Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout031908 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE March 19, 2008 - 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER Flag Salute: Commissioner Harter Next in Order: Resolution No. 2008-16 Roll Call: Carey, Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Harter, and Telesio PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a salmon colored "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission Secretary rp IOf to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes 1.1 Approve the Minutes of February 20, 2008 R:\PLANCOMM\Agendas\2006\031908. doc 1 2 Director's Hearing Case Uodate 2.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for January 2008 3 Request for Direction from Planning Commission regarding Zoning for Public Charter Schools as requested by Julian Charter School, Betsv Lowrev. Junior Planner. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. Any person dissatisfied with any decision of the Planning Commission may file an appeal of the Commission's decision. Said appeal must be filed within 15 calendar days after service of written notice of the decision, must be filed on the appropriate Planning Department application and must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. New Items 4 PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Wednesday, April 2, 2008, 6:00 p.m., Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:1P LANCOMM Wgend as\2008\031908.doc Plan to implement these goals and recommendations. Stuart Fisk. Senior Planner and Patrick Richardson, Principal Planner. ITEM #1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2008 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 p.m., on Wednesday, February 20, 2008, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Chiniaeff led the audience in the Flag salute. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Carey, Chiniaeff, Harter, and Telesio Absent: Guerriero PUBLIC COMMENTS None CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Minutes of January 9, 2008 1.2 Approve the Minutes of January 16, 2008 2 Director's Hearing Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for January MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Harter seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who was absent. COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 Exoarte Communications It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to address Exparte communications following Item No. 6, see page 4. R:\MinutesPC\02208 1 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS New Items 4 Planning Application No. PA07-0275, an Extension of Time application. submitted by John Clement. for a previously approved Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (Number 322291 on 12.1 acres located at 31891 Rancho California Road generally located on the southeast corner of Meadows Parkway and Rancho California Road Junior Planner Jones provided a brief staff report, highlighting on the following • Project Description • Location • Background • Vesting Tentative Parcel Map • Recommendation At this time the public hearing was opened and due to no speakers, it was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staff recommendation. Commissioner Carey seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exceation of Commissioner Guerriero who was absent. PC RESOLUTION NO.08-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA07-0275, THE FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (32229), GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 954- 030-002, 954-030-003 5 Planning Application No. PA07-0325, a Minor Modification, submitted by Dave Wakefield, to By way of PowerPoint Presentation, Assistant Planner LeComte highlighted on the following: • Project Description • Background • Parking Analysis • Staff Recommendation With respect to the amount of restaurants on the project site, the Planning Commission queried on whether or not there will be a problem with parking. Staff responded by providing a detailed description of the current and future parking demands should the requested condition amendment be approved. At this time, the public hearing was opened. R:1MinutesPC\02208 Representing the applicant, Mr. Steve Rawlings, noted that it would be his opinion that the three restaurants for the proposed project would be a good mix and would anticipate there not being a parking problem based on the analysis they had provided to staff and taking into account operational characteristics of the three restaurants in question. At this time, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Harter moved to approve staff recommendation. Commissioner Carey seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exceation of Commissioner Guerriero who was absent. PC RESOLUTION NO. 08-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA07-0325, A MINOR MODIFICATION TO AMEND CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 11 OF THE CREEKSIDE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL (PA04-0525) WHICH RESTRICTS THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF RESTAURANT SQUARE FOOTAGE TO 10,100 SQUARE FEET IN THE CREEKSIDE CENTRE SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED AT 41785 NICOLE LANE (APN 921-810-0323) 6 Planning Aoalication No. PA06-0356, a request of the Planning Commission to find Principal Planner Richardson, by way of PowerPoint Presentation, highlighted on the following aspects of staffs report: • Project Description • Location • Background • Analysis • Recommendation MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staff recommendation. Commissioner Harter seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exceation of Commissioner Guerriero who was absent. PC RESOLUTION NO. 08-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL VACATION OF PORTIONS OF YNEZ ROAD CONFORMS TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA R:VvlinutesPC\02208 COMMISSION BUSINESS Exoarte Communications By way of handout, Assistant City Attorney Curley, discussed due process issues arising from local Government meetings. COMMISSIONER REPORTS Due to the narrowness of Solana Way (behind car dealership), Commissioner Harter expressed concern with the amount of vehicles parked on the street, noting that this may be a safety issue. In response to Commissioner Harter's concern, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that she will have Code Enforcement investigate. Commissioner Telesio relayed his frustration with solicitors selling in front of market places, noting that this may be a safety issue. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Ubnoske distributed two sign programs that will be coming to Planning Commission. With respect to attendance at meetings, Ms. Ubnoske advised that the Commission will be paid for publicly noticed meetings attended. ADJOURNMENT At 7:00 pm, Chairman Telesio formally adjourned to March 5. 2008 at 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. John Telesio Chairman Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning R:WiinulesPC\02208 4 ITEM #2 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning DATE: March 19, 2008 SUBJECT: Director's Hearing Case Update Planning Director's Agenda items for January 2008 Date Case No. Proposal Applicant Action February 21, 2008 PA08-0001 A Minor Conditional Use Permit to Jun Cho APPROVED allow for the incident sale of beer, Hani Sushi wine and distilled spirits at an existing restaurant, located at 27576 Ynez Road February 28, 2008 PA08-0011 A Minor Modification to eliminate Michael La Vasani CONTINUED Condition No. 5 relating to OFF-CALENDAR environmental compliance within the Final Conditions of Approval for an approved and recorded Tentative Parcel Map No. 3386, located at 30854 Lolita Road Attachment: Action Agendas -Blue Page 2 R:\Directors Hearing\MEMO\2008\03-19-2008.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 1 ACTION AGENDAS R:\Direclors Hearing\MEMO\2008\03-19-2008.doc ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 21, 2008 1:30 p.m. TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Patrick Richardson, Principal Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Principal Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Principal Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a white "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Principal Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. Item No. 1 Project Number: Project Type: Project Title: Applicant: Project Description: Location: Environmental Action: Project Planner: ACTION: 1:30 p.m. PA08-0001 Minor Conditional Use Permit Hani Sushi MCUP Jun Cho A Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow for the incidental sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits at an existing restaurant 27576 Ynez Road CEQA Section 15301; Class 1, Existing Facilities Dana Schuma APPROVED P:\Planning\Directors-Headng\2008\02-27-2008 Action Agenda.doc ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 28, 2008 1:30 p.m. TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Principal Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Principal Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a white "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Principal Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. Item No. 1 Project Number: Project Type: Project Title: Applicant: Project Description: Location: Environmental Action: Project Planner: ACTION: 1:30 p.m. PA08-0011 Minor Modification La Vasani MCUP Michael La Vasani A Minor Modification to eliminate Condition No. 5 relating to environmental compliance within the Final Conditions of Approval for PA05-0025, an approved and recorded Tentative Parcel Map No. 33386 30854 Lolita Road CEQA Section 15301; Class 1, Existing Facilities Katie Le Comte CONTINUED OFF CALENDAR P:\Planning\Directors-Hearing\2008102-28-2008 Action Agenda.doc ITEM #3 STAFF REPORT -PLANNING _ CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION TO: Planning Commission FROM: Betsy Lowrey, Junior Planner DATE: March 19, 2008 SUBJECT: Request for Direction from Planning Commission regarding. Zoning for Public Charter Schools as Requested by Julian Charter School BACKGROUND On October 31, 2007, staff received aConditional-Use Permit application from Julian Charter School ("JCS"), a public school sponsored by Julian School District, to operate a kindergarten through eighth. grade public charter school within the Service Commercial (SC) zone, generally located at the southwest corner of Madison Avenue and Buecking Drive, at 27235 Madison Avenue. On November 19, 2007, staff relayed to JCS that the proposal for a public charter school is not permitted in the Service Commercial zone. Staff followed up with a letter dated November 30, 2007 stating the same. Pursuant to Development Code Sections 17.08.030 and 17.12.030, "schools, public (elementary, junior high, high school)" are permitted only within the Public/Institutional District (PI) zoning. At the direction of City staff, JCS conferred with their attorney to determine whether or not they are exempt or would be able to exempt themselves from Temecula's local zoning code. Staff indicated that if JCS seeks an exemption, the City Attorney would need to review it. On December 27, 2007, JCS submitted a Resolution of "Exemption from Zoning for Property used as a Charter School Site" along with their attorney opinion letter in support of an effort to exempt itself from local zoning requirements. The City Attorney advised staff that, pursuant to Government Code Section 53097.3/2002 Legislation (AB 14), JCS does not have authority to exempt itselffrom local zoning regulations. On January 24, 2008, staff provided a letter to Julian Charter School indicating the proposal remains inconsistent with the City of Temecula Development Code. At the request of JCS, a meeting was held on February 26, 2008 between City ManagemenUStaff and JCS. JCS requested that the City consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow public charter schools the same zoning rights as private schools. The City has since deemed the application for the Conditional Use Permit for a Public Charter School submitted by JCS incomplete. The Conditional Use Permit application is not the issue for consideration. The issue for the Planning Commission's consideration is the distinction in the Development Code between zoning for public schools and zoning for private schools (kindergarten through grade twelve). Staff requests the Planning Commission to consider whether a zoning amendment should be proposed that would provide the same zoning for public schools as private schools (kindergarten through grade twelve). G:\Planningl2007\PA07-0307 Julian Charter School Minor CUP\Planning\PC Staff Report final.doc 1 ANALYSIS Below are use regulations for schools (Kindergarten through grade twelve) within the development code. A letter "P" indicates a permitted use, '=" indicates the use is prohibited, and "C" indicates the use shall be conditionally permitted subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Table 17.08.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses Commercial/Office/Industrial Districts Description of Use NC CC HT SC PO BP LI Schools, private (kindergarten through grade 12) G P P C P C - Table 17.12.030 Schedule of Permitted Uses-Publicllnstitutional Distrlcts Description of Use Publicllnstitutional District (PI) Schools, public (elementary, junior high, high school) P Schools, private C Zoning Julian Charter School must comply with City of Temecula zoning regulations and is only permitted --- within the Public/Institutional District (PI) zone as designated for public schools. It is important to point out; however, that the same is not true for Temecula Valley School District. State law exempts public school districts from local zoning regulations within theirjurisdictional boundaries. As a result, TVUSD may operate its public schools without City zoning approval (historically, TVUSD sites are then reclassified to PI for consistency with the City's Development Code); while Julian School District must comply with Temecula's local zoning regulations since they are outside theirjurisdictional boundaries. Therefore, a proposal to expand zoning for public schools would only benefit public schools not sponsored by Temecula Valley School District. Public Charter Schools vs. Private Schools The Development Code clearly delineates between public and private schools for kindergarten through grade twelve. JCS requests the City consider zoning for public schools be the same as zoning for private schools. Should the Planning Commission direct staff in this way, JCS would then propose such a Zoning Amendment for Planning Commission and City Council approval and ultimately continue forward with a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of its public charter school within the Service Commercial zone. Charter schools are public schools fully funded by the State of Califomia (students do not pay tuition) and must be authorized by an existing local public school board, County Board of Education, or the State Board of Education. For example, Julian Charter School is authorized (sponsored) by Julian School District. It is staffs understanding, since Califomia funding is based upon student enrollment, Temecula residerits who attend Julian School District charter school (instead of Temecula Valley School District) may lower the funding that would otherwise go to TVUSD or a _. charter school sponsored by TVUSD. G:1Planning120071PA07.0307 Julian Charter School Minor CUPIPianning\PC Staff Report final.doc 2 Charter schools are required by the State to enter into an agreement ("Charter") detailing specific goals and operating procedures between the authorizing board (its sponsoring school district) thereby creating an ongoing working relationship and connection between the charter school and its school district. A charter school not sponsored/authorized by Temecula School District will not share such a connection or working relationship. Dr. Carol Leighty, Superintendent of the Temecula Valley Unified School District, has indicated to staff that TVUSD does not support a Development Code Amendment that would expand zoning for public charter schools. A representative of TVUSD will attend the Planning Commission meeting. RECOMMENDATION Based on concerns raised by the Temecula Valley School District, staff recommends that the Planning Commission not support a proposal for a Development Code Amendment to expand zoning for public charter schools. Staff further recommends that achy-initiated development code amendment provide a separate use entitled "Schools, Public Charter (kindergarten through 12'" grade)" so that Charter Schools are defined, delineated and consistent with its present use in the Public Institutional zone under "Schools, Public (elementary, junior high, high school)" in order to alleviate ambiguity regarding zoning for public charter schools. G:\Planning\2007\PA07-0307 Julian Charter School Minor CUP\Planning\PC SIaR Report final.doc 3 ITEN~ #4 STAFF REPORT -PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: March 19, 2008 PREPARED BY: Stuart Fisk, Senior Planner Patrick Richardson, Principal Planner PROJECT Planning Application Number PA06-0337, the Old Town Visioning SUMMARY: Project, provides goals and recommendations to address community concerns regarding the vision for future development in Old Town and suggests a comprehensive revision to the Old Town Specific Plan to implement these goals and recommendations as further discussed within the Analysis Section of this staff report. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Planning Commission review, provide comments, and recommend to City Council that staff proceed with an amendment to the Old Town Specific Plan to address the goals and recommendations for Old Town discussed in this staff report. CEQA: NA -Informational Item PROJECT DATA SUMMARY Name of Applicant: City of Temecula General Plan Community Commercial (CC), Low Density Residential (L), Medium Designation: Density Residential (M), High Density Residential (H), and Open Space (OS) Zoning Designation: SP-5 (Old Town Specific Plan) Existing Conditions: Site: Multiple retail, office, restaurant, residential, and other uses North: Retail and office South: Retail East: Residential West: Office, retail, and vacant G:Wlanning\2006\PA06-0337 Old Town Spec Plan Amendment\Planning\ON - SP Revision STAFF REPORT.doc 1 BACKGROUND SUMMARY Old Town is the heart of Temecula, and with increased development occurring in Old Town over the last few years, and the new Civic Center being located in the hub of Old Town, questions and concerns have been raised by residents, business owners and the development community about the community's vision for Old Town as it continues to evolve and change. Of particular concern to the community has been the intensity of building height, building mass, and adequacy of parking. Some individuals have expressed concerns that the newer developments do not maintain and respect the historic character of Old Town. In addition, Planning Commission and the Old Town Local Review Board have also expressed these concerns. In response to these concerns, the City Council directed Planning and Redevelopment staff to examine these issues, solicit feedback from residents, businesses, property owners, and the development community, and return with policy recommendations for their consideration which address these concerns. In response to this direction, staff has worked in conjunction with consulting firms Inland Planning+Design and Gibbs Planning Group (planning, urban design and retail marketing), Keyser-Marston (economic feasibility), and Fehr and Peers (parking and circulation) and developed athree-prong approach to analyzing the issues. This approach recognizes that the issues go beyond design, building height and mass, and include market feasibility of different development scenarios for Old Town and the need to identify and provide adequate circulation and parking to serve the Old Town area. Six workshops were held with the community from June to December 2007. These workshops covered the topics of historic and existing conditions, urban design elements, alternative design concepts, market feasibility, and parking management and demand. The six workshops were well attended by a mix of business and property owners, residents, and concerned citizens. Public feedback included the importance of respecting and maintaining the historic character of Old Town, solving the parking problem, preserving the current mix of buildings to ensure that small businesses are not forced out as new development occurs, and providing a connection between Old Town and Murrieta Creek. As a result of these six workshops, a series of ten goals and recommendations emerged which were overwhelmingly supported by the workshop attendees. Staff presented the ten goals and recommendations to the Old Town Local Review Board on February 11, 2008. The Old Town Local Review Board discussion of the Visioning Project included a suggestion that in order to preserve historic buildings, perhaps the City could purchase property that could house historic buildings in a park setting, providing retail and commercial opportunities for the public. The Board stated their opposition to placing parking meters anywhere in Ofd Town, and noted the importance of ADA access and railing throughout the Old Town Area. At the conclusion of the Board's discussion of the Visioning Project, several Board members commented that they were concerned about losing the current character and charm of Old Town, but recognized that implementation of the goals and recommendations through the Old Town Specific Plan would be good for the long-term economic viability of Old Town. The Board therefore unanimously recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council that staff proceed with a comprehensive amendment to the Old Town Specific Plan based on the ten goals and recommendations presented to the Board and discussed below. G:1Planning120061PA06-0337 Old Town Spec Plan AmendmentlPlanninglON - SP Revision STAFF REPORT.doc 2 ANALYSIS Staff has assembled ten goals and recommendations for the Old Town Visioning Project based on input we have received from the community at the abovementioned workshops. Staff is now presenting these goals and recommendations to the Planning Commission for review and comment. Staff will address any comments received from the Planning Commission and will then present this information to the City Council and recommend that the City Council authorize staff to proceed with a comprehensive revision to the Old Town Specific Plan that will focus on the following ten issues: Historic Core 2. Streets 3. Building Heights 4. Architecture 5. Murrieta Creek Walk 6. Infrastructure 7. Residential Neighborhoods 8. Parking 9. Economic Development 10. North Area of Old Town (vicinity of Moreno Road) A detailed description of the goal and recommendation for each of these elements is discussed in the attachment to this staff report titled "Goals and Recommendations." To address concerns that the current Specific Plan does not adequately speak to issues related to building height and massing, staff recommends that a comprehensive amendment to the Specific Plan be prepared. The proposed Specific Plan amendment will help to ensure that the elements of Old Town listed above are consistently addressed in a manner that will result in a cohesive "downtown." To achieve this, the areas of the Specific Plan that address the abovementioned elements of Old Town will need to be updated and expanded, and criteria will need to be added for elements that are not currently addressed in the Specific Plan. Additionally, staff intends to incorporate form-based code principles into the Specific Plan. This will result in less emphasis being placed on permitted land uses and a greater emphasis being placed on building and street forms. Form-base codes do not, however, have to altogether ignore land uses, so certain uses may still be regulated if desired. For example, if it is determined that adult entertainment businesses, automobile sales lots, heavy equipment sales or rentals, pawn shops, heavy industrial uses, etc., are not appropriate for Old Town, those uses can be excluded by a form-based code. Form-based codes recognize that uses will come and go, but that the buildings will serve the community for many years. Therefore, a main premise of form-based codes is that an emphasis G:~Planning~20061PA06-0337 Old Town Spec Plan Amendment~PlanninglON - SP Revision STAFF REPORT.doc 3 is placed on addressing the relationship between building facades and the public realm, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and types of streets and blocks. Regulations and standards based on form-based code principles, presented in both words and diagrams, will be incorporated into the Old Town Specific Plan to designate the appropriate form and scale (and therefore, character) of development in Old .Town rather than only distinguishing land-use types. The form-based regulations will be regulatory, not advisory, and are not to be confused with design guidelines or general statements of policy. This is in contrast to the Specific Plan's current focus on the segregation of land-use types, permissible property uses, and the control of development intensity through simple numerical parameters (e.g., floor area ratio, dwelling units per acre, height limits, setbacks, or parking ratios). For further description of form-based codes, please see the attachment to this staff report titled "Form-Based Code Definition". LEGAL NOTICING REQUIREMENTS Although this project is for informational purposes and does not require a public hearing or public meeting, notice of this item going before the Planning Commission was published in the Californian on March 8, 2008, was mailed to the property owners within a 600-foot radius, and was mailed to the workshop participants. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Old Town Visioning Project is a process of information gathering and is not a "project" pursuant to the California Environmental Act as it only involves the Planning Commission's review and comment on goals and recommendations for a recommended comprehensive update to the Old Town Specific Plan and a recommendation from the Planning Commission to City Council on whether to proceed with such a revision. If City Council does authorize staff to proceed with a revision to the Old Town Specific Plan, environmental review will be required for the amendments to the plan. ATTACHMENTS Vicinity Map Goals and Recommendations Form-Based Code Definition Notice of Public Meeting G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0337 Old Town Spec Plan Amendment\Planning\ON- SP Revision STAFF REPORT.doc 4 VICINITY MAP G:Wlanning120061PA06-0337 Old Town Spec Plan AmendmentlPlanninglON - SP Revision STAFF REPORT.doc 5 ~\ ~' , `, I PA06-0337 f 0 / \\I/ ^\ ~\//\ ~ ~P \ 2~ ~ r ~ I `\ \~~ \, ~\ ,.„a ,..~ Feel GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS G:\Planning\2006\PA06-0337 Old Town Spec Plan Amendment\Planning\ON - SP Revision STAFF REPORT.doc 6 Recommendation 1: Historic Core Goal: Preserve and respect historic buildings. Discussion: The formative years of Old Town spanned from 1885 to the sale of the Vail Ranch in 1964. All of the historic buildings identified in the Specific Plan were built during this period. The second phase of development, from 1964 through the mid-1980's, created most of the'second generation" of western-style buildings. Finally, recent and proposed projects represent Old Town's transition to include a more urban mix of uses that will co-exist with the historic one and two-story structures. The earliest buildings in Temecula were positioned on their lots in a very consistent manner. Figure 1 shows a mix of historic and recent buildings. Their facades all touch the right- of-way, creating a clear street edge defined by the 80-footfasade-to-facade dimension. Figure 2 below illustrates frontages of two historic buildings. Many buildings have porches, boardwalks, arcades and galleries that add interest and character to the streetscape. These 'encroachments' all extend a maximum of 10 feet into the space of the street. 1-E 3 LL S m ~ ~ p( U Figure 2: Two examples of historic building frontages. Recommendation: Protect and preserve existing designated historic buildings. Delineate a historic core centered on the intersection of Front and Main Streets. New projects in this core area should be required to pay special attention to the height and massing of the historic buildings. Inland PWnning + Design, tnc Keyser Marston Associates, [nc. Fehr & Peers February 1, 2008 Figure 1: Building Positions at Front and Main Streets. Recommendation 2: Streets Goal: Enhance the historic character and pedestrian friendly nature of the streets. Protect the historic grid of streets and alleys. Discussion: The 1885 plat is a classic American town with a rectangular grid of streets and alleys. Front and Main street R.O.W.'s were 8D feet wide, and all other R.O.W.'s were 60 feet wide (Figure 1). River Street was located next to the Creek, but was never built. Alleys facilitated servicing and deliveries for businesses. Figure 2 shows what is left of the grid. The freeway took a piece, as did Murrieta Creek. Many alleys have been vacated over the years. Front and Main street R.O.W.'s were reduced in width from 80 feet to 60 feet. The grid of streets and alleys is the primary historic asset in Old Town. Maintaining and enhancing a lively and interesting pedestrian experience on the public streets is essential. Building entrances and retail displays should face the street, as opposed to facing internal mall-like courtyards. Internal courtyards with shopping and restaurants should be the exception; pedestrian and shopping activity should be oriented primarily to the street. Currently, utilities and deliveries for businesses occurs on the streets rather than the alleys. Trucks double-parked or blocking sidewalks creates safety concerns for pedestrians. Infrastructure recommendations are discussed in greater detail in Recommendation #8. Figure 1: Original Plat Welty Building/Ramona Inn 1897 MAIN STREET First National Bank 1914 Figure 3: Clear street edge created by h!s[orfc buildings on Main Street. Cw' Recommendation: Future development should a) orient building activity to the street, b) create a clear street edge, and c) preserve existing and reclaim vacated alleys where possible. ^ Inland Planning + Design, Inc Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Fehr & Peers February 1, 2008 Figure 2: Current grid of streets and alleys. Recommendation 3: Building Heights Goal: Permit up to four-story buildings, subject to detail design standards. Allow taller structures with a Conditional Use Permit. Discussion: The existing Specific Plan allows building heights of 50 feet (three stories) in Old Town. In order to help visualize the appearance of three and four story buildings in Old Town, renderings of hypothetical buildings were overlaid on photographs. These images reflect the strategy of defining the form (size, shape, lot placement) of future buildings, while providing flexibility regarding the mixes of uses that may occur over time. Such a "Form-Based Code" would also include architectural guidelines, which are discussed in recommendation #4. Figure 1 shows how Front Street would appear if most buildings were three stories (as is currently permitted). For reference, the Bank building is visible on the left side of the image. The feedback from the public indicated support for three story buildings on Front Street, with the addition of a fourth floor provided that it was set back from the street facade. Figure 2 shows how Fifth Street might appear if new three and four story buildings were built opposite the existing three and four story Dalton buildings. Public feedback generally supported four story buildings on Mercedes and the numbered streets, with potentially higher buildings at the edges of Old Town. Figure 1: Visualization ofexisd right) and potential three and story buildings (on IeR). Recommendation: Amend the Old Town Specific Plan as a 'form based code' governing the heights of buildings and their placement on lots. Include detailed pertormance standards for new development that respect the relationship with adjacent iristoric structures. Inland Planning + Design, inc Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Fehr & Peers February 1, 2006 assuming facades are 10 feet back from the property line. Recommendation 4: Architecture Goal: Future buildings should respect the historic architectural styles in Old Town and contribute to swell-defined, lively and pedestrian-oriented streetscape. Figure 1: historic structures in Old Town Discussion: The massing of buildings in Old Town will largely determine the historic character of the streetscape. Three-dimensional "form" should be defined in detail, while "use" be allowed to be mixed and flexible; this is the essence of a `Form-Based Code'. Figure 2 below illustrates examples of pre-approved frontages that would ensure successful street edges. High quality design and construction will be ensured by providing clearer historical context for the approved architectural styles, more examples of desired outcomes, and detailed drawings and photographs of approved details. Detailed guidelines will also serve to clarify Old Town's design expectations for architects, reducing the time and effort required to understand the `pre-approved' range of building massing, architectural style, materials and details. Finally, detailed guidelines will streamline the design review process by providing a `path of least resistance' for projects to enable expedited review and approvals. If projects meet the design rules, they are approved at an administrative level by the `town architect'; if variances are requested, then an additional level of design review is required by the `review board' or other administrative bodies. Recommendation: Amend the Old Town Specific Plan defining in more detail the guidelines for building form, architectural style, street frontage design, materials, detailing and color. These detailed design guidelines should provide design flexibility while ensuring high quality and well designed buildings. Inland PWnning + Design, Inc Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Fehr & Peers February 1, 2008 Recommendation 5: Murrieta Creek Walk Goal: Improve the visual and functional connection between Old Town and Murrieta Creek. Discussion: Development in recent years has largely turned its back on Murrieta Creek. The creek is lined with parking lots and dumpsters, and periodic flooding has contributed to the uneasy relationship. The proposed flood control improvements for the creek and the Main Street bridge replacement proposal have both contributed to widespread interest in creating a more positive connection between Old Town and the creek. The leading idea is a pedestrian and bicycle promenade along the creek edge (Figure 1). n 0 c z` a (~ .'! ' 2 V 1a Figure l: The edge of Murrieta Creek in Old Town. The promenade could be enhanced by having residential and commercial buildings facing it, allowing entrances, windows and balconies to overlook the creek. This would take advantage of the excellent views of the restored creek and the hills to the west. The sketch in Figure 2 illustrates this concept. The promenade could provide fire protection access to the buildings. Another opportunity is to improve the way that numbered streets end at the creek. These streets could end at landscaped areas, with the views terminated by gazebos or park structures. An example is shown in the lower portion of Figure 2. Figure 2: Rendering sl estrian walk along the on a ped- Recommendation: Orient buildings to the proposed creek walk through the use of entrances, courtyards and balconies facing the creek. Develop plans that meet the flood control objectives while creating wel{-designed paths for pedestrians and bicycles. Develop form-based guidelines for the massing and placement of buildings facing the creek walk. Inland Planning + Design, Inc Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Fehr & Peers February 1, 2008 Recommendation 6: Infrastructure Goal: Improve infrastructure for future development, including water, sewer, power, communications, trash, and deliveries. Maximize the use of alleys to locate these services and utilities off street. Discussion: The growth scenarios for Old Town over the next 20 years will vastly exceed the capacity of the existing infrastructure for water, sewer, electricity, gas and communications. A detailed analysis of the future infrastructure needs is needed. Haw and where these utility additions will occur in Old Town is a key issue. The purpose of alleys in traditional town planning is to separate the public frontage on the street from the service functions at the rear. Over time, infrastructure improvements in Old Town have occurred almost exclusively on the street. The result is reduced safety, visual clutter, and a compromised pedestrian experience. Delivery trucks routinely block streets and sidewalks, transformers and utility pedestals separate buildings from the sidewalks, and overhead electric wires clutter the fronts of buildings. While water and sewer are traditionally located in the street (and should stay there), alleys are well suited for new electric, gas, and communications infrastructure. Alley should be carefully considered as locations for new infrastructure. be moved to the alleys to improve the safety, Figure 2: Vacated alleys that may be reclaimed are shown in red. Recommendation: Prepare a detailed analysis of existing and future infrastructure needs. Locate utilities in alleys to improve streetscape and building frontages. Inland Planning + Design, Inc Keyser Marston Associates, [nc. Fehr & Peers February 1, 2008 Figure 1: Deliveries, trash pickup and utilities coup functionality and appearance of the streets. rwu ~a.~a ~.~ ccn Recommendation 7: Residential Neighborhoods Goal: Encourage the development of high quality residential neighborhoods to support the commercial and office core of Old Town. Scenario 3: High Intensity ^ Civic Center I-story bulltllrgs (20'tall) ^ 2-story buildings (3s' tall) . 3-story bulltlings (50'tnip ^ 4-story bull°IngS (65' [all) ^ Hotels Figure 2: At full build-out, it is residential use. approximately 50% of development in Old Town will be Recommendation: Develop specific development regulations and design guidelines and development standards for housing to be incorporated into the Specific Plan. Allow for residential-only in additional to mixed-use projects. Inland Planning + Design, Inc Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Fehr & Peers Febnlary 1, 2008 Discussion: In order to support the potential retail and commercial growth in Old Town, it is estimated that about half of the development needs to be residential. It is recommended that residential development be structured to create several identifiable neighborhoods with a range of housing types to support a diverse demographic. Figure 1: A range of housing types in Old Town would encou2ge a diverse demog2phlc o. Housing types could Jnclude rowhouses (IeR), courtyards (center) and townhouses (right). Recommendation 8: Parking Goal: Retain existing Specific Plan parking standards both near and long term. Discussion: Like many cities, the City of Temecula has parking standards that specify the number of off-street parking spaces that a particular use must provide when a parcel is developed or redeveloped. When the Specific Plan was last updated, these parking standards or requirements were reduced for certain uses within specific areas of Old Town. In general, parking is not required for uses like commercial buildings or offices in the traditional core areas of Old Town Temecula. Several rationales for limited parking requirements include the availability of on-street parking, shared parking, and the ability for a person to park once within Old Town and visit several stores and restaurants without having to use multiple parking spaces. After the implementation of this policy, development has continued with some property owners providing off-street parking and others choosing not to do so. --- Since this change was made, some residents and business owners have expressed concerns that there could be insufficient parking in the future as future development occurs. These concerns lead to a belief that there is a "parking problem" in Old Town Temecula. In response, a detailed study was conducted to determine parking occupancy and usage. This survey, which was first conducted in February 2007 and updated again in December 2007, found that there was sufficient parking in Old Town and that visitors and employees are able to find parking easily throughout the day. One outstanding issue related to the existing parking are the period Special Events in Old Town, such as the Rod Run, which require further study and additional planning Since there is adequate parking currently in Old Town, there is little need to revise the parking standards at this time. However, there is a need to accommodate future development within Old Town. One approach would be to conduct regular monitoring of parking demand and institute appropriate actions when certain thresholds are reached. This monitoring process and the various actions would be documented by a comprehensive parking strategy. Figure 2: Existing On-Street Parking on Front Street Thursday Percentage_ ' of Occupied Spaces __ _ __ - ~oem~w.«rWw~y _.--- ,Oem tum w.n ipn i0" ~ ~ Snn 6Vm ~w~ Bpm Time of Day Figure 1: Current Parking Demand Figure 3:Oid Town Parking Occupancy Recommendation: Re-survey Old Town parking to verify findings of February 2007 survey. Develop interim parking strategies to address special event parking needs. Develop a comprehensive parking strategy to increase parking supply in the long term. Inland Planning + Design, Int Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Fehr li< Peers February 1, 2008 Recommendation 9: Economic Development Goal: Ensure that future growth in Old Town meets the needs of its businesses and residents, and that the growth is economically sustainable. Discussion: Old Town offers a unique opportunity to expand a historic district into a vibrant, mixed-use downtown for the Temecula Valley. Major positive factors include: • A resurgent national interest in walkable districts that offer possibilities for live, work, and play • Two decades of rapid growth in population, housing, and commercial development in the Temecula Valley • New investments by the City and its Redevelopment Agency in public infrastructure and facilities in Old Town • Ongoing developer interest in commercial and residential development in Old Town At the same time, future growth in Old Town must Overcome several key economic challenges. The housing market downturn will delay proposals for housing and mixed-use developments, and may also slow the growth in retail sales. The strength of Old Town's commercial sector has been its restaurants, bars, and cafes. New office employment and new residents can help support an expanded commercial sector, including specialty retail, arts and cultural uses, and business and personal services. The proposed Civic Center, 488- space parking garage, and related Town Square Marketplace will likely provide a significant economic stimulus to Old Town The City's current efforts to define a strategic vision for OId Town, and potential future amendments to the Old Town Specific Plan, will chart the course for new development in the district. However, market cycles tend to favor one or two land uses over others -- for example, hotel and office uses are generally stronger in the current market than either residential or retail. The synergies among these uses are key to a successful mixed-use district. Creation of an Economic Development Plan and Marketing Strategy will be essential to implement the strategic vision for Old Town and provide a road map to pursue such important development opportunities as new hotels, market-rate housing (both for-sale and rental), and expanded commercial uses. Figures 3 & 4: Mixed-use Plaza Almeria, Huntington Beach Recommendation: Prepare an economic development plan and marketing strategy to attract desired growth in terms of new development and commercial businesses. Inland Planning + Design, Inc Keyser Marston Associates, inc. Fehr & Peers February 1, 2008 Figure 1: Bailey's, Old Town Figure 2: Dalton I, Old Town Recommendation 10: Area North of the Arch Goal: Create greater visual and functional connection between Old Town core and the area north of the arch. Discussion: On the east side of Murrieta Creek, the current boundaries of Old Town extend from First Street to Rancho California Road. In terms of the Character and mix of uses, this area is divided into two distinct parts. The core area with the grid of streets has a rich historic character and lively pedestrian life. The area 'north of the arch' area feels disconnected and inconsistent with the Old Town core. The potential exists for the area north of the arch to evolve over time in a manner consistent with the urban form, architectural character, and pedestrian life of the Old Town core. The first step may be a 'visioning study' for this area similar to the study just completed in the core area. S z r r' u ~~ Figure 1: Old Town (on the east side of the creek) extends from Rancho California Road to First Street. Recommendation: Explore opportunities to extend street and alley grid to the north. Extend the form based code standards envisioned for the Old Town core into this area. Inland Planning + Design, Inc Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Fehr & Peers February 1, 2008 FORM-BASED CODE DEFINITION G:\Planning\20061PA06-0337 Old Town Spec Plan Amendment\Planning\ON - SP Revision STAFF REPORT.doc 7 FORM-BASED CODE DEFINITION (As defined by the Form-Based Codes Institute) The primary difference between traditional zoning and form-based codes is that although traditional zoning may contain elements of building form regulation, the emphasis of traditional zoning is on use rather than form. Conversely, form-based codes emphasize building form over use, although uses may still be restricted with aform-based code. The main reasons for this approach are that conventional zoning has generally produced undesirable urban sprawl and less than optimal building forms. This has caused various practitioners to reexamine our communities and ways of life to figure out how to redirect development. Older cities, towns, and villages serve as great models, showing how planning was done when resources and mobility were expensive and in short supply. Studying the three- dimensional form and human scale of these older communities is the basis for new regulations, hence the term "Form-Based Coding". Form-based codes address the relationship between building facades and the public realm, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and types of streets and blocks. The regulations and standards in form-based codes, presented in both diagrams and words, are keyed to a regulating plan that designates the appropriate form and scale (and therefore, character) of development rather than only distinctions in land-use types. This is in contrast to conventional zoning's focus on the segregation of land use types, permissible property uses, and the control of development intensity through simple numerical parameters such as FAR, dwelling units per acre, height limits, setbacks, or parking ratios. Not to be confused with design guidelines or general statements of policy, form-based codes are regulatory, not advisory. Form-based codes are drafted to achieve a community vision based on time-tested forms of urbanism. Ultimately, aform-based code is a tool; the quality of development outcomes is dependent on the quality and objectives of the community plan that a code implements. Form-based codes commonly include the following elements: • Regulating Plan. A plan or map of the regulated area designating the locations where different building form standards apply based on clear community intentions regarding the physical character of the area being coded. • Building Form Standards. Regulations controlling the configuration, features, and functions of buildings that define and shape the public realm. Public Space/Street Standards. Specifications for the elements within the public realm (e.g., sidewalks, travel lanes, street trees, street furniture, etc.). • Administration. A clearly defined application and project review process. • Definitions. A glossary to ensure the precise use of technical terms. Form-based codes may also include: Architectural Standards. Regulations controlling external architectural materials and quality. Annotation. Text and illustrations explaining the intentions of the specific code provisions. Identifying Form-Based Codes A well-crafted form-based code is the most effective form of development regulation for shaping pedestrian-scaled, mixed use urbanism. In determining if a development regulation is a form- based code and awell-crafted one, the following questions generally receive affirmative answers: Is it a Form-Based Code? • Is the code's focus primarily on regulating urban form and less on land use? Is the code regulatory rather than advisory? • Does the code emphasize standards and parameters for form with predictable physical outcomes (such as build-to lines, frontage type requirements, etc.) rather than relying on numerical parameters (such as Floor Area Ratio, dwelling units per acre, etc.) whose outcomes are impossible to predict? • Does the code require private buildings to shape public space through the use of building form standards with specific requirements for building placement? • Does the code promote and/or conserve an interconnected street network and pedestrian-scaled blocks? • Are regulations and standards keyed to specific locations on a regulating plan? • Are the diagrams in the code unambiguous, clearly labeled, and accurate in their presentation of spatial configurations? • Will the code shape the public realm to invite pedestrian use and social interaction? • Will the code produce walkable, identifiable neighborhoods that provide for daily needs? • Is the code based on a sufficiently detailed physical plan and/or other clear community vision that directs development and aids implementation? • Are parking requirements compatible with pedestrian-scaled urbanism? The illustration on the following page (copied from the From-Based Codes Institute's definition of form-based codes) depicts potential outcomes for development of a block based on traditional zoning, design guidelines, and on form-based codes. As stated above, although traditional zoning may contain elements of building form regulation, the emphasis is on use rather than form. Conversely, form-based codes emphasize building form over use, although uses may still be restricted with aform-based code. Therefore, zoning regulations alone will not ensure that desirable building forms will result from development. Design guidelines help achieve some building form objectives, but are often advisory and therefore lack enforceability. Form-based codes, however, speak specifically to building form and placement and are regulatory rather than advisory, thereby ensuring that building form, block, and street scene objectives are met. How zoning defines a one-block parcel Density, use, FAR (fla setbacks,patking requi and maximum building specified. How design guideli~~w, define aone-block parcel Density, use, FAR (fla ratio), setbacks, pazkin requirements, maximw height(s), frequency of and surface atticulatior How form-based ceuea define a ene-61ock narcel Street and building t; types), build-to lices, 8oois, and percentag frontage specified. ®2006 Peter Kah aM Steve Price-lhban AdvaMag[ NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING G:\Planning\20061PA06-0337 Old Town Spec Plan Amendmenl\Planning\ON - SP Revision STAFF REPORT.doc 8 Notice of Public Meeting A PUBLIC MEETING has been scheduled before the City of Temecula PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the matter described below: Case No: Planning Application No. PA06-0337 Applicant: City of Temecula Location: Old Town Specific Plan area, which is bounded to the north by Rancho California Road, to the east by Interstate 15, to the south by First Street, and to the west from approximately 225 feet west of Pujol Street as depicted in the Vicinity Map below Proposal: Planning Application Number PA06-0337, the Old Town Visioning project, provides goals and recommendations to address community concerns regarding the vision for future development in Old Town and suggests a comprehensive revision to the Old Town Specific Plan to implement these goals and recommendations Case Planner: Patrick Richardson, AICP, Principal Planner Stuart Fisk, AICP, Senior Planner Place of Meeting: City of Temecula, Council Chambers 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 Date of Meeting: March 19, 2008 Time of Meeting: 6:00 p.m. 4 5 V l ,}`I ~ ,`` 1~ ~ _-r '~. ~ ~ . ~ `~ ~ ~ - ~. ~, ~ _ , ~ r - ,. ~ ~ o h,4, .Project Site ~ ~~`~"~ ~, ~, ~'~1y 9 ~'0 1.SOG 3.810 ,~1~. ~,1 .. f `~ , i ' ~ Notice of Public Hearing Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before the meeting or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the approval of the project at the time of meeting. The proposed project application may be viewed at the Temecula Planning Department, 43200 Business Park Drive, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Questions concerning the project may be addressed to the case planner at the City of Temecula Planning Department, (951) 694-6400. G:~Planning~2006NA06-0337 Old Town Spec Plan Amendmenl~PlanningWOPH-PC.doc