Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout011701 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 17, 2001 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:02 P.M., on Wednesday January 17, 2001, 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 Chiniaeff. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero. Absent: None. Also Present: Director of Planning Ubnoske, Redevelopment Director Meyer, Deputy Director of Public Works Pa, rks, Development Services Administrator McCarthy, Attorney Diaz, Senior Planner Hogan, Associate Planner Anders, Assistant Planner Preisendanz, Project Planner Naaseh, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Margaret Whiston, 43166 Camino Casillos, noted the need for senior housing in the City of Temecula, querying what she could do to help in the process of the City developing housing for seniors. In response to Ms. Whiston, Chairman Guerriero noted that staff could direct her to the appropriate sources. CONSENT CALENDAR It was notedthatthe ConsentCalendarltems were considered separately. I Aflenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of January 17, 2001. R:~PLANCOMIvI~V!INUTES~2001 \ 1 - 17-01 .doc 1 Chairman Guerriero noted that it had been recommended that Agenda Item No. 4 be considered after item No. 5, and that Agenda Item No. 3 be considered after Item No. 4. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve the Agenda, as modified. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of November 1, 2000. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the minutes of November 1, 2000. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 Harveston Workshop- Desi,qn Guidelines/Development Standards This Item was heard out of order; see page 8. 4 Villa.qes of Old Town Workshop This Item was heard out of order; see page 5. At this time the Commission considered Item No. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 5 Plannin.q Application 00-0257(Conditional Use Permit) to desi.qn, construct and operate an unmanned Sprint wireless communication facility located at the Rancho California Water District's Norma Marsha Reservoir site located at 41520 Mar.qarita Road - Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0257, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE AN UNMANNED SPRINT WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY LOCATED AT THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT'S NORMA MARSHA RESERVOIR SITE LOCATED AT 4"1520 MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 940-230-002 R:PlanComm/minutes,~l 1701 2 Commissioner Webster advised that he would be abstaining with regard to this Item. Via overheads, Assistant Planner Preisendanz presented the staff report (of record), noting that the original approval for this project was in July of 1996 which was for a sixty foot (60') monopole antenna which was not camouflaged, advising that that approval expired in 1998; relayed that in light of the Antenna Ordinance now in effect, this item was being presented to the Planning Commission; highlighted the specific location of the preposed monopine, the surrounding properties, the camouflaged design, the existing landscaping, noting that the applicant would replace any trees or shrubs that necessitated removal during the development; for Commissioner Mathewson, clarified that the monopole was 57 feet (57') in height from the bottom of the tree to the top, noting that from the ground level to the center of the antenna was a height of fifty feet (50'); relayed that there was an alternative siting analysis conducted; provided additional information regarding the camouflage design elements, noting the simulated bark material; and for Chairman Guerriero, relayed that there would be an opportunity for a future co-location at the mid-area of the monopine. Mr. Heinz Lumtt, representing Sprint PCS, provided additional information regarding the alternative siting analysis, noting the need for a taller monopine if the facility was located at alternate sites; for Commissioner Chiniaeff and Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that the Water District would not permit the antenna to be located on the water tank due to maintenance issues; relayed that lowering the height of the antenna by ten feet would significantly reduce the coverage objective, providing additional information regarding the line of sight distance necessary to alternate sites; noted that to install the antenna on the existing power pole, the power pole would have to be substantially increased in size (i.e., larger in diameter), relaying that the utility company was not interested in utilizing the existing utility pole for the purposes of the antenna; confirmed that for co-location various branches would be removed from the monopine and where appropriate the branches would be replaced; relayed that the rendering represented an actual monopole tree; for Chairman Guerriero confirmed that Exhibit 3 C. (per agenda material) did not represent the design of the monopole that would be constructed with this particular proposal; for Commissioner Telesio, noted that in light of the height needed for this area the applicant's preference would be to install the monopine verees installing the antenna on the water tank or the utility pole; for Chairman Guerriero, confirmed that when the antenna is placed on a utility pole, typically there is no camouflaging; and for Commissioner Mathewson, noted that there were two types of stealth monopole trees, listed as follows: 1) a pine tree, and 2) a palm tree, noting the applicant's preference for the pine tree at this site due to the allowance for bulk in terms of the branches and since this type of tree more apprepriately blended with the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Denise Bowe, 30891 Corte Arroya, noted her concern regarding radiation exposure based on the vicinity of the cell tower with respect to her residence and queried the amount of exposure her residence would be impacted with. For Ms. Bower, Mr. Lumtt noted the ambient study prepared in conjunction with this project, relaying th~s project compliance with the Federal Standards, noting that the standard was approximately 1,000 times lower than would cause any type of impact to a biological being, advising the Sprint PCS's standards were 1,000 times below the Federal Standard; and clarified that there would be no radiated impact with respect to the antenna even if one was to stand directly below the monopine. R:PlanComrn/minute~011701 3 The Commission relayed closing comments, as follows: Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that he was not opposed to this type of project, advising that the tree camouflaging was effective in the monopalm poles he has seen at alternate sites. Commissioner Mathewson acknowledged the need for cell towers, noting no opposition to the particular site; relayed his concern regarding the camouflaging, noting the facility off of Meadows Parkway; relayed that the renderings presented were not consistent with the exhibits provided to the Planning Commission in the agenda material; relayed additional concern regarding a co-location due to the removal of additional branches; and noted a desire for assurance that the facility would be adequately camouflaged. For Commissioner Mathewson, Assistant Planner Preisendanz relayed that a reduction of the rendering could replace the representation on Exhibit 3 C. in order to clarify the type of pole the Commission was taking action on. Echoing Commissioner Mathewson's comments, Chairman Guerriero noted that the exhibit provided the Planning Commission was not representative of the facility the Commission was being requested to approve. Commissioner Telesio concurred with Commissioner Mathewson's and Chairman Guerriero's comments; and noted that he was not opposed to the location or the purpose of the facility. Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that since this project was being conditionally permitted, if the applicant's installation was not adequate the permit could be revoked; and recommended that additional pine trees placed at the base of the monopine to aid in the screening of the pole. Commissioner Mathewson recommended that this facility would not be operational until such time as staff approved of the screening and camouflaging on the pole; and noted that he needed additional information regarding what the visual appearance of the monopine would be with co-location. For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Lumtt relayed that additional branches could be added to the design, specifically between the trunk and the antenna. For Chairman Guerriero, Mr. Lumtt specified the area where the co-located antenna would potentially be located. Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended that the applicant bring back to the Planning Commission additional information regarding the actual design which would be implemented, and address adding additional bulk to the lower portion of the tree. Chairman Guerriero requested additional information regarding the visual appearance with a co-located antenna. R:PlanComm/minutes/011701 4 Mr. Lumtt relayed that the applicant could work with staff to address the Planning Commission's recommendations if that was the desire of the Commission. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to continue this Item to the January 31, 2001 meeting in order for the applicant to add additional pine trees at the base of the monopole, provide additional bulk to the monopole, and to clarify the visual appearance of the tree with a second antenna. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster who abstained. At 6:45 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 7:08 P.M. At this time the Commission considered Item No. 4. 4 Villages of Old Town Workshop Mr. Richard Hannas, representing the applicant, noted that Mr. Matthew Fagan would provide an overview of the policy framework followed to develop this project, and that Mr. Kevin Everett would review the planning concepts. Via a slide presentation, Mr. Fagan, representing the applicant, provided an overview of the project, specifying the regional location which was currently within the Westside Specific Plan; relayed the project objectives, as follows: 1) to preserve and enhance the historic character of Old Town Temecula, 2) to encourage a mixture of land uses, 3) to encourage pedestrian activity, 4) to encourage an efficient cimulation system, and 5) to encourage revitalization of Old Town through the implementation of the Old Town Specific Plan; specified the goals of the Old Town Specific Plan; noted the tremendous investment of public funds into Old Town (i.e., the Sam Hicks Memorial Park, the Temecula Va ley Museum, the Mary Phillips ,.Center, the 1st Street Bridge and Road Widening Project, the improvements to the'6'" Street parking lot, the future Perform ng Arts Theater, and the future Children's Museum); provided an overview of the Keyster Marston Economic Assessment conducted for Old Town which relayed that housing was a key to the success for older street retail districts, that up to 2,000 units could be developed within the Westside Specific Plan, and that this type of development would provide strong benefits to Old Town; referenced the General Plan (Table 2-9) which addressed provision of complementary land uses to Old Town that would increase the vitality of the area, increased range of housing, encouragement of sensitive site and building design given the topography; relayed data regarding the site analysis, and the potential alignments for the Western Bypass; and introduced Mr. Everett who would provide additional details regarding the project. Mr. Everett, representing the applicant, relayed the extensive efforts expended regarding this project plan, noting the team of approximately 30 individuals working on this proposal representing approximately 10-15 companies, relaying the desire for input from the Planning Commission regarding recommended redesign aspects to the plan; via a PowerPoint presentation, provided an overview of the three planning areas, highlighting the 3-acre Town Center Park (which would be the focal point of the project), the Village core which would be developed on both sides of the Western Bypass, and the view lot duplex portion of the project; noted the pedestrian links, the proposed trolley system, the amphitheater area, the apartment complex, the fitness centers, the quasi-commercial area which would encompass less than 20,000 square feet and would be inclusive of R:PlanComm/minute~011701 5 uses such as dry cleaners and video rentals, noting that there would be no uses competing with the existing business in Old Town; specified the duplex housing area which would be located half way up the hillside, and the linear park system; noted the transportation linkages included in the proposed plan, the creation of a walking district with a trolley system and RTA routes which culminated into the development of a true Village Center; and relayed the consistency of this project with the General Plan, noting the Village Center, the clustering, the circulation enhancements, and the open space area. Mr. Hannas concluded the presentation, noting that the Villages of Old Town was primarily a residential property which would consist of 1631 dwellings, 1365 of which would be apartments, 152 of which would be townhomes, and 114 of which would be single-family attached housing; and reiterated the project's benefits to the City of Temecula, noting the economic boost to Old Town, the traffic circulation enhancements, as well as, offering a variety of housing opportunities. At this time the Commission heard public comments, as follows: The following individuals were proponents of the project: r~ Mr. Al Rattan 28751 Rancho California Road #207 [3 Mr. Thomas Stultz 32076 Corte Soledad, business owner in Old Town r~ MS. Suzanne St. John 30245 Miraloma Drive, business owner in Old Town The above-mentioned individuals were proponents of the project for the following reasons: · Noted the successful improvements to the Old Town areas in the Cities of Brea and Pasadena. The benefits this project would bring to Old Town (i.e., revitalization). · Noted the lack of apartment and townhouse housing in the City of Temecula that this project would satisfy which would address housing needs for employees of Old Town merchants and manufacturing businesses in the City of Temecula. Relayed that this project would provide economic benefits to Old Town. Mr. Hank Testasecca, 42050 Main Street, Unit B, an Old Town business owner and resident, noted his opposition to the project for the following reasons: the overall negative impact high density dwellings would have on Old Town, the impacts on the historic heritage of Old Town, traffic impacts, and recommended implementing a senior housing project and/or a civic center; and submitted a letter to staff outlining his concerns. The Commission noted the fol owing conc ud n.q remarks: Commissioner Chiniaeff concurred with the applicant's comments regarding efforts for the commercial uses to not take business away from the Old Town businesses, but instead complimenting the Old Town uses; noted that the high density housing proximate to Old Town would stimulate business which could bring additional business to Old Town during the evening hours; and relayed the opportunities this project could provide, noting his interest in the further details of the plan as the proposal progresses. R:PlanComm/minutes~311701 6 Commissioner Mathewson noted that this appeared to be a great project; relayed the need for the residential and quasi-commercial area to compliment Old Town; concurred with Commissioner Chiniaeffs comments, noting concern regarding the necessity of a link between this project and Old Town, advising that the architectural treatments would be of vital importance, and that the commercial uses should be aimed at meeting the needs of the residential area verses the uses which Old Town provides which serve visitors/tourists; noted that due to the linear layout of the project, the southerly most transit stop may not be located far enough south to serve the units on the southerly portion of the project site, recommending a review of this matter; concurred with comments regarding the Old Town in the City of Brea, attributing the success to the residential area; and relayed that he looked forward to seeing the project progress. For future presentations, Chairman Guerriero noted the desire for provision of a line-of- sight visual of the project from the freeway, from Old Town, from Old Town Front Street, and from Ynez Road, relaying his concern regarding the potential for five-story buildings; recommended that there be efforts to blend this project with the hillside environment; and recommended investigation as to whether a senior housing component would be feasible at this site. For Commissioner Webster, Mr. Everett relayed that the townhouse component was located directly above the core area where the apartments would be located, noting that in the southern area toward the Highway 79 Interchange the duplex component would be located which would be for sale units; in response to queries regarding the immense grading differential, provided additional information regarding the gradual slope which would tie the east side of Planning Area 1 to Main Street, noting that additional details would be presented at a future date; relayed that the commercial area would be concentrated in one building at the front of the park which would be a maximum of 20,000 square feet, providing additional information regarding the goal to compliment and enhance Old Town. Commissioner Webster relayed that within the park area, he envisioned commercial/office space on the first floor with residential on the second floor around the perimeter of the Village Square area; noted the standards in the City's Design Guidelines for multi-family housing regarding maintaining approximately eight units per building to control massing, and to vary the number of units per building; with respect to the potential underpass crossing the bypass corridor, advised that there be investigation as to the feasibility of an overpass due to the safety aspects with respect to crime; with respect to efforts to minimize the height of the cut slopes on the west side of the project, recommended, additionally, having a re-vegetation specialist during the construction of the project as well as conducting top soil salvage since when the rock is exposed, and the top soil is removed re-vegetation is difficult. In response to Commissioner Webster, Mr. Everett relayed that the cut slopes on this project would be screened by structures; and relayed that the 1st Phase of the project would be the Village Center, noting that the park would be the first feature developed. Commissioner Webster recommended that the applicant pay particular attention to historical architectural styles on this project; recommended the use of darker colors on the buildings in order to blend with the existing milieu; with respect to the bridges associated with the bypass corridor, queried whether when the development reaches the R:PlanComrn/minates/011701 7 south end of the project if the bridge crossing over the creek in this area would be completed. For Commissioner Webster, Mr. Everett relayed that the applicant was working with the City with respect to the phasing of the project, providing additional information regarding the public funds expended in this area; relayed additional information regarding the future proposal north of the project; and noted hopes to have a cooperative program with RTA, and potentially a public group for the maintenance of the trolley system. In response to Commissioner Webster, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed the importance of the bridge at the 1-15 South. Commissioner Telesio reiterated the remarks expressed during the public comment period; noted that at this time Old Town was geared towards week-end activity, relaying that this project would necessitate a dramatic change, advising that there would be a need for everyday services for the residents; and with respect to the potential school site, noted that this would be vital to the area. For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Everett relayed that Old Town would evolve, noting that additional evening entertainment and restaurants would come; advised that this applicant would invest in the housing project which would bring the economic boost to Old Town as outlined in the Keyster Marston Report; and relayed that the applicant could bring forward additional information regarding Smart Growth and the type of housing appropriate for this area. With respect to the trolley and bus system, and the clustering of housing, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that in terms of the General Plan there were few opportunities in the City to accomplish implementation of these components, providing additional information regarding the potential to minimize the use of vehicles; and advised that this project would be a great opportunity for mass transit. Commissioner Telesio clarified that it was his desire that this housing mix did not create a perceived blue-collared residential area. Mr. Hannas advised that the applicant envisioned a high quality project with a well- executed product. Chairman Guerriero thanked the applicant's representatives for the informational presentation. At 8:22 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 8:34 P.M. At this time the Commission considered Item No. 3. 3 Harveston Workshop- Desi.qn Guidelines/Development Standards Mr. Bill Storm, representing the applicant, relayed that the Harveston Workshop for this meeting would be inclusive of the Architectural Guidelines and standards, and introduced Mr. David Viggiano, who would provide the presentation to the Planning Commission; and clarified that while the past presentations included photographs in R:PlanComm/minutes~011701 8 order to introduce concepts, that the applicant's vision for the project developed in the City of Temecula exceeded the depictions in the photographs. Mr. David Viggiano, representing the applicant presented a PowerPoint presentation, noting that the photographs represented Lennar Communities commitment to creating neighborhoods with timeless qualities; itemized the goals of the project, noted the wide range of housing types provided in the plan; relayed the four levels of density which would create diversity, highlighting the Low Medium Density, the Medium 1 Density, the Medium 2 Density, and the High Density proposals; noted the park-like landscaping at the entries to the neighborhoods, the innovative architectural styles with individual color palettes, the varied garage placements, the varied roof heights, the architectural forward elements, the porch treatments, the pedestrian connections, the open end cul-de-sacs leading to the greenbelt parkway, the curb separated sidewalks, the street tree program, the shortened streets, and the variable lot sizes; specified the neighborhood design criteria standards; relayed the architectural styles which included the American Farmhouse, Cape Cod, Italianate, Monterey, Cottage, Prairie, Craftsman, and Colonial; specified the architectural forward elements; presented numerous garage options; and provided visual representations of streetscapes, highlighting alley design elements, street sign designs, mailbox designs, lighting details, landscaping, and the loop road. The Commission relayed the following closing input: Commissioner Chiniaeff noted the benefit of being one of the last large parcels developed in the City of Temecula, allowing the community to progress far enough to accept these innovative types of design concepts; and recommended an integrated landscaping style within the individual architectural styles. In response, Mr. Storm advised that the applicant was in the process of developing a landscape palette consistent with the architectural style; and provided additional information regarding the innovative design elements, which had been included in the Woodbridge Project. With respect to the cross section of housing planned, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that this project would provide a variety of opportunities for the community. With respect to the streetscape design plans, Commissioner Mathewson noted that the Postal Office was typically requiring cluster boxes. In response, Mr. Storm relayed that the applicant has explored cluster boxes with pleasing design elements; and with respect to the lighting designs, noted that these elements were being reviewed with City staff. With respect to the alleyway treatments, for Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Storm relayed that while there would be landscaping treatments, the enhance design amhitectural elements would be focused on the front of the houses, or where there would be public view. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Storm relayed that larger parcels would be located outside the loop road, noting that internal to the loop read would be smaller lots and clustered product; with respect to the individual neighborhoods, relayed the variations in one neighborhood would potentially be from 4500-5500 square feet; noted the plan to R:PlanC omm/minutes/011701 9 have typically 35 units in a neighborhood, relaying that varied lot sizes and product styles would be represented in the variant neighborhoods; and advised that specificity with respect to the varied lot sizes would be developed at a future point. Commissioner Mathewson commended the architect for the varied roof treatments, and setbacks; and with respect to the nature of the smaller lot sizes, noted concern regarding the propensity to develop solely two-story units. In response, Mr. Storm noted the potential for inclusion of single-story units in the Low Medium, and Medium 1 Density ranges, clarifying that this was the applicant's desire, relaying the market factors associated with this issue; advised that design elements could be implemented that provided a single-story appearance with a two-story unit; with respect to sideyard setbacks, noted that typically, there would be a minimum of 10 feet between buildings, relaying that due to the curvature of the streets, few homes would be located side by side; noted that with the smaller cottage project, there would be approximately 6 feet between houses; reiterated that there would be enhanced architectural treatments where architecture was exposed to the public view; and with respect to the grass strip in the driveway treatment (denoted in the PowerPoint presentation), noted that this design element would be encouraged. With respect to Mr. Storm's previous comments, Commissioner Telesio relayed the relief of his concern with respect to the product type proposed in the City of Temecula being similar to the quality of the photograph depictions, noting that his past concern was regarding the expectation level developed from the photographs not being met in the actual proposed plan for Temecula; and noted that he was in favor of the innovative design concepts presented. Commissioner Webster relayed that the product presented was groat; noted that in the County's Southwest Area Plan this area was designated as an urban core area, advising that this proposal satisfies that vision with the smaller lots and the denser development; relayed that he would be opposed to reducing the standard regarding four-sided architectural detail, clarifying that there should be some detailing on the sides of the units; with respect to the architectural style represented in the Design Guidelines, advised that he was pleased with the elements presented; and noted his opposition to the side access front door entries represented in the Medium 2 Density rendering per the PowerPoint presentation. In response, Mr. Storm clarified that this rendering was not drawn to the proper scale, clarifying that this was not a proposed product. With respect to the swing in garage option, where a two-car garage was split into one- car garages, Commissioner Webster recommended focusing on the placement of the front door; with respect to the sideyard setbacks, recommended avoiding the canyon effect; and with respect to the tandem garages, queried whether two garage openers would be needed. Commissioner Chiniaeff queried whether the applicant would be willing to be subject to a condition requiring a certain percentage of single-story units. In response, Mr. Storm noted that he would not desire to have the project conditioned regarding this element, while relaying the potential for the applicant to condition the builders to include one-story units after additional market analysis; advised that from an aesthetic standpoint, design R:PlanComm/minutes/011701 10 elements could be added to provide the visual appearance of a single-story unit on the two-story units; and noted that the applicant would take the matter under consideration. For information purposes, Associate Planner Anders relayed that there was a condition requiring a certain percentage of architectural forward units. Chairman Guerriero noted that he had previously submitted recommendations to the applicant, one of which was the recommendation to offer a shuttle van for a certain period of time in order to evaluate the ridership usage, and an alternate recommendation had been to add solar elements. Mr. Storm advised that the Commission's comments were important to the applicant, thanking the Planning Commission for their input. With respect to the Margarita Village Project, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that since the Planning Commission appointed Commissioner Chiniaeff to meet with the developer and staff, that a meeting had been held and at this time information would be provided to the Planning Commission in order to gain input. Commissioner Chiniaeff noted the revised plan to create more of a pedestrian-oriented area; relayed that Buildings A and C would be restaurants, and Building B would be shops, advising that these areas would be linked with pedestrian courts which also provided for access from the street (Margarita Road); noted that in between Building F and G, the pedestrian area was opened up going out to Margarita Road; provided additional information regarding the pedestrian pathways from surrounding sites; and noted that proximate to Building A there would be an outdoor patio. Commissioner Mathewson recommended widening the access staircase in order to invite additional pedestrian use. Commissioner Webster relayed that along the ring road and North General Kearny Road, there would need to be a certain width of landscaping to screen the parking lot form the top of the slope; with respect to the main drive aisle to the parking lot, at the southern end where the islands are located, noted that the vehicles existing these parking spaces would be pulling onto the road, relaying that this plan should be modified; and recommended that the parking spaces at the front of the buildings should be relocated to the center area, Chairman Guerriero advising that the front parking would be a safety hazard. Chairman Guerriero noted that his concern was based on the landscaping along Margarita Road, recommending that there be an adequate buffer of the expansive building. Commissioner Chiniaeff provided additional information regarding the elevation from Margarita Road, noting the three-foot mound to be installed above the pad elevation; and advised that he had relayed to the applicant that the rear elevation should be consistent with the front elevation, noting that 2nd story windows may need to be added. For Chairman Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she would have the Public Works Department address the monument signage with respect to sight distance impacts. Commissioner Mathewson requested that the following issues be addressed: access points to draw people from the future hotel site, and the signage on the rear of the building. In response, Project Planner Nasseh relayed that there would be halo signage on the rear of the building. Commissioner Chiniaeff reiterated the recommendation to limit the colors of the signage. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS No comments. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. In response to Director of Planning Ubnoske, Commissioner Chiniaeff, Commissioner Webster, Chairman Commissioner Telesio, and Chairman Guerriero relayed an interest in attending the Planner's Institute in Mamh. Director of Planning Ubnoske requested the Commission to leave their notebooks on the dais in order for staff to file the subsequent agenda packets for the next meeting. For Chairman Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the City would provide shirts for the Planning Commissioners. For Chairman Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that there would be a video presentation at the January 31st meeting, noting that if the Planning Commission desired to arrive early to view the video while having dinner to let her know. Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that APA would be holding a Planning Commissioners forum on February 24, 2000 form 9:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.; and invited the Planning Commissioners to attend. ADJOURNMENT At 10:06 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to the next re.qular adiourned meetinR to be held on Wednesday~ January 31~ 2001 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Ron 'G'u~rri~ro, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning R:PlanComm/minutes~l 1701 12