Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout011900 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:04 P.M., on Wednesday January 19, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Mathewson. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners *Fahey, Mathewson, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero. Absent None. Also Present: Planning Manager Ubnoske, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Attorney Curley, Senior Planner Fagan, Associate Planner Thomas, Project Planner Griffin, Project Planner Thomsley, and Minute Clerk Hansen. *(Commissioner Fahey ardved at 6:14 P.M.) PUBLIC COMMENTS Councilman Naggar relayed that he had been appointed as the Council Liaison for the Planning Commission; noted the importance of the role of the Commission within the City; and encouraged the Commissioners to continue their excellent work. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Approval of Agenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of January 19, 2000. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve the Agenda. {This motion ultimately died for lack of a second.) Pla nCom m Irnln ut~s~01 ~ S~0 Planning Manager Ubnoske recommended that the Agenda be revised, specifically, that the Commission consider Agenda Item No. 7 after Agenda Item No. 4 since the matter was recommended to be continued and had been placed last in order on the Agenda, noting that due to Commissioner Fahey's delayed attendance in conjunction with Chairman Guerdero's advisement that he would be abstaining from Agenda Item No. 7, the matter could not be heard until Commissioner Fahey arrived. For Chairman Guerdero, Attomey Curley recommended initially moving forward with the regular order of the Agenda; and relayed that after the Commission had considered Agenda Item No. 4, if Commissioner Fahey had arrived the Agenda could be amended at that point in time, and the Commission could hear Agenda Item No. 7. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of December 8, 1999. Director's Headn,q Update RECOMMENDATION 3.1 Receive and file. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-3. Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Fahey who was absent. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4 PlanninR Application No. PA99-0345 (Development Plan) - VCL Construction (located on the east side of Jefferson Avenue, approximately 1,000 feet north of Rancho California Road - Project Planner Steve Griffin) RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-003 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0345, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 35,224 SQUARE-FOOT, 101-ROOM OR 59,950 SQUARE-FOOT, 137-ROOM HOLIDAY INN HOTEL ON 3.37 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF JEFFERSON AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, AND ALSO IDENTIFIED AS PORTIONS OF PARCEL 1, 2, 3 & 6 OF PARCEL MAP 23882 4.2 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0345 (Development Plan) pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. It was noted that Commissioner Fahey arrived at 6:14 P.M. Relaying the rationale for the issue being continued from the December 15, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, specifically, due to the applicant's revised plan to construct the project in two phases, Project Planner Griffin provided a detailed overview of the revisions to the project plan (of record), relaying the following: Noted the memorandum (per supplemental agenda material) regarding corrections to the first phase project statistics. By way of overheads, presented the first phase project plan, noting that the sole variations were on the east and west elevations. With respect to the previous Commission comments regarding the discrepancy between the plant quantities depicted on the legend and the quantities reflected on the plan, advised that the inconsistencies had been corrected. Regarding the concem with respect to the density of landscaping adjacent to the freeway, relayed that the applicant's landscape architect was present and available for questions of the Commission; and noted that the landscape plan had been reviewed by the City Landscape Architect, who had reported that the plan was lush, advising that if the Commission had continued concern, vadous tree sizes could be increased to a 24-inch box size. With respect to the expressed concern regarding the potential for graffiti on the retaining wall along the freeway edge, advised that the applicant was in the process of attempting to obtain an Encroachment Permit from Caltrans in order to delete the plan to have a retaining wall; and noted that if that plan was not successful, the project would be conditioned to provide a planting strip and planting pockets in that area for the purpose of covering the wall with vines. Regarding the previous concern with respect to the recommendation for enhanced articulation, noted the following design elements: Specified the recessed window treatments currently proposed with a four-and- a-half inch offset, relaying that if the Commission concurred with staff's recommendation that the vertical offsets should be no less than six inches (as previously proposed), the Commission could add an additional Condition of Approval specifying a required offset. The addition of a used thin bdck at the base of the building, along the column elements. Presented a sample piece of the red metal material, and the red roof tile matedal proposed to be utilized for the roof elements, noting that in his opinion the metal material (proposed at the entrance canopy) lacked a quality appearance in comparison to the red tile; and advised that the applicant would address the matedal with the Commission. With respect to the previous recommendation to condition the project regarding the completion of the northerly access improvements to its full width, advised that those specific improvements were the responsibility of Rosa's Caf~ (the adjacent use). Specified the applicant's proposal to allow the hotel's meeting room space to be available to charitable and non-profit service groups at 30% of cost, for a maximum of four days a month. With respect to the request regarding the applicant refining a sign plan, noted that the applicant was reluctant to develop a sign plan at this time due to the uncertainties related to the future adjacent tenants, advising that the applicant had provided assurance that the sign plan would comply with the City Code. Presented the pencil sketched rendering of the revised project plan. Mr. Larry Levoff, developer representing the applicant, apprised the Commission, as follows: Specified the rationale for the proposed plan to phase the project, noting that Phase II would most likely be constructed within two years. Provided additional information regarding the landscaping along the freeway, noting that various existing trees were in excess of 50 feet tall. With respect to the pop-out elements on the window treatments, relayed a desire to have the flexibility to determine the depth of the recess when the final plans were drawn up, agreeing to work with staff with respect to this issue. Noted that the applicant had not developed a sign plan at this time, reiterating that the future adjacent tenants were unknown. Advised that he had discussed the access road improvement project with the owner of the Rosa's Caf~ use, noting that the applicant would not be adverse to this project being conditioned with respect to the completion of the improvements, noting that the applicant would work with the owner regarding the matter. Noted the revenue and employment opportunities that the proposed hotel project would bdng to the City of Temecula. For Commissioner Webster, specified that the applicant would be agreeable to conditioning the project requiring that the improvements at the northerly ddveway approach be completed Pdor to Occupancy. In response to Mr. Levoff's request to modify the language of Condition No. 49c.(regarding Development Impact Fee credits) specifically, to replace the word can with the word will, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that it was staff's recommendation not to alter the language of the condition, noting the City Councils' purview regarding the issue. Mr. Dan Hansin, architect representing the applicant, provided the following information: For Commissioner Webster, specified the design revisions with respect to the proposed project, as follows: The addition of the wainscot along the bottom tower element. The increased landscaped area. The addition of brick veneer placed on the column elements, the protruding elements, and at the front entrance area; relayed the rationale for not adding additional veneer elements to the entire first floor level. Specified the base, middle, and top elements of the design. For Commissioner Mathewson, provided additional information regarding the red- barreled roof design, advising that if the red metal material was replaced with tile, that the canopy design would have to be reconfigured. In response to Commissioner Webster's querying whether the Fern Pine Trees denoted on the landscape plan could be replaced with Camphor Trees along the freeway area, Mr. Vince Didonato, landscape architect for the applicant, provided additional information regarding the landscape plan, noting the design plan to provide an accent effect with the denoted trees; and with respect to Commissioner Webster's comments regarding the potential to lose landscaping (specifically the Eucalyptus Trees) if future improvements were completed in that area, specified the density of the landscaping. The Commission relayed concludin,q remarks, as follows: While stating that he could support the overall project, Commissioner Mathewson relayed his reluctance to qualify the project for the request for a FAR increase, specifically noting that the applicant's letter addressing the applicant's willingness to allow non-profit groups to utilize the meeting room at a discounted price, also stated that this agreement was the norm in the hotel industry, and therefore was not proposing provision of public facilities beyond the norm, which was the criteda for a FAR increase. Commissioner Webster clarified that his concern with respect to the landscape plan was regarding the potential in the future for the loss of the Eucalyptus Trees, noting that he would not oppose the proposed landscape plan; with respect to the window treatment's recessed depth, recommended that the project be conditioned to provide a six-inch offset, while providing staff the flexibility to reduce that to four-and-a-half inches if deemed appropriate when the final plans had been finalized; recommended conditioning the project with respect to completion of the improvements to the northerly driveway Pdor to Occupancy; with respect to the architectural issues, relayed that in his opinion, there should be additional veneer material added to the entire lower level, noting that if the Commission did not support that concept, then his recommendation would be that the applicant utilize a darker color on the wainscot and a darker veneer color application; and with respect to the metal roof material, noted the concern with the view from the freeway offramp, relaying that he had no preference between maintaining the metal material or replacing it with tile. Concurring with Commissioner Webster's comments regarding the northerly driveway improvements, the architectural issues, and the specified offset of the window elements, Chairman Guerriero expressed his concern regarding the view of the metal roofing material form the freeway offramp, noting the City's diligent efforts to provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance, specifically for first-time visitors to the City; and recommended that staff work with the applicant in order to assure a positive visual appearance. In response to Commission comment, Mr. Levoff provided additional information regarding the efis element (a high quality stucco-type material) which.would provide a textured appearance, relaying the applicant's desire to not add additional brick veneer; with respect to the cdteria for the request for a FAR increase, clarified the benefits that the project would provide to the City of Temecula, noting the need for this type of facility; with respect to the reference to the agreement of the applicant to provide meeting rooms at reduced rates for not-profit organizations, advised that the language should be corrected, noting that this provision was not the norm in the hotel industry; and with respect to the metal material at the entry area, provided additional information regarding the application. For clarification, with respect to the comment referenced by Commissioner Mathewson stating that the provision for reduced rates for meeting rooms (for non-profit organizations) was typical for the hotel industry, Project Planner Griffin specified that this was his comment, and not the applicant's, relaying that he could be corrected. Chairman Guerriero commented on the need for a hotel facility in the City of Temecula, specifically, dudng special events. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to close the public hearing; and to approve the project, as described, with the following added conditions: Add- A condition stating that the applicant provide a six-inch offset (with respect to the window elements), allowing staff the discretion to revise the depth of the offset in the future. A condition requiring completion of the northerly driveway improvements, Pdor to Occupancy. PlanCom mlmlnutes~l t~00 · That the color application of the wainscot and the veneer treatment be revised to a darker color. Commissioner Fahey seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to revise the order to the Agenda, and that the Commission consider Agenda Item No. 7 at this time (prior to Agenda Item No. 5 being heard). Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Chairman Guerdero who abstained. At this time the Commission considered Agenda Item No. 7. Plannin.q Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627) - (located adjacent to Interstate 15, south west of the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Highway 79 south (the future Western Bypass Corridor). Assessor's Parcel #922-210-047-Project Planner John DeGange RECOMMENDATION 7.1 Continue Chairman Guerriero advised that he would be abstaining with regard to Agenda Item No. 7, and therefore left the dais with Vice Chairman Mathewson presiding. Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that the request by staff and the applicant was to continue this matter to the February 16, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to continue this Agenda Item to the February 16, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Chairman Guerriero who abstained. It was noted that at 7:00 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 7:11 P.M. At this time the Commission continued with the regular order of the Agenda, and considered Agenda Item No. 5. 5 Planning Application No. PA99-0379 (Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan) - Willin,q (Buck) & Lynne Ramsey (located at the south side of Winchester Road, midway between Ynez Road and Mar.qarita Road, on Pad E at the Promenade Mall -APN910-320-028- Proiect Planner Thomas Thornsley) RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: Pla nCorn m Irnln u~01 t900 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-004 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0379, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON 1.2 ACRES AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A GAS STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE WITH A DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANT SERVICE LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD BETWEEN MARGARITA ROAD AND YNEZ ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910- 320-028 AND LOT E OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PA98- 0495 AND PARCEL MERGER PA99-0007 5.2 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0379 (Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan) based on the Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 - Subsequent EI R's and Negative Declarations. By way of overheads, Project Planner Thomsley presented the staff report (of record); provided a brief history of the project's process up to this point, noting the applicant's previous request for a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity in order to sell alcohol at the site which was denied by the Planning Commission in December of 1999; relayed the applicant's subsequent decision to continue to move forward with the project; highlighted this particular project's location, two points of access, and landscaping plan inclusive of the proposal to screen the drive-though area, fueling area, and portions of the parking area; relayed that the architectural style of the building was consistent with the mall design; noted that the landscape plan encompassed thirty-two percent (32%) of the site; and relayed that this project was within the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan No. 263, that an EIR had been prepared, noting that per CEQA guidelines a Notice of Exemption had been submitted for adoption by the Commission. For Commissioner Webster, Project Planner Thomsley relayed that the portion of landscaping that encompassed the Transportation Easement Corridor was approximately twenty percent (20%) of the total landscape plan; and provided additional information regarding the landscape buffer proposed along that corridor. In response to Commissioner Webster's queries regarding components of the Mall's Specific Plan's (Temecula Regional Specific Plan) mitigation measures with respect to the Transportation Management Plan, the Transportation System Plan, and the Park and Ride facility, Senior Planner Fagan relayed that staff was in the process of further investigating these issues; and advised that after staff had received additional information from Caltrans and the Riverside Transit Agency, the Commission would be updated. For Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner Thomsley provided additional information regarding the berming and landscaping proposed to screen the glare of headlights from the drive-through area; clarified that the Police Department's 8 recommendation was that the landscaping proximate to the building and entry points be maintained at a Iow height; specified that the City's Ordinance would allow two signs on the canopy area, and that the Mall's guidelines permit one sign per building front for each tenant, specifying the location of the proposed signage; relayed that the applicant could propose up to six signs on the building, the Ultramar (gas station/convenience market use) could utilize four of the signs, and the Kentucky Fded Chicken (drive- through restaurant use) could utilize two signs, based on the ratio of space utilized at the site; and presented the material board, specifying the color application of the stucco. In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Willing Ramsey, representing the applicant, provided additional information regarding the proposed signage which was consistent with the applicable standards; specified the size of the signs, noting the location of the building signage which would encompass a total of five signs (noted that six signs would be permitted); and relayed that in working with staff the applicant had been restricted from installing larger signage, and colored canopies (consistent with logo elements), as originally requested; and noted that the applicant's original plan had been to place the gas islands along the street elevation, relaying that the site had been reconfigured per staff recommendation. By way of overheads, Project Planner Thornsley further clarified the location of the signs. With respect to Commissioner Fahey's concerns, Project Planner Thomsley provided additional information regarding the signs permitted in the windows; and advised that Code Enforcement diligently and aggressively enforced the temporary sign standards. For Commissioner Fahey, Planning Manager Ubnoske initially relayed that the temporary signs could be regulated per Commission direction if the applicant was agreeable, noting that without the applicant's agreement on such conditions, the standard guidelines for the Mall and the City Ordinance standards would apply. For clarification, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that per Attorney Curley's advisement that since this proposal was for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), specific conditions could be attached due to the use's relationship with respect to the mall, correcting her previous comment. Mr. Ramsey provided assurance that the applicant would comply with the City standards with respect to window signs. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding conditioning the project with respect to restricting any sign placement on the north elevation, Mr. Ramsey relayed that the restriction would present a hardship; provided additional information regarding the scale of the building in relation to the proposed signage; and confirmed that ultimately the tree landscaping would screen the signage placed on the north elevation. Project Planner Thomsley relayed that per the Sign Guidelines, the monument sign would solely be permitted to display one tenant, noting that due to the requirement to post gas prices, the Ultramar logo and the associated gas prices would be displayed on the proposed monument sign. The Commission presented closing remarks, as follows: Commissioner Fahey noted that the City's Ordinance was adequate with respect to temporary sign standards, clarifying that her concern was regarding the non-compliance of businesses in the City with the set standards; and commended staff and the applicant for their diligent efforts associated with the reconfiguration of the site. Commissioner Mathewson relayed his support of the overall project; noted his original concern with respect to the color application represented on the color renderings which had been allayed by the prevision of the material board; and recommended restricting the sign placement on the north elevation to solely maintain one sign. With respect to the landscape plan, Commissioner Webster recommended conditioning the project to ensure that the minimum landscaping requirements were satisfied with the exclusion of the percentage of landscaping within the Transportation Easement Corridor. Chairman Guerriero commended the applicant for a job well done with respect to this project. In response to Mr. Ramsey, Commissioner Mathewson clarified that he would propose a motion inclusive of the restriction regarding solely placing one sign on the north elevation, in lieu of the currently proposed two signs. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff recommendation, modified with respect to the fueling canopy being limited to two signs, and that the north elevation be limited to one building sign. (This motion ultimately died for lack of a second.) MOTION: Chairman Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff recommendation with the following added landscaping condition modification: Add- That the project be conditioned to ensure that the proposal satisfies the minimum required percentage of landscaping with the exclusion of the landscaping within the Transportation Easement Corridor. Commissioner Fahey seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 6 Planning Application No. PA99-0398 (Development Plan) - (located on the north side of State Highway 79 south approximately 500 feet west of Margarita Road and State Highway 79 south intersection) -Associate Planner Denice Thomas RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PlanComm/minute$/011900 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-005 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0398, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 21,151 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE PLAZA ON 2.28 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF STATE HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET WEST OF THE MARGARITA ROAD AND STATE HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH INTERSECTION AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 950-100-019 6.2 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0398 pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines; 6.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-006 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0399, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29510 TO SUBDIVIDE 3.42 VACANT ACRES INTO TWO (2) PARCELS WITHIN THE HIGHWAY TOURIST COMMERCIAL ZONE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF STATE HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND STATE HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH INTERSECTION, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 950-100-019 6.4 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0399 pursuant to Section 15315 of the CEQA Guidelines. Via overheads, Associate Planner Thomas provided an overview of the project (per staff report), highlighting access, parking, site configuration, architectural enhancements, and landscaping inclusive of the proposed interior planters; and for Commissioner Fahey, clarified that the parking provisions proposed (approximately 114 spaces) exceed the requirements (approximately 80 spaces), noting that the applicant was not proposing ancillary uses that would affect the parking requirements (i.e., a laboratory). In response to Commissioner Webster's comments regarding the lack of provisions for a turn around radius along the roar of Dartola Road, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information rogarding the futuro improvements on Dartola Road which would eventually tie into a signalized intersection with Highway 79 South; and noted that the adjacent property would be conditioned to provided a structuro over the drainage course; and advised that staff was of the opinion that it was not necessary to condition this particular project with rospect to this matter. 11 Mr. Edward Anderson, representing the applicant provided the following data with respect to this particular project: · Relayed the need for this type of facility in this particular area. · Specified the doctors who would be utilizing this use. Noted the various medical offices that would be located at the site, as follows: a family practice, an urgent care center, a wellness women's clinic, a physical therapy clinic, and a dental clinic. Specified the enhanced design treatments, specifically noting the trelliswork, and the stamped stone detail. Noted that this particular proposal was inclusive of improvements on Dartola Road up to the flood channel in order to provide access provisions to the site. Relayed the applicant's participation with respect to the parcel split, noting the remaining one-acre site. Specified the proposed scheduled construction date as March of 2000, and that the target goal for the onset of operation was September or October of 2000. For Commissioner Fahey, Mr. Anderson provided additional information regarding the parking provisions, noting that Dr. Combs, the applicant, would provide information regarding the uses proposed at the site; for Commissioner Webster, specified that in the courtyard area, there would be previsions for outside bench seating. Dr. Walter Combs, the applicant, relayed his enthusiasm with respect to the project; clarified the minimal laboratory services that would be offered at the site; and provided the rationale for the additional provisions for parkihg. VVith respect to the Parcel Map, Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant noted the following: With respect to page I of the Conditions of Approval (denoted on page 26 of the agenda material, Exhibit A), noted that the expiration date should be corrected to reflect January 19, 2003 in lieu of the January 19, 2002 date reflected, pursuant to the Subdivision Ordinance. With respect to Condition No. 14 (page 29, Exhibit A) recommended that the language be modified to refer only to Parcel No. 1, noting that it has yet to be determined where the driveways will be on Parcel No. 2. With respect to Condition No. 25, (page 29, Exhibit A) relayed that the condition should be stricken since there were no off-site improvements or acquisitions to be made. With respect to Condition No. 28 (page 30, Exhibit A) noted that the reciprocal easement would be denoted and recorded as part of the record map. 12 For Commissioner Webster, Mr. Markham provided additional information regarding access to Parcel No. 2, clarifying that the use for that parcel had not yet been determined; and provided additional information regarding the previous parcel maps for this particular property. In response to Mr. Markham's comments, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks confirmed that staff had reviewed each of the requests for modification with respect to the conditions, and that staff was in agreement with the proposed revisions; specified that Condition No. 25 (regarding right-of-way issues) could be stricken; with respect to the access to Dartola Road, relayed that the site plan approval for Parcel No. 2 would be conditioned with respect to this matter, if deemed necessary. The Commission provided the following summary comments: Commissioner Webster, echoed by Commissioner Mathewson, commended the architect for his excellent work with respect to a definitive architectural style; relayed concern with respect to the driveway access points, not necessarily for this project, but for future development on Parcel No. 2, noting that he had no recommendations regarding the matter. For Mr. Anderson, Commissioner Webster provided clarification with respect to his concern regarding the potential for negative impacts with the location of the driveway access point of Parcel No. 2 with respect to the proximity of this particular project's access point. With respect to the north elevation, initially, Commissioner Mathewson recommended extending the trelliswork in order to provided a cover for the gallery area. For Commissioner Mathewson, the applicant's representative provided additional information regarding the proposed trelliswork, landscaping, and sidewalk; and clarified that the gallery area was proposed to be covered. For Chairman Guerdero, Mr. Anderson provided additional information regarding the architectural enhancements of this particular project. MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to close the public hearing, and to approve staff recommendation, inclusive of the modifications to the conditions presented by Mr. Markham (specified on page 12 of the minutes under the bulleted items referencing Mr. Markham's comments). Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 7 Planninq Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627) - (located adiacent to Interstate 15, south west of the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Highway 79 south (the future Westem Bypass Corridor). Assessor's Parcel #922- 210-047-Preiect Planner John DeGanRe RECOMMENDATION 7.1 Continue This Agenda Item was heard out of order. See page 7. 13 p~anGommlmJnute~011~ COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS For Commissioner Mathewson, Chairman Guerdero relayed that at the Power Center additional landscaping was being added. Chairman Guerriero relayed that he had taken the Lennar Development Tour in Orange County, noting that he had videotaped various development sites; and noted that if it was the Commission's desire, the material could be presented at the February 2, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Guerriero relayed his concern with regard to the visual blight Created from the newspaper and magazine rack displayed in various locations in the City, noting the disorganization and variant colors; specifically commented on the racks located at the Post Office on Rancho California Road/Margarita Road; and queried what jurisdiction the City had with respect to requiring a more aesthetically pleasing appearance. Attorney Curley advised that he would further investigate the matter. With respect to the January 18, 2000 meeting held in conjunction with Riverside County representatives, Chairman Guerriero relayed that the data presented was informational, noting that clarification was provided regarding The Integrated Plan, and Cetap. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that the Planner's Institute would be held March 1-3, 2000; and advised the Commissioners to contact Administrative Secretary Wimberly if they were interested in attending. Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that the American Planning Association was holding a Design Review Workshop on February 26, 2000; relayed that the workshop would be held at the Utilities Operations Center in Riverside; and invited the Commissioners to attend. For Chairman Guerdero, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that at the February 2, 2000 Planning Commission meeting she would update the Commission with resect to the results of the inquiry on the Alcohol Sting Operations. Planning Manager Ubnoske provided the Commissioner with key cards in order to access the City Hall building. ADJOURNMENT At 8:32 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, February 2~ 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. R0n G~rd~ro-, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager 14