Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout061101 OTLRB MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE OLD TOWN TEMECULA LOCAL REVIEW BOARD JUNE 11, 2001 CALL TO ORDER The Old Town Temecula Local Review Board convened in a regular meeting at 9:00 A.M., on Monday, June 11, 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: Development Processing Coordinator Noland, Redevelopment Management Analyst Hillberg, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. BOARD BUSINESS 1 Addition to Dwellinq, New Paint and Facade Improvements (28681 Puiol Street) (Applicants: Otto and Nancy Baron) RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 That the Old Town Local Review Board review, provide comments, and take action with respect to this improvement plan. Mr. Otto Baron, the applicant, addressed the questions of the Board, as follows: for Board Member Allen, specified which elevation was the street elevation; noted that the trailer on site was not being improved fully at this time, and would be utilized as a guest house/recreation room; for Chairman Harker, provided a history of this particular type of architectural design; specified the attic access from the roof; relayed that the addition would include the following: the tower element (which helped to create the appearance of an entire second floor), the reestablishment of a separate dining room, an entryway, a bedroom, a closet, and bathroom; for Board Member Allen, specified the location of the pantry and closet; advised that a professional contractor was utilized for the development of the architectural plans; relayed that the siding would be wood; with respect to the roofing material, noted that this particular roof would be similar to the material (i.e., tile) which was utilized at their store on 4th Street and Mercedes Street, and would have a wood-shake appearance; for Board Member Montgomery, noted that the garage structure will not be improved at this time; for Board Member Allen, clarified the rationale for the rear elevation of the building having vertical siding while the R:lOIdTownlLRBIMinutes1061101 remainder of the building had horizontal, relaying that historically in older homes (during the Victorian era) the best features would typically be placed forward, noting that it was not uncommon for these homes to be constructed with an inferior grade of siding in the rear; and relayed that the rear elevation would not be visible with the exception of the view from the private access road. Offering his comments, Board Member Allen noted that per driving by the site, that the edge of the rear elevation could be seen clearly; opined that this particular plan and design would not be aesthetically pleasing; relayed that the mix of adding new siding which would be vertical when the existing siding was horizontal created inconsistency; and clarified that due to his understanding that the Board was only to take action with respect to proposed colors and materials and did not have the jurisdiction to address design elements, he would not recommend denial of the project. For Board Member Allen, Mr. Baron relayed that he was willing to revise the plan to use vertical siding, and would utilize all horizontal siding. In response to Board queries, Ms. Nancy Baron relayed that the wood siding would be new, and that it would not be made of plywood; specified the area for the proposed arbor; and for Board Member Ross, provided an overview of her understanding of the future adjacent apartment development to the rear of her property. Concurring with the applicant, Chairman Harker relayed that he was not opposed to the vertical siding being added when the remainder of the building had horizontal siding; noted that this architectural style was typical of this era (i.e., Victorian), advising that if it was painted one color there would be consistency. Providing the site layout for Board Member Ross, Ms. Baron relayed that beyond the sidewalk there was five feet (5') of City property, then beginning at their property line there was fifteen feet (15') in front of the trailer [ which was forty (40') feet deep], then between the trailer and the house [which was forty feet (40')deep] there was forty feet (40'), and behind the house there was thirty-five feet(35'). For Board Member Ross, Mr. Baron noted that at some point in the future he planned to stucco the trailer to create a Greek revival architectural appearance. After additional discussion, Board Member Montgomery clarified that the trailer was not an issue associated with the approval of this project. Development Processing Coordinator Noland noted, for Board Member Ross, that this project would not go before the Planning Commission; and for Board Member Allen, clarified that the issue the Board would be taking action on with respect to this item was the fa(;ade improvement. Ms. Baron provided addiotional information regarding potential future plans to construct a carport in order to store the antique cars. MOTION: Board Member Montgomery moved to recommend approval of the project plan, as proposed. The motion was seconded by Board Member Blair and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Board Members Allen and Ross who abstained. R:lOIdTown/LRB/Minutes1061101 2 2 New Siqns for the Liqhthouse Charity Thrift Shop (28500 Old Town Front Street) (Applicant: Phyllis Buck) RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 That the Old Town Temecula Local Review Board review, provide comments, and take action with respect to the improvement plan. Development Processing Coordinator Noland presented the proposed signage (per agenda material); clarified that while the applicant had not specified the exact location of the placement of the signs, that the largest sign would be placed on the parapet, and that it was his understanding that the alternate two signs would be placed on the walls; relayed that the applicant had decided not to pursue the three dimensional lighthouse element; for Board Member Allen, specified that staff was requesting the Board to take action regarding the proposed colors and design of the signage; and for Chairman Harker, noted that the colors were selected from the color palette standard for Old Town. Board Member Allen noted that this signage would cause no negative impacts at this site, while relaying that it appeared that the signage had more than four colors. In response to the Board, Development Processing Coordinator Noland relayed that the Board could continue this matter in order for the applicant to provide additional specificity regarding location, to denote the exact colors which would be utilized, and/or to reduce the number of colors to four. Additional discussion ensued regarding the number of colors utilized, noting that the lighthouse element (which encompassed only ten percent of the total signage) was the primary location for the multiple color usage. Referencing the sign that will most likely be placed over the door, Board Member Montgomery queried why the letters were changed from green to blue. In response, Development Processing Coordinator Noland relayed that staff would investigate the change, advising that the Board could approve the project subject to the lettering on all three signs being one consistent color. MOTION: Board Member Allen moved to approve the design of the signs, as proposed, subject to the letters being consistent on all three signs. The motion was seconded by Board Member Montgomery and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 3 New Storaqe Buildinq for the Shire (28656 Old Town Front Street) (Applicant: Phyllis Buck) RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the Old Town Temecula Local Review Board review, provide comments and take action with respect to this improvement plan. R:lOIdTownlLRBIMinutes1061101 3 Noting that this applicant has submitted a Minor Development Plan to the Planning Department for formal approval, Development Processing Coordinator Noland presented the staff report (per agenda material), relaying that this building would be painted, the sign would be removed, and would be utilized for storage; specified the location of the building; advised that this item has been brought to the attention of Code Enforcement since it was placed on the site without approval; and for Board Member Allen, relayed that the owner of this site was not new to Old Town. Relaying his frustration, Board Member Allen advised that the problem of merchants in Old Town completing their projects and then bringing the items in for Board approval is continuing. In response, Development Processing Coordinator Noland reiterated that Code Enforcement was addressing this issue, and that the project will have to go through the approval process at this time. Additional discussion ensued regarding the Board's jurisdiction as a recommending body, relaying that ultimately this matter would be addressed with the Planning Department and be subject to review by the Building Department, as well. Due to the negative visual impacts, Board Member Montgomery relayed his recommendation that storage sheds not be permitted in Old Town, Board Member Blair concurring that temporary buildings should not be allowed in commercial districts, particularly in the Old Town commercial district. For the Board, Development Processing Coordinator Noland advised that this building would be classified as a detached accessory building. Board Member Allen concurred with the previous Board recommendations, that temporary structures should not be allowed in Old Town, while noting that if this particular building was used for storage, potentially the trash behind the use would be placed in the storage area; and clarified that while he was discouraged with the fact that this building is temporary, and the fact that the applicant was seeking approval after placing the structure on this site, that he was not opposed to the proposed colors; and advised that this storage building had aluminum windows which was prohibited in QId Town. Board Member Blair noted that it was his understanding that the Board was to ensure that projects meet the design criteria, recommending that the Board provide input regarding the buildings, and not solely the colors. Development Processing Coordinator Noland relayed that if the Specific Plan was silent regarding this type of use, then the Development Code Standards would be applicable, and specifically as it relates to commercial property; noted, For Board Member Blair, that while this application would go through an ancillary planning process, the Board could make a determination that this was not an inappropriate structure within the confines of the Specific Plan; and recommended that whatever action the Board took, that the aluminum windows be addressed in the motion (which were prohibited in the Specific Plan). Additional discussion ensued regarding the clear visibility of the structure from the street, and the fact that this storage shed was more aesthetically pleasing than the trash enclosure in this area, which it partially screened. R:lOIdTown/LRBIMinutes1061101 4 In response to Board Member Montgomery, Development Processing Coordinator Noland relayed that the structure would not be permitted to be utilized as a commercial retail space; and for Board Member Allen, relayed that with Planning Department approval this type of building, as a detached accessory structure would be legal if it complied with all the required criteria, including standards from the Building Department. MOTION: Board Member Montgomery moved to recommend that Planning staff amend the Old Town Specific Plan, adding language, which would address the prohibition of temporary structures in Old Town. The motion was seconded by Board Member Allen and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. Additional discussion ensued regarding the differences between temporary and permanent structures. Board Member Blair relayed concern regarding the potential use of a varying color being applied on the trellis, which was located proximate to the storage use, and would create visual inconsistency. MOTION: Board Member Allen moved to recommend (if the Planning Department approves this application) that this project be approved with the proposed colors, subject to the aluminum windows being removed and replaced with wood. Board Member Blair seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 4 New Front Deck for Proposed Sandwich Shop (41971 Main Street) (Applicant: Phyllis Buck) RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 That the Old Town Temecula Local Review Board review, provide comments, and take action with respect to this improvement plan. Providing an overview of the proposed project, Development Processing Coordinator Noland highlighted the potential for this use to be a sandwich shop, the plan to add a front deck which would be painted Rockwood Red and be extended to the front property line; clarified that the deck would not enter the public right-of way; and noted that the project would also go through the Planning Department as part of the approval process. Additional discussion ensued regarding ADA access. Board Member Allen suggested that the applicant consider continuing the horizontal siding along the west side of the proposed deck in place of the vertical rails, which would be more consistent with this particular building. MOTION: Board Member Allen moved to recommend approval of the project, additionally, recommending that the applicant consider continuing the horizontal siding along the west side of the proposed deck in lieu of the vertical rails. The motion was seconded by Board Member Montgomery and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. R:lOIdTown/LRBIMinutes106110'1 5 BOARD MEMBER'S REPORTS Board Member Ross recommended that there be a mechanism for the Board Members to address concerns in Old Town; specifically sited various concerns of his own( i.e., the proliferation of white buildings in Old Town); recommended that there be an avenue for the Board to freely express their opinions on a broad range of issues which effect Old Town, and to not be restricted to commenting solely on paint, color, and facade improvements; and confirmed, for Board Member Allen, that it was his desire for the Board to address noncompliant issues in Old Town as related to the Specific Plan. Concurring with Board Member Ross, Board Member Allen noted the need for the intent and the vision of the Old Town Specific Plan to be pursued. In response to the Board's comments, Chairman Harker recommended agendizing specific issues of concern in order for the Board to be able to fully explore matters needing to be addressed. Development Processing Coordinator Noland added that if Code Enforcement needed to be involved with specific issues, and if the items were agendized, an Officer could be requested to attend that particular meeting. Board Member Montgomery opined that it was the Board's charge to ensure that projects meet the criteria of the Specific Plan; in response to Board Member Ross's comments regarding the inappropriateness of the color "white" in Old Town, sited the story of Huckleberry Finn whitewashing the fence; clarified that additionally he was not opposed to the use of the color "red"; and relayed that he would not support the Board denying property owners the plan to use colors which were included on the color palette standard. While reviewing an application for a particular site, Board Member Blair opined that the Board should be able to address alternate matters on the property, specifically issues of blight. Additional discussion ensued regarding the Board Members conveying to staff recommended items to be placed on the Agenda. Development Processing Coordinator Noland clarified that various issues of blight could be investigated and addressed via Code Enforcement. In order to obtain additional information regarding the Board's jurisdiction, and possible avenues to address issues such as blight in Old Town, Board Member Allen recommended that there be a workshop scheduled with various departmental staff (i.e., Code Enforcement); recommended that the Board be provided specific data regarding the parameters of this body's jurisdiction. In response, Development Processing Coordinator Noland recommended that each Board Member forward to him a copy of their specific questions and concerns in order for staff to determine which personnel would be needed to address the Board's comments. In response to Board Member Montgomery, Development Processing Coordinator Noland reiterated that Code Enforcement issues could be addressed via staff or a Board Member contacting Code Enforcement, and requesting that specific issues be investigated. R:/OIdTowr,/LRB/Minutes/061101 6 Board Member Montgomery advised that as projects come forward to the Board with other issues of concern on the same site (i.e., numerous vehicles stored on the property), it was his recommendation that the Board continue the item to the next meeting in order to agendize and further investigate the alternate issues on the property (i.e., blight). In response to the Board's queries, Development Processing Coordinator Noland relayed that if the Board Members had a recommendation regarding an item to be agendized that this information be provided to him at a minimum of a week prior to the subsequent meeting. STAFF'S REPORT No additional comments. ADJOURNMENT At 10:45A.M. Chairman Harker formally adjourned this meeting to Monday, July 9~ 2001 at 9:00 A.M. in the Community Development Conference Room, City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 Chairman William Harker Sen~ Planner Don-'6"Hazen R:lOIdTownlLRB/Minutes10611 7