Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout031201 OTLRB MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE OLD TOWN TEMECULA LOCAL REVIEW BOARD MARCH 12, 2001 CALL TO ORDER The Old Town Temecula Local Review Board convened in a regular meeting at 8:59 A.M., on Monday, March 12, 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. None. Also Present: Senior Planner Hogan, Associate Planner Anders, Development Processing Coordinator Noland, Redevelopment Management Analyst Hillberg, Minute Clerk Dettmers, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Minutes of February 12, 2001. The following modifications to the minutes were recommended by the Board: on page 4, the reference to flight loft should be corrected to indicate fly/oft, in the 2nd paragraph the word structures should be singular, and the word passerby's should be replaced with the word passersby; on page 5, in the 3r~ paragraph, the letter d should be deleted; on page 6, in the 5th paragraph, the word visual should be replaced with the word visually; and on page 7, in paragraph A. the word the should be replaced with the word he, the word Sherwood should be replaced with the word Sherwin, in lieu of the word alternate paint companies, the words Frazee and Dunn Edwards should be reflected, and on the signature line the name Anders should be placed on the line above. MOTION: Board Member Allen moved to approve the minutes, as modified. The motion was seconded by Board Member Blair and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. R:lOIdTownlLRBIMinutes103120'l 1 BOARD BUSINESS 2 Facade Improvements for the Palomar Hotel Bed and Breakfast/Restaurant~Bar (28522 Old Town Front Street) (Applicant's Representative: Walt Allen) RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 That the Old Town Temecula Local Review Board review, provide comments, and take action with respect to this improvement plan. Board Member Allen advised that he would be abstaining with respect to this item. Mr. Walt Allen, representing the applicant, presented the project plan, highlighting the outdoor dining area, the concrete block wall which would be have a stucco application, noting that the stucco finish which would provide an antiquated appearance, the outdoor bar area, and the handicap access; for Chairman Harker, specified that the bar would be located outdoors; and for Board Member Ross, noted the fireplace element which was depicted in a photograph from a use in San Diego. In response to Board Member Ross' comments regarding the visual appearance of the fiat roof, Associate Planner Anders relayed the enhanced elements added for visual interest (i.e., the various sizes and shapes of awnings and windows), noting the restrictions associated with the existing architectural style. For Board Member Blair, Mr. Allen specified the location of the proposed parking, noting the need for parking for the hotel patrons; advised that the bar use required a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) which has been applied for; and for Board Member Blair, noted that construction could begin in June. Board Member Ross noted the appeal of an outdoor bar use in Old Town. Associate Planner Anders relayed the progress of the project since Mr. Allen came on board, providing a brief history of the project. Mr. Allen relayed that the indoor dining area plan had not been finalized; for Chairman Harker, noted that plans for security lighting had not been determined; and for Board Member Montgomery, confirmed that the back wall would be short enough to see over while sitting. In response to Associate Planner Anders, Mr. Allen relayed that the color application may be further addressed at a future point in time. For Redevelopment Management Analyst Hillberg, Mr. Allen differentiated the development which would be new construction; for Senior Planner Hogan, relayed that various windows would most likely be replaced in the front of the building; highlighted the commercial kitchen area, noting that at a future point 200-300 square feet may be added to this area; relayed that currently the temporary shed structure was utilized for the storage of two water heaters; noted the concrete and rock elements which would remain on site; advised that at this point the plan was to feature a Mediterranean-type menu for the restaurant use; noted the future laundry area; for Board Member Montgomery, clarified the property perimeters; for Redevelopment Management Analyst Hillberg, relayed that most likely other liquors would be served rather than R:lOIdTownlLRBIMinutes1031201 2 solely beer and wine (i.e., margaritas); for Board Member Blair, relayed that the outdoor furniture style had not yet been determined. Associate Planner Anders advised that the project could be conditioned to prohibit the use of plastic furniture. Associate Planner Anders commended Mr. Allen for a job well done; and relayed that if the color application for the project deviates substantially from the original proposal then the revisions would be brought back to the Board for review. MOTION: Board Member Montgomery moved to recommend approval of the project plan to the Planning Department of this project plan. The motion was seconded by Board Member Blair and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Board Member Allen who abstained. 3 Old Town Plaza Stucco Texture and Color (28410 Old Town Front Street) RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the Old Town Temecula Local Review Board review, provide comments, and take action with respect to this improvement plan. Board Member Allen advised that he would be abstaining from this item. Board Member Blair relayed that after visiting the site again to view the stucco samples he confirmed that Sample No. 2 was his first choice, that Sample No. 1 was his second choice, and that he was not in favor of Sample No. 3. Board Member Montgomery noted that the stucco application (Sample No. 2) would be greatly enhanced if the squared edges on the building were rounded, advising that in his opinion the stucco application's purpose was lost without this modification. In response, Redevelopment Management Analyst Hillberg advised that it was his understanding that the applicant was solely willing to apply stucco. Associate Planner Anders noted that Sample No. 3 had been the applicant's primary choice; and relayed that a new stucco application would enhance the building, Redevelopment Management Analyst Hillberg advising that with Sample No. 2 the texture would be changed. For Board Member Ross, Associate Planner Anders provided a history of the previously approved fa<;ade improvement project at this site, advising that due to finance issues this project was deemed not feasible; and relayed that with this current proposal there would also be a comprehensive sign plan which would improve the visual aesthetics. For Board Member Montgomery, Redevelopment Management Analyst Hillberg relayed that the tile would be removed during the improvement project, noting that the expansion joints would remain. It was the consensus of the Board the Sample No. 2 was the preferred stucco application. Board Member Montgomery relayed that if the applicant was not proposing to round the corners on the project, it was his opinion that the building should solely be painted. In response to Mr. Allen's queries regarding whether the project would include modifying the parapets, Redevelopment Management Analyst Hillberg relayed that it was his understanding R:lOIdTownlLRBIMinutes1031201 3 that the sole improvement would be to re-stucco; and reiterated that the tile inserts on the pillars would be removed. Mr. Allen relayed that to cover the metal reveal strips would require demolition. For Board Member Ross, Redevelopment Management Analyst Hillberg relayed that the City would lend the applicant a $5,000 Grant, and up to a $15,000 rebate would be provided for this project, noting that the cost of the stucco improvement would be $30,500, advising that additionally some tile work would be removed and replaced, the parking lot would be repaired, the outside sign would be redone, and some minimal landscaping would be added. Board Member Montgomery noted that the plan bid denoted application of mesh coat and finish, advising that the rounding of the corners would be a minimal additional cost. Associate Planner Anders advised that additional information (i.e., whether the reveals, or tiles would be removed, whether the squared edges would be rounded) was needed by the Board in order to take action on this issue, noting that she did not have detailed data regarding this project. For Board Member Ross, Associate Planner Anders relayed the rationale for the Board approving this modified project plan, rather than having staff work with the applicant. MOTION: Board Member Montgomery moved to continue this item to the March 26, 2001 meeting. The motion was seconded by Board Member Blair and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Board Member Allen who abstained. 4 New Roof for the Hitchinq Post Center (28480 Old Town Front Street) RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 That the Old Town Temecula Local Review Board approve the new roof for this existing building. Development Processing Coordinator Noland relayed that the applicant's representative had called staffto obtain information regarding roofing materials, noting that subsequently the new roof was installed without permits, advising that the Building Inspector became involved at that point; relayed that technically this project required Board approval; for Board Member Blair, confirmed that the roof has already been replaced; and provided additional information regarding the materials utilized. Additional discussion ensued regarding the applicant removing the dilapidated hitching posts located on the corner of 6th StreetJOId Town Front Street. Board Member Ross relayed that it would have been his recommendation to have the roof constructed of the imitation shake-style roofing material. For Chairman Harker, Development Processing Coordinator Noland relayed that he was not sure of the procedure if the Board denied the approval of this project, noting that he could address the issue with the Planning Director; for Board Member Ross, advised that the permit issue was being addressed with the Building Inspector. Associate Planner Anders relayed that R:lOIdTownlLRBIMinutes103120'1 4 realistically the applican[ would most likely not be required to remove the new roofing material, acknowledging that the avenue which the applicant took was incorrect; for Board Member Ross, Associate Planner Anders relayed that she would have to investigate as to whether sanctions (i.e., double permit fees) could be imposed on the applicant for installing the roof without permits. Referencing the Old Town Specific Plan, Development Processing Coordinator Noland reviewed the roofing standards. Chairman Harker relayed his reluctance to set a precedent in Old Town, having the Board approve a project after completion. Board Member Blair queried whether it would be adequate to state that the Board reviewed the project, but took no formal action on this issue. In response, Development Processing Coordinator Noland relayed that he could obtain additional information from the Building Department, noting that the materials utilized were consistent with the Specific Plan, acknowledging that the applicant should have sought Board approval prior to the installation in order for the Board to have the opportunity to provide input. Board Member Montgomery relayed that he would have recommended an alternate color, Board Member Ross noting that he would have recommended shake-type roofing. For Chairman Harker, Development Processing Coordinator Noland clarified that the City was not involved with the financing of this project. Additional discussion ensued regarding denying approval of the project. Board Member Allen recapitulated the Board's comments, noting that the Board was not pleased with the project, and had no desire to be responsible for approving the project; and concurred with Board Member Ross' recommendation to ignore the project, relaying that if this was not feasible that the Board could relay that the project was taken under the advisement of the Board without approving the project. In response to Chairman Harker, Associate Planner Anders relayed that the Board's recommendation to staff could be to deny the project, and to request that assessing double permit fees be investigated. In response, Board Member Ross relayed that taking this action would demonstrate the limited authority of the Board. Chairman Harker relayed that if the Board approved the project, then the message would be relayed that it was acceptable to complete a project without Board approval, and to obtain approval after the fact. Board Member Ross recommended that the Board state that the Board did not approve of the completed project but that since the project has been completed the Board would be abstaining from taking action. Board Member Montgomery queried whether a letter could be sent to the applicant, and that the contractor be fined for not obtaining permits. Additional discussion ensued regarding sending a letter to the applicant. R:lOIdTownlLRBIMinuteslO$1201 5 Chairman Harker queried whether the Board could accept the project while not approving it. For Board Member Blair, Associate Planner Anders relayed that she had no knowledge regarding the City addressing this type of matter with the State Contractor's Board, noting that she could relay the queries to Chief Building Official Elmo. Development Processing Coordinator Noland relayed that a member of the Building Department could attend the next meeting to further address the Board's queries. MOTION: Board Member Montgomery moved to accept, but not approve the plan. The motion was seconded by Board Member Allen. (Ultimately this motion died for lack of a second due to the second being withdrawn,) Board Member Ross recommended that the motion include sending a letter to the applicant clarifying the rationale for the Board not approving the project. MOTION: Board Member Montgomery moved to accept, but not approve the plan; and to direct staff to send a letter to the applicant clarifying the rationale for the Board not approving the project. (Ultimately this motion was seconded and passed; see below.) Board Member Allen relayed that he would withdraw his second, relaying that he did not support the modification to the motion. The motion was seconded by Chairman Harker and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Board Member Allen who voted no. 5 New Paint for the Stampede (28465 Old Town Front Street) RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 That the Old Town Temecula Local Review Board review, provide comments, and take action with respect to this improvement plan. Associate Planner Anders relayed that the applicant had submitted four color schemes but that it was unclear where the various paint colors would be applied; and recommended that the applicant provide additional information. For Chairman Harker, Associate Planner Anders noted that the applicant had relayed that the City had removed the shrubbery at the site during the City project. MOTION: Board Member Blair moved to continue this matter to the March 26, 2001 meeting. The motion was seconded by Board Member Ross and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. BOARD MEMBER'S REPORTS Board Member Montgomery noted that there were new businesses occupying buildings in Old Town, and that tenant improvement-type work was being conducted inclusive of paint and sign revisions, recommending that these issues R:lOIdTownlLRBIMinutes1031201 6 be brought before the Board. Associate Planner Anders relayed that the City could not legislate ethics. Development Processing Coordinator Noland noted that Code Enforcement could address these issues, relaying that staff could relay the specific uses to Code Enforcement. Associate Planner Anders relayed that Code Enforcement responds via a complaint basis; and for Board Member Blair, relayed that she could query Chief Building Official Elmo as to whether the building officials were given the authority to address non-permitted uses on their own accord. STAFF'S REPORT No further input. ADJOURNMENT At 10:29 A.M. Chairman Harker formally adjourned this meeting to an adjourned regular meeting to be held on Monday, March 26, 2001 at 9:00 A.M. in the Main Conference Room, City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 Chairman William Harker Associate Planner Patricia Anders R:lOIdTownlLRBIMinutes1031201 7