Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout040302 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Ptanning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, April 3, 2002, 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 Vice Chairman Telesio. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, and Vice Chairman Telesio. Absent: Chairman Chiniaeff. Also Present: Director of Planning Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Curley, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Fire Battalion Chief Ahmad, Senior Planner Hazen, Associate Planner Harris, Project Planner Rush, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of April 3, 2002 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of the Joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting of January 29, 2002. R:PlanCornmh~nute¢04D302 2.2 Approve the Minutes of March 6, 2002. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1- 2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Chairman Chiniaeff who was absent and Commissioner Guerriero who abstained from Item No. 2.1. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3 Planninq Application No. 01-0307 (Development Plan) - Matthew Harris, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0307 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; 3.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0307, DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A 24,170 INDUSTRIAL/ WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON 1.50 VACANT ACRES. GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ZEVO DRIVE, WEST OF DIAZ ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909-360-034 By way of overheads, Associate Planner Harris presented the staff report (of record), highlighting the site location, the floor plan, the site layout, the access, the parking, the location of the loading doors and the truck loading ramp which was located at the back of the building, and the employee lunch area; relayed that the applicant did not hire an architect to design the building; advised that after a Design Review meeting was held staff made the applicant aware of several architectural and site design concerns, noting that since that time staff has reviewed various incremental plan modifications which the applicant submitted, elaborating on the proposed revisions; advised that the applicant was reluctant to add additional building materials on the siding of the building which had been requested by staff; for Commissioner Mathewson, confirmed that the sole design concern of staff that the applicant did not address was associated with the request to incorporate additional building materials (i.e., stonework, masonry, slate, or tile) on the building, reiterating that the alternate concerns had been addressed to a minimum satisfaction; noted that per discussions with the applicant, the applicant was agreeable to installing furniture in the employee lunch area. Director of Planning Ubnoske clarifying that the project under Agenda Item No. 4 had been conditioned to install furniture in the employee area while this project was not, solely due to the projects having different R:PlanComnV~nutes~40302 2 planners, noting that the Planning Commission could relay any concerns to staff in order to assure that the issue would be addressed. Mr. Vince Maganuco, representing the applicant, noted in response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries, that the employee eating area would be provided with a picnic bench and a table; with respect to staff's recommendation to further enhance the building's articulation, relayed that it was the applicant's opinion that this addition would not further enhance the design; and specified the various improvements added due to staff's requests (i.e., sandblasting, concrete columns, overhead beams, and an enhanced entryway.) Commenting on the project design meeting minimal design standards, Commissioner Guerriero noted the need for additional articulation to break up the massing, recommending that the applicant work with staff to enhance the building design. Expressing appreciation to staff and the applicant for the efforts to improve the original submitted design plan, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that meeting the minimal design standards was not an endorsement for implementing quality design; and concurred with Commissioner Guerriero, noting that the massing of the building needed to be addressed, specifically relaying that the windows on the second floor appeared to be undersized and inappropriate, and that there did not appear to be any crown work on the top of the parapet to provide visual interest. Commissioner Olhasso noted her concurrence with the previous Commission comments. While concurring with the previous comments, in particular to the windows being undersized, Vice Chairman Telesio relayed appreciation to the applicant for the efforts thus far to address various concerns of staff. For Vice Chairman Telesio, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the minimum design guidelines are a starting point, confirming that the applicant had been informed that the Planning Commission, as well as the City Council, had higher design standards and has raised the bar with respect to meeting the minimum requirements; and noted that at a future point the City's Design Guidelines would be updated. Providing additional information regarding the Planning Commission review process, Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that as well as evaluating whether a proposed project met specific criteria (i.e., setback requirements, and consistency with the City's planning ordinances) the Commission also reviews more subjective aspects of a project per the General Plan's goals and policies which is also part of the review process. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to continue this item to the April 24th Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to work with staff to enhance the architectural design of the project. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Chairman Chiniaeff who was absent. R:PlanComr~n~nutes/040302 3 4 Planninq Application No. 01-0309 (Development Plan) - Rick Rush Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0309 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; 4.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0309, DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A 16,200 INDUSTRIAL/ WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON 1.09 VACANT ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON WINCHESTER ROAD NORTH OF COLT COURT AND SOUTH OF ZEVO DRIVE KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909-360-020 Via overheads, Project Planner Rush provided an overview of the project plan (per agenda material), noting the site location, the access, the parking, the loading zone and the trash enclosure which would not be visible from the public right-of-way; relayed that due to staff's concerns the applicant has increased the overall landscape plan from 20% to 25%, advising that landscaping was added along the south and west side of the building, as well as along the front elevation which would be visible from Winchester Road; with respect to the proposed architectural design, specified staff's concerns regarding the original submittal, noting that the applicant has made revisions to the architecture to meet the minimum standards of the Development Code and Design Guidelines, relaying that five-foot offsets were added along the southern and northern property line, the office portion of the project was relocated, a sandblast material was added to the office portion of the project, as well as a concrete tile roof, windows of varying sizes were proposed, the roll-up doors were relocated to the rear of the building in order to not be visible from Winchester Road, and the paint colors were revised to reflect a beige with a brown reveal line; and advised that staff opined that the applicant should have provided a more creative entry statement and introduced more materials into the project to create visual interest. Mr. Vince Maganuco, representing the applicant commented on the monetary limits of the project due to this being a speculative building; noted the applicant's desire to make any necessary revisions in order to get approval of the project plan; and requested that the Planning Commission provide specific direction regarding desired modifications. Commissioner Olhasso advised that the front section of the building appeared to have a 1970's style architecture; for informational purposes, noted that via the California Manufacturing Technology Center Iow cost architectural services were available for projects of this type; and in response to the fact that the applicant did not utilize the services of an architect for this project, advised that the need for a good architect was clearly evident with this particular proposal. Concurring with Commissioner Olhasso's comments, Commissioner Mathewson specified the elements which should be addressed, as follows: the massing of the walls, the lack of a crowning treatment, the appearance of the office being an add-on structure, the window treatments, and the add-on roof appearance. For Vice Chairman Telesio, Project Planner Rush specified staff's recommended revisions to the project which had been relayed to the applicant while not implemented (i.e., additional sandblasting along the elevations, a varying panel color application, and metal roofing on the office portion of the project which would be consistent with the adjacent building.) In response to Mr. Maganuco's comments, Vice Chairman Telesio acknowledged that there were alternate buildings in this area with lower design standards than were being imposed on this project, clarifying that these projects had been approved in the past and that this Planning Commission has consistently and incrementally recommended a higher quality of design. Commissioner Olhasso providing additional information regarding the evolution of alternate cities, as well as Temecula, in upgrading design standards as the communities become more fully developed. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to continue this item to the April 24th Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to work with staff to enhance the architectural design of the project. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Chairman Chiniaeff who was absent. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS Commissioner Guerriero relayed that the Monterey Planning Conference had been a great experience, and much improved from last year's event. For Commissioner Olhasso, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided an update regarding upcoming improvements on Highway 79 (South), noting that Caltrans would be constructing a raised median from the 1-15 Freeway to Butterfield Stage Road, advising that the City was working with Caltrans, investigating as to whether the City could supplement the project with additional funds to include landscaping in the medians. With respect to the Monterey Conference, Vice Chairman Telesio concurred with Commissioner Guerriero that it had been better than last year's event; advised that the allocation of the meeting rooms should be revised, noting that the more popular topic meetings were scheduled in the smaller rooms which restricted seating while the less attended meetings had been scheduled in larger rooms; and noted that he had relayed a recommendation to modify the allocation of rooms. In response to Commissioner Guerriero, Fire Battalion Chief Ahmad noted that while at this time the City of Temecula does not charge a Hazardous Materials Fee, that this issue was being evaluated and that he would keep the Planning Commission updated. Director of Planning Ubnoske relaying that the City would be updating the entire fee schedule in the near future, advising that the fees have not be revised since the City's incorporation. R;PlanComrp/minutesJ040302 5 PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that there would potentially be a Villages of Old Town Project Workshop in May. Apprising the Planning Commission regarding the project's process, Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that the Roripaugh EIR had recently been submitted to the State. For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the recently Planning Commission approved mixed use project (with an apartment complex as well as a gas station) would be going forward to City Council in order for staff to obtain direction, advising that the applicant was in the process of implementing various changes the Planning Commission had recommended prior to City Council presentation. ADJOURNMENT At 6:52 P.M. Vice Chairman Telesio formally adjourned this meeting to the next regular meetin.q to be held on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. ~hini~eff~ Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning