Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout081501 PC Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2001 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:03 P.M., on Wednesday August 15, 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 Mathewson. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, Chairman Chiniaeff. Absent: Also Present: PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: Commissioner Guerriero. Deputy City Manager Thornhill, Director of Planning Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Curley, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Senior Planner Hogan, Project Planner McCoy, Project Planner Naaseh, and Minute Clerk Hansen. and 1.1 Approve the Agenda of August 15, 2001. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of June 20, 2001. 2.2 Approve the Minutes of June 27, 2001. R: PlanComcrVmlnut es/081501 I MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1- 2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who was absent and Commissioner Telesio who abstained with respect to Item No. 2. COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 Director's Hearin.q Update RECOMMENDATION 3.1 Receive and File. The Planning Commission received and filed the Director's Hearing Update. 4 P annin.q Application No. 01-0082 (Mission Oak's Resolution Approval} Michael McCoy, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION 4.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-030 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA01-0082 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 2,200 SQUARE FOOT BANK BUILDING WITH AN ATM DRIVE-THROUGH ON A 0.17 ACRE PAD SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE EXISTING VAIL RANCH CENTER COMMERCIAL CENTER ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH AND REDHAWK PARKWAY KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 961-080-004. For informational purposes, Chairman Chiniaeff noted that this item was solely a resolution coming back to the Planning Commission for review, noting that this project had been previously approved. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-030. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who was absent. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 5 Planninq Application No. PA-01-0120 (Development Code Amendments) Dave Hoqan, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION 5.1 Adopt a Resolution Entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-031 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT T. HE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTERS 8 AND 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO MAKE TYPOGRAPHICAL AND OTHER MINOR CHANGES TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE". Senior Planner Hogan presented the staff report (per agenda material), outlining the proposed modifications to the City's Development Code, soliciting the Planning Commission's comments and recommendations for forwarding to the City Council. Discussion ensued re.qardin.q the proposed modifications to the City's Development Code with respect to Non-Profit Clubs and Lodqe Meetinq Halls, as follows: Addressing Commissioner Mathewson's queries, Senior Planner Hogan noted that it was staff's intent for these uses to be permitted via a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) which would require case-by-sase review by the Planning Commission; for Chairman Chiniaeff, confirmed that these uses would not be serving alcohol, additionally confirming that at this time these particular uses are allowed in Commercial and Industrial Zones, as well as in the Medium and High Density Zones; noted that staff opined that permitting these particular uses via a CUP in the Very Low (VL), Low (L-1 and L-2), and Low Medium (LM) residential zones was worthy of the Planning Commission's consideration, noting that there is a shortage of sites available as per the existing permitted zones. Chairman Chiniaeff noted his trepidation regarding placing these particular uses in Low Density residential areas (i.e., in the Meadowview Development). In response, Senior Planner Hogan noted that while concurring that these uses would not be appropriate in established tract housing areas, that there could be other properties in the lower density zones that might be appropriate. Discussion ensued reqardinq the proposed modifications to the City's Development Code with respect to Political Si.qnaqe, as follows: Senior Planner Hogan clarified that staff was proposing to establish a minimum separation distance between all political signs; for Commissioner Mathewson, confirmed that the rationale for the three feet required distance was to address the massing issues of the signage; and for Commissioner Telesio, confirmed that there was no limit at this time regulating the number of signs that a candidate could place throughout the community. For Commissioner Telesio, Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that limiting the number of signs would have to be explored by staff since issues related to political signage could affect free speech rights. Providing clarification, Senior Planner Hogan reiterated that the massing of signs was being addressed, relaying that if the number of signs creates a negative impact in the future, staff would further investigate regulating this matter; and confirmed, for Commissioner Telesio, that if it was the Planning Commission's desire, political signage could be separated by more than three feet, and that staff could further explore the issue. Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that within the broad scope of parameters with respect to free speech matters, it was the intent to provide the greatest flexibility regarding communication without duly restricting the message, noting that size restrictions have been permitted, and that the 36-inch distance requirement was defensible. For Commissioner Telesio, Senior Planner Hogan confirmed that the proposed policy's language stated that the winner of a primary could leave signage up until ten days after the regular election, whereas the other individuals in the race would be required to remove their political signage fourteen days after the primary election; noted that if the signs were not removed by the deadline dates that Code Enforcement would be contacted and would subsequently direct the campaigning personnel to remove the signs; and advised that if the signs were still not removed the signs would be removed by Code Enforcement Officers. Commissioner Telesio recommended that if the signs were not removed by the deadline date that Code Enforcement remove the signage, charging the campaigns for this service; and clarified that it was his opinion that if the City staff removes the signs that it should not be done at City expense. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that the proposed language regulating the period of time designated for campaign signage to be displayed was typical. Discussion ensued reqardinq the proposed modifications to the City's Development Code with respect to a Second Dwellinq Unit, as follows: For Commissioner Telesio, Senior Planner Hogan noted that the minimum size lot permitted for adding a second dwelling unit larger than 1200 square feet was one acre, relaying that for sites over an acre, the second unit could be up to seventy-five pement (75%) of the main structure, and not more than 2,000 square feet, noting that setbacks and lot coverage requirements would have to be met; and relayed that the second structure could be either attached or non-attached. Discussion ensued reqardinq the proposed modifications to the City's Development Code with respect to Compact Spaces, as follows: In light of previously expressed Planning Commission concern, Senior Planner Hogan advised that staff was proposing that in lieu of the thirty percent (30%) of allowable compact parking spaces, that there would be a maximum of fifteen percent (15%) allowable. Based on his opinion, and the opinion expressed by residents at the Planning Commission and Public/Traffic Safety Commission meetings, Commissioner Telesio recommended that all compact parking spaces be prohibited. Discussion ensued reqardin.q the proposed modifications to the City's Development Code with respect to Temporary Si.qna,cle, as follows: For Commissioner Mathewson, Senior Planner Hogan noted that the proposed language referenced requirements for attached temporary signage; relayed that detached temporary signs are solely permitted twice a year whereas the attached signs were allowed four times; and confirmed that the attached signage could be up for a maximum 90-day period. Discussion ensued re,qardinq the pmpose, d modifications to the City's Development Code with respect to Minimum Lot Area, as follows: For Chairman Chiniaeff, Senior Planner Hogan confirmed that the lot area was being calculated with the exclusion of the public street area, and large easements (i.e., the large MWD aqueducts.) At this time the Planninq Commission heard public comments reqardin.q the proposed modifications to the City's Development Code, as follows: The following individuals spoke as proponents of the proposed modifications to the Development Code with respect to Non-Profit Clubs and Lodge Meeting Halls: [] Mr. Paul Gonzalez 41820 Marwood Cimle a Mr. ~/incent Peterbaugh 27740 Jefferson Avenue representing the Ternecula Valley Elks The above-mentioned individuals were proponents of the proposed modifications to the Development Code with respect to Non-Profit Clubs and Lodge Meeting Halls for the following reasons: The revision would grant the flexibility needed. Requested that the amendment also include language to allow the sale of alcohol to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The Elks Club has purchased property in a Iow-density area. The individuals who belong to these organizations are citizens in this community. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Gonzales relayed that the property recently pumhased by the Temecula Valley Elks was zoned VL; and for Commissioner Telesio, reiterated that it would be the Elks' desire that there would be an opportunity for alcohol to be served at these uses. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed modifications to the Development Code with respect to Non-Profit Clubs and Lodge Meeting Halls: Mr. Ronald Knowles [] Mr. Richard Harrison [] Ms. Karen Bales Mr. Mark A. Foley Ms. Sandy Frink [] Mr. Briscoe Johnston [] Mr. JoeTurgeon 39675 Cantrell 40025 Walcott Lane 39340 Jesse 31985 Calle Chapos 31850 Calle Saragoza 40055 Walcott Lane Cantrell Road The above-mentioned individuals were in opposition to the proposed modifications to the Development Code with respect to Non-Profit Clubs and Lodge Meeting Halls for the following reasons: The traffic and noise impacts could not be mitigated. The hours of ope?ation and activities of these uses are not appropriate for neighborhoods. Questioned why the Elks Club would purchase property not zoned for these types of uses. Opined that it was not equitable to change the allowed uses in a zone after residents have purchased property with the understanding that these uses would not be permitted. The allowance of these uses in residential areas would decrease the quality of life for the residents. Allowing these types uses in the proposed zones would lower the property values. The safety of children in these residential areas would be jeopardized. Relayed fear that if these uses were permitted at this time subject to not selling alcohol that subsequently there would be allowance for the uses to serve alcohol. Advised that if a use could buy property and subsequently get the zoning allowances changed that it would be his expectation that he could change the allowable uses for his property. Mr. John Lynn, 32237 Placer Belair, spoke regarding the proposed modifications to the Development Code with respect to Compact Car Parking Spaces, relaying the following: that it was his desire to eliminate all compact parking spaces in the City, that the elimination of such would reduce the damage caused to vehicles, that compact spaces are not only utilized for compact cars; and recommended that if compact parking spaces continue to be permitted that there be a requirement for oversized spaces as well. The P annin,q Commission considered each proposed amendment separately, ultimately re ay n,q the fo owin,q recommendations: With respect to the proposed revisions to the Development Code regarding Non- Profit Clubs and Lodge Meeting Halls, it was the Planning Commission's recommendation that this portion of the Development Code not be modified, leaving the existing language. With respect to the proposed revisions to the Development Code regarding Political Signage, it was the Planning Commission's recommendation that staff bring this item back to the Planning Commission at a future meeting with additional information from Assistant City Attorney Curley. In response, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that he would bring back to the Planning Commission additional data regarding the noted items of question (i.e., setting limitations on the number of signs, increasing the minimum distance requirements, charging for the removal of signs if deadline dates are not met); and advised, for Commissioner Mathewson, that the removal of signs could be more easily regulated than the timing allowed for the placement of signs. With respect to the proposed revisions to the Development Code regarding Second Dwelling Unit, it was the Planning Commission's recommendation that staff bring this item back with additional data from Assistant City Attorney Curley. Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that there are State Statutes addressing granny flats, as well as second units, noting the legislature in favor of the addition of a second unit; and for Commissioner Telesio, relayed that a granny flat is a unit limited to individuals who are 62 years of age or older. Chairman Chiniaeff noted that the main concern was the size of the second unit, and whether it was an attached or detache~l unit. Commissioner Mathewson queried why elderly individuals would want the larger units, noting the proposed allowable increase in the size of the second unit. With respect to the proposed revisions to the Development Code regarding Compact Parking Spaces, it was the Planning Commission's recommendation that all compact parking spaces be prohibited. With respect to the proposed revisions to the Development Code regarding Courtesy Curbs, it was the Planning Commission's recommendation to concur with staff's recommended revision. With respect to the proposed revisions to the Development Code regarding Temporary Signage, it was the Planning Commission's recommendation to concur with staff's recommended revision, additionally recommending that language be added to restrict a temporary sign from being up for 90 consecutive days between the 3rd and 4th quarter. With respect t(~ the proposed revisions to the Development Code regarding Residential Densities, it was the Planning Commission's recommendation to concur with staff's recommended revision. With respect to the proposed revisions to the Development Code regarding Minimum Lot Area, it was the Planning Commission's recommendation to concur with staff's recommended revision, additionally directing staff to clarify the term easements. R: PlanComm/minutes~81501 7 With respect to the proposed revisions to the Development Code regarding Right-of- Way Planting, it was the Planning Commission's recommendation to concur with staff's recommended revision. With respect to the proposed revisions to the Development Code regarding Commercial Building Offsets, it was the Planning Commission's recommendation to concur with staff's recommended revision, additionally recommending that language be added to restrict the setback from being more than fifty feet (50'.) With respect to the proposed revisions to the Development Code regarding Lot Coverage, it was the Planning Commission's recommendation to concur with staff's recommended revision. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to close the public hearing, and to recommend to the City Council that the Development Code be amended per the Planning Commission's recommendations (denoted in the bullets on pages 6-8 of the minutes.) The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who was absent. It was noted that the meeting recessed at 7:33 P.M., reconvening at 7:40 P.M. 6 Roripauqh Ranch Saied Naaseh, Proiect Planner RECOMMENDATION 6.1 Review and Provide Direction to Staff Staff presents the proiect plan, as follows: Via overheads, Project Planner Naaseh presented the staff report; noted that while the efforts of staff and the applicant have been arduous, that due to the time constraints, the complexity of the issues, and the scale of the project, that the documents for this project have not been refined to a point of being internally consistent; advised that the purpose of this presentation was to receive input and direction from the Planning Commission regarding a number of issues; and initially provided a broad overview of the project, highlighting the Specific Plan, the proposed 1721 residential units, the Village Core, the two park sites, and the Open Space. Project Planner Naaseh specified the two school sites, advising that the mitigation measures in the EIR require the applicant to obtain input from the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) prior to approval of the Specific Plan due to Planning Area No. 6 (which is the location of the elementary school site) being within two miles of French Valley Airport, noting that on August 2nd the ALUC took action, discouraging a school use in this planning area; relayed that while previously the State Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division had approved the school site, that after receiving data regarding the ALUC's disapproval, there was a desire to further investigate the site, potentially seeking alternate sites; advised that a representative from the School District was present to answer any questions of the Planning Commission; and requested input from the Commission regarding this issue. R: PlanComm/rninutesz081501 8 Project Planner Naaseh specified the forty-foot (40') landscape strip on the south side of Murrieta Hot Springs Road; and updated the Planning Commission regarding discussions with the property owner of this property, noting that this area will be landscaped in the spring. With respect to the Land Use Plan, Project Planner Naaseh provided an overview of the proposal, noting that to the south and east are 1-acre lots gradually transitioning into 10,000 and 20,000 square foot lots, and then to 5,000 and 6,000 square foot lots; relayed that previously the proposal was for 2.5 acre lots to the east, and 20,000 square foot lots to the south; advised that the applicant's proposal is consistent with the Subcommittee's direction, noting the inclusion of a thirty foot (30') landscaped strip required by the Subcommittee which will also serve as a fire/safety zone, and a trail; with respect to Planning Area No. 28, noted that the Subcommittee recommended the elimination of the proposed Office area, which has been removed; relayed that the applicant has not complied with the Subcommittee's recommendation with respect to the south of the panhandle where the request was for 25-30 feet of additional open space, for buffering purposes; advised that additionally the Subcommittee directed the applicant to change the designation for Planning Area No. 12 from High Density Apartments to Medium Density Residential, and to change the designation of Planning Area No. 27 from Medium Density Residential to a lower density residential (single-family dwellings); and requested the Planning Commission's input regarding the buffering issues and the areas in which the applicant has not complied with the Subcommittee's recommendations. With respect to the Design Guidelines, Project Planner Naaseh advised that staff's recommendations regarding architectural forward elements, the treatment of the front of the buildings, garages, the rear and side elevations, and the treatment of the corner lots have not been incorporated, which is a major concern for staff; relayed that no Specific Design Guidelines have been proposed for the High Density or Medium Density products; noted that while the panhandle area is proposed with neo-traditional design standards, the Design Guidelines do not contain standards for this type of developm&nt; and requested input from the Planning Commission regarding the Design Guidelines. Project Planner Naaseh relayed the disagreements between staff and the applicant regarding the trails which staff advised should be proposed in the Specific Plan, advising that TCSD staff was available for questions of the Planning Commission; and requested the Planning Commission for input regarding this matter. Specifying alternate issues of concern, Project Planner Naaseh noted the lack of landscaped Development Zones (LDZs) along Nicolas Road, the Loop Road, and portions of Murrieta Hot Springs Road; relayed the applicant's proposed sidewalks on residential streets separated by a parkway which .staff recommended to be maintained (both the parkway and the sidewalk) by the HOA, the lack of additional specific public transit improvements within the Specific Plan (other than a Park and Ride Facility required by the EIR), and the lack of any private recreational facilities; and requested the Planning Commission for input. Additionally, Project Planner Naaseh requested the Planning Commission to provide recommendations regarding the Development Agreement (DA) Deal Points. With respect to the EIR Mitigation Measures, Project Planner Naaseh noted that various measures would be required to be complied with Prior to Approval of the Tentative Maps, and Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits; and siting specific areas of concern, relayed that staff is unsure of the manner in which various Mitigation Measures would be complied with. Project Planner Naaseh provided an overview of the concerns voiced by neighbors (as outlined on page 3 of the staff report); and requested the Planning Commission for input. Addressing the questions of the Planning Commission, for Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner Naaseh noted that with respect to the improvements to Nicolas Road (to a 4-lane road with sidewalks) requested by the residents, that the applicant's response has been that the traffic study only requires two lanes; with respect to the Final EIR which the Planning Commission received tonight, advised that the document was distributed to the various agencies without final approval from City staff, confirming that the EIR (without final staff approval) was sent out for the 45-day review period; provided an overview of the supplemental agenda material distributed to the Planning Commission inclusive of a letter from the School District outlining its position regarding the school sites, and alternate letters received by staff today and during the past week; for Commissioner Telesio, reiterated that the forty foot (40') strip on the south side of Murrieta Hot Springs Road would be landscaped by that particular property owner; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, relayed that the Final EIR Land Use Plan was different than the Land Use Plan in the Specific Plan, specifying the differentials, Director of Planning Ubnoske adding that the location of the school was still an unresolved issue at this point. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks clarified for Chairman Chiniaeff that it was staff's recommendation that if the sidewalks were separated with parkways this area would need to be maintained by the HOA. For Commissioner Mathewson, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that if there was a substantial deviation between the Land Use Plan represented in the Final EIR and the current proposed Land Use Plan, then it could be argued that the document does not comply with CEQA due to the lack of analysis for the project presented, noting that if the deviations are not substantial and the scope of impacts are found to be the same, the document may not require re-circulation, clarifying that merely changing the document does not require re-circulation; and advised that once staff has analyzed the differences, a decision would be made regarding whether, or not, to re-circulate the revised document. The School District's concerns were relayed, as follows: Addressing the letter from the School District, Mr. Dave Gallaher, representing Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD), noted that the proposed project of 1721 residential units would create the need for space for approximately 1300 students (700 elementary grade level, and 600 in the upper grade levels), relaying the plans for a 12- acre elementary school site and a 20-acre middle school site within the project; reiterated the findings of the ALUC that due to being within a 2-mile radius of the airport, the elementary school site was a discouraged use, additionally reiterating the previous approval of the State Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics of the site; noted that the site could be further conditioned; relayed that an approval may be possible if an alternate site i's not feasible; provided the rationale for the panhandle site R: PlanComm/n~nutss/081501 10 being the preferred location (per the School District's opinion, as well as the applicant's); advised that due to the unknown factors regarding the future approval of the school site, it is the School District's desire that if the school site is relocated that there is assurance that an alternate site of the same size would be designated to not be assessed in the CFD, and without residential density; noted that the School District is willing to work with the City and the applicant; for Chairman Chiniaeff, advised that an alternate site should be determined at this time, noting that most likely a formal State approval will not be received sooner than 3-6 months; and confirmed that the area east of Butterfield Stage Road was outside of the 2-mile radius of the airport. The applicant presented the proposed proiect~ as follows: Via overheads, Mr. Kevin Everett, representing the applicant, provided an overview of the project, specifying the 809.7 acres of Open Space (over 30% of the project), the $2.2 million contribution for the Johnson Ranch, the road system estimated at $44 million to connect the Eastern Bypass from Rancho California Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road, noting that the bypass would be constructed through the project to Butterfield Stage Road, and to the edge of the property, relaying that from this point it would traverse south to Rancho California Road, noting the three connections at La Serena Way, Calle Chapos, and Nicolas Road that operate the bypass, the 23.6 acres for park sites, the commercial sites totaling 21.3 acres, a 1.5 acre Fire Station site, the 5-acre church site, and the balance of the project which has a residential density of 2.1 units per acre which would range in size from 5,000-40,000 square foot lots, courtyard townhomes, and Medium and High Density apartments; and specified the two major drainage courses traversing through the property which would encompass $10 million of improvements (noting that he had included this cost in the improvement figures for the road system.) Mr. Everett advised of the need for a CFD in order to construct the previously-mentioned infrastructure, noting that the land uses need to be determined for each segment of the property in order to determine the bonding capacity; and advised that if the elementary school site is relocated, it would affect the bonding capacity for the CFD which was a concern for the applicant. With respect to buffering, Mr. Everett noted the additional areas developed for this purpose, highlighting the 1-acre lots located on the eastern and southern area, a 30-foot fuel break with a 15-foot horse trail, the core area, the easement system with an MWD right-of-way for water, and the slope easement; and clarified that the project has been buffered circumferentially. As the presentation continued, Commissioner Telesio requested Mr. Everett to provide the applicant's rationale for not meeting the recommendations of the Subcommittee regarding the Land Use issues. Per supplemental agenda material, Mr. Everett noted the 40 major issues of disagreement between staff and the applicant with respect to the project; advised that the DA, the CFD, and alternate portions of the project could move forward when these issues have been addressed, clarifying that 20 of the 40 items were of critical concern; relayed the envisioned project for approximately 4,000 residents served via a system of bike trails through the entire project, noting the resistance to the Subcommittee's recommendation to place a horse trail system through the middle of the project, advising that there was no opposition to horse trails being located on the outside, specifying the two areas which would not be suitable for horse trails (i.e., a trail up Nicolas Road with a horse bridge constructed under Butterfield Stage Road through the habitat area, or a trail up the creek under Butterfield Stage Road to the horse trail, and out through the UCR property); with respect to the recommendation to remove the townhomes from Planning Area No. 26, replacing these units with single-family dwellings, noted that the applicant has a contract for the development of townhomes; in response to the Planning Commission's confusion with respect to the map being referenced, noted that he was using the Specific Plan map; with respect to the recommendation to revise the apartment site and to instead designate this area as a townhomes area, clarified that the applicant has been in contact with an apartment company in San Diego regarding the development of this area; noted the applicant's shifting of the townhomes/courtyard concept to Planning Area Nos. 13 and 30; and with respect to the buffering issue on the panhandle, relayed the re-alignment of Murrieta Hot Springs Road, the shift and loss of 30 units in this area, noting the current plan of the Tentative Map, advising that the applicant is proposing additional vegetation for screening. For informational purposes, Commissioner Telesio noted that the Final EIR map (received by the Planning Commission at the hearing tonight) was not consistent with the map being referenced. In response, Mr. Everett advised that the Final EIR map could be in error with respect to various land uses, noting that the referenced revisions would cause no significant impacts, relaying that the land use was simply shifted between planning areas. Continuing his presentation, Mr. Everett noted alternate points of disagreement between staff and the applicant (as outlined in the supplemental agenda material denoting the 40 points of disagreement), highlighting the issues related to Development Agreement Fee Credits, Open Space issues, Land Use changes, the Fire Station and Fire truck provisions, the funding of the temporary Fire Station, the 5-minute emergency response time related to the temporary Fire Station and the phase in which this station would be built, the timing of the development of secondary access, the applicant's desire to contribute the project's fair share for off-site improvements in relation to phasing, and for these payments to be utilized on the Eastern Bypass System, the applicant's desire to have the option to gate certain portions of the project, the applicant's desire to limit the paseos in the project, for safety reasons, the applicant's opposition to develop a horse trail where the Park and Ride facility would be located, the applicant's opposition to developing private recreation in the panhandle area, the applicant's opposition to shifting the buffering from Planning Area No. 28 to the west side of Planning Area No. 12 (noting the road the applicant would be constructing in this area, and the willingness to add a block wall), the applicant's opposition to develop a pedestrian trail on the south side of the Panhandle, noting the lack of access in this area, the applicant's desire to limit the contact between pedestrians, bicycles, and homes, ergo opposing the horse trail connections, the applicant's position that placement of the LDZs on major roads should be limited, and the applicant's request for attached sidewalks on local streets. The Plannin.q Commission responds to the applicant's presentation, as follows: For the record, Commissioner Olhasso noted her review of the joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting as well as the Ad hoc Committee meeting; ' relayed concern with respect to the legal standing, advising that while she respected the efforts expended by the applicant and staff, she was uncomfortable regarding the inconsistencies between the Final EIR Specific Plan documents and the lack of staff review; noted the importance of adherence to accurate reporting, and public disclosure; advised that while the Planning Commission could hear comments regarding this item, her concern was based on the outcome of the entire issue. Commissioner Mathewson queried the applicant as to whether it was his opinion that at this point sufficient information has been provided, that the issues have been addressed satisfactorily, and that this project was prepared to be presented to the Planning Commission for action. In response, Mr. Everett relayed that every issue has not been addressed, concurring with staff in this regard, noting the applicant's desire for the Planning Commission's input; advised that in past discussions the applicant has agreed with the City Manager and staff that if thece was an item that both entities agreed to disagree on, that staff would impose conditions, and the applicant would express disagreement of these conditions (clarifying that this constitutes a number of major issues) as the project went forward, and allow the City Council to vote on these issues, and the applicant would accept its determination, or move the project on. Commissioner Mathewson questioned Mr. Everett as to whether the applicant was of the opinion that this was a good planning process that was being engaged, noting that there were a significant amount of outstanding issues, advising that in his opinion it was not equitable for the applicant, the staff, the Planning Commission, the City Council, or the public to engage in discussion of these numerous quite detailed issues in this type of forum. In response, Mr. Everett relayed that the applicant would have preferred Planning Commission input at an earlier date, providing additional information regarding the process of the project up to this point; clarified that it was at a later point in which there were Subcommittee meetings by which the Land Uses have been revised continually, due to implementing recommendations either by the Subcommittee or by staff, ergo the changes in the documents. For Commissioner Mathewson, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that in order for the Planning Commission to move the project forward, the Commission would need to find that a complete set of information has been presented; noted the layers of entitlements involved (i.e., the Specific Plan, the DA, and alternate data); advised that in order for staff to relay a recommendation to the Planning Commission, it was necessary for staff to opin that there was an adequate amount of fixed information; provided additional information regarding the Specific Plan which is an envisioned plan of the desired plan, amhitectural, and infrastructure considerations, and the blueprint for the land; noted that conditions, mitigation, and implementation measures are derived from that document; confirmed that this particular document (the Specific Plan) was still in flux, reiterating that the applicant, as well as the staff do not have an identifiable final Specific Plan, noting that this plan would be the headstone for this project moving forward. Relaying that due to the uncertainties regarding the Specific Plan that there was no staff recommendation, and that additionally there were inconsistencies between the EIR and the Specific Plan, and no final Specific Plan, Commissioner Mathewson queried the purpose of holding a public hearing regarding a document in such a state of flux, noting that the community will be commenting on a plan which will change significantly. In response, Mr. Everett noted that it was his understanding there would be two hearings, clarifying that the applicant did not expect the Planning Commission to take action on the project at this time. Chairman Chiniaeff queried whether the Specific Plan (which was Document No. 4), which was received by the Planning Commission, on August 2nd, was the plan the applicant desired to implement. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Everett noted that there have been some modifications to that document based on the meetings with staff, noting the desire to concentrate on the Land Use Plan which has been revised, and to obtain input from the Planning Commission and the City Council regarding this document, advising that subsequently the applicant would create the final Specific Plan based on the Land Use Plan. Advising that typically the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council regarding a Specific Plan, Chairman Chiniaeff noted that the Planning Commission was not in a position to make a determination at this time without a fixed plan to evaluate. Mr. Everett confirmed the desire of the applicant to implement the current Land Use Plan, noting the submittal of a proposal to front the cost of $35.8 million of infrastructure for this plan. Chairman Chiniaeff noted the inconsistencies, relaying the applicant's expressed desire to construct townhomes in areas where the plan denotes single-family detached homes, clarifying the confusion in understanding the applicant's desired plan based on the documents the applicant has provided. While confirming that the latest Land Use Plan that the Planning Commission had received was the document the applicant desired to have evaluated, Mr. Everett noted that the recent Development Guidelines will be modified, advising that additionally all the Design Guidelines have not been included in the document due to the time restraints; and recommended that there be focus on the Land Use Plan, and that a subsequent meeting could be held regarding design elements. Due to the fast-track schedule this project has been on, Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that both she and the applicant concurred that all the documents were not ready for evaluation, noting that at this point the Planning Commission should focus on this Land Use Plan, and that subsequently the Planning Commission's recommendations would be forwarded to the City Council where there may be further recommendations, and finally the document would reflect all the recommendations which are heard and agreed upon; clarified that it was the applicant's desire that the Planning Commission provide direction with respect to the Land Use Plan; for Commissioner Olhasso, noted that the process would be as follows: that Planning Commission would comment on the Land Use Plan, the applicant would determine whether to implement the recommended changes, and subsequently move the project forward to the City Council where the final evaluation of the Land Use Plan would be made. Commenting on the scope of the work to still be completed on this project, Commissioner Telesio queried the time schedule the project was on. R; P[anComnYr~nutes/081501 1 4 Providing clarification, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed the complexity of this process, noting that despite the assiduous efforts of the applicant and staff, this project plan being presented was not deemed complete; concurring with previous comments, advised that staff would not be able to provide Conditions of Approval to the Planning Commission by next week, reiterating that there were still numerous outstanding issues; relayed that it would be staff's desire for the Planning Commission to provide direction with respect to the questions raised during the staff report; concurred that the Planning Commission could not address the 40 items of dispute that the applicant presented, advising that staff could review those issues with the applicant; and noted the desire to obtain input regarding the land use issues; and concurred with Chairman Chiniaeff that it would be helpful to hear the public comments. For Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy City Manager Thornhill concurred that this project's outstanding issues could not be addressed in a week's time. Commissioner Mathewson advised that good planning is a timely process, recommending that there be thoughtful, thorough planning; and advised that the public will be commenting on a plan that is changing. For informational purposes, Mr. Kent Norton, representing the applicant, apologized for any confusion regarding the EIR, clarifying that Figure No. 1 (the Land Use Plan) in the Final EIR was a previous version, noting that the Land Use Plan within the Specific Plan Document is the correct Land Use Plan, advising that all the analysis in the Final EIR matches that Land Use Plan. Noting the discomfort of the Planning Commission regarding this planning process, Commissioner Telesio relayed the lack of confidence that this plan is the actual final plan the applicant desires to implement; concurred with Commissioner Mathewson's comments that to hear public comment at this point would be considering comments regarding a plan which would most likely be changing. Chairman Chiniaeff noted that the public comments would be helpful for consideration in the development of the final plan. Noting that public comments were a vital part of the process, Commissioner Mathewson clarified that he would not desire the applicant to be of the understanding that since public comments were being considered that the previous fast-track schedule would be able to be met. In order to inform the public, Mr. Richard Ashby relayed that this plan was started years ago, noting that the Open Space that was given to the County has been the most significant recent change; advised that this project had previously been scheduled to come before the Planning Commission in July of 1999; clarified that the plan presented was the one the applicant desired to develop, but that recommendations by the Subcommittee and staff were being implemented, thereby the documents were being revised; relayed the expense to the applicant due to this 5-year planning process which was stopped (in his opinion) due to the November election a couple years ago; noted that Deputy City Manager Thornhill had advised the applicant that the Planning Commission would not be pleased with the information presented, opining that it appeared that Deputy City Manager Thornhill instigated this reaction; relayed that it was the applicant's desire to obtain the Planning Commission's comments regarding the plan in order to determine whether to implement those recommendations, advising that the Subcommittee recommended deleting the townhomes in the area the applicant proposes, noting that it was his desire to hear the Planning Commission's remarks regarding the townhomes element; clarified that he did not desire to have this project impeded again due to this year's election; and reiterated that it was his desire to hear the public's and Planning Commission's comments in order to implement necessary changes into the plan, The Plannin.q Commission heard the public comments at this timeI as follows: Mr. Rod Hanway, 43529 Ridge Park Drive, representing the Garret Group/Redhawk Communities, relayed his support of the project, noting that this project was an appropriate continuation of development for this area of Temecula; specified the items that still needed to be addressed, as folloWs: access, cimulation, and financial issues; relayed two corrections, as follows: 1 ) per Mr. Everett's comments, noted that in the first phase there will be 451 lots developed, ranging in size from 4,000-6,000 square feet, and 2) with respect to the landscaping of the forty-foot (40') strip adjacent to Murrieta Hot Springs Road, noted that this road was currently under construction, and that as part of that particular project, the developer was required to install all the median and parkway landscaping on Murrieta Hot Springs Road, advised that the forty-foot (40') strip was intended to be an Open Space zone, but that due to the sloping will not be filled in until the Roripaugh Ranch Project was graded, and that subsequently the strip would be landscaped; indicated that the development of the Roripaugh Ranch Project would require off-site grading easements on the forty-foot (40') strip, as well as access across the strip, clarifying that no discussions have taken place with respect to the access or the grading; and requested that this project be conditioned to participate financially in the improvements for the completion of Murrieta Hot Springs Road as a Condition of Approval, recommending that while there was an existing agreement stating such, that the project should be conditioned to back-up the agreement. Ms. Shirley Lassley, 32850 Vista De Oro, noted that her concern was regarding the buffering issues; applauded Mayor Comerchero for his efforts regarding attempts to reach a compromise with the developer; and thanked the developer for his agreement to make changes. The following individuals were opposed to the project, as proposed: Mr. Mike Knowlton Mr. Ronald Knowles [] Mr. John Mize [] Mr. Hans Kernkamp [] Mr. Ed Picozzi [] Mr. Ladd Stokes [] Ms. Jill Stokes Mr. JoeTurgeon 39130 Pala Vista Drive 39675 Cantreil Road 32850 Vista Del Monte 30055 Liefer Road 31480 Nicolas Road 39426 Jessie Circle 39426 Jessie Circle Cantrell Road representing Nicolas Valley residents representing Nicolas Valley residents The above-mentioned individuals were opposed to the project due to the following reasons: That this particular proposal was incompatible with respect to land use. Opined that the project was sub-standard. Noted concern regarding the project's process, relaying that due to the major impacts this project would have that the project needed careful planning, recommending that the developer's time demands should be considered immaterial in comparison to the need for a thorough planning process, specifica, lly due to the developer failing to meet his scheduled submittals. Challenged the traffic study. Relayed concern regarding water flow issues (along the Santa Gertrudis Creek), noting the need for a bridge. Advised that the residents had expressed concern regarding the original proposal for 677 units on the 130 acres west of Butterfield Stage Road in 1999 which was subsequently increased to 897 units in the project plan which was distributed in July, noting the residents' objection to the 897 units which was subsequently increased to 950 units in the current proposal. Opposed the additional proposed townhomes. The densities are too high. Advised that fifty-five pement (55%) of the total housing units would be located on fifteen percent (15%) of the acreage west of Butterfield Stage Road. The project lacks buffering for transition areas. Requested that 2.5-acre lots be located on the east and south side of the project for buffering purposes. Pleased with the equestrian trails proposal. Opposed to the development of apartments, as proposed. Advised that the neighboring residents have expressed their concerns to the developer, which have been ignored. Requested that while staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council were considering the needs of the developer, that that consideration be balanced against the needs of the residents, advising that the developer had been negligent in meeting the needs of the surrounding community. Noted the lack of public disclosure, advising that the public has not had the opportunity to review the current project plan. Queried how the recent changes (density increases) in the plan would impact the traffic. Advised that Nicolas Road would be inadequate if constructed as a two-lane road. Relayed that the time constraints were no excuse for the poor planning and the lack of agreement by the applicant to implement the recommendations of the Subcommittee. Noted that the widening of Butterfield Stage Road, as well as the potential bridge or culvert added in this area would negatively impact his property (i.e., Mr. Turgeon's), relaying that the developer ultimately advised him that the City would seize his property by eminent domain for this particular project to be able to be developed, relaying a desire to be updated regarding the project's plan. For Mr. Turgeon, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that the road segment of Butterfield Stage Road has been a designated 110' with slope easements which is included in the General Plan; clarified that no individual could take his property if it was currently under his ownership, relaying that if his property was required for the road construction that he would be compensated at such time as the road widening occurred; and further clarified that if right-of-way was acquired, the property would be appraised, and the project would be built in accordance with the General Plan road standards. In response to Mr. Turgeon's comments, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that the referenced area could be a 60' feet dedication on his property which would be the right-of-way for his half of the roadway, clarifying that the right-of-way (with various slope easements) has been reserved along the City boundary; confirmed that he would be notified prior to the construction of any roads involving his property, Deputy City Manager Thornhill recommending that Mr. Turgeon check his title report for the property description, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks offering to review the data with Mr. Turgeon if he brings the data to the Public Works Department. It was noted for the record that Mr. Knowlton submitted a letter to staff outlining cdncerns of various residents of the Nicolas Valley Community regarding this particular project, additionally submitting a petition (attached to the letter) inclusive of 13 signatures of Nicolas Valley residents. The Planning Commission relayed closing remarks, as follows: Planning Commission discussion ensued regarding continuing this item for 60 days, three months, or continuing the matter off calendar in order to allow staff and the applicant time to address the numerous outstanding issues. In response to staff's request for recommendations regarding the project the Planning Commission relayed the following comments at this time: Commissioner Telesio noted his involvement in the project's process (i.e., serving on the Subcommittee), relaying the discussions regarding the developer's financial concerns, the restraints regarding his available options, and the direction from the applicant that this project had to be before the City Council by August 28th, or the project's process in the City would be completely haited; and queried whether the necessary continuation of this item would be acceptable to the applicant, or whether the project process would halt. In response, Mr. Ashby relayed that it was his understanding that the City Council took unanimous action directing the Planning Commission to hold two, or three meetings between now and August 28th (a 13-day period) in an attempt to solve the issues at hand, confirming that the applicant would lose an important option at the end of September or the beginning of October (noting that City staff has copies of the data regarding the option); clarified that after recommendations were received that the applicant would determine whether, or not, to implement changes, and the City Council would make the final determination; and confirmed that a 60-day continuation would not be acceptable. With the information currently provided by the applicant, Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that under the presented circumstances it would be impossible to have this project ready for presentation to the City Council by August 28th, clarifying that the commitment was to make every effort to have this project before the City Council on the 28th of August provided that all parties met their timeframes; noted that deadlines were not met, and that there were revisions made to the project plan as recent as today, and emphasizing the efforts of staff regarding this project, reiterated that this project would not be ready for the City Council on August 28th. In light of the applicant's comments, Commissioner Mathewson recommended making a motion to deny the project. For clarification, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that there were no conditions or resolutions associated with the project, noting that the project could not be recommended for denial or approval at this point. Chairman Chiniaeff advised that it was his opinion that it was the Planning Commission's charge to review projects, and then make a recommendation to the City Council, advising that the Planning Commission did not have enough information to make a recommendation at this time, reiterating that the Final EIR was received by the Planning Commission at tonight's hearing; with respect to the recommendations which were requested, noted his concurrence with the need for buffers; recommended that the core area be relocated to the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road, and the Loop Road, inside the project, additionally recommending that the project densities be lower near the outer edges of the project; recommended that there be clarification as to whether the applicant intended to develop single-family detached or attached units, advising that the pictures presented were not related to the Development Guidelines; noted the problems with Open Space areas, querying whether the land has been given to the County yet for Open Space; and opined that the multi-family units were not appropriate at the edge of the community. Offering clarification, Commissioner Olhasso noted that she would not negotiate a Development Agreement from the dais, advising that this document should be worked out at the staff level and then brought to the Planning Commission and the City Council; with respect to land use, concurred that the multi-family area was inappropriate in the proposed location; relayed that the school site issue needed to be addressed; relayed appreciation for the Open Space proposed; noted her dis(~omfort regarding the lack of recreational facilities; clarified that the Design Guidelines would need to be of the same quality as the Harveston Project, advising that the bar could not be lowered for this project; and relayed that the horse trails would be an asset to the project, noting that the trails had worked well on the MWD easement in the Chardonnay Hills Project. Commissioner Telesio noted that issues needed to be addressed on the west side of the project, specifying that the commercial zone may need to be relocated, and the school site matter needed to be addressed; with respect to the horse trails, advised that to the best of his recollection the Subcommittee had not requested that the trails traverse through the preserve area, concurring with Project Planner Naaseh that the recommendation had been to provide a connection from Santa Gertrudis Creek to the UCR property; reiterated the concern regarding buffering on the north side of the project; and concurred with Commissioner Olhasso's comments, advising that the benchmark was the standard set for the Harveston Project, clarifying that the Planning Commission would demand quality. In terms of land use issues, Commissioner Mathewson concurred with concerns raised by the community residents with respect to the multi-family units proposed; relayed concern regarding the proposed densities, concern with respect to whether a Village Overlay Plan was appropriate at this location (acknowledging that it had been denoted in the General Plan),.and concern with the amount of Neighborhood Commercial proposed; noted a desire to have an overview with respect to the General Plan Update, advising that this project could be modified under terms of the General Plan; relayed that since this is a rural area, the intensive uses placed in the middle of the project were a concern; recommended that there be additional buffering on the south side of the panhandle; with respect to the school site issue, advised that a pre-determined alternate site needed to be located; noted a desire for curb separated sidewalks, and unique treatments in terms of street lighting on the eastern side of the project where Iow density was located, recommending that the street lighting blend with the rural nature of this area; advised that inclusion of private recreational facilities was a vital issue, noting that the Specific Plan was not consistent with the Growth Management Plan; recommended that the Quimby requirements be recalculated; and with respect to the Design Guidelines, noted that the document was woefully inadequate with no mention of amhitectural forward elements. In response to Commission comments regarding continuing the project for 60 days, Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that this would constitute continuing the item to the October 17, 2001 meeting, with the caveat that if the project was ready for presentation at a sooner point, the item would be noticed and brought back to the Planning Commission sooner. Chairman Chiniaeff relayed hopes that at the next hearing the applicant would provide all of the necessary data in order for the Planning Commission to make an educated informed decision. Concurring with the Planning Commission comments, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that it would be a waste of time if the following items were not completed and finalized: a fixed Land Use Plan, a final DA, the resolve of the CFD, and the maps. Deputy City Manager Thornhill recommended that the Planning Commissioners, who had been appointed to the Subcommittee, attend as many meetings as possible. Commissioner Olhasso requesting that once again the meetings be taped in order for the Planning Commissioners to be able to review the discussions. In response to the Planning Commission recommendations, Mr. Everett relayed that the applicant could come back next week with a new Land Use Plan, relaying the desire to negotiate with the Planning Commission, advising that it was the applicant's desire to obtain Planning Commission input rather than holding Subcommittee meetings. For Mr. Ashby, Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that it was within the Planning Commission's prerogative to determine how its agenda items and meetings are managed, advising that the Planning Commission could continue this item if that was its desire. In response to Mr. Ashby, Chairman Chiniaeff noted that the Planning Commission needed additional information regarding the project to make its determination, which would take time; provided assurance that if the project was thoroughly ready prior to the 60-day continuation that it could be brought to the Planning Commission at an earlier date. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to continue this item to the October 17, 2001 meeting, with the caveat that if the project plan was ready at an earlier date, the matter would be noticed and come bacl~ to the Planning Commission earlier. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso. (Ultimately this motion passed; see page 21 .) Additional discussion ensued regarding the noticing time needed if the project was thoroughly prepared to come before the Planning Commission at an earlier date. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting approval of the motion with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who was absent. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS For Commissioner Telesio, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed that the paleontologist issue (where allegedly there was a disgruntled employee working) was being investigated. With respect to the Mobile Home Park on Old Town Front Street where rental trucks are continually parked in the back of the lot, for Chairman Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff was addressing the matter. In response to Commissioner Telesio's comments, Senior Planner Hogan and Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding the housing development on the south side of Pauba Road (which was an early City-approved project), noting that the project was conditioned to install frontage improvements on Pauba Road, and relaying that there were approximately 20- 30 half-acre lots in this development. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT After discussion, the Planning Commission determined to hold the January 2002 meetings on the 16t~ and the 30th, making this determination in order for the Fire Department to be able to make plans to use the City Council chambers for a National Training Seminar during the month of January. ADJOURNMENT At 10:30 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next adiourned reqular meetin.q to be held on Wednesday, Au.qust 22~ 2001 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning R: PlanCornm~minutes~81501 21