Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout092999 PC Minutes MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 29, 1999 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday September 29, 1999, 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 Webster. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Fahey, Mathewson, *Naggar, Webster, and Chairman Guerdero. Absent: None. Also Present: Deputy City Manager Thomhill, Planning Manager Ubnoske, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Attorney Curtey, Senior Planner Fagan, Associate Planner Donahoe, Project Planner Thomsley, and Minute Clerk Hansen. *(Commissioner Naggar arrived at 6:44 P.M.) PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of A,qenda MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Naggar who was absent. R:~PlanComm~minutes~092999 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. PlanninR Application No. PA98-0447 (Tentative Parcel Map) and PA99-0238 (Development Agreement) Request to subdivide 6.31 acres of land into twenty-four (24) residential lots and Planning Application No. PA99-0238 is a request for a Development Agreement to allow a minimum five (5) foot side yard setback. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request. Via overheads, Project Planner Thomsley presented the staff report; noted the previous approval of the odginal project in 1994 per the County standards for zoning, and the subsequent expiration of the map; relayed the revisions in the City's zoning densities revised at the time the General Plan was adopted; clarified the rationale for the request for a Development Agreement; for Commissioner Webster, provided additional information regarding the five-foot minimum side yard setbacks, noting the existing terracing and banks located on various lots; and for Commissioner Mathewson, specified the elevations, providing additional clarification with respect to the terracing. Mr. George Jurica, representing the applicant, for Commissioner Webster, provided the rationale for the minimum setback proposal, noting the home marketing demands. Ms. Karen Brooks, 29753 Calle Palmas, recommended the installation of single-story homes and tree-lined streets in order not to lower the value of the adjacent properties. For Commissioner Webster, Ms. Brook clarified that it was her desire to have the applicant install a tree in the front yard of each of the proposed home, and to landscape the sloped area on Via La Vida. For Ms. Brooks, Commissioner Webster advised that the City's Development Code requires the installation of trees on the individual lots. For Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner Thomsley provided assurance that the landscape plan would be consistent with the existing landscaping in the area. In response to Commissioner Fahey, Planning Manager Ubnoske confirmed that there is no City Ordinance that would allow restrictions with respect to development of two-story homes. While acknowledging that per the Development Code standards no requirement could be applied with regard to the single-story verses two-story development of residential dwellings, Commissioner Webster noted that the side yard setback could be regulated; relayed, however, that due to the consistency of the project with the surrounding development, he was not strongly opposed to the minimum setback request. Since the project was impacted by the City's transition between the period pdor to the development of the Development Code, and due to the project's consistency with the R:~PlanComm~minutes~092999 surrounding area, and the small size of the parcel, Commissioner Fahey relayed no opposition to the proposal. Commissioner Mathewson relayed concurrence with the previous Commission comments. MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to close the public hearing; adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA98-0447 (Tentative Tract Map) and PA99-0238 (Development Agreement); adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0447 (Tentative Tract Map) and PA99-0238 (Development Agreement); and adopt Resolution No. 99-035 approving Planning Application No. PA98-0447 (Tentative Tract Map) based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and to adopt Resolution No. 99-036 recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA99- 0238 (Development Agreement) based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. RESOLUTION NO. 99-036 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0238, BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND HIRAM-HILL, LLC FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29036 {PARCELS 1-4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13784 AND A PORTION OF LOTS 16-20 AND 26-28 OF TRACT MAP NO. 20862-3), LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF VIA LA VlDA BETWEEN MARGARITA ROAD AND SOLANA WAY. RESOLUTION NO. 99-037 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0447 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29036 (PARCELS 1-4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13784 AND A PORTION OF LOTS 16-20 AND 28-28 OF TRACT MAP NO. 20882-3), LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF VIA LA VlDA BETWEEN MARGARITA ROAD AND SOLANA WAY The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected approval with the exception Commissioner Naggar who was absent. R:~Pla nComm~minutes~092999 3. Planning Application No. PA99-0274 (Development Agreement between Eli Lilly and Company and the City of Temecula) Request to approve a Development Agreement with Eli Lilly & Company. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request. Attomey Curley presented the staff report (of record), clarifying the purpose and specifications of the Agreement; for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed the subsequent process if this Agreement would not be approved; provided clarification with respect to the scope of the Agreement, noting the identified general range of anticipated land use {denoted on page 5, Section 1.1.5 of the Agreement); further specified the standard process of development per Section 3.1.3 regarding entitlements (page 8 of the Development Agreement); relayed that the language could be modified in Section 1.1.5 as a recommendation to the City Council (specifically referencing the phrase objectionable to Commissioner Mathewson, on page 5, Section 1.1.5, whereby it was recommended that the following be modified: the phrase the following changes will be made, be replaced with the following changes may be made); advised that while the Agreement creates the opportunity for a zoning change, it does not change it; noted that if at a future point in time there would be a proposal for a zone change, the standard process would be carded out, inclusive of the CEQA analysis; relayed the benefits for the owner of the parcel associated with the Agreement; for Commissioner Webster, reiterated the process of the standard land use process with respect to proposals within this particular area, providing additional information regarding the denoted zoning. Commissioner Fahey relayed that any proposal that would come forward would be required to mitigate any negative impacts, in order to attain approval of the proposal. Initially, Commissioner Mathewson relayed hesitance supporting the densities denoted in the Agreement; recommended that the matter be postponed until the Housing Element Update would be complete; and reiterated his desire to modify the language on page 5, Section 1.1.5 of the Development Agreement. Commissioner Fahey clarified the approval process of Development Agreements, and the associated purview of the Commission; reiterated that any proposed project would be required to mitigate any negative environmental impacts pdor to approval; and relayed her support of the Agreement. R:\PlanComm~minut es~092999 MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public headng; approve the Development Agreement, adopting Resolution No. 99-038 recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA99-0274 based upon the Analysis contained in the Staff Report; and adopts the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA99-0274, with the attached modification to the Development Agreement. RESOLUTION NO. 99-038 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99- 0274 (DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT) BETVVEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND ELI LILLY AND COMPANY Modify- On page 5, Section 1.1.5 of the Development Agreement replace the phrase the following changes will be made with the phrase the following changes may be made. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Naggar who was absent. It was noted the Commissioner Naggar arrived at 6:44 P.M. At 6:44 P.M. a short recess was taken, and the meeting reconvened at 6:54 P.M. R:~PlanComm~mlnut es~092999 4. Planning Application No. PA99-0284 (Development Plan) and Planning Application No. PA99-0286 (Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 29431) Planning Application No. PA99-0285 (Specific Plan Amendment) Planning Application No. PA99-0283 (Development Agreement) 1. Request to design, construct and operate a 276,243 square feet of retail commercial uses, including a 131,848 square foot Home Depot Store, a 7,000 square foot automotive supply store, and 137,395 square feet of village shopping space; 2.Request to subdivide 66.828 gross acres into seven (7) lots; 3. Request to Amend Amendment No. 7 to Specific Plan No. 219 (Paloma del Sol), amending the following: land uses within Planning Area 1, 6, and 8; the realignment and reconfiguration of Campanula Way between De Portola Road and Meadows Parkway; the allocation of acreage within Planning Area 1 from 32.3 acres to 35.0 acres; the allocation of acreage within Planning Area 6 from 36.3 to 34.3 acres; the division of Planning Area 6 into Planning Area 6A (22.3 acres, high density residential, 9-12 dwelling units per acre, with a maximum of 268 dwelling units) and Planning Area 6B (12 acres, very high density residential, 13-20 du/ac, with a maximum of 240 dwelling units), resulting in an overall reduction of units from 590 to 508 dwellings; the development of an active, private, gated senior community within Planning Area 8 that includes a private recreation area; and an update of Design Guidelines that incorporate the village vignettes and the senior amenities. 4. Request for approval of a Development Agreement between the City and del Sol Investment Co., LLC, a limited liability company. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request. By way of overheads, Associate Planner Donahoe presented the staff report (via agenda material); reviewed the specifications of the Specific Pan amendment, the proposed Parcel Map, and the Development Plan, inclusive of the Development Agreement; highlighted the site plan, focusing on the Home Depot site, noting the location of the loading area, the ddve aisle, access, and the outdoor seasonal and permanent display areas; specified the issues staff and the applicant have not agreed upon, as follows: a) the applicant has proposed a 2500 square foot permanent outdoor display, while staff's recommendation would be to reduce the area to 2300 square feet, noting that the applicant has agreed to trellis this particular area, additionally, explaining the potential location of the tool rental area, b) temporary outdoor seasonal sales area, noting the City's process of permitting temporary uses, c) the elevations of the Home Depot building, specifying the exposed exterior downspouts and staffs desire to achieve a consistent visual appearance with respect to the adjacent Lucky's Grocery Store, specifically recommending that the downspouts be installed on the interior of the building, and d) the proposed landscape plan which would not be consistent with the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan; referenced the memorandum (per supplemental agenda material), noting the modifications to the language of the Conditions of Approval 6 R:~PlanComm~minutes~092999 (COA's); and presented the proposed vignettes proposed by the applicant in order to achieve a Village Center design. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided clarification with respect to the parcel lines, and the associated proposed turning motion; noted that staff would not recommend a joint use access (specifically, in the area of Parcel No. 7); for Chairman Guerdero, provided additional information regarding the traffic analysis with respect to Highway 79 South, noting that the COA's adequately mitigate any impacts associated with this proposed project; for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that all the surrounding developments were included in the traffic analysis associated with this particular project, inclusive the County projects. For the record, the Commissioners relayed that they had met with applicant outside of the hearing in order to discuss the issues related to this particular project. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's querying regarding the proposed Zoning Ordinance, (denoted on pages 1-4 of the agenda material), Associated Planner Donahoe provided clarification; provided additional information regarding staff's recommendation regarding the landscape plan, noting the existing Specific Plan's requirement for ten-foot planters at the ends of all parking aisles. The applicant's representatives provided the followin.q presentations: -- Mr. Robert Davis, representing the applicant, for Commissioner Mathewson, provided a detailed overview of the traffic analysis conducted with respect to this particular project, inclusive of the incorporation of the impact of the adjacent residential developments at build-out. For Commissioner Webster, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that staff has not reviewed the recently provided recommendations by the applicant to revise the Conditions of Approval (per supplemental agenda material), noting that staff received the information at the time of the hearing. > In response to Commissioner Naggar's references to the traffic mitigation report, Mr. Davis provided an overview of the traffic conditions projected to be at build out, noting that the Level of Service (LOS) would not go below Level D; for Commissioner Mathewson, provided additional information regarding the timing of the proposed Margarita Road improvements; for Chairman Guerdero, relayed further information regarding the proposed improvements with respect to the area south of Highway 79 in the Wolf Valley, Pala Road area. In response to Commissioner Naggar's comments, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks clarified that Level of Service (LOS) D was an acceptable LOS per the City's General Plan standards. > Mr. Allan Davis, representing the applicant, provided additional information regarding the Tentative Parcel Map; highlighted the site plan, parking, the village center design, the overall proposed landscape plan, architectural design, access, and pedestrian flow; relayed that due to previous Commission comments, revised entry designs have been developed; further specified the landscape design; presented the newly revised design plans, inclusive of the major and minor entryway statements. 7 R:~PlanComm~minut es~092999 Chairman Guerriero relayed that per his previous request, he would recommend provision of a line-of-sight diagram from the major streets. At 7:59 P.M. a short recess was taken, and the meeting reconvened at 8:12 P.M. ,- Mr. Kareem Ali, representing the applicant, noted the applicant's diligent efforts to work with staff in order to develop elevations acceptable for the City of Temecula; relayed the enhanced architectural elements, per staff recommendation; clarified the rationale for the location of the extedor downspouts in order to allow adequate intedor space; presented the site elevations, and landscape plan; provided a brief overview of the general line-of-sight from the back of the building, inclusive of the three-foot lowered elevation from the street, the two-foot berm, and the six-foot screen wall; provided additional information regarding staffs recommendation to install trellis-work or additional columns to the building frontage; with respect to the outdoor seasonal display area, relayed the applicant's desire to have the fixed designated time-periods approved for seasonal sales which would be consistent year after year, in order to alleviate the need to attain a Temporary Use Permit for each event; advised that the applicant would be agreeable to reducing the size of the permanent outdoor display to 2300 feet, per staff's recommendation; with respect to Commissioner Fahey's comments, relayed that the applicant would be flexible with respect to the loss of one or two parking stalls in order to enhance the entry statement; for Chairman Guerdero, specified the location of the outdoor seasonal display area which would be utilized three times a year; reiterated that the applicant would be flexible with respect to revising the number of parking stalls; for Commissioner Mathewson, advised that he would need to further discuss with the applicant the issue of flexibility with respect to relocating the outdoor seasonal display area. > Mr. Frank Cota, representing the applicant, for Commissioner Mathewson, advised that the applicant would be agreeable to remaining flexible with respect to relocation of the outdoor seasonal display area in order to attain improved internal circulation; for Chairman Guerriero, relayed that the applicant would be agreeable to replacing the outdoor chained-link fencing with a comparably pdcad wrought iron look fencing referenced by Chairman Guerriero; although the applicant would be willing to accommodate staffs recommendation to install the downspouts on the interior of the building, relayed the restrictions which would be placed upon the intedor spacing; for Chairman Guerdero, relayed that the applicant would be willing to add additional texturing or enhancements on the extedor of the building with respect to the extedor downspouts in order to improve the negative aesthetic appearance. ~,- By way of overheads, Mr. Barry Burnell, representing the applicant, provided further specification with regard to Parcel Area Nos. 6^, 6B, and 8, noting the reduction in acreage with respect to Planning Area No. 6, specifying the reduction in density in the northern area, specifically, reducing the multi-family area from the allowable 590 units to the proposed 240-250 units; with respect to the parcel lines referenced by Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, relayed that the applicant would be flexible with regard to the location of the parcel line; advised that if the parcel line would be modified that the units would be adjusted accordingly; provided additional information regarding the parking lot landscaping, noting that there would be no objection to modifying the landscape requirements in the Specific Plan if it was the desire of the Commission to do so, in order to accommodate the current proposed landscape plan with respect to the R:~Pla nComm~inutes~092999 Home Depot use, since there would be provision of additional shading in the parking lot and the plan would restrict cut-though treffic in the parking lot; for Commissioner Naggar, further clarified the reductions in the number of units in the multi-family area (Parcel No. 6), presenting the proposed plan, split into Parcel Nos. 6A and 8B, noting the reduction of densities in the northern portion (Parcel No. 6A); relayed the current evaluating process which may further reduce the densities per potential future development; specified Planning Area No. 8, noting the potential Senior Housing Overlay, relaying that this particular proposal would be presented to the Commission in the coming weeks; and confirmed that there was a general reduction in the generation of traffic with respect to development of a senior facility. >- Mr. Dean Meyer, representing the Newland Communities, relayed support of the proposed project; and was available for questions and comments of the Commission. ,- Ms. Patti Nahill, representing the applicant, presented the recommendations of the applicant with respect to the requested revisions to the Conditions of Approval (COA's) (per supplemental agenda material), reading the recommendations into the record; and in response to Commissioner Naggar, relayed that it would be the applicant's desire for the Commission to approve the revisions at this time. > Mr. Allan Davis relayed that with the above-mentioned modifications to the COA's, the applicant would be in complete agreement with the terms of this project. The community members addressed their concerns, as follows: Mr. Timothy J. Miller, 45052 Corte Bella Donna, relayed that he had previously addressed his concerns to Commissioners Guerriero, Naggar, and Webster; advised that in his opinion the Home Depot use would not be a use consistent with the Village Center concept; and referenced the General Plan with respect to description of the design of the buildings in the Village Center concept (Section 8, paregreph B, of the General Plan.) Ms. Iris Abernathy, 43980 Margarita Road, noted her concerns with respect to flood control and traffic issues associated with this particular proposal. For Ms. Abemathy, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding the flood channel; and invited Ms. Abernathy to come the Public Works Department for additional information regarding the drainage analysis associated with this particular area. Mr. Stephen Corona, 33320 Highway 79, requested that the Commission not approve the proposed project until a flood control channel was built, east of Butterfield Stage Road in order to mitigate the increased flood hazard; read into the record a letter addressing his specific concerns (submitted to staff during the September 29, 1999 Planning Commission meeting), noting the effect with respect to the Corona Ranch and the Corona family parcels with regard to the negative impacts of the Newland Communities development. In response to Commissioner Naggar, Mr. Corona relayed that if the channel were installed to mitigate the flooding issues that he would have no objection to the project. 9 R:~PlanCommVnlnutes~092999 Mr. J. David Gardner, 43053 Teramo Street, voiced his concerns, as follows: a) truck traffic and the oil residue on the pavement due to the truck travel, b) recommended concealing the extedor downspouts, c) suggested that the applicant add additional landscaping on the perimeter of the parking area, d) with respect to the development of Parcel Nos. 6A and 6B, recommended separating the areas in order to review each as separate entities, e) relayed a preference for condominiums verses apartments in the multi-family area, noting that if apartments would be constructed, he would like assurance that the residents would not utilize amenities paid for by the HOA, and t~ relayed that the eight-and-a-half by eleven inch (8 %" by 11") notice of public hearing at De Portola Road was an insufficient means of noticing this project. Ms. Klm Bourgeois, 32914 Charmes Court, submitted for the record a petition encompassing approximately 200 signatures opposing this particular project, primarily due to the potential for the construction of apartments in the multi-family area. Mr. Allan Davis relayed his concluding remarks, as follows: a) advised that the Home Depot use would be consistent with the Village Center concept, as designed, and b) requested that the Commission approve the revisions to the COA's, previously mentioned. For Chairman Guerriero, and Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding the drainage issues referenced by Mr. Corona. Deputy City Manager Thomhill provided additional information regarding the entitlements for this particular project, which had been solidified through the prior Development Agreements. Chairman Guerriero advised that due to the significant issues that had not been previously brought before the Commission (i.e., flooding, traffic, and CEQA modifications), that the matter be continued. Commissioner Naggar specified the assets of this particular project; noted the issues still unresolved, as follows: traffic, flood control, Mr. Miller's comments regarding the Village Center concept being implemented, and the request for revisions to the COA's; and concurred with continuing the matter. Commissioner Fahey advised that since this project had been reviewed by the Commission in the conceptual phase of development, that if the Commission had objections to the implementation of the Village Center concept that the comments should have been addressed at that time; advised that in her opinion, the applicant has made diligent efforts to incorporate the Village Center concept at this difficult site, noting the restrictions associated with the site; concurred with continuing the matter due to the outstanding issues, advising that the Commission provide direction to staff with respect to issues of concern; recommended that staff address the language of the revisions to the COA's, requested by the applicant; commended the applicant for their efforts to modify the entry statements, advising that staff develop additional conditions for this particular area; concurred with the applicant's request for approval for the fixed time periods for the outdoor seasonal sales area in order to alleviate the need for a Temporary Use Permit; noted her confusion with respect to the administrative development plan issue, advising that staff address the matter; concurred with the 10 R:~PlanCommVntinutes~092599 placement of the downspouts due to the applicant's clarified rationale for the exterior installation, if additional enhancements are added to mitigate the negative visual appearance; advised that if the applicant remains flexible with respect to the recommendations of the staff and the Commission, the project could move forward; relayed that the traffic analysis was adequate for this particular project; recommended that the flooding issues be further investigated by staff in order to provided assurance that the impacts have been adequately mitigated; and recommended that the matter be continued to the October 6, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, and that the public hearing be closed. Relaying concurrence with Commissioner Fahey's comments, Commissioner Mathewson concurred with the applicant's proposed landscape plan within the parking lot area due to the additional shading and the provision to restrict cut-through traffic; concurred with the installation of the downspouts on the exterior of the building, requesting that staff provide recommendation with respect to specific additional elements to be added in order to screen the visual appearance; commended staff for their assiduous efforts with respect to this project; with respect to the proposed uses in the Retail Village (denoted in lB and in Village Court lA) requested additional information regarding the proposed liquor store, gourmet wine shop, and the evening nursery school (with the hours of operation from 8:00 P.M. to 5:00 A.M.) uses; with respect to Planning Area 1, 27 and 36 relayed objection to the Recycling Collection facility use at this location; queried the deletion of the news store as a permitted use, advising that this use would be an appropriate use for the Village Center concept. Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that the applicant provide no further information with respect to the project in order for staff to address the current issues of concern. Due to the concern with respect to a proliferation of alcoholic establishments, Chairman Guerriero requested that staff contact ABC to attain provision of a zoning map in order to compare ABC's permitted alcoholic uses verses the current number of uses existing in the area. In response to Attorney Curiey's advisement that due to the time constraints, staff may not be able to attain the data from ABC in a timely manner, Chairman Guerriero offered to assist in the matter of attaining the requested information due to his previous success with respect to having queries addressed expeditiously with ABC. Relaying concurrence with Commissioner Fahey's comments, Commissioner Naggar requested that Mr. Davis provide, the following: a) a Level of Service map for the projected Level of Service at five-ten years, b) data indicating the difference in the traffic reduction due to the amended Specific Plan which would reduce the number of proposed dwelling units in the multi-family area; requested additional information regarding the issue of truck deliveries on Campanula Way and the effect upon the adjacent residential area, querying whether restraints should be placed with respect to the time of deliveries, and querying the impact with respect to the use of the adjacent park. For Chairman Guerriero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that staff would further investigate the above-mentioned 'matter, noting that Campanula Way had been designed to adequately carry the weight of the trucks. 11 R:~Pla nComm~minutes~092999 For informational purposes, Commissioner Fahey relayed for the community that the proposed developments within the Specific Plan would be brought forward for Commission approval at a future point in time, relaying that the community could address specific concerns at that point in time. Due to the time constraints associated with bringing this issue back to the Commission in one week's time, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that staff may present information verbally, or in the form of a memorandum in lieu of the standard staff report procedure. For Commissioner Mathewson, the applicant voiced no objection to continuing the matter to the October 6, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to close the public headng; continue the matter to the October 6, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Fahey. Chairman Guerdero requested that staff obtain a copy of the letter presented by Mr. Corona in order to address the issues of concern. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting unanimous approval. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT A. Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that the Amedcan Planning Association Design Review Workshop had been rescheduled for November 13, 1999, noting that the Commission would be e-mailed with further information. B. For Chairman Guerriero, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that due to the difficulties he has had in receiving data via e-mail, that she would send a note. COMMISSIONER REPORTS A. Commissioner Mathewson thanked staff for the City Tour provided for the Commission on September 21, 1999. B. Chairman Guerdero commended Assistant Project Planner Anders with respect to her successful efforts associated with contacting the Van Daele Development with respect to the raising of the tennis court fences which was a previous issue of concern with regard to safety. C. Due to the confusion regarding notification of the City Tour for the Planning Commission, Chairman Guerdero requested that staff hold a workshop in order to update the Commission with respect to the discussed issues and to address any other Commission questions. 12 R:~PlanComm~minut es~092999 ADJOURNMENT At 9:44 P.M. Chairman Guerdero formally adjoumed this meeting to Wednesday, October 6, 1999 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. 13