Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout081804 PC Minutes ", MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST18,2004 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, August 18, 2004, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Ghiniaeff led the audie~ce in the Flag salute. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Chiniaeff Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, and Chairman Telesio. Absent: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Aaenda RECOMMENDATION:. 1.1 Approve the Agenda of August 18, 2004. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of June 16, 2004. 2.2 Approve the Minutes of July 7,2004. 3 Director's Hearina Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for July 2004. R:\MinutesPCI081804 1 MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected aDDroval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who abstained on Item No. 2.2. COMMISSION BUSINESS Continued from August 4, 2004 4 Planninc Aoolication No. PA04-0477 a Develooment Code Amendment to amend a oortion of Chaoter 17.08 of the City of Temecula Municioal Code establishinc additional oerformance standards reaulatinc office use in Licht Industrial Zones Associate Planner West presented a staff report (of record), noting the following: '-- . That at the August 4, 2004 meeting, the Planning Commission expressed concern with the clarity of the performance standards indicating that several standards were in conflict with one another; . That the Planning Commission also expressed concern with the uses occupying space in the LI zone that do not create substantial local employment opportunities within the City; at this time, staff has not addressed this concern and that currently the City Attorney is working to find a reasonable resolution; . That based upon the Planning Commission's comments, staff has made the following changes: o That it was specified that larger office buildings are preferred but not required in the LI and BP zones; o That the performance standards was revised to achieve a campus-like design when multiple office buildings are being proposed; o That the performance standards were revised to achieve a campus-like design when multiple office buildings are being proposed. At this time, Associate Planner West pointed out two corrections as follows: . That on Page 3 of the PC Reso., Section 1, that the words urcencv and standards be deleted; . - That on Page 6, Ordinace, that the first three lines be deleted; Commissioner Mathewson suggested revising the language in the Performance Standards No. 4 to read: Landscaoinc in oedestrian scaled... vs Landscaoinc and oedestrian. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Phil Oberhansey, representing RM Pacific, relayed concern with the language in E. Performance Standards. R:\MinutesPCI081804 2 For Mr. Oberhansey, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that the Planning Commission and staff are encouraging the large building on the proposed site and/or if the will is to have multiple buildings, the. desire would be to have a campus-type setting. For the Comrrlission, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that if the language in E. Performance Standard is a concern and the Planning Commission concurs, E. Performance Standards could be deleted. Mr. Oberhansey noted his appreciation and relayed that the proposed project will be a great benefit to the Community. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve staff's recommendation based on modification to the language on Paragraph 4 as directed by the Planning Director and clarification to E. Performance Standard in regard to business growth opportunity language and the two changes to the language of the ordinance. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous aDDroval. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-042 A RESOLUTION OF HTEPLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITYOF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY OCUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR MULTIPLE OFFICE BUILDINGS IN BUSINESS PARK AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONES". (PLANNING APPLICATION 04-0477) 5 Planninq Aoolication PA03-0723 a Develooment Plan. submitted bv MCA Architects. to construct two sinqle-storv retail buildinqs consistinq of 6.480 and 6,870 square feet resoectivelv on two oarcels totalinq 1.3 acres. located on the northwest corner of Overland Drive and Marqarita Wav Associate Planner Harris presented a staff report (of record), noting the following: . That the Planning Commission expressed concerns at the August 4, 2004 meeting, noting the following; o That because the subject property is located at a prime intersection, the street elevation of the building should consist of enhanced architecture; o That the proposed buildings turn their backs to the street frontages and should have store fronts with down lighting; o That the man-doors are visible from the street frontages; and that enhanced articulation, canopies and/or landscaping should be used to screen; o That a row of signage should be discouraged along street frontages; R:\MinutesPC\081804 3 o That the type of retail uses proposed could be problematic; At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Ms. Vandana Kelkar, representing the applicant relayed the following: . That since the August 4, 2004 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has made great effort to address the Commission's concerns noting the following revisions: o That some man-doors have been relocated to achieve greater screening; o That arched vegetated trellis structures have been added on top of abutting retaining walls to achieve screening of man-doors; o That secondary wall offsets have been provided on portions of the elevations with greater length and deeper 3-footwide columns have been incorporated to achieve enhanced articulation and screening or doors; o That decorative elements have been added along upper portions of parapets to break up stucco wall planes; o That signs have been consolidated and/or relocated to reduce row or signage" appearance; o That wider metal canopies with support bars have been added to screen doors and provide interest. For Commissioner Guerriero, Ms. Kelkar relayed that retail-type tenants have been approved for the zone but that the applicant will also be encouraging restaurant-type tenants. Commissioner Chiniaeff expressed concern with the "row of signage" type appearance and would strongly encourage that the applicant explore the possibility of monument signage. Mr. Allan Abshez, representing OCC, noted that there is a restriction in the CC&Rs for the center that limits the monument signage; and that the applicant is willing to buy back individual signs to the Planning Commission as the applicant acquires tenants. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that he is not desirous of individual signs for individual tenants spread across the building; but rather monument signage for each frontage with the listing of tenants. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Abshez relayed that he would need to consult with the applicant to inquire if grouping the tenants on monument signage would be a possibility. For Commissioner Guerriero, Associate Planner Harris relayed that staff has not reviewed the CC&Rs but that there is a sign program that has freestanding signs permitted. Mr. Harris also relayed that staff has a condition that the applicant would need to return to the Planning Commission with a sign program noting that a sign program has not been analyzed at this time. Mr. Jeffrey Ostromel, representing Schultz Financial Group, relayed the following information: . That there will be two retail buildings within the Overland Corporate Center do have an overall sign program; . That CC&Rs limit where signs can be placed; R:IMinulesPCIOS1 S04 4 . That the applicant could possibly explore the possibility of the clustering concept, adding a cluster on each building; . That the applicant is not concerned with the name of the building but rather it is more important that the tenants acquire recognition. For Mr. Ostromel, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that most CC&Rs have a provision whereby the applicant can request for something different and queried if the applicant has gone down this avenue. In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Ostromel noted that the sign program has been in place for sometime and that the applicant is only a minor member, advising that there are five other owners; and that the applicant has not requested monument signage from CC&R. For Mr. Ostromel, Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that he understands that the applicant is only a minority holder of the complex but suggested that he return to the Board and explore the possibility of obtaining monument signage on both sides of the entrances. Commissioner Chiniaeff also relayed that he would be inclined to move forward with the architecture only and that this would give the applicant an opportunity to explore the possibility of adding monument signs. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Ostromel relayed that it would be his opinion that there is no language in the CC&Rs that would prohibit landscaping from blocking the site line but rather it is an issue that would be negotiated with every tenant. For the Commission, Ms. Ubnoske noted that staff is requesting approval of the Development Plan. Mr. Harris further clarified that the approved site plan indicated that either a motel or restaurant would be developed on the pad; and that if the uses were to change, the applicant would need to return to the Planning Commission for approval; and that the Commission would be acting on the condition to change the land use as well. Commissioner Olhasso noted that she would be desirous of bronze lettering for signage and would not want to see any colors, lights, or channels noting that this would only lessen the esthetically pleasing architecture of the building. Commissioner Telesio relayed suggested that sign age be consistent in shape and color and queried why the applicant would be installing signage in the back of the building noting that in time it would be screened by mature trees. For Chairman Telesio, Mr. Ostromel noted that the applicant will ensure that all signage is consistent. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he appreciates the applicant's efforts in responding to the comments raised at the last Planning Commission meeting, but that he would desire more enhancements; and suggested that there be uses that do not turn their back to the street but rather embrace it, such as pedestrian access and activities along Overland and Margarita Road; relaying that he cannot SUDDort the proposed project at this time. R:IMinutesPCI081804 5 Commissioner Guerriero echoed Commissioner Mathewson's comments noting that more enhancements are necessary and cannot SUDDort this project at this time. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that due to the grade, it is a site specific problem, and is of the opinion that the applicant has already made great effort to address the Commission's concern and would approve the architecture subject to the applicant returning to the Planning Commission with a sign program that addresses the Commission's concerns Le. monument signage. Chairman Telesio echoed Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments in regard to the site and noted that he would prefer to see enhanced landscaping in the back of the building, the use of uniform signage and is also willing to approve the proposed project as is with the condition that the applicant returns with a sign program. At this time, the Public Hearing was reopened. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Ostromel relayed that the applicant is prohibited from adding another restaurant in the Red Lobster Building; that currently the applicant has not signed any leases for the project; that the applicant has parking spaces at a maximum; and that the intent of the applicant was to have uses that would service the users. Mr. Vincent Dedonado, landscape architect clarified that the landscaping that has been reviewed is already existing landscape; that no other landscaping is being added; that when the project was designed, it was to give a back-drop to the monument sign that currently exists. At this time, the Planning Commission took a five minute break. Ms. Vandana,Kelkar per Power Point Presentation, presented photo simulations of the front of the building, noting that the applicant has gone to great effort to carry the front elements of the building to the back. For Mr. Ostromel, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that by what is currently being proposed, the applicant is already excluding a single-user. , Ms. Kelkar relayed that because the way the site is laid out, it dictates that it be one "L" shaped building or two smaller buildings. \ For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Ostromel relayed that the project was never set up as a pad lease like the Red Lobster building, and that the brokers are seeking multi-user and single-user tenant. For the Commission, Mr. Ostromel relayed that the applicant did explore other possibilities of trying to design the use of the overall site and that the proposed project is what seemed to be the best plan; and that in regard to the back elevation, Mr. Ostromel is of the opinion that the applicant has made great efforts to address the Planning Commission's concerns stating that the proposed is a high quality building and respectfully requests action be taken. In response to Mr. Ostromel, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he has never referred to the proposed building as a low-quality building and relayed that there are many examples that display rear buildings that carry front-building elements and is of the opinion that the proposed project is not where it could be and is not inclined to move forward at this time. R:\MinutesPC\081804 6 At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. With respect to Commissioner Mathewson's concerns, Commissioner Chiniaeff is of the opinion that the trellis' that were added to screen man-doors, the terracing along the wall on the street, metal canopies with support which screen doors and provide interest, and the existing landscaping are enhancements to the back of the building. Commissioner Guerriero reiterated that his concerns were that the back of the building will be seen from Overland down to Winchester Road and is of the opinion that more can be done to enhance the rear of the building. Chairman Telesio noted that he does not see the gain by sending this item back and is in favor of approvina this proiect as presented with the condition that the applicant returns to the Planning Commission with a sign program. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the proposed project subject to a sign program returning to the Planning Commission for approval; that the applicant explores the possibility of monument signage; and that consideration is taken to single letter brass lettering. Chairman Telesio seconded the motion (at this time. Ms. Kelkar was asked to step forward). Ms. Kelkar relayed that the applicant would be in agreement with the Conditions of Approval. And voice vote reflected denial with Commissioner's Guerriero, Mathewson, and Commissioner who opposed. Per the request of Ms. Ubnoske, the Public Hearing was reopened. For the record, Mr. Ostromel reiterated that he appreciates the Commission's comments but will be pursuing the appellate process. Commissioner Olhasso noted for the record that the Commission was in acceptance of the site plan, understanding of the market conditions, and the overall restrictions for single retail use. New Items 6 Plannina Application No. PA03-0603 and PA03-0604 a Development Plan and Tentative Tract Map. submitted bv William Lvon Homes. to subdivide 14.1 acres into 128 lots (125 detached sinale-familv courtvard homes) with a minimum lot size of 3.000 sauare feet. In coniunction. a Development Plan (Product Review) for 125 residential courtvard homes located within Plannina Area 7 of the Wolf Creek Specific Plan is beina reauested. Units ranae from 1.800 sauare feet with 4 different floor plans and 3 architectural desians. located east of Pechanaa Parkwav and west of Wolf Creek Drive North Associate Planner Kitzerow presented a staff report (of record), noting the following: . That the Wolf Creek Specific Plan requires Planned Development Guidelines be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission when courtyard homes are proposed; R:\MinutesPC\081804 7 . That typical cluster for the courtyard includes six units with primary access from the private court drive, and two units with access along the street frontage; . That the proposed units have been designed so that those units (typical Plan 1) with access fro the courtyard and frontage along the street integrate two "front-sided" architectural element; . That the Planned Development Guidelines require the following minimum setbacks; o That front yard 15 feet average to structure, except when structure fronts onto a courtyard, when minimum setback is 5 feet; o Corner side yard: 10 feet; o Interior side yard: On feet o Rear yard: 10 feet; . That the above standards are proposed to achieve the intent of the court yard design illustrated in the Wolf Creek Specific Plan (SP); . That design lot configuration created challenges for visitor parking and trash pick-up; . That trash bin pick-up will be along the internal loop; . That on-street guest parking spaces total 82 spaces for the site, which staff is of the opinion is adequate; Architectural Review . That the applicant is proposing four (4) two-story plans proposed, three elevations each; and that the elevations include Spanish Colonial. Craftsman, and Cottage, which are consistent with the early California theme identified in the Specific Plan (SP); . That there will be four (4) color schemes for each elevation: . That staff has conditioned that garage windows be provided for all plan three (3) units that front onto the internal loop street and that the conditions also occurs on a plan two (2) adjacent to the recreation area; . That a condition was added to reauire side windows at the front entry on the lots that front the internal loop street; . That the units have been plotted to avoid repetition on the streetscape; . That staff is also conditioning for an additional enhancement at the rear of lot 77 which will be visible to the public right-of-way; . That staff is requesting to modify Public Works Condition for the MAP, eliminating Condition of Approval No. 60 and modifying Condition of Approval No. 61 as provided in staff's memo submitted to the Planning Commissioners. R:\MinutesPCl081804 8 Deputy Director of Public Works clarified that Public Works Condition of Approval No. 61 should . be deleted and No. 60 be modified; and that Condition of Approval No. 32k, regarding underground utilities No. change from 33 to 34 per the underground ordinance. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Mel Mercado of William Lyon Homes noted that he was available for questions. Commissioner Chiniaeff suggested adding more enhancements to side and rear elevations that would be visible to the interior motor court and adjacent (interior) properties. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Mercado concurs with comments made and will explore the possibility of adding more enhancements to side and rear elevations. Commissioner Olhasso relayed that she understands that the lots are small but has concern with the proposed architectural elements of the proposed project and is of the opinion that more enhancements could be added. Mr. Mercado reminded the Planning Commission that the intent of the proposed project is high density, small lot detach homes, advising that this is the nature of a courtyard cluster; and that it is an intimate area that will only be utilized by six (6) homeowners. Mr. Rick Rush, representing William Lyon Homes, noted that the applicant is in concurrence with all the Conditions of Approval and with the deletion of Condition No. 61 and modification of No. 60; and that would also request the deletion of PA 06-0603, Nos. 13 and 14. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Olhasso relayed the following concerns: . That the Craftsman in general, does not have any signature windows for design element and would requested that this be incorporated; . That Residence one (1), Craftsman front-entry is too narrow; . That all the plans have blank walls and are esthetically unpleasing; . That there are no arched windows on the Spanish Colonial; . That she would request to add a stone cover on the front portion of the Cottage; . That the enhanced elevations do not appear to be enhanced; . That units should not be viewing black back walls. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Ms. Ubnoske relayed that there was no language in the Specific Plan requiring four-sided architecture. R:\MinutesPC\081804 9 For Ms. Ubnoske, Commissioner Chiniaeff suggested that four-sided architecture be required for future projects that are high density, Commissioner Mathewson queried if there would be any landscaping between homes to break up massing. At this time, the Public Hearing was reopened. Mr. Mercado relayed that a 5 foot high wood fence will be separating the homes. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Mercado relayed the he will explore the possibility of adding some relief, and/or additional enhancements to the rear of the homes. Mr. Gus Casillas, architect for Lyon Homes, reiterated that the applicant would be willing to explore the possible addition of windows to break-up the massing on the rear of the homes. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to approve the MAP subject to the changes in the Conditions and have the architectural review be continued to September 15, 2004. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 7 Plannina Application No. PA03-0609 a Minor Conditional Use Permit. submitted bv Exxon Mobile Corporation. to allow the sale of beer and wine (Tvpe 20 license) from an existina 925 sauare foot Mobil aas station buildina. located at 44520 Bedford Court. aenerallv located at the southeast corner of Hiahwav 79 South and Bedford Court Associate Planner Fisk presented a staff report (of record), noting the following: . That for the sale of beer and wine, the Development Code requires that all uses other than restaurant must obtain a CUP from the Planning Commission; . That the Development Code requires that any businesses selling beer and wine shall be no closer than 500 feet from any public park, religious institution, or school which has been verified by maps provided by the GIS Department; . That staff has verified through the department of Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) that the project site is within Census Tract 0432.14; . That a total of 11 licenses currently exist in the tract for off-sale consumption; and that 12 are ailowed before it is considered "over-concentrated"; and that since the census tract is not over-concentrated, public convenience or necessity findings are not required; . That the Police Department has indicated that there have been no crimes or complaints filed within the past year with respect to the operation of the existing retail fueling facility and that the addition of beer and wine sales from the premises are not anticipated to significantly impact the need for police services. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Robert Simmons, representing Exxon Mobile Corporation relayed the following: R:\MinutesPC\081804 10 . That the applicant is of the opinion that the project is in full compliance with the General Plan and Development Code for the City of Temecula; . That the objective would be to provide beer and wine sales for the convenience of existing customers; . That 10 percent of sales figures is based on other existing facilities. For Commissioner Guerriero, Mr. Simmons is of the opinion that the applicant would be willing to invest in a training program through ABC for personnel at the Mobile gas station and is not aware of what types of wines would be sold. For Mr. Simmons, Commissioner Olhasso noted that the outside of the Mobile gas station is in need of clean-up. For Mr. Simmons, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that the sign age on the property appears to be in need of maintenance. Mr. Larry Markham, representing Mr. Raymond, the underlying ground owner relayed its support for the proposed project. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Guerriero expressed concern with the request for beer and wine sales in the area and relayed that before he would approve the proposed request, a condition would need to be implement stating that the applicant will provide and training program for personnel from ABC. For the Commission, Ms. Ubnoske relayed that staff is at ease with the proposed findings of the proposed project. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staff's recommendation with the condition that the applicant provide a training program for personnel working in the facility through ABC. Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote reflected" unanimous approval. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-045 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0609, A REQUEST FOR A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE SALE OF BEER AND WINE (TYPE 20 LICENSE, OFF-SALE) FROM AN EXISTING GAS STATION LOCATED AT 44520 BEDOFRD COURT, GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH AND BEDFORD COURT, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 922-210-041. R:\MinutesPC\081804 11 ,- _.. - - . 8 Plannina ADDlication No. PA02-0371 and PA02-0372. a Tentative Tract MaD and Zonina Amendment. submitted bv Marchand Wav DeveloDment. Inc.. to subdivide 4.57 aross acres into 7 sinale-familv residential lots averaaina 0.5 net acres and chanae the zonina from Low Densitv Residential (L-1. 1 acre minimum) to Low Densitv Residential (L-2. 0.5 acre minimum\. located on the east side of Ynez Road. ODDosite Quiet Meadow Road and aDDroximatelv 473 linear feet north of the centerline of Santiaao Road Associate Planner Peters presented a staff report (of record), noting the following: . That the subject property consists of 4 Yo acres; . That the applicant is requesting a change in the zone from L-1 which is a one-acre minimum lot size to L-3 which would allow the half-acre; . That the applicant is also requesting a tentative tract map to create seven (7) lots ranging in size from .5 acres to .8 acres; . That the approval of the map is dependent on approval of the zone change; and that there would be action taken on two different items; . That staff determined that the request to reduce the lot sizes by changing the zone from L-1 to L-2 is consistent with the General Plan, and interim Chaparral Policies adopted by the City Council on June 22, 2004; and that the current Development Code requires that the design of each new home obtain Planning Commission approval prior to issuance of building permits. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant noted that the applicant is in concurrence with the Conditions of Approval but would request a modification to Condition of Approval No. 10b ii, that three (3) rail equestrian fencing be added as on option as well and would be at ease deleting Condition of Approval No. 10b iii, regarding wood fencing. Ms. Chris Herman spoke on favor of the proposed project. The following individuals spoke in opposition of the proposal. Ms. Dianne Tanna Mr. Ralph Neimeyer Mr. Robert Burns Dr. Lis (letter read by Ms. Tanna) At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Guerriero spoke in opposition of the proposed project. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that given the current policy in place, the applicant has the right to request a zone change. Chairman Telesio spoke in opposition to the zone change. R:\MinutesPC\081804 12 .' . For the Commission, Ms. Ubnoske relayed that it was the direction of the City Council that the interim policy could allow half-acre lots through the entire policy area; and that the intent was to not have people come in and grade the hillside away, relaying that this would enable to have half-acre lots and retain some open space; and that the City Council and the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) felt that half-acres were approved. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to deny staff's recommendation. Chairman Telesio seconded the motion. This motion died. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staff's recommendation. Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote reflected aooroval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero and Chairman Telesio who voted No. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS Commissioner Guerriero apologized for his absence of 08-04-04 Planning Commission meeting and Council/Planning Commission Workshop on 08-10-04. Commissioner Mathewson welcomed Associate Planner Peters to the Planning Department. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Ms. Ubnoske relayed that Kevin committed himself to an in-house Specific Plan amendment for Roripaugh and 10 include as part of the amendment a percentage of single-story homes in the pan area; and that the City Council has directed staff to bring back a matrix that shows minimum lot sizes and that based on the minimum square footage of the lot, the Commission could relay what percentage of single-family homes could go on those lots. For the Commission, Ms. Ubnoske will explore the possibility of hiring an architect to work with staff on product review. ADJOURNMENT At 9:35 p.m., Chairman Telesio formally adjourned this meeting to next regular meeting to be held on Wednesday. Seotember 1. 2004. ~.:dL Chairman 7k'h-~- ~ ~ Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning R:\MinutesPC\081804 13