Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout110804 OTLRB Minutes 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 Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL Present: Board Members Allen, Blair, Moore, *Haserot and Chairman Harker Absent: None Also Present: Management Analyst Hillberg Code Enforcement Officer Cole Planning Director Ubnoske Minute Clerk Childs Development Processing Coordinator Noland Associate Planner Fisk PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Aaenda 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 will be rolled over to the next meeting. R:IOld TownlMinutes\20041110B04.doc NEW ITEMS Due to conflict of interest, Board Member Allen stepped down from this item. 3 Plannina Aoolication No. PA04-0295 a sian oroaram for a new 12.309 sauare foot buildin~ on 0.10 acres located on the west side of Front Street. aooroximatelv 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:\Old TownlMinutes\2004\110804.doc 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 OTlRS 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 OTlRS 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:\Old TownlMinutes\2004\110804.doc 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 Allen 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:\Old TownlMinules\2004\110804.doc 4 seconded the motion and voice vote reflected aDDroval 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 aDDroval 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 aDDroval with the exception of Board Member Allen who abstained. 5. MOTION: Board Member Blair moved to denv the proposal for vinyl windows signs. Board Member Haserot seconded the motion and voice vote reflected aDDroval 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 aDDroval 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 aDDroval with the exception of Board Member Allen who abstained. 4 Plannina Aoolication P A03-0418 A Develooment Plan to redeveloo Butterfield Sauare. resultina in four two-stOry buildinas totalina 22.048 sauare 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 some 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:\Old TownlMinutes\2004\110804.doc 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 0; 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 theSP 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 board, 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 0 needs to be designed for pedestrian access with appropriate landscaping and building treatments (Le. 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 that 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:\Old TownlMlnutes\2004\ 11 0804.doc 8 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:\Old TownlMinutes\2004\110804.doc 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 & D 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 D 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 aDDroval 5 Plannina Aoolication No PA04-0547 a orooosal to install three new sians on an existina retail buildina The Trick Shoo located at 28561 Old Town Front Street within the Tourist Retail Core (TRC) district of the Old Town Temecula Soecific Plan Applicant: Tracy Blankenship The Trick Shop 43122 Corte Fresca Temecula, CA 92592 R:\Old TownlMinutes\2004\110804.doc 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 aDDroval 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. ~~C.1~L Chairman William Harker ~hln-<:. ~)4- Director of Planning Ubnoske R:\Old TownlMlnules\2004\ 11 0804.doc 9