Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout021400 OTLRB MinutesOTLRB/rninutes/021400 CALL TO ORDER MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE OLD TOWN TEMECULA LOCAL REVIEW BOARD FEBRUARY 14, 2000 The Old Town Temecula Local Review Board convened in a regular meeting at 9:13 A.M., on Monday, February 14, 2000, in the Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California. ROLLCALL Present: Absent: Also Present: BOARD BUSINESS 1. Public Discussion No comments. Board Members Allen, Ross, and Chairman Harker Board Members Blair, and Mighell. Assistant Planner Anders, Development Processing Coordinator Noland, Senior Redevelopment Analyst Powers, and Minute Clerk Hansen 2. Approval of Minutes - January 10, 2000 MOTION: Chairman Harker moved to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Board Member Ross and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Board Members Blair and Mighell who were absent. 3. Old Business No comments. 4. New Business A. Antique Maqnifique (Exterior Paint Colors) 28535 Old Town Front Street) Relaying that funding by the Redevelopment Department had not been approved for this particular project, Senior Redevelopment Analyst Powers presented an overview of the proposed paint application; via the color palette, specified the colors proposed to be utilized, as follows: peace yellow, classic white, and rockwood sash green; provided additional information regarding the location of the site; noted that the existing color of the building was a gold-toned color; and advised that the applicant had utilized colors from the approved color palette for Old Town. OTLRB/minutes~21400 Chairman Harker, echoed by Board Member Ross, noted that since the primary color proposed was yellow, the building would stand out with the yellow color application. For Board Member Allen, Project Planner Anders relayed that there were no photographs available with respect to this site. In response to the Board, Project Planner Anders relayed that at the end of the meeting, the Board could visit the site in order to gain clarification of the proposed paint application areas, and the proximate uses. (It was noted that the Board visited this site for further review and discussion at 10:17 A.M.) (See page 6 of the minutes.) B. Old Town Smoke Shop (Siqns) 28636 Old Town Front Street) Via photographs, Project Planner Anders provided an overview of the proposed signage, relaying that she had advised the applicant to relocate the sign that would be visually obstructed by the tree in that area; and specified the location of the proposed signage. In response to Board Member Allen's queries regarding the bracket mounting utilized to affix the sign to the building, Project Planner Anders advised that the applicant had relayed that she would be utilizing a bracket fixture consistent to what had been existing. For informational purposes, Project Planner Anders relayed that while the Board and staff have concentrated on the actual proposed signage when presented, that based on past approvals the mounting fixtures utilized in conjunction with the signage could provide a negative visual appearance (citing alternate signs in Old Town). Additional discussion ensued regarding mounting fixtures. For information purposes, Project Planner Anders relayed the benefit of buildings adopting a comprehensive sign program, noting that various merchants were not willing to pursue the concept. In response to Chairman Harker's suggestion to not utilize projecting signage due to the proliferation of projecting signs at the site, Development Processing Coordinator Noland advised that to propose two hanging signs would be a technical deviation from the sign guidelines. For Board Member Ross, Project Planner Anders provided additional information regarding her recommendation that the signage obstructed by the tree be relocated, noting the ineffectiveness of a sign that was only partially visible. Board Member Ross relayed that if the applicant desired to maintain the plan to install the sign located in the area where it would be visually impacted by the tree, there would be symmetry with respect the sign placement. Project Planner Anders queried the Board for input regarding the proposed projecting sign; and provided additional information regarding the location. Board Member Alien noted the consistency of the proposed sign with the existing signage on the building. OTLRB/minutes~2140O In response to Board comments, Project Planner Anders advised that she would desire to have provision of additional information regarding the type of bracket mounting fixtures the applicant planned to utilize prior to approval of the plan. Board Member Allen advised that if the sign guidelines only allowed a projection of three feet, this signage appeared to be non-compliant. For informational purposes, Development Processing Coordinator Noland and Project Planner Anders cited the sign guidelines, specifying that the signs may encroach into the public right-of- way a maximum of three feet, and not extend more than three feet from the wall surface; and advised that the applicant would be required to comply to the specified standards. Reiterating the Board's comments, Project Planner Anders relayed the following: 1) that the Board was in favor of the proposed placement of the sign proximate to the location of the obstructing tree, and 2) that the Board was in favor of the proposed projecting signage. In response to Project Planner Anders comments, Chairman Harker relayed that prior to final approval, there would need to be additional information regarding the type of brackets that would be utilized. Board Member Ross recommended that the Board specify whether the proposed sign was hung via a chain, or bolted, noting that a chain provided a negative visual appearance when in disrepair. With respect to the recommendation to not utilize chain for hanging the signs, Chairman Harker relayed that the sign would be negatively impacted by heavy winds if chain was utilized. With respect to the colors proposed on the signage, Senior Redevelopment Analyst Powers relayed that due to the light tone of the proposed gray color, that the sign lettering may not be visible. In response to Senior Redevelopment Analyst Powers' comments, additional discussion ensued regarding the recommendation that the applicant outline the lettering in a black color, or utilize a darker gray color in order to create an easily read sign. Chairman Harker, echoed by Board Member Allen, relayed his preference that the applicant not utilize an outlining black-colored application. Board Member Ross queried whether it was the charge of the Board to specify guidelines to create an easily read sign; and questioned whether the Board would be infringing on the applicant's discretion. Board Member Allen relayed concurrence with Board Member Ross' statements. Chairman Harker relayed that if the applicant opted to darken the gray color application, or utilize an outlining affect, the Board would have no objection. In response to Board Member Ross' previous inquiries, Project Planner Anders relayed that it was the responsibility of staff and the Board to convey to the applicants information regarding colors that work well, providing direction based on the experience of seeing the final projects in the built environment; noted that oftentimes there was a great differential between the color elevations and the final project in the built environment; and advised that there was a balance OTLRB/minutes~21400 required between latitude for the applicant's discretion and a proposal that would had an ineffective impact, or a negative visual appearance. Board Member Ross relayed concurrence with staff providing direction due to their professional background experience, noting that as a Board Member he felt inadequate to provide specificity with respect to business decisions (i.e., requiring an applicant to modify a proposal to create a more easily read sign). For clarification purposes, Project Planner Anders referenced the Temecula Valley Museum signage, noting the difficulty in reading the lettering in the final project due to the muted colors. MOTION: Board Member Allen moved to approve the proposed signage, with the condition that the applicant provide additional information regarding the type of mounting device that would be utilized. Board Member Ross seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Board Members Blair and Mighell who were absent. For informational purposes, Board Member Allen relayed the difficulties associated with bolting a sign to a mounting device in a rigid manner, noting that the sailing impact could loosen the mounting, recommending that staff use discretion with respect to providing direction regarding the mounting device utilized. C. Old Town Framinq (Siqns) 28657 Old Town Front Street) Relaying that the applicant was proposing approximately five signs, Project Planner Anders provided additional information regarding the location of the signage, via photographs. For information purposes, Senior Redevelopment Analyst Powers relayed that the owner of this use had plans approved, and submitted for funding, to enhance the parapet at this site. In order for staff to work with this applicant with respect to sign compliance, and in order to provide the Board with additional information, it was noted that this issue would be brought back to the Board at a future date for discussion. D. Bev-Ray Camera Repair & Sales (Siqns) 28455 Old Town Front Street) Development Processing Coordinator Noland provided an overview of this particular sign proposal, noting that the parapet sign (measuring 32 square feet) and the two monument signs had been refaced; advised that with respect to Code Enforcement, the signs would be either legal nonconforming on nonconforming, dependent upon the receipt of building permits; retayed the color application of red, white, and blue, noting the yellow color of the building; queried the Board for input regarding the graphics, advising that staff would discuss the compliance issues with Code Enforcement; for Chairman Harker, provided additional specification, noting that the parapet sign was within standard guidelines with respect to the size, reiterating the nonconformance issues related to the monument signs, and queried the Board for input regarding the color application. Senior Redevelopment Analyst Powers provided additional information regarding the applicant's decision to move forward with the existing signage, disregarding discussions with staff with respect to standards and compliance issues. Chairman Harker commented that the colors utilized were not consistent with the color palette. 4 OTLRB/minutes~21400 Senior Redevelopment Analyst Powers relayed the restrictions associated with RDA funding the proposed project, noting that this use was a temporary structure. In light of the prominent location of this site in Old Town, Board Member Ross relayed the importance of the visual impact of this use. With respect to funding painting projects, Senior Redevelopment Analyst Powers provided clarification regarding the restrictions associated with the City providing funds for repainting a building. Acknowledging that there was a yellow denoted on the permitted color palette, Board Member Ross commented on the bold affect of painting a building yellow with respect to the negative visual appearance. Senior Redevelopment Analyst Powers relayed the difficulties in conveying to applicants the requirement to utilize colors from the color palette, and then objecting to the proposed color application within that criteria. Chairman Harker relayed the visual interest in creating variety with respect to building colors, while concurring that in his opinion the yellow color application utilized as a building color did stand out. Board Member Allen expressed concurrence that in his opinion a yellow paint application for an exterior building color was objectionable. It was determined that the Board would visit this site location at the end of the meeting. (It was noted that the Board visited this site at 10:29 A.M. for further review and discussion.) (See page 7 of the minutes.) 5. Consultation No comments. 6. Board Discussion A. Change of Location for the OTLRB Meetings In response to past Board discussions, staff advised that the Community Development Conference Room was available for the Local Review Board's monthly meetings; and relayed that this conference room was located on the first floor of City Hall in the Planning Department. It was the consensus of the Board to change the meeting place of the Local Review Board meetings to the Community Development Conference Room located at City Hall, noting that the next meeting would be held at that location. Appoint a Board Member as a Representative for the Old Town Theater Advisory Committee Chairman Harker relayed an interest in serving on this committee. OTLRB/minutes~21400 Project Planner Anders advised that she would request Housing Redevelopment Manager Meyer to provide an overview of the Theater Project at the March 13, 2000 meeting. Chairman Harker provided additional information regarding the Theater Project, noting that the Mercantile Building was in the process of being retrofitted for earthquake safety. Board Member Alien nominated Chairman Harker as the representative to serve on the Old Town Theater Advisory Committee, and nominated Board Member Ross to serve as an alternate member. It was the consensus of the Board to appoint Chairman Harker as the representative of the Old Town Theater Advisory Committee, and Board Member Ross as the alternate member. (It was noted that Board Members Blair and Mighell were absent.) 7. Staff Approvals A. The Grapevine (Siqns) (28475 Old Town Front Street) With respect to this site, Project Planner Anders relayed her efforts to have the applicant develop a comprehensive sign program, noting that the applicant was not agreeable. Via photographs, Project Planner Anders relayed the sign plan proposed at this site; and advised that although this particular proposal could be approved by staff, she was bringing the issue to the Board for informational purposes. Unrelated to the topic of discussion, Board Member Ross queried whether there were fa(;ade modifications taking place in Old Town (in the Mercedes Street area). In response to Board Member Ross, staff provided additional information regarding the development activity in Old Town, noting that various projects that had been approved in past years were slow in the process of coming to completion; Project Planner Anders provided an update with respect to upcoming potential development in Old Town, advising that there may be a request at a future date to amend the Specific Plan with respect to the zoning specifications. For informational purposes, Project Planner Anders noted that there was a Temecula Growth Management Workshop scheduled for February 29, 2000 at 6:00 P.M. which would be held in the Council Chambers at City Hall; and invited the Board to attend. It was noted that at 10:06 A.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 10:17 A.M. at the Antique Magnifiue site (28535 Old Town Front Street) whereupon additional discussion ensued regarding the proposed exterior paint colors. In response to Board comments, Senior Redevelopment Analyst Powers reiterated that the proposed yellow tone was denoted on the color palette as peace yellow. This clarification allayed the concerns of the Board with respect to the color application. 6 OTLRB Imlnutes1021400 Senior Redevelopment Analyst Powers specified the alternate colors that would be utilized for accent trim application. Initially, Board Member Ross relayed reluctance to approve the plan to paint the banister area white, while Board Member Allen relayed no objection to the proposal. Chairman Harker noted that the applicant was utilizing colors within the approved color palette. The Board reviewed the color selection on the color palette. It was noted that the meeting recessed at 10:23 A.M., reconvening at 10:29 A.M. at the Bev-Ray Camera Repair &Sales site (28455 Old Town Front Street) whereupon the Board reviewed the existing signage. Additional discussion ensued regarding the nonconforming monument signs located at the site. Staff advised that Code Enforcement would address the compliance issues. In response to Board Member Ross, Development Processing Coordinator Noland relayed that the building color would remain the same. Chairman Harker noted that the colors on the signage (red, white, and blue) did not provide continuity with respect to the yellow building color. In response to the Board's comments with respect to the inappropriateness of the sign, Project Planner Anders relayed that staff would further investigate compliance issues, noting that the existing signs were installed without the proper design approval process; and advised that the applicant would be required to adhere to the sign guidelines with respect to color application. Board Member Ross noted the surrounding visual pleasing amenities that the City had installed in the proximate area of this site, additionally noting the proximate improvement projects; and relayed that due to the prominent location of this use, the signage would be the initial visual impact for Old Town visitors. Development Processing Coordinator Noland advised that due to the size of the parapet signage, the approval process would require Board approval. ADJOURNMENT At 10:43 A.M. Chairman Harker formally adjourned this meeting to Monday, March 13, 2000, at 9:00 A. M., in the Community Development Conference Room of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman William Harker Assistant Planner Patricia Anders