Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout010801 OTLRB MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE OLD TOWN TEMECULA LOCAL REVIEW BOARD JANUARY 8, 200t CALL TO ORDER The Old Town Temecula Local Review Board convened in a regular meeting at 9:01 A.M., on Monday, January 8, 2001, in the Community Development Conference Room of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL Present: Board Members Allen, Blair, Montgomery, *Ross, and Chairman Harker. Absent: Alternate Board Member Perkins. Also Present: Associate Planner Anders, Development Processing Coordinator Noland, Redevelopment Director Meyer, Redevelopment Management Analyst Hillberg, and Minute Clerk Hansen *(It was noted that Board Member Ross arrived at 9:03 A.M.) PUBLIC DISCUSSION No comments. BOARD BUSINESS 1. Old Business a. Side Street Directional Si.qn Desi,qns (Redevelopment Director Meyer) With respect to the artist depictions presented, Chairman Harker relayed that the hand with the pointing finger was an antiquated style and consistent with the Old Town motif. In response, Associate Planner Anders relayed that staff had received negative comments regarding the hand with the pointing finger element. Chairman Harker reiterated that the hand with the pointing finger element more accurately portrayed an old-time period style. Board Member Montgomery noted that he was in favor of the added enhance scrolling design trim (i.e., curlicues) depicted in Sample Model No. 3. With respect to the bracket fixture, Board Member Allen relayed a preference for the fixture denoted in Sample Model No. 1. In response, Redevelopment Director Meyer relayed his concern with respect to this particular bracket due to its ability to swing which would cause a wearing effect. R:OTLRB/minutes/010801 I For Board Member Allen, Redevelopment Director Meyer noted that the top portion of Sample Model No. 1 could be implemented with alternate elements. Board Member Ross concurred with Board Member Allen's comments, noting that the design depicted in Sample Model No. 1 was visually pleasing, specifically at the top portion of the design, noting a preference for Sample Model No. 3 with respect to the actual sign, advising that if the Old Town insignia was incorporated, that this would provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance. Chairman Harker, echoed by Board Member Ross, relayed that he was in favor of the bottom support on the bracket to restrict the sign from swinging, noting that this support could be added to Sample Model No. 3. It was the general consensus of the Board that the hand with the pointing finger was preferred for directing the pedestrian traffic, in lieu of the arrows. With respect to the mounting bracket, Board Member Ross recommended that there be two brackets, one on the top, and one on the bottom portion to prevent the sign from swinging in the wind; and recommended that the Old Town logo be included. Associate Planner Anders relayed that it was staffs opinion that if the logo was not legible that it should not be included in the final design. In response, Board Member Ross, echoed by Board Member Blair, recommended that this design element be added solely due to it being the Old Town logo. Board Member Blair noted that the top bracket in Model Sample No. 4 was his preference, with the addition of the Old Town logo. Redevelopment Director Meyer advised that he would recommended that the design consultant provide 2-4 model samples that include the preferred elements that the Board recommended inclusive of the ©Id Town logo, the top and bottom bracket, and the hand with the pointing finger element. In response, Associate Planner Anders recommended that there be a sample sign with the arrow on one of the design models in order for the City Council to additionally have this element to review when the designs are presented before that body; and for Board Member Montgomery, clarified that the City Council would be aware that it was the general consensus of the Board to recommend that the hand with the pointing finger be utilized. Development Processing Coordinator Noland presented a sample of the Old Town logo, which was currently displayed on the legend elements in Old Town, advising that it might be feasible to create this logo out of a metal material for installation on the signs. In response, Board Member Blair noted that the logo would not necessarily have to include the word Temecula. With respect to the metal cutout logo design, Redevelopment Director Meyer noted that the one disadvantage of this concept was that on one side the sign would be presented backwards. Chairman Harker reiterated the Board's recommendation, as follows: for the design consultant to create a sample sign with the mounting reflected in Sample Model No. 4, with the inclusion of the Old Town logo, with the word shops moved up, with the hand R:OTLREFm[nutes/010801 2 with the pointing finger element reflected in Sample Model No. 3, with the font depicted in Sample Model No. 1; and recommended that the sign be constructed of double-sided wood. Since the logo would appear backwards on one side if it were constructed of cutout metal, Board Member Montgomery recommended utilizing a wood material for the logo. Redevelopment Director Meyer recommended that the background of the sign be painted in order to provide contrast, advising that staff would further investigate appropriate colors for the signage. For Board Member Ross, Redevelopment Director Meyer reiterated that it had been the Board's direction to place the directional signage on two of the existing light poles at each intersection, in lieu of the existing banners. Associate Planner Anders provided additional information regarding the Board's recommendation after walking through Old Town. b. Old Town Theater Update (Redevelopment Director Meyer) Redevelopment Director Meyer relayed that on January 22, 2001 there would be a Subcommittee meeting at which time the conceptual elevations would be presented with the incorporation of the design elements recommended to be implemented; and advised that there may be a joint meeting with the Old Town Local Review Board and the Community Services Commission in order for both bodies to provide comments with respect to the floor plans and elevations, noting that this meeting could potentially be scheduled early in February in order for the matter to be presented to the City Council at the second meeting in February. For Board Member Ross, Redevelopment Director Meyer relayed that with respect to the Old Town Theater Project, that approximately $1.1 was budgeted from the Redevelopment Agency funds, noting that the Theater foundation was expected to raise $1 million; and acknowledged that the Theater Project would cost approximately $3.5 - 3.7 million, advising that the necessary adjustments would be made during the upcoming CIP process. 2. New Business a. Mad Madeline's Lighthouse Antiques (Signs) 28500 Old Town Front Street Chairman Harker specified the colors utilized on the signage which were denoted on the plan, noting that the colors were consistent with the Old Town color palette. Associate Planner Anders provided additional information regarding the proposed signage, noting the mini-monument sign proposed at this site. For Board Member Ross, staff relayed that the sign could not encroach on the public right-of- way. Mr. Sid Hamilton, representing the applicant, provided the rationale for the use of the lighthouse on the signage, noting the desire to represent the provision of guidance for those in need. For Mr. Hamilton, staff relayed that the mini-monument height cannot exceed four feet unless there was a unique creative architecture feature, which required approval on a case-by-case basis. R:OTLRB/rn[nutesJ010801 3 Mr. Hamilton relayed a desire to bring back another design plan for the Board's review, noting that he was not pleased with the current design. In response to Chairman Harker's query, Mr. Hamilton relayed that if the Board would be in favor of the concept he would opt to have the lighthouse feature internally illuminated. Associate Planner Anders relayed the restrictions with respect to internally illuminated signage in QId Town. Development Processing Coordinator Noland noted that a light would be permitted to shine onto the sign, Associate Planner Anders confirming that the sign could be indirectly illuminated (i.e., via a floodlight). In response to Board Member Allen, Mr. Hamilton relayed that the lighthouse would be 3- dimensional. Board Member Allen recommended that the lighthouse be permitted to be illuminated, noting that it was a unique architectural feature. In response, Associate Planner Anders reiterated the restrictions associated with internally illuminated signs, advising that if the Board allowed an exception at one use, alternate tenants would desire to implement this element on their signage. Board Member Montgomery relayed that in his opinion the Board should make an exception with respect to this sign, allowing the lighthouse to be illuminated due to the uniqueness of the design; and noted that this type of approval could be granted on a case-by-case basis. Board Member Ross noted that in his opinion, this approval would not warrant an exception, relaying that if the lighthouse was illuminated it would not constitute an entire internally illuminated sign. In response to the Board comments, Associate Planner Anders advised that she would address the matter (i.e., the illuminated lighthouse feature) with Director of Planning Ubnoske or Deputy City Manager Thornhill, acknowledging the uniqueness of the element, advis!ng that the restrictions appeared to clearly prohibit illumination. Mr. Hamilton relayed a desire for the Board to take action on the parapet sign, noting that he would bring back an alternate design for the mini-monument sign. Board Member Allen advised that if the lighthouse element was illuminated it would provide a pleasing pedestrian feature; and noted that the sign could be constructed to be illuminated and that if staff did not approve of the illuminating feature, the lighthouse lighting feature could remain unconnected. Associate Planner Anders relayed that the mini-monument sign was going to be brought back to the Board with a new design plan. For Board Member Blair, Mr. Hamilton specified the use of the seven colors on the sign. In response, Board Member Blair noted that some of the colors were solely utilized for an outing effect. R:OTLRB/minutes/010801 4 Mr. Hamilton noted the potential for the building for this site to be rebuilt and to include additional uses, at a future point in time. Board Member Montgomery noted that he was not opposed to the numerous colors utilized in this signage. Board Member Ross relayed that it was his preference of the background color for signs in Old Town to not be a bright white. Board Member Montgomery clarified that all the colors proposed were selected from the Old Town color palette. MOTION: Board Member Allen moved to approve the parapet sign, as proposed, with the condition that the unspecified colors utilized are selected from the Old Town color palette. Board Member Montgomery seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. Additional discussion ensued regarding the potential for a comprehensive sign program at this site at a future point in time if more uses were constructed, relaying the concept of entitling the building The Lighthouse Building. b. M&M Art and Frame (Signs) 41964 5th Street While noting that the proposed sign plan was an improvement in comparison to the existing signage, Board Member Blair relayed that he was not pleased with the sign design, noting the multiple use of fonts. Chairman Harker recommended that there be one uniform font utilized. Board Member Montgomery recommended that the wall sign be centered. After additional discussion, Board Member Allen reiterated the Board's comments regarding this sign plan, as follows: noted that the sign was out of proportion, that the motif was not suitable with the building, that the wall sign should be centered (with respect to the windows), that the font should be uniform, that the shape of the sign was inappropriate, and that the Board was opposed to the proposed colors and the overall presentation. Associate Planner Anders recommended that the sign be rectangular in shape, Board Member Montgomery relayed that with the exception of the fonts proposed, he was not opposed to the monument signage plan. Development Processing Coordinator Noland relayed that the sign plan would be resubmitted as a package. Board Member Allen recommended that the applicant be directed to implement a theme in the signage (i.e., relating to frame and art). Staff advised that they would relayed the Board's comments to the applicant, recommending that a new design plan be resubmitted at a future date. R:OTLRB/minutes/010801 5 In response to Board Member Montgomery, Associate Planner Anders relayed that the sign was prohibited from being located above the roof. 3. Consultation No comments. 4. Board Discussion For Board Member Blair, Associate Planner Anders relayed that the Board Members could e- mail or call staff with recommendations for agendized items. In response to Board Member Blair's comments, Development Processing Coordinator Noland relayed that the agenda could be modified to eliminate the word none under the various agenda items. 5. Staff Approvals No comments. ADJOURNMENT At 10:32 A.M. Chairman Harker formally adjourned this meeting to Monday, February 12, 2001, at 9:00 A. M., in the Community Development Conference Room of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman William Harker Associate Planner Patricia Anders R:OTLRB/minutes/010801 6