HomeMy WebLinkAbout071201 PC MinutesMINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 12, 2001
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular meeting
at 6:00 P.M., on Thursday July 12, 2001, 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 Olhasso.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio,
and Chairman Guerriero.
Absent; None.
Aisc Present:
Director of Planning Ubnoske,
Assistant City Attorney Curley,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Senior Planner Hogan,
Associate Planner Anders, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Councilman Naggar (City Council liason to the Planning Commission) extended
congratulations to Commissioner Telesio for his recent reappointment to the Planning
Commission; and welcomed Commissioner Olhasso, the newly appointed
Commissioner, relaying that she would be a fine addition to the Planning Commission;
and noted that his regularly quarterly meetings with the Planning Commission's
Chairman and Vice Chairman would continue.
CONSENTCALENDAR
1 Aqenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of July 12, 2001
2
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Minutes of May 16, 2001
R: PlanComrrVrninutes/071201
With respect to Consent Calendar Item No. 2 (the minutes of May 16, 2001 ),
Commissioner Olhasso noted for the record that although she had not attended the May
16, 2001 Planning Commission meeting that she had reviewed the tape and would be
taking action regarding the approval of the minutes.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-2.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval
with the exception of Chairman Guerriero who abstained from item No. 2.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Planninq Application No. 00-0419 - General Plan Amendment for Harveston,
Planninq Application No. 99-0418 - Harveston Specific Plan No. 13, Planninq
Application No. 99-0418 - Development Code Amendment, Planninq Application No.
99-0418 - Specific Plan Zonin(~ Standards, Planninq Application No. 00-0189 -
Harveston Environmental Impact Report, Planninq Application No. 99-0245 -
Chancle of Zone, Plannina Application No. 99-0446 - Development Acireement,
Planninq Application No. 00-0295 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29639, Planninc~
Application No. 01-0030 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29928, Planninq Application No.
01-0031 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29929, Plannin(~ Application No. 01-0032 -
Tentative Tract Map No. 30088 - located east of Interstate 15, north of Santa
Gertrudis Creek, west of Marqarita Road and south of the northern City limit.
Patty Anders, Associate Planner/Saied Naaseh, Proiect Planner V/Dave Hogan,
Senior Planner/Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Plannina.
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-024
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR
THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED
ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,
AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE
HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED EAST OF
INTERSTATE 15, NORTH OF SANTA GERTRUDIS
CREEK, WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND SOUTH
OF THE CITY LIMIT (PLANNING APPLICATION 00-
0189).
R:PlanCornnYrnln~e~071201 2
3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-025
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE FOLLOWING:
1) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE
HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 00-0419);
2) THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 13
(PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0418);
3) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE
HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING
STANDARDS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-
0418);
4) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A CHANGE
OF ZONE TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
OF THE CITY (PLANNING APPLICATION 99-0245);
5) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A CODE
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 17.16.070 OF THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 99-0418); AND
6) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE HARVESTON
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE SERVICE
COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL PORTIONS OF THE
SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0446);
ON PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 550
ACRES LOCATED EAST OF INTERSTATE 15, NORTH
OF SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK, WEST OF
MARGARITA ROAD AND SOUTH OF THE NORTHERN
CITY LIMIT, AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS
ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 910-261-001, 910-261-002,
910-110-013, 910-110-015
910-110-027, 910-110-076
910-060-009, 910-120-005
911-630-001, 911-630-002
911-640-002, 911-180-002
911-180-008, 911-180-009
AND 911-180-028;
910-110-020, 910-110-021,
910-100-007, 910-100-008,
910-120-007, 910-120-008,
911-630-003, 911-640-001,
911-180-003, 911-180-004,
911-180-015, 911-180-023,
3.3 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-026
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0295
- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29639, THE
SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY 550 ACRES INTO
91 LOTS WHICH CONFORM TO THE PLANNING
AREAS, OPEN SPACE AREAS, SCHOOL AND PARK
SITES OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN;
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0030 - TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 29928, THE SUBDIVISION OF
APPROXIMATELY 40 ACRES INTO 140 RESIDENTIAL
LOTS AND 21 OPEN SPACE LOTS IN PLANNING AREA
7 OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN; PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 01-0031 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
NO. 29929, THE SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY
20 ACRES INTO 118 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 3 OPEN
SPACE LOTS IN A PORTION OF PLANNING AREAS 3
AND 4 OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN; AND
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0032 - TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 30088, THE SUBDIVISION OF
APPROXIMATELY 9.18 ACRES INTO 38 RESIDENTIAL
LOTS AND 8 OPEN SPACE LOTS IN A PORTION OF
PLANNING AREA 4 OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC
PLAN LOCATED EAST OF INTERSTATE 15, NORTH
OF SANTA GERTRUDIS CREEK, WEST OF
MARGARITA ROAD AND SOUTH OF THE CITY LIMIT,
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 910-261, -
001, 910-261-002
020, 910-110-021
007, 910-100-008
001, 911-630-002
002, 911-180-002
008, 911-180-009.
180-028.
910-110-013, 910-110-015, 910-110-
910-110-027, 910-110-076, 910-100-
910-060-009, 910-120-008, 911-630-
911-630-003, 911-640-001, 911-640-
911-180-003, 911-180-004, 911-180-
911-180-015, 911-180-023 AND 911-
Staff Rel3ort Presented
Due to the numerous workshops, the previous project presentation, and per the Planning
Commission's request, Associate Planner Anders relayed that she would not be
providing an additional presentation at tonight's hearing; specified the supplemental
agenda material distributed to the Planning Commission for its consideration which was
inclusive of the memorandums dated June 19, 2001, and July 12, 2001, and the
Development Agreement (DA) in its substantial form, advising that Assistant City
Attorney Curley could address any questions regarding the DA; and for the record, noted
the two additional letters staff received regarding the project since the agenda packets
were distributed (provided per supplemental agenda material), listed as follows: 1 ) a
letter dated July 10, 2001 written by Mr. Mark Broderick, outlining his concerns regarding
the project, and 2) a letter date July 12, 2001 written by Mr. And Mrs. John and Klm
Kelliher, relaying their support of the project.
R: P[anCemnYminutes/071201 4
The Public is Invited to Provide Comments
Noting the applicant's desire to address the Planning Commission affer the public
comment period, Chairman Guerriero opened the public hearing at this time, reiterating,
for the record, the Planning Commission's receipt of two letters regarding the project (as
referenced by Associate Planner Anders), written by Mr. Mark Broderick, and Mr. and
Mrs. Kelliher.
The following individuals spoke as proponents of the project:
r~ Mr. Mark Bailey
[] Mr. David Rosenthal
44763 Calle Banuelos
27315 Jefferson Avenue
representing Temecula Valley Pop Warner Footbah
representing Riverside Manufacturer's Council
The above-mentioned individuals were in favor of the project for the following reasons:
The project will aid in addressing the sports needs for the youth of the community.
The high quality of the project, desiring to see additional development with like-
qualities.
The positive impacts this project will have on the manufacturing community due to
the vast range of housing types offered.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the project:
Mr. Mark Broderick
Mr. Chris Pedersen
[] Mr. Joseph R. Terrazas
45501 Clubhouse Drive
31052 Wellington Circle
P.O. Box 2289
The above-mentioned individuals were not in favor of the project for the following
reasons:
The significant impacts denoted in the EIR.
The small lot sizes.
The air quality, and traffic impacts.
Recommended lowering the densities.
Temecula is not an urban community.
While pleased with numerous concepts included in the project plan, Ms. Michelle
Anderson, 43797 Barletta Street, relayed her concerns regarding this particular
proposal, listed as follows: traffic impacts, the high densities proposed, and school
overcrowding.
In response to Ms. Diane Gaynor, a representative of Lennar Communities, Chairman
Guerriero confirmed that the Planning Commission had received the letter dated July
12th written by John and Klm Kelliher.
R: PlanCornn~nutes/071201 5
Applicant Rebuttal
Addressing the public comments, Mr. Ray Becker, representing the applicant, provided
the following information:
With respect to the issue of densities, noted that the overall project density of 1921
homes was in the middle range with respect to the General Plan, relaying the applicant's
efforts to provide a wide range of home types; advised that within the project, density was
controlled in various manners, noting that within each planning area there are minimum lot
sizes, a minimum average lot size, and a maximum number of homes that can be built
within each planning area, clarifying that if 2,000 square foot home sites were constructed
in an individual planning area that the end result would be a large portion of green areas
since there was a maximum number of home sites which could be built in each planning
area; and reiterated the goal to accommodate a wide variety of housing needs, noting the
design standards proposed which are far beyond the minimum City standards.
With respect to traffic issues, advised that the analysis for this project included the
evaluation of 39 intersections, and the impacts associated with this project; clarified that
this project has proposed to take an approximate 5-year schedule of improvements and to
expedite the plan and install these road improvements prior to the project's first building
permit, noting that this particular proposal includes mitigation for twice the amount of
traffic impacts than the project's share as determined in the EIR, relaying efforts to aid in
solving a wide range of traffic problems; noted that at this point in time there are
approximately $10.5 million of existing improvements that have been funded by this
applicant.
With respect to the school issues, provided information regarding the agreement
reached between the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) and Lennar
Communities which guarantees the subsidizing of one hundred percent (100%) of the
costs for all three schools for the Harveston students (elementary, middle, and high
schools), clarifying the applicant's guarantee of all the mitigation costs for the Harveston
students school needs, if not provided via State funding.
In response to queries regarding the School District, Mr. Dave Gallaher, representing
TVUSD, provided the following information:
With respect to the middle school, advised that this facility has already been built
(James Day Middle School), and was located approximately 1.5 miles from the Harveston
site; noted that the permanent facility was opened (in anticipation of the Harveston
Project, and other projects) in August of 2000, noting the extra capacity at this school for
the Harveston Project, and other projects; specified that the current population was
approximately 1100 students with a capacity of approximately 1400 students; relayed
that the Harveston Project would potentially generate approximately 342 middle school
students; relayed that the Harveston Project was located closer to James Day Middle
School than many of the neighborhoods sending students to this school, noting the
current process of expanding other schools (i.e., Margarita Middle School is currently
receiving a permanent expansion); provided additional information regarding the process
of opening schools, and until the anticipated neighborhoods are built, the students are
drawn from a larger area since it is more efficient to run a school full, advising that the
elementary school for Harveston will be completed in August 2001 and will be filled with
R: PlanComm/~nutes/071201 6
students from other areas (i.e., French Valley) to serve an interim solution until additional
schools open; with respect to the high school for Harveston residents, relayed that
Chaparral High School (which is located Y2 mile from the Harveston site) will be the home
school for this neighborhood, noting that the mitigation agreement recognized that all the
students will not fit into Chaparral High School, ergo this applicant's high school
mitigation payment will not actually go directly into Chaparral High School, but to other
high schools so that the residents living further from Chaparral High School can attend
their home schools which will create room for the Harveston students at Chaparral High
School; advised that with the mitigation agreement associated with Harveston, the School
District will receive additional funds if the much-needed high schools are not funded by
the State; and confirmed that Chaparral High School will be expanded due to the general
growth in this area.
With respect to the school fee mitigation agreement, noted that this agreement
was entered in 1998, relaying that with the State monies received in anticipation of this
development, and the remaining monies to be paid by Lennar Communities, that the sum
total of this funding was the best mitigation received by the TVUSD from a development;
clarified that the overall situation with the Harveston Project was beneficial to the School
District, and that TVUSD had no objections to the Harveston Project; with respect to the
School District's application for State funding, advised that it was always site specific, as
well as project specific, noting the necessity to have a construction-ready project; and
confirmed that the development school fee mitigation was not site specific, reiterating that
those monies may be utilized to fund schools further away from the project in order to
leave room for the project's students; specified that if the TVUSD does not receive State
funding for a new high school, Lennar Communities will pay $11.6 million towards this
project, whereas if there is State funding, Lennar would pay approximately $8.4 million.
For clarification regarding the School District issues, Mr. Becker noted that if the District
receives no State funds for the high school, Lennar will be obligated to pay one hundred
percent (100%) of its fee, and not fifty percent (50%), relaying that if the State does
provide funding to the District for the high school (even up to one hundred percent),
Lennar's fee would drop to fifty percent (50%), but not lower, under any circumstances.
With respect to the issue of small lot sizes, Mr. Becker relayed that at this time there
were no plans for 2,000 square foot lots, as referenced during the public comment
period, while noting that in the townhome area (if the total acreage was divided by the
number of townhomes), these particular lots would be approximately 2,000 square feet;
clarified that the zoning did permit single-family detached homes on 2,000 square foot
lots, reiterating that within any planning area, the total number of units cannot be
exceeded which would create additional green space if cluster homes were constructed;
and noted that the 2,000 square foot lots were still available as an option.
Regarding the school issues, Commissioner Olhasso provided additional information
regarding her past experience while in Sacramento, noting that the State Legislature
places caps (limits) on what School District's can charge per dwelling unit.
Commission Deliberations
Providing a brief history of the project site, Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that the variety
of housing opportunities was desirable, providing for the needs of seniors, and other
housing needs; opined that this project would provide an innovative development ptan,
R: Plan Comm/rnin ut e s/071201 7
additionally noting the open spaces, and the reserve area; with respect to the proposed
increase in density (over the minimum density in the General Plan) of 475 units, relayed
that this increase was offset by the proposed amenities (i.e., the lake); with respect to
the school issues, noted that in light of the School District's comments which clarified
that this project has met its obligation, that this issue has been fully addressed; with
respect to the interchange issue (i.e., at either Date Street, or Cherry Street), advised
that ultimately this project would be constructed, noting that issues with Caltrans and the
Federal Government needed to be resolved; with respect to Winchester Road, advised
that the majority of the traffic impacts related to this area are primarily generated from
traffic from the County, and ultimately from the future reservoir patrons; commended the
applicant for addressing the signal projects prior to a single person moving into this
development; and relayed that this particular proposal was a good project and that he
was prepared to support it.
While noting that he was enthusiastic regarding the proposed plans associated with this
project presented to the Planning Commission from the onset, Commissioner
Mathewson relayed his fear concerning whether the concepts presented to staff and the
Planning Commission would be implemented ultimately, specifically in terms of the
quality and the amenities; with respect to the proposed densities, advised that he
considered the Growth Management Plan (GMP) a serious matter, and that it was his
opinion that this project's proposed densities were offset with the numerous amenities
offered (i.e., the architectural treatments, the funding of the first years of a shuttle
service); concurred with previous comments regarding the benefits of the wide range of
housing opportunities; with respect to the proposed streetscape design, opined that the
open-ended cul-de-sacs, the trelliswork, the mailbox treatments, the decorative street
lighting would be a tremendous asset to the City; with respect to the lake,
recommended that to the extent possible, efforts should be made to have this facility be
opened to the public, specifically for fishing, operating remote control boats, and utilizing
the paddleboat rentals, recommending that the maintenance issues be overcome, and
that if additional monies were needed to open the lake to the public, that this avenue be
pursued; with respect to the Village Center, recommended that since there was such a
limited amount of commercial retail space that there were specific issues he would
desire to address with the Commission in order to consider modifying some of the
permitted uses; and advised that per additional discussions with staff, he was becoming
more confident that the conceptual design plans would be reflected in the final product.
Advising that he began living in Temecula twenty years ago, Commissioner Telesio
noted the changes over the years, relaying the need at this point in time for a variety of
housing types; with respect to this particular project, noted that he was pleased with the
proposed diversity in housing, as well as the amenities; relayed that with respect to the
use of the lake, that it was his opinion that this private use was part of the rights
associated with individuals who opted to purchase a home in this development, clarifying
that he could support exclusivity with respect to the lake use, advising that the
community, as a whole, would still be benefited due to the visual appearance, and the
access (i.e., to be able to walk, jog, or bicycle around it); and noted that he was
concerned with respect to the design plans presented and the ultimate end product
which will be actually constructed, recommending that product review be conducted at
the Planning Commission level; and relayed his support of the project.
R: Plan ComrrVmlnut es/071201 8
In response to Commissioner Olhasso's queries, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks
confirmed that the issue of the Winchester Road improvements being constructed prior
to the first building permit was included in the Development Agreement.
Acknowledging the time and effort expended investigating this complex project,
Commissioner Olhasso commended the residents who spoke regarding this proposal,
relaying appreciation for their expressed care for their community.
Noting the growth in the City of Temecula over that last decade, Commissioner Olhasso
resolved that the most prudent solution in her opinion was to raise the bar (i.e.,
standards), specifically with respect to design, and amenities (i.e., lakes, paseos, parks,
and pedestrian-oriented elements); relayed that she was pleased with this particular
project's pedestrian links, specifying that the paseos led to the neighborhoods, and the
parks; due to the problems in other developments with respect to following through with
proposed amenities, concurred that product review should be conducted at the Planning
Commission level to ensure that a quality project was implemented; and advised that
since financial issues were not within the scope of the Planning Commission approval
process, it was her recommendation to the City Council that the CFD be closely
scrutinized, that there be assurance that there was comfort (from a financial perspective)
with respect to the appraisals, and that there not be a plethora of months of capitalized
interest in the CFD upfront.
While opining that this particular proposal was a Cadillac project for Temecula,
Chairman Guerriero advised that it was vital that the design concepts presented be the
actual standards implemented in the City of Temecula, concurring with the product
review being held at the Planning Commission level; noted that this project has mitigated
beyond the requirements, that the diverse housing elements were in accordance with the
General Plan which would offer housing opportunities for all income levels (i.e.,
firefighters, teachers); recommended to the City Council that there be a policy change in
order to incorporate the streetscapes proposed in this project (i.e., narrower streets
separated with landscaped strips), noting that this element has been proven to reduce
speeds, and encourage walking; and with respect to the applicant's willingness to
provide a transit system, expressed kudos to the applicant, relaying hopes that when
the citizens are offered this alternate means of transportation, it will be utilized.
Regarding the transit provisions, Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that there have
been recent discussions regarding providing opportunities (for the same dollar amount)
with a broader spectrum of use, clarifying that this provision may not ultimately entail
capital equipment, but may fund the operational aspects of transit, noting the goal for
this transportation component to be more effective for the community.
Commission ClosinQ Comments
In light of the fact that it appeared that the Planning Commission would be moving this
item forward to the City Council, Commissioner Mathewson relayed his desire that a few
specific issues be addressed, listed as follows:
With respect to the Design Guidelines, and the ten (10) architectural styles
denoted, recommended that there be a limit with respect to any one particular
architecture style being represented more than twenty percent (20%.)
R: PlanComnYmlnutes/O71201 9
With respect to the allowance (via administrative approval) for modifications up to
fifteen percent (15%) of the design criteria to encourage innovative and quality
design, opined that since the Design Guidelines do differ substantially from the
current Development Code in the City, that it was unnecessary to allow another
fiffeen percent (15%) administrative discretion.
In response, Commissioner Chiniaeff, echoed by Commissioners Telesio and
Guerriero, recommended that the request for a fiffeen percent (15%) variance be
brought to the Planning Commission for review and approval.
With respect to product review, queried whether it was staff's understanding that
this process would be conducted at the Planning Commission level.
In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske invited the Planning Commission to
provide direction regarding this matter, noting that at this time the Development
Code states that the product review will be held at the Director's Hearing level,
noting that the Planning Commission could forward an item to the Planning
Commission after receiving an agenda for a Director's Hearing.
Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he does not receive the agenda for the
Director's Hearings.
If there was Commission consensus, Commissioner Telesio recommended that the
product review be conducted at the Planning Commission level.
With respect to the roundabout element proposed in the Village Center, opined that
it was vital that the treatment at this location be enhanced in order to serve as a
focal point for the Village Center, recommending that the language in the Design
Guidelines be modified to require a substantial monument element.
In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that when the proposed plan for
this roundabout area was presented to the Planning Commission there would be
opportunity for the Planning Commissioners to make recommendations.
Commissioner Chiniaeff added that the record could reflect the Planning
Commission's desire for a substantial monument which would provide clarification
for the applicant prior to presenting the project to the Planning Commission.
With respect to the Zoning Ordinance, specifically regarding the allowance of
religious institutions as permitted uses, Commissioner Mathewson noted his
concern regarding a potential large-sized religious institution developing at this site
which would be incompatible with the development plan.
In response, Senior Planner Hogan relayed that the 20,000 square feet of
commercial space in the Village Center was focused towards retail type uses,
advising that a proposed church use occupying this entire 20,000 square feet would
be inconsistent with the Specific Plan.
Further commenting on the issue, Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that the Planning
Commission's review of a request for a Conditional Use Permit would provide the
Planning Commission an opportunity to review the impacts.
Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed the restrictions related to developing
language to prohibit a church use from occupying the 20,000 square foot
commercial space; noted that maximum square footage standards could be placed
on general land uses in an area, while there could be no preclusion of a specific
type of permitted use; and confirmed, for Commissioner Chiniaeff, that there could
be Conditional Use Permit review for these types of uses.
Commissioner Olhasso advised that the economic issues related to the stringent
Design Guidelines for the Village Center would effect the potential for a church use
to locate in this area.
With respect to the exclusivity regarding the lake use, and ~n response to
Commissioner Telesio's comments, Commissioner Mathewson noted the amenities
in alternate developments which could be utilized by the community, as a whole,
while the residents in these specific areas paid for the amenities, reiterating his
desire for the lake to be open to the public, and for the City to maintain and assume
the liability.
In response, Commissioner Telesio reiterated his opinion that the lake use should
be exclusive to the individuals who purchase a home in this development.
For discussion purposes, Commissioner Olhasso suggested that Temecula
residents be given an opportunity to buy into the HCA, and ergo, be granted rights
to the lake use.
Concurring with Commissioner Telesio, Commissioner Chiniaeff noted the activities
the public could enjoy regarding the lake while, primarily, only being prohibited from
boating activities.
The Applicant Addresses the Planninq Commission's Recommendations
In response to Commissioner Mathewson's recommendations, Mr. Becker provided the
following information:
Noted the applicant's willingness to limit the project so that no one particular
architectural style could be represented more than twenty percent (20%),
community-wide. For clarification, Commissioner Mathewson confirmed that it was
not his intent for an apartment complex to have multiple architectural styles.
With respect to the recommendation that modifications in the design criteria (which
currently states that modifications up to fifteen percent (15%) could be approved
administratively), relayed that the applicant would support this approval process
being conducted at the Planning Commission level.
With respect to product review being conducted at the Planning Commission level,
noted the applicant's willingness to agree to this recommendation, relaying that it
was the applicant's opinion that at a future point the Planning Commission would
develop a level of comfort regarding this matter.
R: PlanComrWminute~071201 1 1
With respect to the roundabout design, relayed that this project would be presented
to the Planning Commission for review and approval.
With respect to the lake use, noted TCSD's concern regarding the operation of the
lake which has culminated into an agreement whereby there would be public
access to the lake park, but not the lake, advising that if it was the City's desire to
create a publicly-used lake, the applicant would support this concept, clarifying that
this project, as proposed, was the result of much negotiation; for Commissioner
Mathewson, relayed that it had not yet been determined whether fishing would be
permitted by the public, noting the liability issues at hand; and for Commissioner
Telesio, acknowledged the benefits for the lake to be exclusive due to the
homebuyers paying for this particular amenity, relaying the other primary issues
associated with this matter (i.e., the liability issues, the GMP criteria for a qualifying
amenity), clarifying that the applicant was willing to have the use of the lake be
either private, or public.
Referencing Mr. Becket's comments, Assistant City Attorney Curley queried the
Planning Commission for direction regarding the point at which the Planning
Commission would not desire to have the product review be conducted at the Planning
Commission level; and queried if it was the Planning Commission's desire for the
Planning Director to have the discretion to determine which product reviews will be
conducted at the Planning Commission level.
After additional discussion, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to have all
product review to come to the Planning Commission, and that after the Planning
Commission reached a level of comfort, the approval could be addressed as a consent
calendar item.
With respect to the lake use, Commissioner Mathewson requested that staff address the
issue with the City Council.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve
staff's recommendation regarding Recommendation Nos. 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3, modified, as
follows:
Modify-
With respect to the Design Guidelines, that there be a standard restricting
one particular architectural style from being implemented on more than
twenty percent (20%) of the total housing, community-wide.
With respect to all product review, that this review would be brought to the
Planning Commission.
That the allowance for the Director of Planning to administratively approve
modifications regarding design criteria up to fifteen percent (15%) be
revised to reflect that this review and approval process would be conducted
at the Planning Commission level.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff and voice vote reflected
unanimous approval.
R: Plan Comm/minut es/071201 12
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
No additional comments.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
No additional comments.
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:01 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to the City Council/
Planning Commission Joint Workshop to be held on Tuesdav, Julv 17, 2001 at 7:00
P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske,
Director of Planning
R: PlanComm/~nutes/071201 13