HomeMy WebLinkAbout042303 PC MinutesMINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 23, 2003
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:01 P.M.,
on Wednesday, April 23, 2003, 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 Othasso.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff.
Absent: Guerriero and Olhasso.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Agenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of April 23, 2003.
In response to Director of Planning Ubnoske's request, the Commission unanimously agreed to
move Item No. 4 as the first item on the agenda.
For Chairman Chiniaeff, it was noted that the Ex Parle communications Item would be
discussed at the end of the agenda.
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Minutes of April 9, 2003
R:\PLANCOMM~MIN UTES~003\042303.doc
MOTION: Chairman Chiniaeff moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-2. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Commissioners OIhasso and Guerriero who abstained.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Ex Parte Communications - to be discussed after Item No. 7; see page 13.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
3 Plannin.q Application No. PA02-0334 To desiqn, construct, and operate a 27,706 square foot
two-story office buildinq located on Jefferson Avenue and north of Via Montezuma
(Continued from April 9, 2003)
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0334 pursuant to
Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act;
3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0334, A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A
27,706 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING ON 1.67 VACANT ACRES,
GENERALLY LOCATED ON JEFFERSON AVENUE AND NORTH OF VIA
MONTEZUMA KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 921-400-037
(To be discussed after Item No.4; see pages 3 - 5.)
Aqenda Item No. 4 discussed out of order
Planninq Application No. PA02-0652 A Vestinq Tentative Pamel Map located on the south
side of Rancho California Road, west of Cosmic Road and east of the Rancho California
Road / Moraqa Intersection
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1
Adopt a Determination of Consistency exemption for Planning Application No.
PA02-0652 (Vesting Tentative Parcel Map) pursuant to Section 15162 of the
California Environmental Quality Act;
4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
R:\P LANCOMM\M[N UTES~003\042303.doc
2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-018
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0652, AN EIGHT LOT VESTING
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, WEST OF COSMIC ROAD AND EAST OF
THE MORAGA ROAD INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
KNOWN ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. (S). 944-920-012, 013, 014
Principal Planner Hazen gave an overview of the staff report (as per agenda material), noting
the following:
That the application is an eight-lot vesting parcel map on a previously approved site with
commercial and offices along the frontage of Rancho California Road with multiple-
family residences toward the rear of the lot;
That the site design has been approved and that the vesting map would be solely to
parcel this site off;
That the tract will conform with the Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Map Act
and will conform with the Zoning Ordinance for Professional Office (PO) and multiple-
family residential;
That staff could make the findings of approval and would recommend that the
Commission approve this application and find that it is categorically exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Representing the applicant, Mr. Larry Markham, 41635 Enterprise Circle North, of MJW
Property Group, noted that he would concur with staff's report as well as the conditions of
approval and advised that he was available for questions.
The public hearing was closed at this time.
MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to approve staff's recommendation. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Olhasso with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who
opposed.
R:\PLANCOMM~11NUTES~003\042303.doc
3
(Returning to agenda Item No. 3)
3 Planninq Application No. PA02-0334 to desiqn, construct, and operate a 27,706 square
foot two-story office buildinq located on Jefferson Avenue and north of Via Montezuma
Continued from April 9, 2003)
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1
Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0334 pursuant to
Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act (California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA));
3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-017
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0334,
A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND
OPERATE A 27,706 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING ON 1.67
VACANT ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON JEFFERSON AVENUE
AND NORTH OF VIA MONTEZUMA KNOWN AS ASSESSORS
PARCEL NO. 921-400-037
Associate Planner Rush reviewed the staff report (as per agenda material), highlighting the
following:
· That the proposed application would be for a two-stow office building located on
Jefferson Avenue and north of Via Montezuma;
· That the floor area ratio (FAR) for the Community Commemial (CC) Zoning District
would be .30;
· That the applicant has proposed a FAR of .38 which would exceed the target FAR for
the Community Commercial (CC);
That staff would support the proposed .08 increase due to the exceptional amhitecture
and landscaping design amenities which would exceed the Development Code
standards;
· That the entire building will be surrounded by landscaping except for the areas
designated as entry points to the building;
· That staff has determined that the proposed building architecture will provide
exceptional architecture and will meet the set Development Code criteria;
· That the building will be a welcomed addition to the surrounding area;
R:\PLANCOMM~MIN UTES~003\042303.doc
4
· That staff would recommend that the Planning Commission approve the project with the
notice of exemption per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
In response to Chairman Chiniaeff's query regarding the Wildomar Fault, Associated Planner
Rush relayed the following:
· That initial trenching was completed and that a geological report was submitted to
staff;
· That evidence of faulting was observed in the northern portion of the trench; that the
most prominent feature was located approximately 75 feet from the north end; and that
the fault was oriented in a northwesterly direction with a dip of approximately 74
degrees to the southwest; and that mapping also indicated a vertical offset of
approximately five feet with a southwest side down.
Planning Director Ubnoske noted the following:
· That staff has reviewed the seismic report prior to this meeting;
· That trenching has been completed;
· That there were no recommendations in the seismic report relative to setbacks;
· That if anything were discovered after the submittal of the detailed rating plan, staff
would impose mitigation measures;
· That staff did not see anything in the report that specified a distance from the fault line.
Senior Engineer Alegria noted the following:
· That condition #32 will require a Geological Report which would evaluate the seismic
situation which must be approved by the County Geologist prior to issuance of a
grading permit.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Marry Smith, the applicant, 41750 Winchester Road, Suite J, noted the following:
· That the property was trenched prior to the acquisition of the property and was
subsequently trenched by the applicant prior to closing;
· That the geotechnical report satisfied the applicant's concerns and was satisfactory to
ensure the proposed construction.
Ms. Joan Sparkman, 27710 Jefferson Avenue, spoke in favor of the project, noting that the
two-story office building would be an exceptional benefit to the City.
The public hearing was closed at this time.
R:\P LANCOMM\MIN UTES~003\042303.doc
5
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff's recommendation. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected unanimous decision.
(Returnin.q to the re.qular a.qenda order)
Planninq Application No. PA02-0620 To constructI establish and operate an 8,100 square
foot multi-tenant retail building on 1.01 acres located within the Bel Villa.qio shoppinq center,
west of Margarita Road, 470 linear feet south of the Mall Access Road and North General
Kearney Road intersection
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1
Adopt a Determination of Consistency exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-
0620 (Development Plan) pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental
Quality Act;
5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-019
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0620, A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE AN
8,100 SQUARE FOOT MULTI-TENANT RETAIL BUILDING ON 1.01
ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, 470
LINEAR FEET SOUTH OF THE MALL ACCESS ROAD AND NORTH
GENERAL KEARNEY ROAD INTERSECTION AND ALSO KNOWN AS
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 921-090-063, 071,072 AND 078
Principal Planner Hazen provided an overview of the staff report (as per agenda material),
noting the following:
· That the Planning Commission had not originally approved the design for Building C;
· That the applicant has proposed to construct an 8,100 square foot multi-tenant retail
building (Building C) on an existing pad within the Bel Villagio Shopping Center;
· That the proposed architecture, materials, colors, and canopy treatment are consistent
with the architecture design of the Bel Villagio Shopping Center.
By way of overhead, Principal Planner Hazen gave an illustration of the Plaza and described its
site location and proximity to another pedestrian plaza, noting the following:
That in order to encourage the use of the pedestrian plaza, staff and the applicant have
agreed that future uses for Building C will be targeted toward promoting such use,
advising that legally the City may not bind the applicant to this action but that there
would be a mutual understanding of staff's objective;
· That the applicant was present and available to address a sample board, reflecting its
consistency with the existing color choices.
R;\PLANCOMM~MIN UTES~O03\042303.doc
6
In response to Commissioner Guerriero's query regarding the offsets on the backside of the
building, Principal Planner Hazen relayed that for Building C, staff was able to successfully
acquire more articulation, insets, color treatments, and more decorative door lights.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson's query regarding window treatments on an earlier
phase, Principal Planner Hazen advised that the applicant will be pursuing the direction of the
Commission; that the applicant has bonded to guarantee those improvements; and that
although at the time, no site plan has proposed for this particular building, it will be consistent
with the overall master sign plan for Bel Villagio Center.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Representing the applicant, Ms. Vandana Kelkar of MCA Architects, Inc., noted the following:
· That the applicant has relayed concurrence with the staff report (as per agenda
material);
· That subject to the approval of staff, the applicant requested the following revisions:
That under General Requirements (page 11) Item No. 12 Dunn Edwards Paint
#DE127 "Ennis Brook" be deleted;
o That under Prior to Building Occupancy (page 12) Item No. 19 be deleted;
o That under Buildinq and Safety (page 15) Item No. 46 be deleted;
That as per the request of Senior Planner Naaseh-Shahry, the applicant has
submitted an application for bonding.
Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that a bonding application was not necessary but that a
bond would ensure that if the lintels were not installed, that the City would have the necessary
funds to install the required improvements.
Principal Planner Hazen noted that the applicant has made amendments to the originally
proposed use of lintels which were initially deemed unacceptable by the Commission.
Chairman Chiniaeff relayed his recollection that the old lintels would be replaced with new
lintels.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson's query regarding tenants of this building, Ms. Kelkar
reiterated that the ideal users would be food users and restaurant users but noted that the
applicant would not be able to commit to such use.
Mr. Jeff A. Ostromel, 555 Double Eagle Court, San Diego, of Schultz & Associates, relayed that
prominent food serving establishments are being pursued for Building C.
Commissioner Olhasso queried whether staff has had any conversations with the
Redevelopment Agency/City Council with regard to attracting a prominent food establishment
for this building.
Commissioner Telesio reiterated the intent to locate prominent tenants in this building.
R:~PLANCOM M\MIN UTES~003\042303.doc
7
The public hearing was closed at this time.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve Item No. 5. Commissioner Olhasso
seconded the motion, amendin,q Condition No, 12 to delete Dunn Edwards Paint #DE127
"Ennis Brook" and deletin,q Condition No. 19 (applicant shall paint a 3-foot x 3-foot section of
the building for Planning Department inspection prior to commencing painting of the building)
and Condition No, 46 (submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans
showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution, etc.) The
motion reflected unanimous approval.
6 Planning Application No. PA02-0460 To construct a multi-tenant industrial building totalinq
17,350 square feet on a .99-acre parcel located on the south side of Winchester Road
approximately 850 feet west of Diaz Road
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1
Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0460 (Development
Plan) pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act;
6.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-020
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0460, A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A MULTI-TENANT INDUSTRIAL
BUILDING TOTALING 17,350 SQUARE FEET. THE SITE IS GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD,
APPROXIMATELY 850 FEET WEST OF DIAZ ROAD, ALSO KNOWN AS
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909-310-007
Associate Planner Long reviewed the staff report (as per agenda material) and noted the
following:
· That staff has reviewed the project and has determined that the project will be
consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan;
· That a 20-foot front building setback from the street will meet the setback standards;
· That the project site will be accessed from a single driveway off Winchester Road and
will provide onsite turn around for emergency vehicles;
· That the project has determined to be categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines;
That staff has determined that the proposed industrial building will be consistent with
the City's Design Guidelines and Development Code and, therefore, staff would
recommend approval of the Development Plan with the exception of Condition No. 20 -
applicant shall submit a letter from the adjacent property owner to the east agreeing to
provide a wrought iron gate between the buildings. An easement shall be recorded and
submitted to staff for review.
R:\PLANCOM M\MINUTES~003\042303.doc
8
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Andrew Kwellberg, 5838 Edison Place, Carlsbad noted that he was available for questions.
The public hearing was closed at this time.
MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to approve staff's recommendation with the deletion
of Condition No. 20 (as noted above). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and
voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
7
Plannin.q Application No. PA02-0698 To construct, establish and operate an apartment
complex consisting of 21 multi-family residential buildinqs, one mixed-use building and a
leasing center totalin.q 426,922 square feet and an exception to the development standards
to reduce the onsite parkinq requirements by 31 spaces located on the northwest corner of
Mar.qarita Road and Harveston Way
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1
Adopt a Determination of Consistency exemption for Planning Application No.
PA02-0698 (Development Plan) pursuant to Section 15162 of the California
Environmental Quality Act;
7.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-021
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0698, A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE AN
APARTMENT COMPLEX CONSISTING OF 300 MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ON A 16.5 ACRE SITE WITHIN THE
HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY. THE SITE IS GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND
HARVESTON WAY ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 916-
170-026,046, 047, 048, 049, 050
Associated Planner Harris gave an overview of staff's report (as per agenda material) noting
the following:
That the site will be located within Planning Area 6 of the Harveston Specific Plan (SP)
at the northwest corner of Margarita Road and Harveston Way which will be the main
entrance into Harveston Specific Plan (SP) area;
· That the units will range in size from 766 square feet to 1,764 square feet and will range
from 98-1 bedroom units, 158-2 bedroom units, and 44-3 bedroom units.
Site Plan
· That six of the apartment buildings will directly front onto abutting streets;
· That Building D will incorporate live-work units with limited retail/commercial space on
the ground floor and residential uses above;
R:\PLANCOM M~MINUTES~003\042303.dOC
9
· That three of the six buildings will be located within the mixed-use Overlay Zone along
Village Road within Harveston's commercial village;
That in addition, the single-story leasing center will also front along Village Road and
will include a commercial business center offering copying, faxing, and other business
services to the general public as well as tenants;
· That the 15 remaining residential buildings will be interspersed across the site and
accessed within the interior of the property;
· That the project site will be accessed via two 24-foot wide driveways located on the side
street off Village Road and Anchor Road;
· That a network of 24-foot wide drive aisles will provide access within the interior of the
site;
· That a mix of active and open space amenities will be interspersed throughout the site
including an outdoor swimming pool, tot lot, b.b.q, nodes, and gazebo;
· That the Harveston Lake will be located within walking distance of the project site which
will serve as an additional amenity;
· That the residing tenants will be allowed to use the HOA recreation center located
within walking distance.
Consistency with Specific Plan
· That staff has determined that the project will be consistent with the Specific Plan (SP)
density requirements;
· That this project will be a High Density Residential (HI) designation on this site;
That in addition, staff is of the opinion that the Site Plan will be consistent with all the
Specific Plan (SP) Development standards with regard to setbacks, recreation area,
and open space with the exception of the onsite parking requirements which will be as
follows;
That the Specific Plan (SP) requires two covered spaces per unit plus one guest
space per two units;
That the Specific Plan (SP) requires 750 parking spaces; however, the City's
Development Code requires 573 parking spaces for the same amount of
apartments;
That the applicant has proposed 719 spaces (31 space parking reduction) for
this facility;
That as per the Specific Plan (SP), the Commission may approve an exception if
it were determined that public health and safety are not compromised;
R:\PLANCOMM~MIN UTES~003\042303.doc
10
· That staff is of the opinion that the 750-space Specific Plan (SP) requirement would be
excessive considering the Development Code requires less;
· That staff is of the opinion that reducing the number of spaces by 31 will not result in a
public health and safety concern,
Therefore, staff would recommend that the Commission approve the parking reduction request.
Architecture
· That there are four different apartment type buildings on site; that each building has a
different architecture style;
· That three of the four buildings will incorporate a garage unit at the rear of the buildings;
that 178 garages are being proposed along with 404 carports;
· That there are no specific requirements that all the units shall have enclosed garages;
· That the Specific Plan (SP) addresses covered parking spaces;
· That the building architecture within the complex will emulate an "Americana" style,
which will be consistent with surrounding style within the Harveston Village;
That the buildings will range from two to three stories and will incorporate a variety of
offsets and pop-outs along with varying rooflines that will serve to break up the mass of
each building and provide interest;
· That a mixture of stucco and lap sliding will be utilized along the decorative columns,
along with architectural details and a decorative tower element.
Landscapin~
That landscaping will be incorporated between the buildings and parking areas; that 14
different varieties of trees are being proposed; that landscaping will be utilized around
the perimeter of the complex as well as the vicinity of the active and passive amenities;
that there will be accent trees at focal points on the property;
That staff is of the opinion that the Landscaping Plan will conform to the landscaping
requirements of the Harveston Specific Plan (SP), Development Code, and Design
Guidelines.
Environmental Determination
That staff has reviewed the proposed project and determined that no new significant
environmental effects have occurred since an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was
previously adopted in 2001;
That the EIR was certified with the adoption of the Harveston Specific Plan (SP) which
envisioned the construction of a 300-unit, multi-family apartment complex on the project
site;
R:\PLANCOMM~MIN UTES~003\042303.doc
11
· That mitigation measures associated with the EIR have been incorporated into the
conditions of approval for the proposed project;
That staff has determined that the proposed use for a 300-unit, multi-family apartment
complex, mixed-use building, and associated leasing center are consistent with the
Harveston Specific Plan (SP), City's Design Guidelines, and Development Code.
Therefore, staff would recommend approval of the apartment complex along with the parking
reduction subject to the 82 conditions listed in Exhibit A.
In response to Commissioner Guerriero's query regarding the composite roof materials,
Associate Planner Harris noted the following:
· That architecture composition shingle roofing will be proposed and that there will be
different colored roofs on different buildings.
For Commissioner Mathewson's with regard to the Parking Code, Associate Planner Harris
reviewed, as the Development Plan, the parking requirements and noted that the Specific Plan
would require two covered spaces per unit plus one guest space per two units and that, as per
the City's Development Code, 573 parking spaces are required.
In response to Chairman Chiniaeff's query regarding the size of the swimming pool, Associate
Planner Harris informed the Commissioners that the apartment complex pool along with the
main pool would be adequate to handle all the tenants and there the applicant would have to
adhere to set criteria through the Health Department.
In response to Commissioner Telesio's comment with regard to Building D, Associate Planner
Harris relayed the following:
· That Building D will incorporate live/work units with limited retail/commercial space on
the ground floor and residential users above;
· That Building D will not solely be allocated for retail/commercial space;
· That Building D will be marketed by the need of the public;
· That on-street parking will be utilized by the retail/commercial spaces.
For Commissioner OIhasso's concern with regard to the live/work units, Associate Planner
Harris noted that there will be four live/work units; that these units will incorporate fiber optics
when available; and that conference rooms will be available in the leasing center and will be
accessible to the tenants.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Jim Moxham, representing Lennar, 8520 Tech Way, Suite No. 130, San Diego, noted the
following:
R:\PLANCOM Nl~MINUTES~2003\042303.doc
12
· That the live/work units will be given occupancy priority; that these units will not be filled
with residents unless a unit has been empty for six months;
· That these units have been designed so that an individual may directly access the retail
use; that the live portion of these units would have separate access;
· That the retail/live work units would have separate restrooms;
· That a Business Center in the Recreation Room will provide three computers and
workstations for residents who require these services.
In response to Commissioner Telesio's query regarding live/work units, Mr. Moxham clarified
that the apartments may not be subleased.
Further addressing the project, Mr. Guy Farris of ']-]'GY Group, 17992 Mitchell Street South,
representing the applicant, noted the following:
· That 14 of the 21 buildings will have attached garages;
· That a considerable amount of one-, two-, and three-story town homes are being
proposed;
· That the architecture style will be colonial style;
· That, as per the Specific Plan, a composition roof has been proposed;
· That the swimming pool area will have club house which will include a large
recreation room as well as a kitchen which will be available to residents as well as
tenants in the live/work units;
· That a business center has been proposed;
· That a fitness center, designed to front Village Road, has been proposed;
· That although there are no specific requirements as to the size of the pool, there are
requirements as to the number of restrooms relative to the size of the pool;
· That a large decking space will be provided;
· That outdoor fire places will be provided;
· That certain lenders impose specific requirements per square footage per person.
In response to Commissioner Olhasso's query regarding high speed Internet and carports, Mr.
Bill Storm of Lennar Communities noted that at this time, high speed Internet is not yet
available to this area.
For Commissioner Olhasso, Mr. Eric L. Heffner of Western National Properties advised that
because high speed internet is not yet available to this area, wireless or cable may be
accessed; that the carports will be located within the project and will not be visible from the
R:\p LANCOMM\MIN UTES~O03\042303.dcc
13
exterior roadways; that the carports will have a pitched and hip roof and, therefore, will provide
a spacious atmosphere.
Mr. Hannas of Sitescapes also noted that the proposed pool will be 35' x 60' (2,100 square
feet); that the Health Department requires one restroom per 30 square feet of pool; and that
shade areas, misters, and outdoor fireplaces will be provided.
Relaying her delight with the elevations and design of Building D, Commissioner Olhasso noted
that the color scheme for Building B would appear to be monochromatic and suggested more
of a contrast be proposed; and that additional efforts should be undertaken with regard to
Building A, noting that its appearance may as well appear monochromatic.
In response to Commissioner Olhasso, Mr. Eric L. Heffner of Western National Properties
offered to submit other color schemes and relayed his need to be as historically authentic to
the architectural style as possible.
Commissioner Guerriero relayed his preference for additional landscaping in the alleyways.
The public hearing was closed at this time.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff's recommendation. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected unanimous decision.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Assistant City Attorney Curley discussed Ex Parte Communications with the Commission,
informJng the Commissioners that from a legal standpoint, the Commission may collectively
adopt a policy, prohibiting Ex Pare Communications, and noted that he would draft a document
that would legally bind the Commission from engaging in Ex Parte Communications.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
A. Commissioner Guerriero remarked on the National Convention he had attended in
Denver, Colorado, noting that next year's convention will be held in Washington, D.C.
B. Commissioner Mathewson commented on the location of a building sign in the first
phase of the Bel Villagio Shopping Center.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
A. Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that Assistant Planner Preisendanz has resigned
from his position w with the City and that two offers have been made to fill that position.
ADJOURNMENT
R:\PLANCOM M~MIN UTES~2003\042303.doc
14
Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next re.qular meetinR to be held on
Wednesday~ May 7~ 2003 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park
Drive, and Temecula.
~Chiniaeff,~~
' DJ.
Chairman
Director of Planning
R:\PLANCOM M~MIN UTES~2003\042303.doc
15