Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout042104 PC Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 2004 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, April 21, 2004, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Telesio thanked Eve Craig for the prelude music. ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Chiniaeff led the audience in the Flag salute. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, and Chairman Telesio. Absent: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Aaenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of April 21, 2004. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of March 3, 2004. 3 Director's Hearina Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for March 2004. R:\MinutesPC\042104 1 MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the Consent Calendar and requested to move Item No. 7 after No.5. Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSION BUSINESS 4 Reauest to approve an interim policv addressina development proposals in the Chaparral Special Studv Area while the General Plan is beina updated. The interim policv further refines how the Chaparral criteria will be implemented and is expected to be consistent with the General Plan after it is updated RECOMMENDATION 4.1 Recommend City Council Approval of the Chaparral I nterim Policy Principal Planner Hogan presented a staff report (of record), noting the following: . That in developing the proposed policy, staff had discussions with an ad hoc City Council Subcommittee as well as the General Plan Community Advisory Committee (CAC); . That both groups were of the opinion that development proposals that protect sensitive open space areas and provide local trail connections are desirable and have the highest potential for community wide benefits; . That the proposed interim policy is as follows: o Limit the gross density in the Chaparral area to one dwelling unit per acre, except for the tier of lots adjacent to Ynez Road where a density of two dwelling units per acre would be more appropriate; o That a one unit per acre density allow half-acre sized lots to help preserve sensitive open space and habitat areas; o That all future developments provide trail dedications for the Citywide trail network when possible; . That the City Council reviewed the policy direction received from the Subcommittee and the Commission Advisory Commission (CAC) and refer the matter to the Planning Commission for a formal recommendation. For the Commission, Mr. Hogan relayed that the land uses that are currently in the General Plan uses are currently in the General Plan interim policy; and that what is being proposed . is to allow 'h acre lots in what is currently a one-acre zoning district; that there are two different situations being proposed, one would be for the 'h acre lots and the other project area is for the one-acre density with the ability to go down to an 'h lots if the remaining is set is some form of open space. R:\MinutesPC\042104 2 \ Mr. Hogan also relayed that for City-owned trails, proper maintenance would include: regular inspections, repairs and resurfacing as needed, weed control, safety signage, and stripping (if hard surfaced); that when the City trail facilities are constructed in easement areas, City liability for the trail is still covered through the General Plan Liability Policy; however, non-trail related liability will still remain the responsibility of the underlying property owners. Mr. Hogan further clarified that the proposed project is designed for large parcels; that it is a voluntary policy; that it would not apply to a person who would desire to build a home on their own lot; and that it would only apply if one were to have subdivisions of land. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Larry Markham, 41045 Enterprise Circle relayed that he is in favor of the project and noted that the proposed project would cut the density in half for the vast majority of the area with the exception of the parcels that are immediately adjacent to Ynez; and that it would allow flexibility on how to site the parcels with regard to clustering. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff's recommendation. Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous aDDroval. It was the consensus of the Commission to combine Item NO.5 and 7. 5 Public Necessity and Convenience Findinas 29676 Rancho California Road, Taraet Retail Buildina RECOMMENDATION 5.1 Approve Findings of Public Convenience Per the request of Commissioner Guerriero, Item No.7 will be reviewed after Item No.5 7 Plannina Application No. PA03-0726 a Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow the sales of beer and wine (Tvpe 20 License) in an existina Taraet Buildina. located at 29676 Rancho California Road Associate Planner Long presented a staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following: . That the proposed project is for a minor CUP that includes the Public Necessity and Findings for Target to sell beer and wine on site; . That the separation of criteria in the Development Code requires 500 feet separation from any schools, parks, hospitals, or religious institution; . That staff was able to make the findings and recommends the approval for a minor Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as well as the findings for convenience; R:\MinutesPC\042104 3 . That at this time, Target does not sell any alcohol or liquor; and that this is its first proposal. At this time, the PUblic Hearing was opened. Ms. Beth Aboulafia, 260 Calitornia Street, representing Target, relayed the following: . That Target started selling wine at its stores in California two years ago; . That currently there are 40 stores in Northern California that are licenses and have been selling wine; . That due to its success, Target started expanding the program to its stores in Southern California; . That Target has not had any problems or violations with selling to minors at any of the stores that have already been licensed in California; . That the application is for a Type 20 off site beer and wine license; . That there will be no consumption on the premises; . That although its a beer and wine license, Target will only be selling wine; . That all Target Stores have only been selling wine; . That the sales of wine will only represent 3% of sales; but that it would be a complement to the food and beverage products that Target currently has in its market section and will be a convenience to Target's customers; . That Target employees will be provided a training program relating to alcohol and beverage sales that is specific to the laws and regulations to California; . That there have been no objections from the few neighboring residents; . That there have been no objections from the Police Department; . That wine bottles will be located in the market section of Target; At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Guerriero is of the opinion that there is no need or convenience to approve a Type 20 beer and wine license. For Commissioner Olhasso, Ms. Ubnoske relayed that currently there are no plans for redevelopment in the Target Center. Commissioner Mathewson expressed concern with approving another license for beer and wine sales in the area. R:\MinutesPC\042104 4 For Commissioner Mathewson, Ms. Ubnoske relayed that when the state turned the jurisdiction over to the Cities, they did not give any criteria; and that the City Attorney developed the criteria for staff that is fairly consistent with other jurisdictions across the state. Commissioner Chiniaeff expressed concern with denying the proposed item stating that the census tract boundary is arbitrary and that if the City is going to allow establishments to sell alcohol in commercial zones (which is established in the zoning ordinance), that the City should be consistent and; therefore, either allow more establishments to sell alcohol, or that if the Commission is of the opinion that there is over-concentration of T.ype 20 licenses, then the zoning ordinance should be changed; and that it would be inequitable to allow some stores to sell and others to not sell. Chairman Telesio is of the opinion that staff should be reviewing the zoning ordinance; that he finds it difficult to approve these findings of convenience for large box type stores and deny sales to smaller outlets. For the Commission, Ms. Ubnoske relayed that changing the zoning ordinance to not permit alcohol sales in commercial zones would be a huge detriment to economic development. Assistant City Attorney Curly relayed that the Commission has the ability on each discretionary land use decision to look at the specific criteria. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the findings of Public Convenience. Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion voice vote reflected denial with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who voted ves. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to denv PC Resolution No. 2002-019 due to the fact that the nature of the proposed use is detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community because the census tract is over-saturated with liquor licenses at this time. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected denial of Minor Conditional Use Permit (CUP) with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who voted No. Commissioner Chiniaeff requested that staff have the City Council evaluate their commercial uses as related to alcohol permits. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-019 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION PA NO. 03-0726, A REQUEST FOR MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TYPE 20 (OFF-SALE BEER AND WINE) ALCOHOL LICENSE FOR TARGET LOCATED AT 29676 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 921-320-053. R:IMinutesPCI042104 5 Continued from April 7, 2004 6 Plannina Application No. PA02-0717 a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan to construct and operate a wireless telecommunications facilitv to include a 56-foot hiah artificial palm tree with three (3\ antennas housed within the bulb portion of the tree and four outdoor eauipment cabinets within a 310 sauare foot block screen wall enclosure. located at 315754 Enfield Lane Associate Planner Fisk presented a staff report relaying that at the request of the Planning Commission, the applicant prepared additional propagation maps via overhead displaying the following: . Coverage without the proposed antenna facility; . . Coverage with an antenna at 39 feet at the proposed site; . Coverage with an antenna at 50 feet at the proposed site; . Coverage with an antenna at 50 feet if the facility were located at Riverton Park; . Coverage with an antenna at 50 feet if the facility were located at San Diego Aqueduct vents; . Coverage with antenna at 50 feet if the facility were located on residential property east of Butterfield Stage Road; . That the applicant prepared new photo simulations which include two additional live palm trees planted near the proposed monopalm; and that this would be a total of four (4) new live palm trees. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Gil Gonzales, 150 Paularino Avenue, representing Cingular Wireless, noted the following: . That with an antenna at 39 feet at the proposed site would include a 45 foot monopalm and that this would include holes in coverage and would not allow connection to the site to the north/west and does not extend as much coverage to the west as desired. At this time, Mr. Gil distributed additional pictures of alternative sites that were considered by Cingular Wireless, which also included a list of the properties that were investigated. Mr; Mashesh Kolush, 150 Paularino Avenue, Radio Frequency Engineer for Cingular Wireless, further clarified line of site technology and RF emissions. For the record, Chairman Telesio noted that the Commission understands the concerns of the resident's; but tilat Federal Law precludes the Commission from making decisions in regard to radiation emissions. The following individuals spoke against the proposed project for the following reasons: Mr. Leonard Cole 40360 Windsor Road . R:\MinulesPC\042104 6 Mr. Kenneth Peterson 40396 Windsor Road Ms. Kathleen Gerber 40433 Windsor Road Mr. Brian Gerber 40433 Windsor Road Ms. Valesta Ayer 40325 Windsor Road Ms. Roma Stromberg 40384 Windsor Road . That the proposed project is a commercial venture at the expense of the neighborhood; . That the proposed property has been excavated; that the property is not stable; and that there have been mud slides with heavy rains; . That the released emissions from the cell tower could be noisy and dangerous; . That it does not appear to be a strategically planned effort; . That property values could potentially diminish due to the proposed project; . That the proposed project will be unsightly to look at every day; . That there are a significant amounts of cell towers and that there is no real need for anymore; . That there has not peen a visual impact study, view shed analysis, or line of site analysis performed; . . That the proposed project is inconsistent with the City's "Procedures for Cell Tower Impact Analysis". Mr. Gonzales relayed the following in response to residents' concerns: . That Cingular Wireless investigated the entire area and it was determined that the proposed area is in the center of the search ring; that the height has also been determined with RF propagation maps and what Cingular Wireless is trying to cover; and that Cingular Wireless is trying to provide coverage for the 300 tract homes to the south; . That a generator would only be used if the power were to completely fail; . That the noise that would be heard would be similar to a computer fan; . That Cingular Wireless hired a real estate consultant firm to evaluate the property values of homes that are within ~ mile radius of Cingular Wireless Cell Sites; and that it was determined that property values did not decrease; . That the proposed project would emit the same amount of EMF radiation as a baby monitor; and that one would be exposed to more EMF radiation by standing too close to the television; R:\MinutesPC\042104 7 . That Cingular Wireless will be complying with the California Public Utilities Commission; . That there will be SCE permanent service to the site; and that a generator would only be used if all the power were to go down by some type of disaster or unknown reason; and that there would not be a generator running fulltime; . That the proposed monopalm will have a security lock and a sensor that will alert Cingular Wireless 24 hours a day, seven (7) days a week. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Fisk noted that this Item No. was noticed through the newspaper and that individual agencies were sent notice of intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that it would be his opinion that the issues of concern that were raised by residents in regard to aesthetics, noise, and property values is not significant, but that in regard to screening efforts, would request that the proposed project be lowered to 39 feet; and that this would allow the proposed monopalm to blend in better with the surrounding palms. Commissioner Guerriero concurred with Commissioner Mathewson's comments including the height from 50 feet to 39 feet. Commissioner Olhasso echoed the previous comments. Commissioner Chiniaeff agreed that the height could be lowered to 39 feet and suggested that staff work with the landscape architect to add a variety of palms. ChairmanTelesio agreed with all of the above comments. Mr. Fisk noted that the distribution date for the Negative Declaration was December 11, 2003. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staff's recommendation with the condition that the palm be lowered from 50 feet to 39 feet; that there be a variety of palm trees planted, and that the number of trees that are being added around the wall be increased from two to four and be of the same type or variety that the pole is proposed to be. Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. , PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-018 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO PA02-0717, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY WITH THREE (3) ANTENNAS HOUSED WITHIN THE BULB PORTION OF A PROPOSED FIFTY-SIX FOOT HIGH ARTIFICIAL PALM TREE AND FOUR R:\MinulesPCl042104 8 OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT CABINETS WITHIN A 310 SQUARE FOOT BLOCK WALL ENCLOSURE AT 31575 ENFIELD LAND, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ENFIELD LAND, APPROXIMATELY 3,200 FEET EAST OF RIVERTON LANE (APN 957-170-012). At this time, the Commission took a ten minute break. New Items This item was addressed on pages 3, 4, and 5. 7 Plannina Application No. PA03-0726 a Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow the sales of beer and wine (Tvpe 20 License) in an existina Taraet Buildina. located at 29676 Rancho California Road 8 Plannina Application No. PA03-0443. a Development Plan to construct a 29.516 sauare foot office buildina on 5.69 acres. located on the south side of County Center Drive. approximatelv 1.500 feet east of Ynez Road Plannina Application No. PA03.0725 a Development Plan and Product Review for the desian of 99 sinale-familv residences. includina three floor plans and three architectural stvles. located on the south side of Murrieta Hot Sprinas and west of the future extension of Butterfield Staae Road within the Roripauah Ranch Specific Plan. Plannina Area 2 ) Associate Planner Fisk presented a staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following: . That the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan designation of business park and zoning designation of the Light Industrial; . That the bUilding meets the minimum setback requirements of the Development Code. and the proposed lot coverage of 28.5 percent (based on the overall lot acreage of 5.69 acres) is well below the maximum allowed lot coverage of 40 percent; . That staff determined that 98 parking spaces are required to serve the proposed building while 99 spaces will be provided; . That access to the site will be provided from two existing drive aisles off county center drive; . That a new drive aisle behind the proposed building will provide a connection between the two existing drive aisles for a loop drive around the proposed building; . That the Public Works Department determined that the impacts are consistent with the traffic volumes projected for the site by the General Plan EIR; . That the Fire Department determined that there is proper access and circulation to provide emergency services to the site; R:\MinutesPC\042104 9 . That the proposed office building design is consistent with the Development Code and Design Guidelines, and is compatible with the industrial and office buildings in the surrounding area; . That the landscape plan conforms to the landscape requirements of the Development Code and Design Guidelines; . That an initial study was prepared and indicated that the project could have potentially significant environmental impacts related to archeological and palentological resources unless mitigation measures are included as Conditions of Approval; . That staff is recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Fisk relayed that if anything is found during the excavation of the project the City would be notified. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Ed Mc Ardle, architect representing The Garrett Group, relayed that the concrete will be tilted-up and the paint will be a topey-tan color. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff's recommendation. Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous aDDroval. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-020 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0443, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 29,526 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING ON 5.69 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF COUNTY CENTER DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 1,500 FEET EAST OF YNEZ ROAD (APN 910-110-045). 9 Plannina Application No. PA03-0634 a Development Plan and Product Review for the desian of 113 sinale-familv residences. includina four floor plans and three architectural stvles. located on the south side of Murrieta Hot Sprinas and west of the future extension of Butterfield Staae Road within the Roripauah Ranch Specific Plan. Plannina Area 4B Associate Planner Long presented a staff report (of record), relaying the following: . That the applicant has provided various features encouraged in the Design Guidelines such as a variation in garage locations and Porte Cocheres; . That Plan One (1) includes a trellis on the East Coast Traditional as well as a recessed garage; . That Plan Two (2) includes a mid-deep recessed garage and a Porte Cocheres; R:\MinutasPC\042104 10 . That Plan Three (3) does not include a deep recessed garage; however, that between the three plans, staff is of the opinion that there is sufficient variety; . That in regard to single-story product, staff listened to the previous minutes of the City Council which adopted the Design Guidelines and Specific Plan (SP), and it was determil"ed that there is no specific language requiring single story products; however, it did state that it be determined by staff and/or the market; . That the proposed project is not proposing a sfngle-story product; however, staff is of the opinion that there are various single-story elements within Plan One (1) and Plan Two (2), that meet the intent of the Design Guidelines; . That the Design Guidelines require corner lots to create ''two front elevations"; that staff is of the opinion that the side elevations do not appear as a second front elevation on any of the corner lots; . That staff is of the opinion that the Monterey and Spanish Revival offer too many similarities; that staff recommended that the applicant use alternative materials to offer more variation; however, the applicant has not proposed any additional materials; . That Plan one (1) and Plan two (2) do not include a significant amounts of variation; . That staff is of the opinion that none of the projects include a strong focal point; and that all the garage doors proposed do not include a significant amount of variety. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Stephen Albert, 3635 Hayden Avenue, representing the applicant, noted the following: . Clarified how the Spanish Revival and the Monterey are different and do provide enough variation between the two; . That the in regard to roofing, the applicant is of the opinion that there is enough variation and that the applicant is satisfied with the proposed project; . That the material of the front doors will be of wood material; . That although the garage doors to not appear to be astoundingly different, there is some variation; and that the garage, doors are segmented rollup windows. Commissioner Olhasso suggested that staff and the applicant explore options to enhance the garage doors, preferably a barn type style door. Commissioner Mathewson expressed concern in regard to massing in Plan Two (2). Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that the Spanish Revival and the Monterey had too many similarities and also relayed that the elevations of the residences that front the street need to be addressed, especially Plan three (3). R:\MinulesPCI042104 11 I At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Todd Brazen of Cast Group Architects, made the following comments: . That the Spanish Revival gives a rustic appearance; . That the Monterey style will have soft curves on the eaves, stucco detailing; that there will be curves on the second-story overhand on Plan Two (2); and that it will also have a different shutter and window design; . That the roof tile on the Monterey could be altered; and that there is a "S" tile on the Spanish Revival; . That in regard to massing, from the street one will be able to see a variety of shades and shadows. Ms. Paula Lombardi, vice-president of development with Davidson Communities, relayed the following: . That she was disappointed that the color boards were not available to the Commission for review; . That the applicant is of the opinion that the requirements have been met in regard to the garage doors, elevations and differentials in the residences. Commissioner Olhasso offered the following comments: . That mixing up the proposed product on Brush Creek would help to diminish the canyon- like affect; . That changing the roof coloring on the Spanish Revival and/or the Monterey would help to diminish similarity on the two homes. Commissioner Guerriero offered the following Comments: . That he is in concurrence with staff in regard to Conditions of Approval No. 12, 15, 17, 19,20. Commissioner Mathewson offered the following comments: . Reducing the massing on Plan Two (2) by eliminating the second-story over the front portion of the residence; . That the applicant address window spacing and windows with single shutters as well as the width of the entry doors; . That the Monterey Plan Three (3) first-story windows need more architectural treatments. Commissioner Chiniaeff suggested the following: R:\MinutesPC\042104 12 . That Plan One (1) and Plan Two (2) corner lots needs enhancement; . That the applicant provide additional shingle siding on the sides of the East Coast Traditional elevation; . That variation in roof material and color on the Spanish and Monterey elevations be changed; . That variation in garage door design be provided. Ms. Lombardi relayed that she would be implementing the following: . Reduce the number of Plan Three (3) on Brush Creek; . Change the roof materials and color on the Spanish Revival and Monterey elevations . and "S" tiles to flat tiles; . That the applicant will be providing a variation in garage door design; . That the applicant will consider implementing Conditions Nos. 12,15, 17, 19, and 20; that these conditions require arched focal points on the Spanish and Monterey elevations, varied foot planes for each floor plan, decorative garage doors, and additional materials on the Spanish or Monterey elevations to better distinguish between the styles and wrap siding around to the sides; . That reducing the massing on Plan Two (2) by eliminating the second-story at this time, would be a major rework of the whole second-story; . That the applicant will explore the option of minimizing the number of Plan Two (2) and Three (3) adjacent to one another; . That the applicant will explore the option of revising corner lots to have them appear as a second front elevation, such as materials. arched focal points, courtyards, and patios. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. The Commission requested that Mr. Long provide the landscape plans, streetscape plans and colors board for the next meeting. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue this item to Mav 19. 2004 for redesign. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. R:\MinutesPC\042104 13 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO PA03-0725 A PRODUCT REVIEW FOR 99 DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 2 OF THE RORIPAUGH ~ RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED SOUTH OF MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS, KNOW AS TRACT MAP 29661-2. 10 Plannina Application No. PA03-0634 a Development Plan and Product Review for the desian of 113 sinale-familv residences. includina four floor plans and three architectural stvles. located on the south side of Murrieta Hot Sprinas and west of the future extension of Butterfield Staae Road within the Roripauah Ranch Specific Plan. Plannina Area 4B Associate Planner Long presented a staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following: . That the applicant is proposing a product review for 113 detached single-family residences with the Roripaugh Specific Plan (SP); . That staff worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed; and that the project does not meet the intent of the design guidelines; . That the applicant has not provided consistent plans showing that the products meet all of the development standards, primarily setbacks; . That staff would request that the Commission provide direction in regard to the rear yard setbacks along Planning Area seven (7); that Planning Area seven (7) is the open space lot on the southern portion of the panhandle; and that the SP require 25 foot setback for lots abutting Planning Area seven (7); . That the following is a list of staff's concerns that have not been addressed: o Four sided architecture; o Detail and/or variation between each style; o Two front elevations on corner lots; o Minimum setbacks standards (inconsistent dimensions); o Variation in the placement of garages has not bee provided; o Stucco finish is not consistent with the Design Guidelines; o Fencing at exposed corners is not consistent with the development standards, and silhouettes/roof do not provide significant variation; . That staff has concluded that the proposed project cannot be found consistent with the Design Guidelines and or development standards with the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (SP) and recommends continuance for redesign. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. R:IMinutesPCI042104 14 Mr. M. J. Knitter, 20151 Birch Street, architect for Knitter and Associates, commenting on the following: . That the applicant has made an effort to revise and/or enhance the proposed project; . That the applicant chose three styles on the exterior that the applicant found to be the most popular and most sought after in Temecula; . That the applicant has provided enhanced sides and rears on 67 residences; . That the applicant is willing to make changes, comments, or revisions that staff may have; . That the applicant is of the opinion that the intent of the Design Guidelines have been met; . That the applicant has a wide section of roof tiles; and that the applicant could add colors if it is the will of the Commission. Mr. Stephen M. Albert, 3635 Hayden Avenue, relayed the following: . That the Plan One (1), Praire has an arch focal point which is made of brick and veneer on a brown coat of stucco. Mr. Kevin Everett, 3553 Hayberry Drive representing ASHBY, USA, noted that there are only a selective number of lots that provide a setback of 25 feet. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Olhasso expressed concern with Plan Two (2), stating that it appears to be outdated. Commissioner Guerriero suggested that the applicant enhance the sides and rears of all plans. Commissioner Mathewson suggested providing additional windows on side elevations. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to continue this item to Mav 19. 2004 for redesign. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous aDDroval. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS Commissioner Guerriero thanked Ms. Ubnoske for the phone cards but that they are a few wrong numbers on them. Commissioner Olhasso requested a Planning Commission application for the next term. Chairman Telesio suggested that the Commissioners use the request to speak buttons. R:\MinutesPC\042104 15 PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No report at this time. ADJOURNMENT At 10:30 p.m., Chairman Telesio formally adjourned this meeting to the next reaular meetina to be held on Wednesday. Mav 5. 2004 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. \)2 \1. ~Iesio Chairman R:IMinutesPCI042104 16 0J!1hr~' tt~54-- Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning