Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout011602 PC MinutesCALL TO ORDER MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 2002 The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P,M., on Wednesday, January 16, 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 Chairman Chiniaeff. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: Commissioners Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff. Commissioner Guerriero. Director of Planning Ubnoske, Attorney Abbe, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Fire Battalion Chief Ahmad, Fire Captain McBride, Senior Planner Hazen, and Minute Clerk Hansen. 2 1.1 Approve the Agenda of January 16, 2002. Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of November 28, 2001. 2.2 Approve the Minutes of December 5, 2001. RtPlanOomrNminute~051601 3 Director's Hearina Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve Consent Calendar item Nos. 1- 3. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who was absent. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4 Planninq Application No. PA01-0644 (Findin(~ of Substantial Conformance) Michael McCoy, Proiect Planner RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0644 pursuant to Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act and; 4.2 Adopt a Resolution Entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2002-001 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0644, A REQUEST TO ELIMINATE EXTERIOR SANDBLASTED FINISH FOR A 21,382 SQUARE FOOT AUTO REPAIR FACILITY LOCATED AT 43191 RANCHO WAY, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 921-040-042 Via color renderings, Project Planner McCoy presented the staff report (or record), relaying that this project was originally approved by the Planning Commission in June of 2001; highlighted the project's location, and the enhanced building articulation proposed when this application was submitted; noted the applicant's subsequent request to eliminate the sandblasted finish and replace this particular treatment with smooth concrete painted panels due to his concern regarding a potentially negative appearance of the sandblast finish; relayed that staff met with the applicant and his representatives to discuss alternative finishes, advising that the applicant was not in agreement with any of staff's alternative options, and requested to bring the matter before the Planning Commission; relayed that staff was of the opinion that the original approved design more effectively meets the objectives of the City's Industrial Design Guidelines, and that granting approval of the applicant's request for this particular deviation from the original approval may set a precedent for future applicants; and advised that it was staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission deny approval of this application, or require an approved acceptable alternative in order to make findings for approval. R:PlanComm/minutes/011602 2 For Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner McCoy cited examples of alternate buildings in the City that have the combination of smooth concrete panels with a sandblast finish (i.e., the Endar Building); and relayed that the City's Building Official advised the applicant to create a test panel in order to demonstrate the applicant's concern regarding a stucco-type appearance with the colored sandblast finish. For clarification, Senior Planner Hazen relayed the two methods for creating a painted sandblasted finish, via either applying the paint after the sandblasting or mixing the dye with the sandblast treatment, advising that staff did not have experience with the application of mixing the dye with the sandblast treatment, ergo the request for a test panel; and noted that staff had suggested that the applicant leave the natural finish (unpainted) as an alternative treatment. Project Planner McCoy noted that during the original application for approval the applicant had presented a sandblasted concrete sample that appeared to be colored. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Project Planner McCoy relayed that the difference between a painted finish and a sandblasted finish was the added visual interest which was addressed as part of the Community Design element of the General Plan which indicated a standard for quality architecture at the highest quality and was inclusive of design guidelines and performance standards; and advised that alternate approved projects without sandblasting had provided other enhanced treatments. Senior Planner Hazen relayed staff's desire to raise the bar on design standards in comparison to existing projects in the City that had been approved many years ago. Clarified that staff had worked with the applicant, proposing alternative treatments; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, noted that the portion of the building originally proposed to be sandblasted has not yet been constructed. Mr. Graham Eves, owner of the Temecula Radiator and Auto Repair use, the applicant, relayed that when the project was initially designed the architect was not aware that sandblasting colored concrete applied over a vast surface would create a patchy appearance; noted the per discussions with his concrete contractor, it had been relayed that during his 25 years of experience he had never seen this process implemented without resulting in a patchy-type appearance; with respect to staff's suggestion to sandblast the building, and to subsequently paint the sandblasted treatment if the applicant was displeased with the results, clarified the applicant's opposition to this recommendation, presenting a test panel which demonstrated the pitted stucco-type appearance; noted the applicant's desire to achieve the results accomplished with other existing buildings in the City (i.e., the Keeton Building, and the Grand Building), and the request for staff to investigate these alternate sites; via photographs, displayed the desired final project the applicant was seeking to achieve; cited numerous buildings in the City without texture variation; for Chairman Chiniaeff, specified the design of the recessed windows, and the deeper recessed panels above the windows, the articulation on the front elevation, the existing columns; and presented a colored rendition of the building with the colors proposed, noting the varying shades of paint proposed to provide depth to the building. Noting that from a distance the texture of a painted concrete would not be clearly visible, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that the panels and the detailed squares would create visual interest. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Eves relayed that a painted sandblasted finish appeared patchy due to the varying dye lots. Senior Planner Hazen specified that the original approved plan varied from what the applicant was presenting at this time, noting the original plans for an overhang (presented as a dashed line in the plans) and column supports. The applicant's contractor noted that this current building exterior footprint was identical to the original submittal, advising that the first floor storefront system was recessed back, that the panel lines were two feet, that the front corner of the project is brought out in a pie-type shape, that the details on the building itself are recessed three-quarter of an inch; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, clarified that the front windows were setback, confirming that the columns set out in front of the building. In response to the applicant's presentation, Senior Planner Hazen noted additionally that the entry does not appear to be as recessed as the original plans indicated, advising that the Building Inspector would investigate. In response, the applicant's representative relayed that the Building Inspector had been to the site today and that the applicant had approved stamped plans. At this time Chairman Chiniaeff closed the public hearing. MOTION: Chairman Chiniaeff moved to approve the applicant's request to eliminate the exterior sandblasted finish with the applicant's presented color scheme and the color samples provided. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson. (Ultimately this motion passed; see page 5.) Concurring with staff's recommendation regarding raising the bar with respect to architecture in this Business Park, Commissioner Olhasso advised that various existing buildings would not receive an approval if submitted to the City at this time; cited various buildings with enhanced design features; advised that since it was the applicant's desire to eliminate the texture change, that additional landscaping could compensate for the lack of visual interest, and further enhance the project. For Commissioner Olhasso, Senior Planner Hazen noted that the proposed proportion of the window openings with the wall surface appeared to be typical for this particular type and size of building. In response to Commissioner OIhasso, Chairman Chiniaeff echoed by Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that landscaping was not the issue before the Planning Commission at this time, while Chairman Chiniaeff encouraged the applicant to add additional substantially-sized trees, advising that the project costs would be reduced with the elimination of the painted sandblasted treatment, ergo the landscaping plan could be enhanced to improve the visual appearance. With respect to findings to support the Planning Commission's action, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that this project plan was in conformance with the surrounding projects in the area. R:PlanCommJminutes1011602 4 Commissioner Telesio recommended that for future projects, staff investigate as to whether colored sandblasting created a negative visual appearance. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified that this treatment was the proposal submitted to staff, advising that it would be staff's hope that the applicant and his representatives would have investigated the proposed treatments prior to submittal; and relayed that staff would further investigate the matter for the Planning Commission's information. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting approval with the exception of Commissioner Olhasso who voted n_9o and Commissioner Guerriero who was absent. Senior Planner Hazen relayed that staff would modify the resolution to accommodate the Planning Commission's action. 5 Plannina Application No. 01-0196 (Conditional Use Permit); Development Plan) RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Continue to January 30, 2002 (see memorandum). This item continued to the February 6th Planning Commission meeting. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske updated the Planning Commission regarding the General Plan Update Community Meeting, which was held on Saturday, relaying that there were approximately 30 individuals in attendance. Commissioner Olhasso thanked staff for the follow-up with Code Enforcement regarding the furniture stores adjacent to the freeway, while relaying that there was still outside storage in this area, in particular at the billiard use. Commissioner Telesio queried the status of the recommendation to prohibit parking on Solana Way, Chairman Chiniaeff additionally noting the negative visual impacts on Motorcar Parkway due to the on-street parking. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that it was his understanding that the Public/Traffic Safety Commission would be addressing this issue, advising that he would further investigate and update the Planning Commission. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Fire Captain McBride introduced the City's new Fire Marshall Battalion Chief, Mr. Abdul Ahmad. Fire Battalion Chief Ahmad provided a brief work history, the Planning Commission welcoming him aboard. R:PlanComm/minutes1011602 5 Director of Planning Ubnoske requested that the Planning Commissioners e-mail Administrative Secretary Wimberly in order to inform her, which subcommittees they were currently serving on. Regarding the monthly field trips, Senior Planner Hazen relayed that in December staff visited the City of Carlsbad to view Business Park and Industrial development, noting that the next trip was planned for Thursday, January 31st, at 12:00 P.M., relaying that mixed use and Commercial Village developments in Riverside would be visited, inviting the Planning Commission to attend; and advised that he would be scheduling the year's trip trips and would distribute the schedule to the Commission at the next meeting. In response, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that he would attend the January 31't trip. ADJOURNMENT At 6:42 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next reqular meetin,q to be held on Wednesday, February 6, 2002 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Dennis W. Chinia~f}',' --' '"'~ -/ "~ Chairman ~'~,/ Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning R:PlanCom m/min ute s/011602 6