HomeMy WebLinkAbout021405 OTLRB Agenda
.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,
please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the
City to make reasonabie arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]
AGENDA
A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
OLD TOWN TEMECULA LOCAL REVIEW BOARD
MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
February 14, 2005 - 9:00 A.M.
*********
CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call:
Board Members:
Allen, Blair, Haserot, Moore and Chairman Harker
Alternate Board Member: Perkins
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Board on
items that are listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If
you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a green
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Board Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Board
Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three (3) minute time
limit for individual speakers.
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matter listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will
be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
member of the Local Review Board request specific items to be removed from the
Consent Calendar for separate action.
1 Aaenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve agenda of February 14, 2005
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 . Approve the Minutes of September 13, 2004
R:\Old TownlAgendas\2005\02-14-05 OTLRB Agenda .doc
.
2.2 Approve the Minutes of November 8, 2004
NEW ITEMS
3 Planninq Application No. PA03-0418 A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to
remove a mature Chinaberrv tree. located at 28690 Old Town Front Street. qenerallv
located at the southeast corner of Old Town Front Street and Third Street and known as
Butterfield Square.
Applicant:
Allen Robinson
The Sienna Company
321 Alvarado Street, Suite H
Monterey CA, 93940
Staff:
Stuart Fisk, Associate Planner
4 Planninq Application No. PA05-0020 Requests to replace an existinq wood fence with
decorative stone wall and wrouqht iron fencinq. replace existinq concrete patio with colored
flaqstone, add a decorative wrouqht iron desiqn element to the south side of the proposed
fencinq, and a proposed 18" x 48" monument siqn to the corner of Mercedes and Third
Street, located at 41915 Third Street.
Applicant:
Charles Hargis
Old Town Coffee House
41915 Third Street
Temecula, CA 92590
Staff:
Christine Damko, Assistant Planner
5 Planninq Application No. PA01-0373 An Administrative Development Plan for a facade
improvement to Texas Lil's, an existinq restaurant. The applicant was issued a buildinq
permit in error which allowed a 251 square foot room addition for storaqe and a cooler area
located on the south side of the buildinq. The applicant also constructed a decorative wood
hand railinq, decorative wood posts with corbels, a wood entrv overhand, and repainted the
exterior portion of the buildinq. The applicant also replaced the existinq back lit siqns with
carved wood siqns. The OTLRB reviewed this case on Januarv 10, 2005: however, the
applicant was not present and would like to discuss the recommended Conditions of
Approval. Propertv is located on the southwest corner of Front Street and 5th Street
Applicant:
Ron Walton
30075 Ynez Road
Temecula, CA 92592
Staff:
Christine Damko, Assistant Planner
BOARD BUSINESS
Elect new Chairperson and Vice Chairperson
R:\Old TownlAgendas\2005\02-14-05 OTlRS Agenda .doc
2
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING REPORT
DIRECTOR OF REDEVELOPMENT REPORT
CODE ENFORCEMENT REPORT
BOARD MEMBER REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting:
March 14, 2005, 9:00 A.M., Main Conference Room, City Hall,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590
R:\Old TownlAgendas\2005\02-14-05 OTlRS Agenda .doc
3
, .
ITEM #2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE OLD TOWN TEMECULA
LOCAL REVIEW BOARD
SEPTEMBER 13, 2004
CALL TO ORDER
The Old Town Temecula Local Review Board convened in a regular meeting at 9:07 a.m., on
Monday, September 13, 2004, in the Main Conferen'ce Room, of Temecula City Hall, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Board Members Allen, Blair, Haserot,
Absent:
Moore and Chairman Harker.
Also Present:
Director of Redevelopment Meyer
Associate Planner Fisk
Management Analyst Hillberg
Code Enforcement Officer Cole
Planning Director Ubnoske
Minute Clerk Childs
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Aqenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve agenda of September 13, 2004
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.2 Approve the Minutes of June 14, 2004
MOTION: Board Member Allen moved to approve 1.1 and 2.1 of the Consent Calendar. Board
Member Haserot seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of
Board Member's Moore and Harker who were absent.
1.3 Approve the Minutes of July 12, 2004
Due to Board Member Allen abstaining from Item No. 2.2, the item will be rolled over to the
October 11, 2004 meeting.
R:/OldT ownlLRB/Minutes/091304
NEW ITEMS
3 Planninq Application No. PA04-0498 a Development Plan to construct a 5,296 square foot
office buildinq to include an art qallerv and office use on the qround floor and office uses on
the second floor on 0.18 acres. located at the southeast corner of Mercedes Street and 4th
Street
Applicant:
Russell Rurnansoff
Herron and Rumansoff Architects, Inc.
530 St. Johns Place
Hemet, CA 92543
Staff:
Stuart Fisk, Associate Planner
Associate Planner Fisk presented a staff report (of record), noting the following:
. That the application is for a Penny-dome office building
-,
. That the Old Town Specific Plan (OTSP) does not provide architectural guidelines for
courthouse design, but states that if an applicant desires to introduce an architectural
style into Old Town, which is not provided for the Specific Plan Guidelines, the burden of
proof shall lie with the applicant to provide evidence that the proposed style is
appropriate for Old Town
. That the proposed design is consistent with the courthouse architectural style based on
the review of courthouses constructed in California
. Staff requested the following changes:
o That the Herringbone pattern be removed from the building and that the standard
horizontal pattern be used for all of the brick veneer on the building
o That the parapet wall be considered in place of the standard equipment; advising
that this would make the roof more consistent with the proposed architectural style
and with other buildings within the OTSP area
o That the double hung windows containing 6 on 6 lites, or another appropriate multi-
lite design, be considered for the proposed building
o That a window sill be incorporated into the secondary-story windows as has been
done for the first-story windows
o That the trim not wrap around from the top of the windows to the sides, but that it be
utilized only over the top of the window
o That although the applicant has proposed materials for some of the detail elements
on the building that are not listed in the Specific Plan (SP) as recommended
materials, staff is of the opinion that the materials have an authentic appearance,
texture, and mass, and that those proposed materials will result in building exterior
appearance that's meets the intent of the OTSP while providing building materials
that would be more durable than wood.
R:/OldT own/LRB/Minutes/091304
2
For the Board, Mr. Fisk relayed that he is specifically looking for comments on design and
materials of the proposed building that re not listed as recommended.
For the Board, Ms. Ubnoske relayed that the applicant is anxious to move forward and would
request that the Board make comments and suggestions as needed and that after the item will
be forwarded to Director's Hearing.
Board Member Blair expressed concerl1 with staff's recommendation of replacing the proposed
standing seam metal rod with a parapet wall without having a visual.
For Mr. Allen, Ms. Ubnoske relayed that the proposed setbacks are adequate.
Ms. Ubnoske also relayed that the applicant is anxious to move forward with the proposed
project.
Board Member Blair expressed concern with staff's recommendation of replacing the proposed
standing seam metal rood with a parapet wall.
Ms. Ubnoske relayed that when the City Council approved the amendment to the OTSP, a foot
note was added that states: non residential projects in the tourist serving residential planning
area must either retain a predominantly residential character or be developed as a mixed use
project.
At this time, the Public Hearing was opened.
Mr. Russell Rumansoff representing the applicant spoke in favor of the proposed project.
At this time, the Public Hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisk noted that the applicant has not provided staff with examples of western style
courthouse buildings constructed in the late 1800s early 1900s that would have used these
styles of rooflines.
MOTION: Board Member Allen moved to recommend approval of the proposed project subject
to the consideration of potential use of tapered columns versus straight columns, use of wood
clad windows in place of the proposed aluminum, and the additional study be done for the belt
coarse band, and that it is consistent with the current plan. Board Member Haserot seconded
the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Board Member's Moore
and Chairman Harker who were absent.
BOARD BUSINESS
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING REPORT
No report at this time.
DIRECTOR OF REDEVELOPMENT REPORT
No report at this time.
CODE ENFORCEMENT REPORT
A report was distributed to the Board Members.
R:/OldT ownlLRB/Minutes/091304
3
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:50 a.m., Board Member Blair formally adjourned this meeting to October 11. 2004, at 9:00
a.m. iri the Main Conference Room, City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California
92590.
Chairman William Harker
R:/OldT ownlLRB/Minutes/091304
Director of Planning Ubnoske
4
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE OLD TOWN TEMECULA
LOCAL REVIEW BOARD
NOVEMBER 8, 2004
CALL TO ORDER
The Old Town Temecula Local Review Board convened in a regular meeting at 9:00 a.m., on
Monday, November 8, 2004, in the Main Conference Room, of Temecula City Hail, 43200 Business
Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Board Members Ailen, Blair, Moore, *Haserot and Chairman Harker
Absent:
None
Also Present:
Management Analyst Hiilberg
Code Enforcement Officer Cole
Planning Director Ubnoske
Minute Clerk Childs
Development Processing Coordinator Noland
Associate Planner Fisk
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Aqenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve agenda of November 08, 2004
MOTION: Board Member Moore moved to appove Item No. 1.1. Board Member Allen
seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Board Member
Haserot who was absent.
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Minutes of September 13, 2004
MOTION: Due to a lack of quorom, Item no. 2.1 wiil be rolled over to the next meeting.
R:l0IdTownlLRB/Minutes/110804
NEW ITEMS
Due to conflict of interest, Board Member Allen stepped down from this item.
3
Planninq Application No. PA04-0295 a siqn proqram for a new 12.309 square foot buildin~
on 0.10 acres located on the west side of Front Street, approximatelv 200 feet north of 6'
Street.
Applicant:
Matthew Fagan
42011 Avenida Vista Ladera
Temecula, CA, 92591
Staff:
Stuart Fisk Associate Planner
Associate Planner Fisk presented a staff report (of record), noting the following:
. That the applicant is proposing a sign program to include wall signs, super graphics,
building name signs, freestanding monument signs, mini-monument signs, window
signs, under canopy signs, awning signs, projecting signs, rear-facing signs, and a
variety of ancillary signs; and that the sign program defines criteria for sign materials,
colors, and placement and size
. That staff has determined that some of the elements of the proposed sign program are
not consistent with the OTSP; that although the sign program includes many of the
qualities and design elements for signs as recommended by the Specific Plan; that the
sign program poses sign type location and sizes that are inconsistent with the Specific
Plan
. That the sign program proposes mini-monument signs in addition to monument signs;
that the staff report indicated that mini-monument signs are not permitted sign type for
the Specific Plan; however, the mini-monument signs were inadvertently omitted from
the Specific Plan
. That however, the project site does not contain the street frontage required (150 feet) to
allow for any monument signs
. That the applicant has filed for a parcel merger to merge into the Chaparral Buildings
onto one lot; and however, the sign program does not include the existing Chaparral
Building
. Furthermore, mini-monument signs are intended for lots with buildings that have actual
front yards with more than 10 feet that were constructed prior to 1994; and that staff is of
the opinion that the site contains adequate space to properly replace monument signs at
the front of either of these buildings
. That the OTSP allows for a ratio of 1.0 square feet of wall mounted signage per linear
foot of business frontage
. That other signs such as projecting signs and under canopy signs have their own
specific size limitations listed in the Specific Plan
R:/OldTown/LRB/Minules/110804
2
. That the proposed sign program proposes to allow for 1.5 square feet of signage per
linear buildings frontage along front street and that staff is recommending that this be
reduced to one (1) square feet per the Specific
. That the sign program proposes that wall signs shall be based on one (1) of building
establishment to one (1) foot of sign area; that the sign program proposes wall signs
may be increased in size based on the building owner's approval due to individual tenant
needs, provided that the overall building signage is not exceeded; and that the Specific
Plan does not allow for this; and that deviations from the sign program that are ultimately
approved for the sign must be reviewed and approved under the sign program
amendment process by the OTLRB and Planning Director
. That the sign program proposes various signs along the north elevation of the building
including hanging, projecting and canopy signs; that the OTSP does not allow for such
signs to be placed on elevations that do not have frontage along the public right-of-way;
and that staff only supports a building identification sign for this elevation but does not
support allowing for tenant signs on the north elevation
. That the OTSP does not allow for vinyl window signs; that the sign program proposes
vinyl signs on windows and doors to identify suite numbers or to provide direction; and
that staff is recommending that the sign program to be changed to provide for painted or
gold leaf suite numbers or directional signs
. That the sign program specifies that colors should be from the Sherwin Williams
Preservation Palette; however, it also states that nationally recognized tenants that have
specific, required corporate colors shall be permitted their nationally recognized color;
and that staff is of the opinion that this would be appropriate only if the OTLRB
recommends an exception to allow for deviations based on trademarked logos
. That the sign program states that modifications to the sign program shall be approved
administratively by the Planning Director and shall not require an additional application
or approval by the Planning Director and shall not require an additional application or
approval by the Planning Commission
. That the text stating that an additional application is not required must be removed as a
sign program amendment is required for modifications to a sign program
. That staff recommends that the sign program be revised to address the above concerns
and inconsistencies with the OTSP and provide comments and recommend revisions to
the sign program necessary for it to meet the intent of the Specific Plan.
For Chairman Harker, Mr. Fisk relayed that the revisions that staff is requesting to the sign
program would bring it into agreement with the Specific Plan; that as proposed, the current sign
program does not agree with the sign requirements as listed in the Specific Plan.
Mr. Fisk summarized the areas of changes:
. To eliminate the allowance for monuments or mini-monument signs (due to the lack or
frontage required)
R:lOldTown/LRB/Minutes/110804
3
. . That the OTSP allows for a ratio of 1.0 square foot of wall mounted sign per linear foot of
business frontage; that the sign program is proposing 1.5 square feet; and that staff is
proposing that it be reduced to 1.0 square feet of wall mounted sign per linear building
frontage along the Front Street to agree with the Specific Plan
. That the sign program is proposing that deviations from the amount of signage that each
tenant can have could be approved by the property owner
. That the signs of the north elevation of the building does not allow for such signs to be
placed on elevations that do not have frontage along the public right of way; and that this
would be eliminated except for the building identification sign
. That the OTSP does not allow for vinyl window signs and that the sign program
proposes vinyl signs on windows and doors to identify suite numbers or to provide
direction
. That if corporate logos are permitted that staff would request direction from the Board
that would allow for the exception
. That amendments to sign programs require a sign program amendment and must be
back to the OTLRB for review; so that the text should be revised to require a sign
program amendment and OTLRB review for any amendments.
Mr. Fisk further clarified that the sign program before the Board for review is not in conformance
with the SP
At 9:35, the Public Hearing was opened.
Mr. Mike Mc Millon, property manager, representing RCM, LLC, and Patty Anders, consultant
representing the applicant, relayed that although the SP has provided a guideline, the proposed
project is unique and would request some additional flexibility apart from the SP.
Board Member Moore relayed that she is of the opinion that an interior directory would be
sufficient signage. Board Member Blair relayed that is a particular tenant would need special
signage (such as Starbucks), it could be dealt with on a case by case basis as needed.
Mr. Fisk noted that if it is the will of the Board, two parts could be added into the sign program
such as 1: which would allow for corporate logos and 2: to allow for the OTLRB to review
deviations and sizes.
* Board Member Haserot arrived at 9:50 a.m.
The Public Hearing was closed at 9:55 a.m.
The Board Members made the following motions.
1. MOTION: Board Member Blair moved to deny the proposal for a mini-monument sign.
Board Member Moore seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Board Member A!!!ill. who abstained.
2. MOTION: Board Member Blair moved to deny the request to allow for 1.5 square feet
of signage per linear building frontage along Front Street. Board Member Moore
R:/OldTownlLRB/Minutes/110804
4
seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Board
Member Allen who abstained.
3. MOTION: Board Member Blair moved to approve staff's recommendation stating that
deviations from the sign program must be reviewed and approved under the sign
program amendment process by the OTLRB and Planning Director. Board Member
Moore seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of
Board Member Allen who abstained.
4. MOTION: Board Member Moore moved to approve staff's recommendation. Board
Member Blair seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception
of Board Member Allen who abstained.
5. MOTION: Board Member Blair moved to deny the proposal for vinyl windows signs.
Board Member Haserot seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the'
exception of Board Member Allen who abstained.
6. MOTION: Board Member Moore moved to approve staff's recommendation for allowing
corporate logos with their standard corporate colors and potential deviations; that text
will be added allowing the OTLRB to review corporate logos, colors, and deviations.
Board Member Haserot seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Board Member Allen who abstained.
7, MOTION: Board Member Blair moved to approve staff's recommendation that text
stating that an additional application is not required must be'removed as a sign program
amendment would be required for modifications to a sign program. Board Member
Moore seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of
Board Member Allen who abstained.
4 Planninq Application PA03-0418 A Development Plan to redevelop Butterfield Square.
resultinq in four two-stOry buildinqs tota/ina 22.048 square feet on 0.56 acres. Located at
28690 Old Town Front Street.
Applicant:
Allen Robinson
The Sienna Company
321 Alvardo St, Ste H
Monterey, CA 93940
Staff:
Stuart Fisk Associate Planner
Associate Planner Fisk presented a staff report (of record), noting the following:
. That the proposed building designs are consistent with the OTSP
. That the buildings include the quality and design elements of western style buildings as
recommended by OTSP including horizontal wood siding, wood porches with shed roofs,
adequate wall articulation, roof parapets with cornice, balconies with balustrade, exterior
stairways, and knee bracing at posts
. That although staff supports the general design of the buildings, some details of the
project have not been provided
. That sorne of the detail deficiencies can be addressed through COA, but others should
be addressed prior to presenting the project to the Planning Commission
. That staff's remaining concerns are as follows:
R:/OldTownlLRB/Minules/l10B04
5
o That details for the lower courtyard have not been provided; and that at
minimum, the project will be conditioned stating that plastic furniture will not
permitted
o That a trash enclosure detail showing wood fence on steel trash enclosure doors
(to match building B) should be provided on the sheet C107; and that the
applicant has indicated that they would be addressing the concern
o That staff requested that the applicant provide landscaping, including potted
plants and hanging plants, at building C; that more landscaping is needed on all
sides of building C; that no landscaping is provided at the rear of building D; that
the applicant did not follow landscape guidelines of the SP including the use of
boxed and potted plants to enhance sidewalks shops
o That PVC pipes of the rear of buildings A need to be located as close to the
building as possible and need to be architecturally integrated with the building not
exposed; and that the applicant is not proposing any revisions to the back of the
buildings
o That the proposed paint colors are from the Sherwin Williams Palette or
equivalent, and must be revised to be consistent with the colors prescribed by
the SP
o That color elevations show a color (Cape Cod Grey) that does not appear to
historically related to adobe and clashes with the block retaining walls adjacent to
building C .
o That materials such as metal roof elements, the exterior fiber b.oard, shingles,
and storefront glass need to be reviewed by staff to determine whether the
proposed materials are consistent with one another and the SP
o That the area at the rear of building D needs to .be designed for pedestrian
access with appropriate landscaping and building treatments (i.e. windows and
doors etc.) or this area should be treated as a service area and gated with a
wrought iron gate; and that the applicant has indicated ttiat he would be willing to
treat it as a service area
o That the applicant has proposed decorative lighting at the eave; that the
proposed lighting is "rope lighting or tube lighting"; that this type of lighting should
not be permitted for this project and is not a western style building feature
recommended by the OTSP; that staff is recommending that Detail E should be
deleted from sheet C1 06; and that the applicant has agreed
o That staff is of the opinion that the upper plaza area is underutilized and that
additional benches and other features such as special paving and/or a water
feature between the upper and lower courtyards could be added to the plans to
create a more interesting space with a stronger sense of identify; and that such
locations are not common in Old Town and staff is of the opinion that the area is
deserving of more detail
o That in summary, the general building designs proposed in the application have
been determined by staff to meet the minimum standards of the SP with regard
R:/OldTown/LRBlMinutes/110804
6
to design and materials; however, to address site specific concerns regarding
building C, staff recommends an overhang at the front of the building; that the
proposed colors need to be revised to be consistent with the SP should be
contingent on review of the actual colors presented at the meeting today
o That a distinguishing detail such as a water feature, special paving, and
additional benches are needed to complete the redevelopment plan for the site
o That staff is requesting that staff and the OTLRB review and provide comments
and recommend that the plans be revised and additional information be provided
based on issues raised at presentation; and that staff is recommending that the
revisions be completed prior to the project being presented to the Planning
Commission.
It was the consensus of the Board to address staff's concerns one item at a time.
Board Member Allen noted his concern with staff's request for detailed drawings, stating that
they would be premature at this time.
For the Board, Mr. Fisk relayed that it would not be appropriate for him to take only working
drawings to the Planning Commission; advising that the Planning Commission would require
detailed drawings.
For the Board, Mr. Meyer relayed that although there is language in the SP that states what the
minimum requirements would be for seating areas; staff would need an understanding of what
the fallback would be if it were not to become a restaurant.
At this time, the Public Hearing was opened.
Mr. Allen Robinson, architect of the proposed project relayed that he would make the following
changes to the project:
. That the proposed project will be a two-story mixed use project
. That the existing building will be used for professional offices
. That a great deal of office space will be created in the middle of the project for
pedestrian activity
. That building B (lower floor) will be dedicated as a restaurant and upper floors will be for
professional use
. That the courtyard will be a featured attraction
. Mr. Robinson also provided samples of the pavers that will be installed in the courtyard
. That due to liability purposes the applicant will not be installing a water feature
. That the applicant is of the opinion that he has provided significant landscape features
that will be reminiscent of Old Town, such as the windmill and the water tank which will
be refurbished
R:/OldTownlLRB/Minutes/110804
7
.
That there will be a handicap wheel chair lift that will serve to move people from the
upper courtyard to a lower courtyard
.
That the front materials of Building A will be replaced with new materials which will be
resistant to termites. .
It was the consensus of the Board to address staff's concerns on item at a time.
1. That the project will be conditioned that plastic furniture will not be permitted.
2. That the applicant will ensure that a wood fence on the steel trash enclosure doors (to
match Building B) will be provided.
3. That the applicant will be providing five (5) street trees with planting areas at the base of
the trees and planting zones in front of the. building C & 0 which would be allow
handicap accessibility on 3rd street.
4. That PVC pipes on the rear of Building A will be located as close to the building as
possible and will be architecturally integrated with the building not exposed.
5. That the applicant will be using Roy Croft Cooper Red.
6. A more consistent color will be chosen from the Sherwin Williams Preservation Palette.
7. That the applicant will be using a corrugated roof element and multi-light windows.
8. That the applicant relayed that he will address the rear of building 0 with a wrought iron
gate.
9. The applicant noted that he will use rope lighting along the eave; and that if the applicant
were to install lighting during the holidays.
10. That the applicant will explore features that could be added to the plans to create a
functional outdoor gathering.
11. That the applicant will also explore the possibility of adding more interest and provide the
type of detailing that would differentiate one project from another.
MOTION: Board Member Blair moved to approve the project based on the above 1-11
changes. Board Member Haserot seconded the motion and voice vote reflected
unanimous approval
5 Plannina Application No PA04-0547 a proposal to install three new sians on an existinQ
retail buildina The Trick Shop located at 28561 Old Town Front Street within the Tourist
Retail Core (TRC) district 01 the Old Town T emecula Specilic Plan
Applicant:
Tracy Blankenship
The Trick Shop
43122 Corte Fresca
Temecula, CA 92592
R:/OldT ownJLRB/Minutes/l1 0804
8
Development Processing Coordinator Noland presented a staff report (of record), noting the
following:
. That the applicant is proposing three (3) new signs for her sign retail store
. That a (2" x 6") 12 square foot wall sign constructed of sandblasted wood is to be
located on the front elevation of the store facing Old Town Front Street
. That the sign will utilize the following colors from the Sherwin Williams preservation
palette: SW 2829 classical white, SW 2802 Rookwood Red and Black
. That the frontage of the retail building is 30 linear feet allowing for up to 30 square feet of
wall signage per the Old Town Specific Plan sign regulations.
MOTION: Board Member Haserot moved staff's recommendation. Board Member Allen
seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Board member
Moore who abstained.
BOARD BUSINESS
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING REPORT
No report at this time.
DIRECTOR OF REDEVELOPMENT REPORT
No report at this time.
CODE ENFORCEMENT REPORT
A report was distributed to the Board Members.
BOARD MEMBER REPORT
No reports at this time,
ADJOURNMENT
At 12:55 p.m., Board Member Blair formally adjourned this meeting to December 13. 2004, at
9:00 a.m. in the Main Conference Room, City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California 92590.
Director of Planning Ubnoske
Chairman William Harker
R:/OldTown/LRB/Minutes/110B04
9
ITEM #3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
OLD TOWN LOCAL REVIEW BOARD
February 14, 2005
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0418
Prepared by: Stuart Fisk, Associate Planner
APPLICATION INFORMATION:
APPLICANT: Allen Robinson
The Sienna Company
321 Alvarado St, Suite H
. Monterey, CA 93940
PROPOSAL: A request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove a mature
Chinaberry tree.
LOCATION: 28690 Old Town Front Street, generally located at the southeast
corner of Old Town Front Street and Third Street and known as
Butterfield Square.
EXISTING ZONING: Tourist Retail Core (TRC)
SURROUNDING ZONING: North: Tourist Retail Core (TRC)
South: Tourist Retail Core (TRC)
East: Tourist Retail Core (TRC)
West: Tourist Retail Core (TRC)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: Community Commercial (CC)
EXISTING LAND USE: Commercial/Retail Buildings
SURROUNDING LAND
USES: North: Commercial/Restaurant
South: Commercial
East: Commercial
West: Commercial
R:\D P\2004\04-0231 Butterfield Square\OTLRB Staff Report n Tree Removal.doc
I
BACKGROUND
On March 31, 2004, Allen Robinson. representing Elizabeth Pascoe, submitted Planning
Application No. PA04-0231 for a Development Plan to redevelop Butterfield Square. The Old
Town Local Review Board reviewed the Development Plan application on November 8, 2004
and recommended approval of the Development Plan. Staff has since determined that a
Certificate of Appropriateness is required for the proposed removal of one of the trees on the
project site.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A mature Chinaberry tree exists within the public right-of-way near the northern property
boundary of the project site, between the existing parking lot on the project site and Third
Street. As proposed, the redevelopment of the site will require the removal of the tree due to
the construction of the proposed Building C at the northwest corner of the site. The trunk
diameter of this tress is approximately 30 inches measured 48 inches above the existing grade
and Section IV.E (Guideline 4) of the Old Town Specific Plan requires approval of a Certificate
of Appropriateness for removal of all trees having a trunk diameter greater than 10 inches
measured 48 inches above the existing grade.
ANALYSIS
Staff has reviewed the proposed removal of the Chinaberry tree and has conferred with the
City's landscape architect consultant regarding the characteristics and significance of the tree.
Staff has determined that the tree is not a particularly desirable tree because its berries tend to
litter the ground below the tree, creating a nuisance for pedestrians, and because the tree is
considered invasive due to birds eating the berries from the tree and spreading its seeds,
allowing for its growth at new locations. Furthermore, Chinaberry trees are not listed in the Old
Town Specific Plan as a Preferred Old Town Tree and the applicant proposes to replace this
single tree with five London Plane trees. London Plane trees are a relative of the sycamore,
which is listed in the Specific Plan a Preferred Old Town Tree.
RECOMMENDATION
Because the Chinaberry tree is not listed in the Old Town Specific Plan as a Preferred Old
Town Tree and the applicant proposes to replace this single tree with five London Plane trees.
a relative of the sycamore, which is a Preferred Old Town Tree, staff requests that the Old
Town Local Review Board recommend the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for
removal of the tree.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Reduced Landscape Plan - Blue Page 4
R:\D P\2004\04-0231 Butterfield Square\OTLRD Staff Report .- Tree RemovaLdoc
2
ATTACHMENT NO.1
REDUCED LANDSCAPE PLAN
R:\D P\2004\04-0231 Butterfield Square\OTLRB Staff Report -- Tree Removal.doc
3
III
" ,
II'
'I' I 'II
!,,! I! I'
1'1 'I"
I" ",'!
llli!ll!iih
, i!II'Ii!j
elh.III.j!!!!
~~l!l~~~
t t ~ t
11 lZ ~ lZ
~ I . !
"
g i
g lid
~ ~ ~ i i
;;;
,I
'I
"
II,
.j
"
II
Ii,
<
~
z
a
~
5
ill
;
;,
I!
Il'
i~~
133CJ1S OClIHl
\))0
~~
f=-. ~
n~
1o.L\
~ j
- - 'J
'6 t:
.
G...l:! 1 I ~
::>, ." .
o~ ",0
~ ~&:. -~ ""
'-' 'j E II ~
<( ~ ~ a[--,
gjWj" II
:>~! ~.,
""" . 'I
I 0 0
'" 3 . .
o
o
"rOr
,,'"
Ii
i
.. ! ,
III I I ~
" IlI!! , " i
I;; to .... .... ~
.! II i1111, ; :
~ S !l
; ,
~
w
w
~
""~1I::l ..
I .. ,0,
j
U ~~33$ 3
;II ~ ~ .,.,.,., ~
i 1
~
~
z
o
~
~
ill I i I
, 'Iii . I
I II li!1 '11'11
I I' i., .
8 ,
1
I" i II
I i,hi i I
I ilij1j'i!i ! ill
I I" d. 10
' .
U,j;I;;;;;':lliL
~EB@.@fU
~! 0 0 @
II
o a rT1 ~
- ~M
-", ~~
....lv ~.~_
~~g
ii ~~
-0 ~..
c U
~ -
....l 0-3
-0 u
~ e
o r" .
" ".J....
8: of
~ Q~
"
~~
~$
H~
~
~
~
~
~
.
~f
EO"
;>it
8u
<.!:~.
~lh ~
u:l"U ,.;
t;);n i.
, ""I' ,
~ ~t; j
ill
ITEM #4
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
OLD TOWN LOCAL REVIEW BOARD
February 14, 2005
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA05-0020
Prepared by: Christine Damko, Assistant Planner
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
Mr. Charles Hargis
Old Town Coffee House
41915 Third Street
Temecula, CA 92590
An Administrative Development Plan to replace existing wood
fence with decorative stone wall and wrought iron fencing, replace
existing concrete patio with colored flagstone, add a decorative
wrought iron design element to the south side of the proposed
fencing, and a proposed a 18" X 48" monument sign to the corner
of Mercedes and Third Street.
41915 Third Street in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside,
State of California
Tourist Retail Core (TRC)
North: Tourist Retail Core (TRC)
South: Tourist Retail Core (TRC)
East: Tourist Retail Core (TRC)
West: Tourist Retail Core (TRC)
Community Commercial (CC)
Commercial
North: Office
South: Commercial
East: Residential
West: Commercial
G:\Planning\2005\PA05~OO20 Admin DP Old Town Coffee House Facade Improvement\Planning\OTLRB StaffReport.doc
1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Planning Application No. PA05-0020, submitted by Mr. Charles Hargis of the Old Town Coffee
House, consists of an exterior fa9ade improvement to an existing restaurant building previously
occupied by Rhythm and Brews located at 41915 Third Street within the Tourist Retail Core
(TRC) District of the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan.
ANALYSIS
The applicant proposes to replace the existing wood fence facing Third Street (south elevation)
with decorative wrought iron supported by a two-foot stone base. The entire height of the
fence will be five feet. On the exterior (south east elevation) of the fence the applicant is
proposing a wrought iron decorative design that will be connected to the wrought iron portion of
the fence. According to Section IV-27 of the Old Town Specific Plan, wrought iron fencing and
decorative wrought iron gates can be used to accentuate a fence, wall, or building. The
decorative piece will be approximately six square feet and designed as a coffee cup with music
notes around the cup all within an oval shape. Staff considers this an ornamental piece and
not a sign. On the interior portion of the fence (inside the patio) the stone base will be used as
a planter area, measuring two feet in width. According to the Old Town Specific Plan, all
fencing and wall materials utilized within the commercial districts of the Old Town Specific Plan
shall be compatible with the architectural theme of the building. The fa9ade for the existing
building carries on the Old Town theme of an old western style. The proposed improvements
will enhance this western style by providing additional materials, such as wrought iron and
stone to the building fa9ade for additional architectural interest and variety. The proposed fence
will be consistent with the height and building materials of the Old Town Specific Plan Design
Guidelines.
The applicant is also proposing to replace the existing concrete patio with colored flagstone.
The existing concrete is not level and is cracking due to wear and tear. The proposed concrete
materials are consistent with the Design Guidelines as described in Section IV-27 and offer
additional architectural detailing to the site.
The building frontage of this location is 50 linear feet wide by 150 linear feet long. In a previous
application to the Old Town Local Review Board, the applicant proposed one 16 square foot
wall sign and two four square feet window signs, totaling up to 24 square feet of total signage.
The applicant is now proposing a monument sign located on the corner of Third Street and
Mercedes Street measuring 18" long and four feet high, for a total of 6 square feet. The Old
Town Specific Plan Design Guidelines state that the height of a monument sign shall not
exceed six feet above grade and the width shall not exceed 4 feet. The proposed monument
sign is consistent with the Old Town Design Guidelines. In addition, the monument sign will
carry over the stone base as proposed for the fence. The sign will be constructed of a redwood
that will be sand blasted. Construction materials and colors are also consistent with the Old
Town Design Guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending that the Old Town Local Review Board review, provide comments and
approve the proposed exterior fa9ade improvement for the existing building.
G:\Planning\2005\PA05-0020 Admin DP Old Town Coffee House Facade Improvement\Planning\OTLRB Staff Report.doc
2
ATTACHMENTS
1. Site Plan - Blue Page 3
2. Sign Detail - Blue Page 4
3. Decorative Detail Design - Blue Page 5
G:\Planning\2005\PA05-0020 Admin DP Old Town Coffee House Facade Improvcment\Planning\OTLRB Staff Report.doc
3
ATTACHMENT NO.1
SITE PLAN
G:\Planning\2005\PAOS.0020 Admin DP Old Town Coffee House Facade Improvement\Planning\OTLRB Staff Report.doc
4
z
~
,-
_L 332LL S--\1~' t-LL
z
~
W
G.
~
Z
~s
~! liI
~usf~=
w"O~ ';b-
j~n~~
~1l~h~J!
~ ~
~ ~
o ~ Ii
o . '8.
i "j G.. n 1i
~.!1 ~ H~~
:!!" ~ .li"z SO
0<, (J (J) oJ
,;
h~
H.
o~l
eo.
~~~
~S!
~r~
l' .t?.\)
oClt!E
-..<!~
l!~~ c
i;!~':::~.., i'
><><~=slJ, ~
;:;:.5"ill~1 N
'3
~.
}f
d
III
G'>
- gs
=~
.... co
-=<>;>
JI !~ ~
~
-- -
.~ G ~
u.. ....
....
6<
':I I
~ l
I
~
.\- !J if! b
w ':1 9 If) +.f I
W ~ (l;; 0" .
~ '~ Cq
~ ill eN- I
<J c: 0-
.Sl ~ Ii! 0 g.g-
2 l i Jv0
~ ':2 ~ ~~ .
Vl Ilj ~ f r5 975 .
\U
~ ~ ~-t-
~ <( ~ ~
~ 1If.: a
w @ ::J ?-2,
~ <t 0.-
1-
IlJ
L
-1
i"
~
j J~
\B
~ /} riJ ~
0( 11 ~r-
. i,lif
~ ~H ~
-;;,
~,
~j~
~ ~,
~~
~
$
it
,':; :t
....Ii')
~
-
-
o
~
G.
2S
..
z
, "
1D
l!I
G.
2
<
~
I (/)
2S
el
o
ATTACHMENT NO.2
SIGN DETAIL
G:\Planning\2005\PAOS-0020 Admin DP Old Town Coffee House Facade Improvement\Planning\OTLRB StaffReport.doc
5
~
!l
~
o
g
li,
wZ
a::~
- 0 .
Co....ti:,
"'z .
)(wO
- :E0
Co:;) CO
"'Z
fil~
~
II;
~
5
Q
q:
2!
w
%
....
~.~~. .
~ -~
~ \..~
~~
,"~
Ji
'\, -
4:
~
I'
('t)
co
N
~
Z
~
0::
co
~
o
0::
::>
<(
0>
N
co
N
~
W
I-
~
...J
~
Ci5
~
()
;>:
a.
o
()
ell
0::
W
o
0::
o
co
i:i
z
:::>
o
0::
~
()
<(
co
ATTACHMENT NO.3
DECORATIVE DETAIL DESIGN
G:\Planning\2005\P AOS-QOlO Admin DP Old TO\\m Coffee House Facade Improvement\Planning\OTLRB Staff Report.doc
6
r"l
!
._<1[11
~
~
r
~~\
lu ~
Ii
l J
\\. ~
. ~
~
\~ ~
\l~
\
l\,
'l:
tt
'~:,<':_c;" ': ":"-: ,-,
i
~
~
~
L.__
. .
, <
.'~-
.~'V-. ~~_
-
,,;~.'
,."
''J
1
J
~
~p
~
>:.
Q
~
~
"\,,., ,
"'~~. _.C. ;"'.". "
.:.".'.h,~ ., "~,.,'~
.,...._;,~'w,.,
, i',.~;
~
. '~..
" . ~. '"
. ~ ,," ~
r., '\. \'
. \ '\. ~
l
..,
j
,
----,.--"'"-...,...-.
.'--'-... .
?
.-/
~)
\
\
-'-- "C =::-- - _
. .~.,
"-"'7'~ '\D
.~~-:,-I_"'_~', . -'c.:--"
~~i'J-7 < .~~
~
,
Q
\n
I
"1
~
.
f ~
I:a:I .. s:
a::a ! :t
=-
CI
=
I:a:I
I:a:I
~.
~
CI
-=-=-
:;2;
!3=~
ClI
E-..
I::i
...:I
CI
)..., <:
k: <i,
~i \~
1~1 \
, ~I
1< ~,
~i ~!
IV!. /':',:
~;, "i'
I,", i
....: :
lJJ: ~~i
~ ~!
~ ~I
~I ~I
'7
Q~
<~
~ ~
\q
~
1;),
\'":
~
i
j g
~ .
~ "
l'l \J
~<;
~>
o
..
~,
~
l:iil
'V)
"
~'i
~V:
,I'
,
~
"".I
"
\-,i
;,;
\'j.
~:
'(I
tt
~
ITEM #5
. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
OLD TOWN LOCAL REVIEW BOARD
February 14, 2005
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA01-0373 (Administrative Development Plan)
Prepared by: Christine Damko, Assistant Planner
APPLICATION INFORMATION:
APPLICANT:
Ron Walton
30075 Ynez Road
Temecula, CA 92592
PROPOSAL:
An Administrative Development Plan for a fa<;:ade improvement to
Texas Lil's, an existing restaurant. The Old Town Local Review
Board reviewed this case on January 10, 2005; however, the
applicant was not present and does not agree with the
recommended Conditions of Approval. The applicant would like to
discuss the recommended Conditions of Approval before the Old
Town Local Review Board.
LOCATION:
Located on the southwest corner of Front Street and 51h Street.
(APN 922-026-008).
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
Tourist Retail Core (TRG)
North: Tourist Serving Residential (TSR)
South: Tourist Retail Core (TRC)
East: Tourist Retail Core (TRC)
West: Open Space (OS)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Restaurant
SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
North: Retail
South: Retail
East: Restaurant
West: Open Space
BACKGROUND
August 1, 2001:
Texas Lil's applied for a fagade improvement application with the
Planning Department.
August 13, 2001:
The project was presented to the Old Town Local Review Board. During
the meeting, staff was concerned with the lack of fagade work proposed
for the south elevation (along 51h Street). The Board recommended
R\D P\2004\0l-0373 Texas Lil's\OTLRB Staff Repon- Revised.doc
approval of the paint colors and the overall concept, subject to additional
information being provided regarding the south elevation. It was also
noted that this project was to be approved at a Director's Hearing.
September 17, 2001: DRC letter sent out to applicant. The DRC letter requested additional
information on landscaping, lighting, and improvements to the south
elevation.
April 26, 2002:
May 31, 2002:
February 5, 2003:
October 27,2004:
January 10, 2005:
Planning Department sent letter to Texas Lil's stating that the original
application was closed out due to inactivity. A new application must be
filed with the Planning Department. .
Planning Department received a letter from Texas Lil's indicating that they
were still working on the process of completing the corrections and
changes to the original plans. The letter states they have been talking to
the Health Department, Fire Department, and the Redevelopment Office
about their issues during this time.
Building Permits inadvertently issued to Texas Lil's without Planning
Department approval (B03-0195). Code enforcement informed applicant
to obtain Planning Department approval.
Applicant resubmitted Fa9ade Improvement application to avoid having
the building permit revoked.
OTLRB meeting regarding fa9ade changes, the Board reviewed and
approved the application with conditions. Applicant was not present.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant completed exterior improvements to the building, with modifications to the interior
of the building. The exterior redesign includes a 251 square foot addition to the south side of
the building facing 5th Street that will be used for a cooler and storage. The north elevation
improvements included a decorative wood hand rail, decorative wood support posts with
corbels, a wood overhang entry, and new paint on the exterior of the building. In addition to the
fa9ade improvement, the applicant replaced the existing back lit signs with wood carved
sandblasted signs. This case was heard by the Old Town Local Review Board on January 10,
2005; however the applicant was not present and does not agree with the recommended
Conditions of Approval. The applicant would like an opportunity to speak at the Old Town
Design Review Meeting and discuss this project.
ANALYSIS
The applicant has constructed a wood entry overhang that extends six feet out over the
walkway. The overhang has a pitched roof and is consistent with the rest of the building and
the Design Guidelines. In addition to the wood entry, the applicant has also added a four-foot
high hand railing along the length of the front of the building.
The applicant also replaced the back lit signs with carved wood signs. The signs are located
over the main entry way and on the north western portion of the building. Neither the height
nor the width will change. However, there is an existing neon sign located on the north side of
R:\D P\2004\01-0373 Texas Lil's\OTLRB Staff Report- Revised.doc
2
the building, which does not conform to the Old Town Design Guidelines. At the August 13,
2001 Old Town Local Review Board Meeting, the Board recommended that the neon signage
be removed.
Since this is a Code Enforcement case, the Conditions of Approval have been revised to show
a timeline in which the applicant shall complete the work. If the applicant disagrees with any of
the Conditions of Approval in which the OTLRB has recommended, staff will schedule the
applicant for the next Planning Commission Hearing.
1. The neon signage shall be removed as recommended in the 2001 Old Town Local
Review Board Meeting; which shall be completed by March 14, 2005.
2. The applicant shall relocate and provide a designated area for the trash enclosure to
the satisfaction of the Planning Director. The trash enclosure shall meet both the
Development Code and the Old Town Specific Plan guidelines; which shall be
completed by June 14, 2005.
3. Conceal roof top equipment on the new storage addition, as required in the Old Town
Design Guidelines to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning; which shall be
completed by July 14, 2005.
4. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan for the south elevation which shall be
completed by August 14, 2005. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and
Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. These
plans shall conform substantially to the approved Conceptual Landscape Plan, or as
amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size
of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient
Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped
area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items:
a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of
submittal).
b. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
c. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved
plan).
d. A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which details
the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth
and landscape development for the long term esthetics of the property. The
approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance
contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Old Town Local Review Board review, provide comments, and
recommend approval with these added conditions for this project.
R:\D P\2004\OI-0373 Texas Lil's\OTLRB Staff Report. Revised.doc
3
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Site Plan - Blue Page 4
2. Elevations --Blue Page 5
3. Details of Proposed Signs - Blue Page 6
4. Photo of Trash Bin Locations - Blue Page 7
5. Minutes from the August 13, 2001 OTLRB Meeting - Blue Page 8
R:\D P\2004\0l.0373 Texas Lil's\OTLRB Staff Report- Revised.doc
4
ATTACHMENT NO.1
SITE PLAN
R:\D P\2004\OI-0373 Texas Lil's\OTLRB Staff Report- Revised.doc
5
,/)6"1.:6 DlU.....j!l"~ ."jn:>..u.eJ..
l_....S ~U<>>j U->J.. PtO "6.111.:
Dln:J<:lW<:ll UMO 1 PIQ
lll~~ "1IOOS3Vi
S....II"'I SVX:3:.:L
:w-~,,*':..s~~ .
n>:lI:'ft......~._..~
s~;:;/ ~IlOZ ,qof "JlI: U9IS3a MUSV<X). _ .
...---- --.....-"...-----.-......-..--..........................-.... -..............._~-..._-y ............~_-:I
II)
, B"
.-l ---.J
. ---.J
H
.-l 0:::::
C)
II)
t4
N
iii
f-I
W
f--
=:l
o
Ul
w
:2
+-' 0
()
(j) ,-
'--,
Oc
'--
0.,--
c 0
o
+-,'+-
o
()
'+-
+-' 0
=:l
Ou
(j)
OJ
+-'
(j).
(j)
'--
+-'
(/) 0
+-'
C
o =:l
'--
LL
C (j)
5:
~E
u (j)
Of-
x
"
U
C
; i
,~ .!;li
~ . . ! I '.
, .! ! ,'I!'
. !q , "'
inhHili
I, X r 11 ~ 111 !
,
~ !
i ~ ~ ~
:ll!
,,'
IlIl
it!!
~- ~
E
E
~- .
.
~f
~
"
"
.<::
(f)
I
~ 3"
ilf i!1!ig~
Iii 'giifiK
.Ili_ i :I)f, ~
::~!fnHii:!8
111il'illilll Q
1"lmlo
i~!l11 UlII E
!.I,;:::::: >,
;2~E:i~!!:n: __
. .-
_... J'I~. C
Ii Iii .~
v U;
.il ~h,
'" ..i~
I; IiI;'.
t!. ~lfl'
'ili ij';i
~J !,r'
In nI
o .
c
o
i
+> 1 i J
o #;.:s:~-
E ~;;ii!
o q 3~jij
~
c
;,1 i'
h U
f' ,
-1 il
!l !i
..u:~ ~
9
.
'~....
'm_
II !Il
1 ~l
] ! Ii! !! ill iI!
o ,~~;;f_ ~dii H, :
~ !~i! .Bzi! U U
~ .l ! I ' {-' t
III {!in hi:1
;! II "!' t 'j' I" ,
, I i"~' U, 'I
! 1.lIIBil- iLk1!.;
f :!H,'hg, jl ,UP',I,,! I
~, 'Ill.'; r'h ,
~, !iil'I!;"! :I! 'I!I', '
1 I fir!!1 I 't I , 'I
i I 'I",j"l II '''' !'I
UJ 'I' till 1!11 h, ro' p ilil' I'
~ '. iltU~llip! !"!!jVr.!.2.
c oj:l ll,' : JJ i !.h ;i~ ~~
I, iH i! I j iil" ~Ili ~!~ ~l ji
Y i~ r. J! ~ ~! Ii HP"~m ~i,ll
Iii In ~I'd ~ I! 1'1 Ii Il,'I',' '"Iii! ~illi
.j I" Jj 'I. ,ill l~. ,~'lb' ,I
!!',' I~k ill'~I~ IK lpl em lid /I
U hUi'D' 'r11mp.' 'n' ..ill IUllj
il~ IIn IN II hill bf Ii! ~li ~~L lnl' II
~ . . . .. .. . . . . .
i I i I~j! Iii I, J.ul!
:i I I' illn'~ij II :i~ f
r ~!l II ,'hi i Ii Un I
, II i,,'j" h ," 'I"" I
! i lllllllin! !iij~lidrjll', i
.~'" ,"'IIllUIIII ~ iJii!~ I, !',I!ll'
1;0 ;~~J~ul III nil ilf II '. lfl ,!
..''' ~!!!!!!!J ~ !q,iqllt!1 !l!.. il
u,
,~
c
"
E
~
...
o
Q
"
U
"
...
;;:
~
.
- .
5
.
~
~'" ~
~5
-- ,
-...-..-- --
I ~I
+-'
(j)
Q)
.s=
(fJ
'--
(j)
>
o
()
,-'.----.
OG~tI OjUX>jfID~ "<>O=O<>UQ!
1....>IS'..'''J.....o.1PIOS6.1ll:
lllBG 311nOS3V1
S:"II~ SVX:::I..I.
Dln:laUJal UMol PIO
<TlI5--Ul16..I...~.........Ui(...).
WlnW)_Io,ooj._~"}m
_._, "-T_ ~._..~
S~~J nwz qof :>W IKIIS3Q 3UIUS1fCX)
.-.......... .....................-..:>.............-.........--....----..--..............--..-.--- ............_-~..._..,--..."""""_._-.-"
! I
. .
j ~;I Ii! ,
! I ..; i. ";1 I'l" !
.~'q.;.,-'-t. .
! g! I~lj III i' 'Ill il"'I' 11; i "j!
:' ill!l. il t i~ tlll ! . r iE r i; f
---
---
____ .lIr!bQ,
,
:;
~
w
w
~
~
~
~
~~...M_____--.
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
I. -=---1
v--~ t
I ..:
. .
. .
. .
: to.
.
II
~"
~
i~
.~
I
I
I
I
I
II
I.
I
,
~
.
i~
.~
90
......
'"'"'"
n.
-
l))~lS lMO~j MMOI010
I ;
II I
I, Ii! '
II ~ II Ii !
,''i,\- t
!.,ll..i 11'11 ~
lllll'l' ..
E,!! Ell
138813138 z
---
---
T
'"'"'"
-
@~1
---
~
S
~~
n
~i5
00
~z
i3
9,","",
W
.tr~-.A/l~
c
o
0..
L-
a
o
4-
o
L-
OJ
>
a
eX)
---
OJ
+-'
(fJ
'"'"'"
-
06!><':6 "!U'><>Ill"J ."1"""........1
);>;>~lS )"""~.J u,",c-, PJO S6Hn
lllOJCl ]llnOS]~
StII"'l: SVX::3:.I.
m><r-lZl(6"""'J-'ioe-lUISKl8
illUYJ_--"_I'<Z"in,
__, (ro;ctl<_ -.~~..~
sOOj~-, nlOl ~ ')U U9l9Q M11SlfCX) _
I ~ I
.J>-J-..>I'~
oln:)<)wC;ll UMOl PIO
--...._ "" -. ......,_a ....__...".. ...._...._ ...,,,_ __ .....VW>..... _ .. _~ _ ___........... ."...__
......- _"".......... ................. ._-" 'WDZ..... .__""""
II
c
o
Cl
--~
UJ
()I
c
.-
...c
UJ
I .-
,.. C
Ill! L
!!l :J
III. Y-
\ ~'I
1,1
!i!l!
c\')
UJ
(])
L
:J
+J
X
Y-
,
,
,
,
!
&.-1 '>1 I. ,
'fi I! ~ hI!'} I '
Ii ,1 ..... t1 _ . i~':
. j'! :1. . .~ II ; ;l'~
F !i}e~i ~..'1!~L$.-f:il
~ ll.!!'!; 1<1.. ~ll~, !!<! t
~'On -.a~-'l "tioiJ.ll io.. 1-'" ~
l'!: naHu'.,;,J~'~~l_~l!J#i s.
.
1., --.-. -....
~
~J
,
,
~............". <>....
"
""."'..""....
@
.~ 2
~;[ " ,. ~ " y " " w .. , i
~
~ I i
t' , I I ~
::t I i ~ . = i i ;
~1!lHBfHI;
J
!
i~ HI;'.. il ,
. ..' - '. . 1
. l"i'p;. '-,
~ '1!!~J~! 'd I .
~ i1:~11~~IU ;
~ ~!l....Jjt ~j J
: l}lsJ 'j}~~! =
· ""ll'll"ii I.
~ i li,plil..1!
~ ~h:~ ~ ' :} ~
"
~~
E5~
'-'~
'3""
"'~
"'0
""z
I
I
_.._"'--
ATTACHMENT NO.2
ELEVATIONS
R:\D P\2004\OI-0373 Texas Lil's\OTLRB Staff Report- Revised.doc
6
w
p.,...... 'TlYOS
111t18 31lnDS3W
St'II"'I SVX:3:.I.
06SZ:6 DIl}JDI!lD:} .DI""..........I.
\D:I.qS lU'HJ '''''01 f>1O S61rgZ
<;roli'-Ut!60-6)IVJ.,y,y-tUI6.6l..
1l9llr.l_'"IkO"I'WlSK/:"lrl\
_,_. tDIIZ'o...... ~,,~~~
$OO!S!A~J n tOt: qO( ")Q OOIS3Q 3UI11SUOJ _
DlnJ;}W81 UMOl PIO
...-,..... .,.6".... .-"'" ......."0 ''''~~ ,0 .......,......... ..on.... ~............, ._........p_.. _n.... ""'.....".............." ._.....q........
.......'0... P~'...".....~"....... _ ............. l............... 'OOOl.?<OO ........0 ...,,,ObO;)
(f)
o
-I-'
Q)
V
.,
Iln
#\.-.-.
'1: 1l-
. . ,
111, i:
h'l ..
c\)
(f)
C
o
-I-'
o
>
Q)
Q)
~
"
.
~
fi
~
'-
o
'-
Q)
-I-'
X
Q)
,
'R"
tl,....f"1
1:- ,I
. r ::
t. "'r-..;,..:,:_~..
. ~ I j'f..' 'I I
,.- - ,.I. II
. ~ 'L_--~'h:
l!-__'-___J.
: 'I
" 11
, ,
, ,
..'
, ,
, ,
I
l . ~ ,
. .
I .
. 3
~ ~
I .
I
~ l!
~; ;:
i
I
!
ATTACHMENT NO.3
DETAILS OF PROPOSED SIGNS
R:\D P\2004\Ol~0373 Texas Lil's\OTLRB Staff Report- Revised.doc
7
ATTACHMENT NO.4
PHOTO OF TRASH BIN LOCATIONS
R\D P\2004\Ol-0373 Texas Lil's\OTLRB Staff Report* Revised.doc
8
ATTACHMENT NO.5
MINUTES FROM THE AUGUST 13, 2001
OTLRB MEETING
R:\D P\2004\OI-0373 Texas Lil's\OTLRB Staff Report- Revised.doc
9
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE OLD TOWN TEMECULA
LOCAL REVIEW BOARD
AUGUST 13, 2001
CALL TO ORDER
The Old Town Temecula Local Review Board convened in a regular eting at 9:00 A.M., on
Monday, August 13, 2001, in the Community Development Conferen e Room of Temecula City
Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Present:
Board Members: Allen, Blair, M ntgomery, and Chairman Harker.
ROLL CALL
Absent.
Board Member Ross.
Also Present:
Senior Planner Hazen,
Development Processin
Project Planner Rush,
Redevelopment Man ement Analyst Hillberg,
Minute Clerk Hanse , and
Minute Clerk Ice.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Minutes of July, 9, '2001.
MOTION: Board Member Montgo ery moved to approve the minutes, as written. The motion
was seconded by Board Member lair and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of
Board Member Ross who was a sent.
RECOMMENDATION:
28693 Old Town Front Street A Iicant: John
BOARD BUSINESS
2 New Addition to the Cou
Sterbenk Rick Rush P
2.1 That the Old To Temecula Local Review Board review, provide comments, and take
action with respect to this improvement plan.
R:/OldT Qwn/LRB/Minutes/081301
Project Planner Rush provided a brief overview of the proposed project (fac;:ade improvement),
highlighting the affected elevations, the materials, the proposed enclosed 1,140 square foot
shed area (currently an open shed area), and the 900 square foot porch area on the northwest
elevation.
In response to Chairman Harker, Project Planner Rush advised t t the proposed use of wood
for exterior purposes will match the existing materials, with De lopment Processing
Coordinator Noland confirming that as per the language of t Specific Plan the use of plywood
siding on western-style buildings is discouraged.
Discussion ensued with regard to the Board's disma ith the applicant's use of plywood, while
the Board spoke in support of the architectural de . n of the existing building.
For Redevelopment Management Analyst HiI erg, it was confirmed that the existing ice
machine would remain at the northeast ele tion.
Senior Planner Hazen recommended at additional information be obtained from the applicant
with respect to the type of matedal f the proposed railing, and whether it would be open or
solid, noting that an open railing y be more inviting to the public.
Board Member Allen relayed at while he was not opposed to the visual appearance displayed,
that there was a differential etween the representation provided and the written proposed plan,
specifically with respect t aterials.
Senior Planner Haze noted that there could be a condition added requiring that the board and
batten be replaced Ith cedar. Board Member Allen recommended that the exposed plywood be
replaced with act I board and batten.
Providing add' onal comments, Chairman Harker recommended that the applicant's proposed
rail be consi ent with the existing architectural style, Board Member Blair adding that if aged
wood was 0 costly that a wood material which would age naturally should be utilized.
MOTIO : Board Member Allen moved to recommend approval of the basic conceptual plan
subje t to the restriction of plywood not being utilized for exterior use, recommending that the
app' cant use a material consistent with the existing building materials. The motion was
se onded by Board Member Blair and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Board
Member Ross who was absent.
3 'Facade Improvement. New Paint and Sions for Texas Lil's (28495 Old Town Fro~t Street)
(Applicant: Ron Walton) (Rick Rush. Project Planner I)
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 That the Old Town Temecula Local Review Board review, provide comments, and take
action with respect to this improvement plan.
Project Planner Rush presented the project plan (per supplemental agenda material, noting the
proposed name change to Texas Loosey's, specifying the paint application as Roycroft Copper
Red (SW2839), Colonial Revival Yellow (SW2830), and Classic White (SW2829); for Board
Member Blair, relayed that the trim will be the Classic White color; noted the plan to remove the
R:/OldT ownILRB/Minules/OB1301
2
.
lights and install new signage, relaying the recommendation that the neon signage be removed;
for Board Member Blair, specified the location of the signage; relayed the proposed architectural
changes; for Board Member Allen, clarified that this application included no changes to the Mad
Madeline's use; and noted the proposed interior changes (Le., an upgrade of the existing
restroom facilities, and a relocation of the bar facility).
For Board Member Allen, rush noted that staff would request additional information regarding
the south elevation, relaying that if there was a proposed pop-out that the exterior elevations
would be required to be reviewed by staff; clarified that this item would be additionally reviewed
via a Director's Hearing.
Board Member Allen recommended that the applicant provide to staff symmetry with respect to
the architectural design of the south elevation.
Senior Planner Hazen noted that the Board's recommendations would be considered for
incorporation of the conditions imposed on the project at the Director's Hearing.
For informational purposes, Project Planner Rush relayed that the sign plan would be approve
separately.
MOTION: Board Member Allen moved to recommend approval of the paint colors and the
overall project concept, subject to additional information being provided regarding the shed
element on the south elevation. The motion was seconded by Board Member Blair and voice
vote reflected approval with the exception of Board Member Ross who was absent.
BOARD MEMBER'S REPORTS
A. For Board Member Allen, Senior Planner Hazen provided additional information regarding
staff's additional investigation regarding the property site with the trailer (located on Pujol
Street) with the recently installed fencing, prior to Board pres ation, noting that the
improvements to this site may be agendized for the Board' eptember meeting.
B.. For informational purposes, Senior Planner Hazen no d that if projects come in for
approval after the completion of such, and that if t applicant was denied approval, the
improvements would be required to be remove
STAFF'S REPORT
A. Senior Planner Hazen encouraged t Board to submit to staff properties in Old Town
which have made changes withou oard Approval for staff's investigation.
B. With respect to long-term vis' ning for Old Town, Senior Planner Hazen recommended
that the Board take a walk' g tour through Old Town in order to provide additional input to
staff; recommended tha he Board provide suggestions to staff regarding long-term
phasing projects to b ecommended to the City Council for inclusion in the City's 5-year
Capitallmproveme Plan (CIP) budget, noting that he could provide material regarding
what the City Co cil had denoted for funded projects for the next 5 years for the Board's
review.
C. For Board ember Montgomery, Redevelopment Management Analyst Hillberg noted that
the directional signage for Old Town was currently being constructed.
R:/OldT own/LRB/Minutes/081301
3
.,.
D. For a future Board meeting, Senior Planner Hazen relayed that the Villages of Old Town
Project would be presented to the Board, noting staff's solicitatio of the Board's input.
E. In response to Board Member Montgomery, Development I') ocessing Coordinator Noland
updated the Board with respect to paint improvement pr . ct on Pujol Street which had
been approved by Redevelopment Director Meyer.
F. Chairman Harker noted that a walking tour could e scheduled for October when the
weather cools.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:50 A.M. Chairman Harker formally ad' rned this meeting to Monday. September 10.
2001 at 9:00 A.M. in the Community Dell lopment Conference Room, City Hall, 43200 Business
Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 .
Chairman William Harker
Senior Planner Hazen
R:/O]dTownllRB/MinuteslO~1301
4