HomeMy WebLinkAbout050102 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 1, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:01 P.M.,
on Wednesday, May 1, 2002, 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 Telesio.
ROLLCALL
Present:
Commissioners Mathewson Olhasso, Telesio, and
Chairman Chiniaeff.
Absent:
Commissioner Guerriero.
Also Present:
Director of Planning Ubnoske
Assistant City Attorney Curley,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Development Services Administrator McCarthy,
Senior Planner Hazen,
Senior Planner Hogan,
Associate Planner Papp,
Associate Planner Thornsley,
Project Planner McCoy,
Project Planner Rush, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1
A.qenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of May 1, 2002.
R:PlanComrniminutes/050102
MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval
with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who was absent.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
2 Plannin,q Application No. 01-0309 (Development Plan) - Rick Rush Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0309 pursuant to
Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act;
2.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-011
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 01-0309, DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO
CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A 16,200
INDUSTRIAL/ WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON 1.09
VACANT ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON
WINCHESTER ROAD NORTH OF COLT COURT AND
SOUTH OF ZEVO DRIVE KNOWN AS ASSESSORS
PARCEL NO. 909-360-020
Via color renderings, Project Planner Rush presented the staff report (of record), highlighting the project
location, and the access; noted that this item had been continued from the April 3, 2002 Planning
Commission meeting, and subsequently from the April 24, 2002 Planning Commission meeting;
advised that the applicant has retained the services of a licensed architect since the continuance;
relayed that there were no proposed changes to the site plan, the landscape plan, or the floor plan;
noted the modifications to the architecture as follows: the office portion of the building has been raised
three feet, two additional rows of windows have been added, the originally proposed roofing material
has been eliminated, windows have been added along the entire front elevation, the southeast corner
has been raised by two feet, spandrel windows have been added along the southeast elevation, a glass
door was added, exposed aggregate concrete has been added to the southeast corner and the office
portion of the project in order to create an overall design theme, the paint colors have been revised
from the originally proposed earth tone colors to more gray and blue tone colors, and the glass color
has been changed to a light blue color; with respect to the knockout panels which have been proposed
on the east and west elevations, advised that staff was recommending that the knockout panels be
replaced with spandrel glass in order to create consistency with the remainder of the building; and for
Commissioner Telesio and Chairman Chiniaeff, reiterated the revisions in the project where windows
were added, specifying that staff was recommending that the painted knockout panels be replaced with
spandrel glass which will tie in with the remainder of the project.
Mr. Walt Allen, architect representing the applicant, advised that per discussions with the applicant
there was no opposition to complying with staff's recommendation to install spandrel glass at the
location of the knockout panels.
R:PlanComm/minutes/050102 2
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve
staff's recommendation, subject to the following revision:
Add-
· That the proposed painted knockout panels be replaced with spandrel glass.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected approval
with the exception of Commissioner Guerdero who was absent.
3 Plannin,q Application No. 01-0610 (Tentative Parcel Map) and Planning Application
No. 01-0611 (Development Plan) - Emery Papp Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for
Planning Application No 01-0610 and 01-0611;
3.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-012
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 01-0610, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
30468 TO CREATE 14 PARCELS ON 32.6 ACRES, AND
PLANNING APPLICATION 01-0611 A RELATED
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 400 UNIT
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT COMPLEX;
108,100 SQUARE-FEET OF RETAIL/OFFICE USES;
AND A 15,000 SQUARE-FOOT CHILD DAY CARE
CENTER, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, BETWEEN JEDEDIAH
SMITH ROAD AND AVENIDA DE MISSIONS, KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 961-010-006.
Staff presented the proiect plan
By way over overheads, Associate Planner Papp provided a project overview (per
agenda material), relaying the following:
· That the proposal was to subdivide 32.6 acres into 14 parcels, 12 for commercial
purposes, and the remaining two parcels for residential;
· That a Settlement Agreement was signed on November 28, 2000 for the Temecula
Creek Village Project site which allowed up to 400 apartment units, and up to 123,000
square feet of commercial space; relayed the location of the site, the Zoning [Planned
Development Overlay (PDO)-4], the General Plan designation (Professional Office), the
surrounding land uses; and specified that the site was divided into four subareas;
R:~anComrdminuted050102 3
· That Subarea A would be a Service Commercial area, where two restaurants, a
bank, a 15,000 square foot daycare facility or commercial use, and two retail buildings
were proposed, relaying that the project has been conditioned to install a signal light,
specifying the project's alternate access points; noted that the project would have a
public trail which would extend along the southerly boundary of all the subareas; advised
that there were four public access points along the southerly boundary of the project with
respect to the trail; relayed that the concern of staff regarding Subarea A was that the
drive aisle entry off of Jedediah Smith Road was too narrow, noting staff's request that
the applicant remove a few of the parking spaces in order to widen the driveway, which
the applicant has agree to do;
· That Subarea C would be the Village Commercial area, noting the proposed bus
turnout located off of Highway 79 (South) to facilitate pedestrian activity, the pedestrian
plaza areas, the trail that would link to the public trait, and the location of an earthquake
fault zone on the easterly portion of this planning area which resulted in the plan to
install parking and drive aisles at this location; and relayed that the proposed gates
would keep commercial traffic out of the residential areas;
· That Subarea B was one of the two residential areas, noting that all of the
apartment buildings in this area would be three stories in height, specifying the location
of the buildings and the internalized parking;
· That Subarea D was the other residential portion of the site, advising that each of
the residential areas would have its own separate private recreation clubhouse with a
pool and spa; relayed the two access points along the trail for this particular subarea and
the one emergency vehicle access point; noted that the placement of the buildings in this
area was designed to mitigate noise impacts from Highway 79 (South); and specified the
buildings in this area which would be three stories in height;
Via exhibits and colored renderings, demonstrated the architectural treatments for
each of the elevations, which wrapped around the buildings, noting the use of stone
veneers, and varying roof lines; specified that the commercial area was differentiated
from the residential area by the roofing material, noting the common themes throughout
the project such as the use of heavy timbers, trellises, and the use of stone veneers;
relayed the proposed garage treatments; specified that the buildings would primarily be
stucco and accented by stone veneers, that the buildings in Subarea B would have a
wood veneer siding and in Subarea D were proposed to have three accent color
applications; and presented the commercial architectural design;
· With respect to the clubhouse amenity, that the applicant had prepared two
differing elevations for the two private clubhouses, one closely resembling the
architecture at the commercial center; and advised that staff preferred the architecture
design that more closely resembled the apartment buildings and not the commercial
area, recommending that the roofing material of the clubhouse match the roofing
material in each subarea as well as the stone veneer of the apartment buildings in that
particular subarea;
· Regarding parking provisions, that the project was over-parked by 73 spaces, that
while the landscape plan exceeded the minimum requirements of the Development
Code, staff was requesting that there be large specimen trees added on the perimeter of
R:PlanComm/minules/050102 4
the project, and That there be additional landscaping in other areas, such as at the
public entryways (both vehicular and pedestrian);
· That while the residential component exceeded the lot coverage allowed for high
density residential, the commercial component was well under the fifty percent (50%)
allowed under the Professional Office (PO) designation, advising that staff was of the
opinion that averaging the total site coverage was appropriate for a mixed use type of
development, which enabled the project to meet the overall criteria for lot coverage.
· With respect to environmental impacts, that a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
a Mitigation Monitoring Program have been prepared, relaying receipt of solely one
comment regarding this matter which was from the Toxic Substances Division of the
State, requesting soil samples during grading.
For the record, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that today (May l't), staff received
two submittals regarding the project, both of which were facsimiles from a Mr. Raymond
Johnson, and a Ms. Pamela Miod which indicated their concerns regarding the project,
specifically the cumulative environmental, traffic, noise, and air quality impacts,
additionally noting that a phone message was received by staff, from a Ms. Marsha
Cotter, relaying her concern regarding traffic and noise impacts.
Staff addressed the queries of the Planninq Commission
For Commissioner Olhasso, Associate Planner Papp specified the architectural
design for the clubhouse that was preferred by staff, which was the design that was
consistent with the residential area and not the commercial area.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Associate Planner Papp provided additional
information regarding the lot coverage issue, advising that regarding this matter
staff took into consideration the following: 1) The Settlement Agreement between the
City and Old Vail Partners and LandGrant Development which calls for up to 400
apartment units and up to 123,000 of commercial space, 2) the fact that the General
Plan designation for the site is Professional Office, the commercial component has
proposed approximately thirty-one percent (31%) lot coverage, the residential has
proposed approximately thirty-seven percent (37%) lot coverage, advising that the
high density residential district allows up to thirty percent (30%) lot coverage, noting
that the project was over by seven percent (7%) in the residential component if
viewed as a separate component, and 3) that averaging the lot coverage throughout
the site was considered appropriate since this was a mixed use development;
clarified that if there had been no Settlement Agreement, most likely the applicant
would have been directed to reduce the lot coverage which could be accomplished
by removing hardscape elements, which in staff's opinion enhanced the project; and
for Commissioner Telesio, clarified that the applicant could reduce the lot coverage
without reducing the number of apartment units.
Providing clarification regarding the lot coverage issue, Director of Planning
Ubnoske noted that the Development Code allows for a higher Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) if there was enhanced landscaping, or enhanced building architecture,
advising that staff was of the opinion the both these elements were addressed in this
project plan; and relayed that if lot averaging was not conducted, the project met the
R:PlanComm/minules/050102 5
criteria in the Development Code that would allow the project to exceed the target
FAR.
Referencing the Settlement Agreement (page 3 of the Settlement Agreement, in the
third paragraph, in the last sentence) for Commissioner Mathewson, Assistant City
Attorney Curley c~arified that the "Entitlements" in the agreement included without
limitation, a complete environmental clearance and all other official acts necessary to
implement as closely as possible the four hundred (400) multi-family units and one
hundred twenty-three thousand (123, 000) square feet of commercial space under the
Temecula Creek Village PDO-4 and Ordinance No. 2000-12; advised that if the
Planning Commission was to deviate from this implementation then there would
need to be a substantial rationale provided, noting that the approval should be as
close as feasible to these numbers within the application of good planning theory and
practice, and City policy; and confirmed that if after the Planning Commission
addressed the rules and regulations of the City and approved a project proximate to
the numbers stated in the agreement, that if not precisely the same, there would be
no violation of the settlement agreement, advising that the goal was not a precise
requirement but one that was strongly urged.
The applicant's representatives provided a proiect overview
Mr. Ron Finch, representing the applicant, introduced the development team for this
project who were available for Planning Commission questions; provided a history of
RNM, Inc., a large full service architectural and planning firm with major projects all over
the United States and overseas, a firm which has won countless design awards
(including awards for apartment design), advising that this company was chosen to work
on this project due to the firm's strength in the design of apartments and retail, citing
example's of the firm's projects; provided a history of McComic Consolidated, Inc., which
was a diversified Real Estate company with a strong tract record of working well with city
governments; and thanked Director of Planning Ubnoske, Planning staff, and particularly
Associate Planner Papp for their efforts regarding this project.
Via a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Steve McCormick, representing the applicant,
provided a project overview, relaying the following;
· That the project site was relatively flat land, that the parcel was long and linear, and
that Temecula Creek runs east and west on the northern portion of the site;
· That the proposed project was for a mixed-use pedestrian-oriented village which was
consistent with "Smart Growth" trends which mix uses in order to reduce the
following: reliance on vehicles, pollution, and traffic;
· That the street scene along Highway 79 (South) was carefully planned with a
combination of uses, restaurant pads with setbacks, residential areas, and the
Village Center, noting the meandering sidewalk and generous landscaping along the
edge of the project;
· That the project plan allows for public access from Highway 79 (South) to the trail
proximate to the creek;
· That although the project will be gated, the gating will only restrict vehicular traffic
and not pedestrian;
That there were alternate areas along the creek providing physical and visual
access;
R:PlanComm/minutesl050102 6
· Provided a rendering of the proposed multi-use trail; for Chairman Chiniaeff, noted
that there will be a three-foot rail fence separating the trail from the creek, advising
that there would be landscaping and berming between the trail and various adjacent
units with some native vegetation;
· That the focal point of the project was the Village Center with the creation of a main
street theme, substantial open space (which would be the central park) adjacent to
Highway 79 (South), a bus turnout, pedestrian links to the shops/restaurants, the
buildings, and to the creek;
· That the clubhouse proximate to the retail area (which was part of the main street
theme and had architectural design consistent with the commercial area) aided in the
combining of various buildings to create a more lively atmosphere, advising that due
to the location of this particular clubhouse it was the applicant's preference to
maintain the proposed architectural design which was consistent with the Village
Center with a standing seamed metal roof; and noted the trellis structure which tied
the facade of the Village Center;
· That the architecture design of the commercial center was four-sided, relaying that
the materials for this center were the standing seamed metal roofs, stone veneer,
and stucco;
· That the commercial center on the west side was primarily one story in height, noting
the trail running along the south side proximate to the creek;
· That the residential portion of the project in the middle of the site, and that Subarea B
would be three-story apartment buildings which would provide individual garage
spaces some which would have direct access from the unit;
· That the elevations have been revised which include the elimination of the siding, the
reduction in the use of stone, and the utilization of color blocking (providing a color
rendering of the revisions, as well as a material sample board); and
· That the residential area on the eastern portion of the project, Subarea D, was made
up primarily of two-story buildings.
Addressing the lot coverage issue, the applicant's representative, elaborated on the
proposed Village Center, which was an inefficient use of land, specifically to place a
small village in the middle of the project, advising that if there were a more traditional
plan, particularly without the main street, the lot coverage issue would not exist; clarified
the efforts of the applicant to maintain the concept of placing a Village Center at this
location due to staff's and the City Council's vision; provided additional information
regarding discussions with City staff, and Council during the development process
regarding the allowable 400 units indicated in the Settlement Agreement.
Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, relayed the following information:
Indicated a few typographical errors in the staff report, which referred to the trail
width as twenty feet (20') in some places, and eight feet (8') in others, clarifying that
the trail was eight feet (8') in width;
Noted that in response to staff's concerns, the applicant implemented the following
revisions: one setback on one of the apartment buildings was revised, the number of
loading spaces was increased, as well as this area being relocated, the trash
enclosures were relocated, the driveway at Jedediah Smith Road was modified, and
additional trees would be installed on the perimeter of the project as well as at the
entryways;
With respect to Jedediah Smith Road, noted that there would be a minor modification
at this location due to the added median which was not reflected on the earlier
version;
With respect to Public Works Condition Nos. 6 (of the Development Plan) and 7 (of
the Parcel Map), clarified that the two driveways referenced were the emergency
right-in/right-out located on the extreme eastern portion of the project and the right-
in/right-out located on the western end of the project with the other two access points
being signalized, relaying that it was his desire that this be clear. Deputy Director of
Public Works Parks confirming that the Public Works Department concurred with this
assessment.
With respect to Condition No. 7 of the Development Plan conditions (regarding fiood
control right-of-way), advised that the applicant would not be constructing any flood-
controlled facilities, and that Riverside Flood Control & Conservation District has no
right-of-way property within the project. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works
Parks advised that if the condition were not applicable it would not render any
mandates on the project. Mr. Markham clarifying that the language of the condition
did not indicate, "as needed," which was his concern.
Regarding the clubhouse recreation building design options, noted that the applicant
would be agreeable to complying with the Planning Commission's direction regarding
this issue;
Noted that the original PDO did not have the benefit of the detailed fault hazard
investigation, advising that based on the fault zone information since obtained, the
current design plan was developed; with respect to the lot coverage issue, relayed
that while the applicant could pursue development of smaller units, or fewer buildings
with additional stories in order to reduce the lot coverage while maintaining the same
number of dwelling units, it was the applicant's opinion that there would be no benefit
to implementing those revisions, additionally noting that this issue was never a
concern expressed by staff during the project's process;
Advised that the decorative hardscape elements were not calculated into the
landscape plan, while it was his understanding that this element could have been
calculated into the plan; and
For informational purposes, relayed that the property to the south of the project was
open space.
The applicant's representatives addressed the questions of the Commission
For Commissioner Olhasso, Mr. Markham provided additional information regarding
the median issue on Highway 79 (South), noting that the median project (Phase II)
was originally included as part of the Assessment District (AD) No. 159
improvements (which the applicant was a part of), advising that the project was
removed from the improvements plan by the County; and relayed that subsequently
Caltrans has offered to provide one-third of the funding of the median project from
the 1-15 Freeway to Butterfield Stage Road (up to $750,000), and was seeking like
contributions from the City of Temecula and the County, advising that it was his
understanding that the City would consider the funding of this project in this year's
CIP. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks confirming that the project was proposed
for inclusion in the CIP, but has not yet been approved; relayed that the County has
rejected the offer to fund a third of the project; and for Commissioner Telesio,
clarified that primarily the access to the creek was not to the creek, itself, but to the
creek trail.
In response to Commissioner Telesio, Mr. McCormick specified the location of the
two clubhouses, one of which was located in the residential area and was proposed
to have an architectural design similar to the residential area, and one located
adjacent to the commercial area and proposed to be architecturally consistent with
the commercial architecture; for Commissioner Mathewson, provided additional
information regarding the parking provisions for the Village Center, clarifying that the
gating would ensure that the parking within the gates was for residential use only;
confirmed that at the park site, picnic benches and tables would be installed; with
respect to the carports, relayed that in response to staff's concerns, three carport
buildings were now being proposed, in lieu of the previously planned seven carport
buildings; and confirmed that there would be a meandering sidewalk between the
carports and Highway 79 (South), as well as berming and landscaping in various
locations.
The public was invited to speak
Mr. Mark Broderick, 45501 Clubhouse Drive, relayed his concern regarding traffic
impacts, the proposed three-story apartment buildings (noting a preference for two-story
buildings), the densities, and the fact that with the development of this particular project,
a parallel route to Pala Road could not be constructed, relaying a desire to preserve the
right-of-way for this route for future purposes; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, confirmed that
it would be his desire for there to be a route perpendicular to Highway 79 (South) across
the creek, and over to Loma Linda Road. Chairman Chiniaeff clarifying the area (from
Avenida de Missiones towards Pala Bridge) which has been dedicated as permanent
open space, which would prohibit a road from being constructed across it.
In response to Mr. Broderick's comments, Associate Planner Papp clarified that the
applicant could have proposed four-story buildings, but has opted to have a maximum
three-story height; and with respect to the lot coverage issue, noted that the applicant
could construct additional stories on the proposed two-story buildings to lower the lot
coverage.
The Planninq Commission relayed closinq comments
With respect to the alternate residential design, Commissioner Olhasso noted that she
preferred the revised elevation subject to the stone being added back around the
window casings; emphasized the need for raised medians on Highway 79 (South);
opined that the City was bound by the PDO; and advised that with respect to design, this
was a beautifully planned project, noting that it would be her desire to see this level of
design on all Temecula projects.
Concurring with Commissioner Othasso, Commissioner Mathewson acknowledged the
need to respect the Settlement Agreement.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske confirmed that the
permitted uses in the Village Center were approved at the time the PDO was approved.
Commissioner Telesio commended the developer for the improvement in this particular
project plan verses the last project for this site; concurred with Commissioner Olhasso's
comments regarding the revised elevation; with respect to the clubhouse located
R:PlanComm/minu res/050102 9
adjacent to the commercial area, noted his support of the applicant's proposed design
plan.
For Commissioner Telesio, the applicant's representative relayed that in order to keep
any potentially present animals from the open space area away from the trail there
would be screening on the trail fence.
With respect to Condition No. 7 (regarding the flood control right-of-way), Deputy
Director of Public Works Parks relayed a preference to keep the condition in the
Conditions of Approval, confirming that if there were no flood control right-of-ways, the
condition would not be applicable.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve
staff's recommendation, subject to the following:
Modify-
, That the drive aisle off of Jedediah Smith Road be widened;
· That the elevations be revised, as presented, with the exception of adding the
stone back around the window casings;
· That the two clubhouse designs as proposed by the applicant be constructed;
and
· That the corrections and modifications relayed by Mr. Markham (denoted in
the first four bullets on page 7 under Mr. Markham's comments) be
implemented.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso. (Ultimately this motion passed;
see below.)
Reopening the public hearing, Chairman Chiniaeff invited Mr. Fairchild to the podium in
order for the Planning Commission to hear his comments.
Mr. George Fairchild, 30435 De Portola Road, relayed his concern regarding traffic and
the 400 units being proposed, advising that although the project was beautifhlly
designed the number of units should be reduced.
Chairman Chiniaeff closed the public hearing.
At this time voice vote was taken regarding the motion reflecting approval with the with
the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who was absent.
At 7:35 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 7:46 P.M.
R:PlanComm/minutes/050102 10
4 Villaqe of Old Town Workshop - Presentation by the Applicant
The applicant's representatives presented an overview of the proiect plan
Mr. Richard Haness, representing the applicant, noted that members of the development
team were present and would be available for Planning Commission questions affer the
presentation; relayed the desire to receive input at tonight's hearing from the Planning
Commission, as well as the public; advised that the project's market study which was
recently updated revealed that there is a good market for the product types being
proposed in this project; advised that there are ongoing discussions with the School
District, noting that he anticipated an agreement soon with respect to a designated
school site; relayed that the applicant has been working with the Community Services
Department to address Quimby requirements and park designs, and with the Public
Work Department, advising that staff's comments regarding the project were being
incorporated into the traffic study; and noted that while he was unsure of the details of an
affordable housing element, that the applicant was willing to work towards implementing
this element into the project.
Mr. Matthew Fagan, representing the applicant, provided a PowerPoint presentation
regarding the Villages of Old Town Project, relaying the following:
· That the project site was located west of Old Town, at the base of the hills;
· That the Keyser Marston Study the City had commissioned to have prepared in 1998
revealed that up to 2,000 units could be developed in the Westside Specific Plan and
that this type of development would provide benefits to Old Town;
· That the project would be pedestrian-oriented with 1,631 dwelling units on a 152
acres, comprised of apartments and townhomes, with high quality architecture and a
comprehensive park and open space system;
· That the Land Use Plan consisted of the following: Planning Areas (PAs) 1, 5, 7, and
8 were designated as parks, PAs 2, 3, and 4 were designated as the Village Center
which would encompass residential product as well as a Community Center Overlay
which would allow up to 10,000 square feet of commercial uses and was not
intended to compete with Old Town;
· That the park plan would include a Village Park (three acres) located in PA 1
consisting of an amphitheater, and pedestrian and trolley links to Old Town;
· That the Village Center (PA 2) would include the following: primarily multi-family
buildings from two-four stories with two product types, a commercial area, private
recreation facilities, and pedestrian and trolley links (noting that there have been
discussions with RTA regarding this element);
· With respect to the architectural design of the Village Center, that there would be
garages at grade level, well-defined entrances, three distinctive architectural styles,
four-sided articulation, balastrades, trellises, and enhanced staircase and mailbox
elements, landscaping between the streetscape with street-faced entrances to the
apartments, as well as windows, and balcony treatments facing the street, noting that
the interior treatments would include pools, cabanas, and barbeque areas.
· That the West and South Village (PAs 3 and 4) would encompass approximately 271
two- and three-story townhomes, private recreational facilities, pocket parks, links to
the Village Center, three architectural styles, four-sided architecture, and detailed
enhanced elements;
Displayed the relationship of the building with the slopes of the hillside;
R:PlanComm/minule s/050102 1 1
· That the Park and Open Space Plan additionally consisted of the following: a Native
Park located adjacent to the Western Bypass Corridor (PAs 3 and 4) with seating
areas, a Children's Park with shade structures and tot lots, the Rose Park (PA 7)
which was inspired by a park located in the City of Santa Barbara, a View park (PA
8) which would have viewpoints to the east and a Natural Hillside Park (PA 9) which
would be dedicated as open space;
· With respect to traffic, provided a brief overview of the circulation plan, noting the key
circulation roadways such as: the Western Bypass Corridor, the Vincent/Moraga
Drive Extension and the 1st Street Extension, advising that vehicular access would
be from these three key circulation points; advised that the applicant would
participate in the construction of new roadways and intersections as indicated in the
traffic study, concurring with staff that installing infrastructure ahead of development
was vital;
That there would be alternative modes of transportation provided; and
· Noted that there was a two-scale model of the project available for viewing.
Relaying concluding comments, Mr. Haness noted the significant community benefits
associated with this project, as follows:
· The traffic circulation would be enhanced via the applicant's participation in the
construction of new roads and intersections;
· Provision of a variety of housing types would be offered; and
· Assistance in the economic benefits of Old Town merchants as well as the whole
community would be provided; and relayed the project's timeline schedule, noting a
desire to begin construction in late 2002.
The public was invited to comment
The following individuals were proponents of the project:
o Mr. Paul O'Neal
o Mr. David E. Rossenthau
32219 Benabarrie
27315 Jefferson Avenue
The above-mentioned individuals were proponents of the project for the following
reasons:
· The high quality of design elements;
· The pedestrian accessibility, in particular being able to walk to the business park
from this project;
· The project would revitalize Old Town; and
· Thetransit opportunities.
The following individuals relayed their concerns and comments regarding the project:
Ms. Adrian McGregor
Mr. Dave Gallaher
Ms. Nancy Baron
34555 Madera de Playa
31350 Rancho Vista Road
28681 Pujol Street
R:Pla nco mm/minut es/(350102 12
The above-mentioned individuals commented on the project, as follows:
· Concern regarding an inadequate water supply, in particular a potential drought
condition, as well as concern regarding the existing fault zone and flooding issues;
· Concern regarding the lack of a designated school site, noting the need for an
elementary school in the Old Town area, specifically located in an area which would
allow for pedestrian access from the neighborhoods; and
· Concern regarding the Main Street bridge being open only for pedestrian and trolley
travel, and closed for vehicular access.
For Ms. Baron, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that if she left her name
and phone number, he would contact her when discussions were held regarding Main
Street.
The following individuals were opposed to the project:
Mr. Mark Broderick
Mr. Al Rattan
Mr. Fred Hayes
Mr. George Demos
Mr. Clif Hewlett
45501 Clubhouse Drive
28751 Rancho California Road repres,n,,,
45400 Pintoresca representing Ihe Santa Margarita Ranchos Propertyow'ners A~socialJon
43860 East Calamar
address not legible
The above-mentioned individuals were opposed to the project of the project for the
following reasons:
· Opposed to the degradation of the hillside view;
· Concern with respect to the densities, traffic, and school overcrowding;
· Expressed the opinion that the new residents would not be shopping in Old Town
(i.e., antique stores), and thereby not reduce the generation of trips outside of this
area;
· Complemented the Planning Commission on its vision and its diligent efforts
regarding the City of Temecula;
· Commended Mr. Haness for his work in bring a new vision to Temecula;
· With respect to the demographics, noted that Temecula was not attracting enough
commercial businesses, in particular regional offices which would bring better paying
jobs to Temecula, recommending the attraction of improved employment
opportunities;
· Suggested that the residential mix be significantly reduced, and that the commercial
area be increased;
· Queried whether the development of apartments was the answer to renovating Old
Town;
· Requested that there be consideration to develop a City Hall at this project site;
· Recommended that a university be developed in Temecula;
· Concern regarding decreased property values;
· Noted that the Board of Directors of the Santa Rosa Community Services District
would be discussing the impact of this particular project at the next regular meeting
on May 8, 2002 at 7:00 P.M., inviting a Planning Commissioner to attend;
· Concern regarding emergency access if this project were to be developed; and
· Queried where the Western Bypass Corridor would end on the north end, noting that
it was his understanding that it would end at Moraga Road.
R:PlanComrn/rninutesJ050102 13
For informational purposes, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that tonight's
presentation was solely an introductory process, advising that staff was still reviewing
the project, and was not prepared for a formal hearing where there would be additional
information regarding traffic, water, and air quality issues; and advised that this was an
opportunity for the applicant to gain input from the community;
For the record, Chairman Chiniaeff noted receipt of Commissioner Guerriero's
comments regarding the project (due to being unable to attend the meeting), relaying
that this information would be forwarded to the applicant. Director of Planning Ubnoske
additionally noting that staff received a phone message on May 1, 2002, from Ms.
Marsha Cotter, regarding the project, citing her concerns with respect to traffic and noise
impacts.
The PIanninq Commission relayed its closinq comments
Commissioner Olhasso recommended that the applicant retain Keyser Marston to
update the study in order to gain input from the consultant regarding recommended
needed densities to revitalize Old Town; noted that she has always suppoded the
concept of developing City facilities in Old Town, in particular a City Hall; with respect to
design features, recommended improvement in the architectural elements;
recommended that there be additional connection points in order to allow Pujol residents
to utilize various park sites; noted concern regarding the lack of a designated elementary
school; relayed the need for a promotional program to stimulate Old Town residents
utilizing the businesses in Old Town; clarified that the only way new business was going
to be attracted to Old Town was if additional densities were developed in this area; and
concurred that the Western Bypass Corridor was essential.
For informational purposes, Assistant City Attorney Cudey advised that it would be more
appropriate for staff to attend the preliminary meetings regarding the Board of Directors
of the Santa Rosa Community Services District meeting.
Noting that he would review the information packet received from Mr. Rattan,
Commissioner Telesio advised that the concepts would idealistically be appropriate for
implementing; noted that for Old Town to be revitalized it would not only need additional
proximate densities increased, but also a change in character which was a marketing
process that could potentially be stimulated by a development of this type; noted his
concern regarding accessibility, and the traffic impacts, as well as the overcrowding of
the schools; concurred with the concept of developing a City Hall in the Old Town area,
specifically a Civic Center locating the City facilities at one location; and for interested
public members, recommended that names and addresses be provided in order for
residents to be notified of future hearings regarding this project.
Concurring with Commissioner Telesio's comments regarding the need to change the
character of Old Town, Commissioner Mathewson noted that the key element would be
attaining a balance between a population to stimulate Old Town with the circulation
impacts associated with the addition of residents in this area; noted that he was pleased
with the proposed development of townhomes, a much-needed product in Temecula;
with respect to the school site location, noted that it was vital that this issue be
addressed; relayed that according to his calculations the project was still lacking
adequate park facilities (per Quimby requirements), recommending the pursuit of
installation of a larger park with ball fields, if not on the project site, then located
R:PlanComm/minute~050102 14
elsewhere in the City; and concurred with the concern with respect to Main Street's
access being limited, recommending that linkages to Old Town be strengthened.
Chairman Chiniaeff questioned the relationship between the proposed units in the
project and its ability to revitalize Old Town due to the types of businesses currently
located in Old Town, advising that outdoor eating areas would aid in stimulating evening
business; concurred with the need for a variety of dwelling unit opportunities offered in
Temecula; recommended that the hillsides be less graded; noted the difficulty with
planning a school site due to the hilly nature of the property unless there was grading or
a planned tiered playground area; with respect to the Western Bypass Corridor, noted
the need for this corridor to traverse past Rancho California Road; relayed that although
the product appeared to be of a high quality, there were many issues needing to be
addressed, advising that it may not be appropriate to locate this number of dwellings in
one location; and noted that the Planning Commission looked forward to additional
public comments as this project's process continued.
With respect to the circulation, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that staff
has been working with the applicant regarding this issue (i.e., the widening of Rancho
California Road, the building of the Western Bypass Corridor, and the timing of these
implementations), advising that the applicant had a complete slide presentation
regarding this issue which was not presented at this introductory presentation, but that
the presentation would demonstrate how this project would enhance the circulation
through this area.
With respect to the transition of Old Town from a retail perspective, Commissioner
OIhasso advised that this was the type of information she would desire to receive from
the Keyser Marston study update, specifically what are the anticipated transitions which
would support the community, as well as Old Town.
Mr. Haness relayed that all the information regarding the project was not presented at
tonight's meeting, noting that he looked forward to the time when the project, in detail,
could be presented, relaying the efforts of the applicant to address the concerns which
have been expressed.
Commissioner Telesio recommended that this project be presented to the Planning
Commission incrementally, with one or two elements being presented at a time. Director
of Planning Ubnoske concurred, noting that future workshops would focus on specific
elements with additional detail.
Mr. Samuel Alhadeff, representing the applicant, noted the applicant's hopes of weekly
or biweekly meetings with Commissioner Olhasso, as the representative of the Planning
Commission, in order to review specific product and address the alternate issues.
It was noted that the Planning Commission received and filed this report.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
For informational purposes, Chairman Chiniaeff noted that he had provided a
compact disc of the photographs taken while visiting in the City of Chicago when
attending the Planning Convention, as well as having provision of information
which was distributed at the conference.
R:PlanComnVminutes/050102 1 5
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
No additional comments.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:06 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next re,qular
meetinq to be held on Wednesday, May 15, 2002 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council
Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
"'Benfiis W. Chiniaeff,
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske,
Director of Planning
R:PlanComrWminutesl050102 1 6