned individuals were as follows: · Lack of buffering · Lack of improvements on Nicolas Road Land use incompatibility · 78' two-lane road proposed on west side- traffic vary from 3.7 acres to 5,000 square ~sion and expressed the following .~d project were raised by the above- concerns · Children's travel route to Chaparral High School · Quality of life · Constant and numerous changes to the propose'l project · Use of Nicolas Road for construction traffic · Elevation · Retention of the rural atmosphere- CEQA requir, ements · Generation of traffic onto Nicolas Road · View impact · Not favoring a future Assessment District to address, project · Request a balance · Water distribution and erosion · Habitat conservation At this time, City Clerk Jones apprised the City Oouncil of letter with regard to the Roripaugh Ranch Draft EIR. Reduction of density - relocate higher density u.,,es to the Village Core area Support of the annexation I Density on Nicolas Road - should be a four-lane road to ensure traffic flow Need for a Trail/equestrian system including sidewalks, bike paths, etc. concerns with 20 signatures (of record) R:\Minutes\071901 5 At 8:49 P.M., a recess was called. Mayor Comerchero reco~vened the meeting at 9:03 P.M. / City Council/Planninq Commission questions to the applicant In response to Councilman Stone, Mr. Everett noted the folllowing: D I · eve oper has agreed to a work schedule; expressed concern with each department red hmng the working document which, m turn, has created a lot of changes · Issues with regard to the Development Agreement and those raised by the Nicolas Valley residents can be resolved · Encouraged, for future use, the creation of an issues list · 78' road had been increased to 88'; that this ro,~d could have been 110' but that all road sections were redesigned on a cooperative ibasis with Public Works Although not wanting to debate the time schedule issue, Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that the Planmng Department has designated all departmental resources toward th~s particular project. Understanding staff's frustration with regard to deadlines, ouncilman Stone commented on the developer's willingness to pay for any contractual assistance necessary in order for the City to process this application and suggested that this option be e )lored. City Manager Nelson reiterated that this project was be reviewed by the Planning Commission on August 1, 2001, and that the Specific Plan was received 18 days late and that the Specific Plan does not have the red lines. in light of the residents' concerns, Mayor Pro Tem Robe~s as well relayed his concern with regard to providing equestrian accessibility on Nicolas Road. In response to Councilman Nagger, Deputy City Manag,er Thornhill, Public Works Director Hughes, and Project Planner V Naaseh-Shahry noted the following: · that the City's current Cimulation Element indicates Nicolas Road as an arterial four- lane roadway (110' right-of-way) · that in light of recent downzoning, recent traff, ic studies indicated that the traffic volumes would not justify a four-lane roadway and, therefore, it is being contemplated to downgrade that roadway · that the project has been conditioned to build a 38' width section and two 14' lanes and a center turn lane · that at build out, it is estimated that the averag~ daily trips on Nicolas Road will be 12,000 to 14,000 · that the buffering to the west (apartments/town omes) will range from 2.5 acre lots to commercial zoning; existing MWD and EMWD easements provide a 160' buffer in addition to a 20' landscaped buffer and wall · that dra nage for N co as Road is being processbd through the County Flood Control District and the City will be acting as a commenting agency to the approval processes and reviewing what the County is dictating · that flood levels higher than what would have previously been there can not be approved R:\Minutes\071901 6 · ' th d t' f Specific Plan to have design that no State law provisions require e a op ~o,n o a everygUidelineSspecificbUt thatplanthe City has traditionally requ red design guidelines to be a part of ihthat it would not be recommended to adopt a Specific Plan subject to the adoption of the Development Agreement th tth tw I I I B tt ' I t ' a e o arger parces aong u er~ied S age Road are included in the CFD. t Althou i may be feasible to adopt a Specific Plan subje,ct to the adoption of a Development Agreement, City Attorney Thorsen advised that he would, question whether by doing so the developer would have the necessary approvals to close escrow on his property. / Concurring with Mayor Pro Tern Roberts, Councilman Naglgar encouraged the participation of all associated property owners in the CFD. Facilities District and Providing clarification with regard to a Community an Assessment District, Public Works Director Hughes commented on the impacts of increasing the size of the CFD. CommissionCouncilman representation. Pratt recommended that the subcommittee be expanded to include Planning In response to Mayor Comerchero's suggestion, Deputy (~ity Manager Thornhill advised that because the developer has already obtained the necessary permits from Fish and Game/Fish and Wildlife, it would be difficult to redefine borders. MrI Comerchero suggested that if the opportunity were available, that staff explore expanding Pilanning Area Nos. 13 and 14 and, thereby, decreasing the open space in Planning Area No. 10. Planning Commissioners' input In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Everett noted the following: · th tth d dl f a e ea ine or receiving approva for th s pr. oject wou d be August · that documents have been forwarded to Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) I · · that full build out would be expected in approxlma e y ive years Pbl W k u ic or s Director Hughes provided additional clar~ification as it relates to bonding capabilities, noting that bonds can not be sold unless there is a certainty the project will move forward and that ~ncorporabng Level of Service caps wh~cl~ prevent pulling of building permits (information which would have to be disclosed) could hamper the ability to sell bonds. / In response to Public Works Director Hughes, Councilmaln Naggar advised that the bonding companyproject will would proceed, be satisfied with selling bonds if it would have assurances in place that the C h fi' t dth th Id tf th In light of the open-ended issues, ommissioner C iniae no e a e wou no oresee is matter being addressed at the August 1, 2001, Planning Commission meeting. In response to Mr. Ch~maeffs concern w~th regard to equestnan access~b~hty, Development Services Administrator McCarthy advised that various locations fo~ trails are being explored and that constraints are being identified in the Master Plan. Mr. Chiniaeff expressed concerns with regard to the following: · land use location/land use conflicts R:\Minutes\071901 7 · developer's escrow problem should not be the driving force of this project especially considering its magnitude · would not favor approving a project without a Development Agreement/design guidelines I · Nicolas Road is a major road determined when the County approved all the residences along the road prior to City inqorporation; that the 110' road at Winchester Road will have to tie to the next major arterial which is Butteffield Stage Roadt' I ' 'rt · That provisions have to be made for eques r an access ~ y · That the proposed project is not ready for Planning Commission consideration on August 1,2001 / in closing, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed his desire to,I have a member of the Planning Commission be a part of the City Council subcommittee reviewing this project. Concurring with Commissioner Chiniaeff, Commissioner Telesio noted that he would not envision this matter being ready to discuss at the Augbst 1, 2001, Planning Commission meeting. Issues of concern and suggesbons were as follows: · lot sizing/buffering - west side · reduction of density on east and south sides if deadlines are not met, what happens Expressing his objection to continuing to fast track a 'oject of this magnitude, Chairman Guerriero voiced concern with the following issues: · Nicolas Road · Buffering · Traffic mitigation fees for Winchester Road · CFD for Butterfield Stage Road Commenting on the time and pride the Planning Commissibn takes in reviewing Specific Plans, Chairman Guerriero noted that he could not foresee th~s matter being discussed at the August 1,2001, Planning Commission meeting. . th t b In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff's comment, Councdman Stone concurred a a mere er of the Planning Commsson shoud have been a part ~)f the C ty Council subcommittee. Although the project may not be ready for Commission consideration m two weeks, Councilman Stone commented on the importance of this project being constructed in the City and the benefits of the Eastern Bypass and recommended to expand the City Council subcommittee to two members of the Planning Commission as well as two members of the City Council and that the citizens be invited for input. Councilman Naggar clarified that he had not intended to approve a project without a Development Agreement or design guidelines but that he ~,ould support an approval subject to the approval of those items. Noting that the impacts of thi~ project will affect this City for many years to come, Mr. Naggar reiterated his desire to have this project under the purview of the City versus the County and readdressed h~s concerns w~thi regard to buffering, safety, and lot sizes. R:\Minutes\071901 8 Commissioner Chiniaeff reiterated that he would not enwsion this project being ready in two weeks for Planning Commission review and as well advised that he would be interested to serve on the City Council subcommittee for this project. Clarifying staff's recommendation to no longer fast track~ this project, City Manager Nelson commented on staff s w~lhngness to continue ~ts efforts w~tt-i regard to this project but noted that it would be staff's opinion that to accomplish this task in two weeks for the Planning Commission meeting would be an impossible task. In light of the issues that are still unresolved and issues that were addressed this evening by the residents, Deputy City Manager Thornhill confirmed that hese issues can not be resolved in time for the August 1, 2001, Planning Commission meeting. In light of the Council/Commission comments, Mayor Com( rchero suggested that staff continue to proceed with the project - a project that must as well ~eet the standards set for any other previously considered project. Commending the City Manager Nelson on his stance of assuring the proposed project will be a quality project within the City, Commissioner Telesio encouraged the Council, Commission, staff, and the applicant to continue to try to complete the project but assured that he would not be willing to accept a lesser project in exchange for better r~ad circulation. / Praising staff for their efforts associated with this project, Ma, lyor Pro Tem Roberts noted that this project has been a straining task on staff. / Commenting on the $40 million in improvements that the City stands to loose if this project were not considered, Councdman Stone requested that staff co,nt~nue to extend ~ts efforts untd the deadline of September 30, 2001. In closing, Councilman Stone applauded the efforts of staff and noted that the Planning Commission must be an integral part of this process and offered the following motion: MOTION: Councilman Stone moved to direct that two mbmbers of the City Council and two members of the Planning Commission (Subcommittee) mebt with staff and the developer; that the subcommittee and staff work as diligently as possible [in order for this project to proceed; that when staff determines that the project is ready forI Planning Commission review, the publication process should be followed; and that the Planning Commsson make ts recommendat'ons to the City Council for August 28, 2001, r~eeting. The motion was seconded by Councilman Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval In response to City Manager Nelson, Mr. Richard Ashby, de City Council approval by August 28, 2001, for the projec Specific Plan, the Tentative Tract Maps, and the grading pe Mayor Comerchero suggested that a subcommittee meetin( to clarify the developer's requirements to assure the August celoper, advised that he must obtain the Development Agreement, the mits. be scheduled for tomorrow in order 28, 2001, deadline. City Attorney Thorson clarified that there is no appeal per ?d once the City Council makes its decision; that there will be a first reading for ordinances apF roving a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendments, and Tentative Tract Maps; that there would b, a second reading at least five days later; and that there would be a 30-day period before th~ ordinance becomes effective; that there would as well be a 30-day statute of I~m~tat~ons for challenging a legal challenge to the R:\Minutes\071901 9 statute of limitations; that most lenders would want to wait for that is a 90-day statute of limitations for approval of the zoning Councilman Naggar encouraged Mr. Ashby to start his Ioa~ on the subcommittee if needed. Commissioners Chiniaeff and Commissioner Telesio offere, period of time; and that there pprovals. 2rocess and as well offered to serve to serve on the subcommittee. ADJOURNMENT f II ' t T At 10:55 P.M., the City Council meeting .~/eas~J~,~rr~(eDdri~e ~eeSmdeacY~laJ,U~al2if4(~rn2i0a0.1, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, ~V;~O~)°~asl , A'i-rEST: on, CMC ~ Jeff Comerchero, Mayor R:\Minutes\071901 10