Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 08-26-91MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 26, 1991 CALL TO ORDER: 7:02 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Le Jeune, Baker, Kasparian, Kasalek, Weil PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda.) At this time members of the public may address the Commission regarding any items not on the agenda and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission (NO action can be taken off-agenda items unless authorized by law). IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY MATTER, PLEASE FILL OUT ONE OF THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE SO THAT YOUR REMARKS ON THE TAPE RECORDING OF THE MEETING CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO YOU. WHEN YOU START TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE STATE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALLMATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1. Minutes of the August 12, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if window signs are allowed on the windows facing the freeway at the new Tustin Freeway Center. The Director replied that they are allowed to have 25% coverage of their windows per elevation. Commissioner Kasparian stated that the 12th paragraph on page 4 of the Minutes should state that the sign encroaches nine (9) feet to within one (1) foot of the sidewalk. Staff affirmed. Commissioner Kasparian asked if there were any driveways other than six (6) and nineteen (19) feet. The Director replied that there is a combination of driveways from six (6) to nineteen (19) feet. Commissioner Weil moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve the Consent Calendar revised as follows: Page 4, 12th paragraph, 4th line, change "one (1) foot" to "nine (9) feet". Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1991 Page 2 Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2. Temporary Use Permit Extension 91-03 APPLICANT: GEORGE GANTES BRECKENRIDGE GROUP P.O. BOX 8147 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MC COMBS PROPERTIES EIGHT LTD. 13132 NEWPORT AVENUE #106 TUSTIN, CA 92680 FARADAY'S GRILL 13102 NEWPORT AVENUE PLANNED COMMUNITY-COMMERCIAL (PC-C) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15311 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EXTENSION OF A 30-DAY TEMPORARY USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A BANNER TO BE DISPLAYED FOR AN ADDITIONAL SIX (6) MONTHS. Recommendation - Pleasure of the Planning Commission. Presentation: Becky Stone, Assistant Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the banner was now up past the original thirty (30) day limit. Staff affirmed. Commissioner Weil asked if there was any response to the notice. Staff replied negatively. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:08 p.m. John Gantes, a principal owner of Faraday's Grill, thanked the Commission for the postponement; stated that downing of the Fourth Street Bridge cost them 30-35% of their lunch business; that the I- 5 and SR-55 construction is also hurting their access; that they are the first restaurant on that end of the retail development; and that a substantial part of their business comes from west of the freeway. Commissioner Le Jeune asked why the actual banner was different from the approved copy. Mr. Gantes replied that the office manager did not realize that the text should read as it was approved. Commissioner Baker asked how to reconcile the comments of Mr. Gantes letter of August 19 regarding lunch time business and the hours of 3-7 listed on the banner. Mr. Gantes replied that they are trying to increase the awareness of the local businesses at happy hour with the intention of getting return lunch business. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1991 Page 3 Commissioner Weil asked if they have tried mail or other advertisement for their 99 cent items; and if the banner was spur of the moment advertising. Mr. Gantes replied that they cannot price anything for 99 cents as a destination product which is what people look for in an ad; and that people who get mail-outs typically work in the area but do not live there. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:15 p.m. Commissioner Weil commented that she received a phone call from Mr. Jack Miller who was against prolonging the time and that thirty (30) days was plenty of time; she also stated that the area has been heavily hit by the downward economy; that the banner brings in some traffic, but a mail-out should be beneficial; that traffic on Newport has increased due to the construction on the Newport Freeway; that since their entrance is off of Newport, she felt that they were compensated; and she questioned leaving a banner up for six months since others would also like to take advantage. Commissioner Kasparian agreed and stated that the customers could get to this site easily via First Street; that when he worked they did not choose a restaurant on impulse; if a banner is allowed here, there would be nothing to limit other businesses from requesting the same; that he is opposed to the six (6) month extension. Commissioner Kasalek agreed with both Commissioners Weil and Kasparian. Commissioner Le Jeune concurred and noted that they already have a large monument sign and extra neon on their signage; and that the current limits are sufficient. Commissioner Weil moved, Kasparian seconded to deny the extension of a 30-day temporary use permit to allow a banner to be displayed for an additional six (6) months. Motion carried 5-0. 3. Extension of Temporary Use Permit 91-04 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CATHY KLEIN 1422 EAST FRANZEN SANTA ANA, CA 92701 TUSTIN MASONIC TEMPLE ASSOCIATION c/o DAVID POOLE 1801 EAST PARKCOURT PLACE, SUITE I SANTA ANA, CA 92701 305 EAST MAIN STREET CG (COMMERCIAL GENERAL) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15311 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AUTHORIZATION OF AN EXTENSION OF A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FOR AN ADDITIONAL 45 DAYS, RESULTING IN AN EXPIRATION DATE OF OCTOBER 8, 1991, FOR THE DISPLAY OF A TEMPORARY BANNER ADVERTISING PRE-SCHOOL ENROLLMENT ~ecom~endation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve a forty-five day extension of the Temporary Use Permit for the property located at 305 East Main Street by Minute Order. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1991 Page 4 Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Associate Planner Commissioner Baker asked when they are planning to open. Staff replied that they are hurrying construction, but that they do not yet know when they will open; but that the applicant would like an action this evening. Commissioner KasDarian asked if a certificate of occupancy could be given before the outside is completed. Staff replied that the inside appears to be further along. The Director replied that the outdoor play area would need to be in place; that the State would have to approve the site before it can operate; that they could post a cash deposit which would allow for temporary occupancy. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that they have been busy outside for the last few days. Commissioner Weil asked if the banner would be removed when the facility is full or would they want to establish a waiting list. Staff replied that there is probably a desire to; that there is an approval for 59 children and that the applicant has indicated that she may need the 45 days to fill up further. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:26 p.m. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:27 p.m. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Baker seconded to approve, by Minute Order, a forty-five day extension of the Temporary Use Permit for the property located at 305 East Main Street. Motion carried 5-0. 4. Conditional Use Permit 91-02 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CONGREGATION B'NAI ISRAEL 655 B STREET TUSTIN, CA 92630 CONGREGATION B'NAI ISRAEL 2111 BRYAN AVENUE PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL (PCR) AND EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT A TEMPLE AND EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IN A LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1. Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 2942. 2. Approve Conditional Use Permit 91-02 by adopting Resolution No. 2943, as revised or submitted. Presentation: Becky Stone, Assistant Planner Staff made changes to the staff report on Page 2 changing the allowed number of children from 40 to 64. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1991 Page 5 Commissioner Baker asked if there has been any significant change since the last application. Staff replied negatively. Commissioner Weil asked if there was any response to the notice. Staff replied that none were received in the ten (10) day public hearing notice time period. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:30 p.m. Doug Wride, 2052 Burnt Mill Road, President of the Monterey of Tustin Ranch Homeowners Association, stated that they were not notified of the previous meeting; that they are concerned with the lighting, plantings and size of the future development; that the trees will not be mature for ten (10) years; that the plants and trees are not compatible for watering; that there were no speci- fications for the lighting standards; and that the height and location of the main sanctuary may be intrusive to the neighbors. The Director replied that a condition requires the applicant to submit a lighting scheme at the building check stage; that lights are not to have a negative impact on the adjoining properties; that the lighting is done by a lighting engineer through a statistical analysis; that one (1) light candle of light coverage is required at ground level. Commissioner Weil asked why would lights in the second story windows be obtrusive if most of the activity will take place in the early evening. The Director replied that the existing elevation information does not indicate that there would be impact from the north elevation of the existing building or future buildings. Commissioner Weil asked if the Commission would see this again. The Director stated that it would be handled at building plan check. Mr. Wride was concerned that this would be their last opportunity as homeowners to comment about the lighting; and that there might be a difference between the engineer's opinion and the homeowners'. Commissioner Weil asked if he was concerned about the lighting being on all night. Mr. Wride replied that most of the parking lot lights would be on late into the night or all night. Michael Schneider, Chairman of Project Development Committee, noted that the east elevation is not visible to the homes to the north; that the lighting only needs to be lit when the facility is in use, and that most meetings during the week would end by 8:00 p.m.; and that the lighting would be shielded appropriately. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the applicant was aware of being next to an Edison substation. Mr. Schneider affirmed. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:42 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1991 Page 6 Commissioner Kasparian stated that this is a good use of the land; that the designers have taken the neighbors into account. Commissioner Weil noted that there is a condition of approval requiring ill plants be replaced; and that she would like to see open communication between the neighbors. Commissioner Le Jeune was concerned about the weed abatement of the vacant section. The Director provided a support condition to Resolution No. 2943 regarding lighting, as moved. She also noted that the Police Department requires some security lighting; that the landscaping plan is only conceptual; that a more exhaustive review will be completed by a landscape architect. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there was a policy regarding more mature plants. The Director replied that more mature plants can be required per the Commission's direction; that the plans require minimum screening. Commissioner Kasparian stated that anyone in a new tract suffers from the problem of small trees and that they need to put up with slow growth; and that they should not make a special requirement of the applicant. Staff replied that the Carob tree is on the list of preferred trees of the East Tustin Specific Plan. Commissioner Kasalek commented that she is confident, based on past experience, that the City will provide proper lighting. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Weil seconded to approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 2942. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Kasparian Conditional Use Permit revised as follows: moved, Kasalek seconded to approve 91-02 by adopting Resolution No. 2943 Exhibit A, Add Condition 2.9: Exterior parking lot lights shall be turned off after hours of use except those lights required by the police department for security purposes. Motion carried 5-0. 5. Conditional Use Permit 91-14 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: TUSTIN HEALTH GROUP, INC. 14662 NEWPORT AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680 HEALTHCARE TUSTIN INC. c/o EASELY MC CALEB STALLINGS P.O. BOX 796847 DALLAS, TX 75379 14662 NEWPORT AVENUE PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL (P&I) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15311 OF THE CALIFORNIA Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1991 Page 7 REQUEST: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AUTHORIZATION TO ERECT THREE (3) 186-SQUARE FOOT WALL SIGNS AT 14662 NEWPORT AVENUE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A HOSPITAL USE Recommendation - Pleasure of the Planning Commission. Presentation: Becky Stone, Assistant Planner Commissioner Weil asked what the name on the business license was. Staff replied that it is Healthcare Medical Center of Tustin. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:58 p.m. Charles Rokicki, Promotional Signs Unlimited, stated that even though this is a large building in the midst of small ones, people cannot find them; that they designed the sign program similar to others in the area; that the signs will conform to the building colors and tones; and that the signs need to be visible to the public and emergency vehicles. Commissioner Kasparian asked what was included in the 186 square feet and how high the letters are. Staff replied that they took the 50.75 foot length times three (3) feet, plus the area of the second text; and that the letters are three (3) feet high. The Public Hearing closed at 8:03 p.m. Commissioner Kasparian stated that it was not fair to compare this facility to other buildings in the area. Staff replied that the applicant provided pictures of Western Medical Center in Santa Ana. Commissioner Kasparian asked the size of the Western Medical Center sign; and if the text of the proposed sign was the same as their business license. Staff replied that Western Medical Center's sign is larger than the proposed sign; and she did not know the name on Western Medical Center's business license. Commissioner Kasalek asked if their name was on all sides. Staff replied that it was on three (3) sides. The Director noted that staff looked at the applications of other businesses in the P & I district in the City and that nothing compared. Commissioner Weil stated that the facility is under-signed, but that 186 square feet is excessive; but that in choosing the amount of verbiage on this sign, this is a self-inflicted hardship; that they might encourage the applicant to install directional signs on Newport, Red Hill, and the freeways, and emergency signs at the curb cut; that having "emergency medical services" in their primary sign indicates that they are only an emergency center; and that this sign will not inform people. CQ~issioner Baker stated that this is a different kind of facility from the one compared to; that people looking for a hospital look Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1991 Page 8 at eye level, not on the top of the building; and that freeway signage would be helpful. Commissioner Kasalek agrees that people do not know where this hospital is located; that signage is needed in the upper area of the building on three (3) sides; but that 186 square feet is excessive, and the title is redundant. Commissioner Le Jeune suggested that this be deferred so that the staff and hospital can work further on it; that three (3) sides would be acceptable; that the wording is redundant; that they might approve 100 square feet. The Director asked if the continuation date was acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Rokicki affirmed. Commissioner Kasparian suggested that the letters be no greater than three (3) feet; asked the official name; and that it is the average person who needs the ground level directions. Staff replied that the business license read, "Healthcare Medical Center, Tustin." Commissioner Le Jeune commented that there are some large trees that might hamper visibility of signage; and asked if the signs on the side of the building should be smaller. Commissioner Weil replied that the signage should not be smaller; and that a sign saying "Tustin Hospital" could be larger and accomplish more. Commissioner Weil moved, Baker seconded to continue the item to the September 9, 1991 meeting to allow time for staff to work with the applicant. Motion carried 5-0. 6. Conditional Use Permit 91-18 and Desiqn Review 91-16 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MR. MIN SUNG KIM 13321 WOODLAND DRIVE TUSTIN, CA 92680 13321 WOODLAND DRIVE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AUTHORIZATION TO CONVERT AN EXISTING 360-SQUARE FOOT DETACHED GARAGE INTO A GUEST ROOM WITH RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITIONAL 2,012-SQUARE FEET TO THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 447-SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE Recommendation -It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 91-18 and Design Review 91-16 by adopting Resolution No. 2940, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Associate Planner Staff made changes to Item I.A. of Page 1 of Resolution No. 2940, and Item 1.6 of Exhibit A, as moved; and noted that if the Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1991 Page 9 Commission concurred with staff regarding the wet bar, Item 3.2 would be added. Commissioner Kasparian asked how a wet bar could potentially result in an illegal conversion; if there was any response to the notice; and if there were any encroachments or variances required. Staff replied that a guest facility should not have a kitchen, and a wet bar area could easily be converted; that they have received both positive and negative responses; and that the garage is already existing, so there are no variances. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:22 p.m. Mr. Farrar, 13401 Woodland Drive, stated that he felt the house would be too large for the area and will make the others look small; that he was concerned with the number of people that could reside in a house that size; and that there is not another two story house on the street. Mrs. Cody, resides next door to Mr. Kim and was concerned with the number of people living in the house; that they are adding four (4) bedrooms and (4) baths and converting the garage; and asked if they intend to landscape or continue to use the front lawn as a parking lot. Mr. Philpot, 13342 Woodland Drive, noted that he came to Tustin to escape the zoning of Costa Mesa; that on the street there are 33 children under high school age with over half being preschoolers; that the detached room is likely to be for a second family; that the applicants have been excellent neighbors; that he is concerned with the traffic and cars; and that they do not want a precedent set with a multi-family residence. Commissioner Kasparian asked the square footage of Mr. Philpot's home; if it is now one of the larger ones and how many bedrooms it has; if Woodland is a dead end street; and if they can park on both sides of the street. Mr. Philpot replied that it was originally 890 square feet, but with additions, it is now approximately 2,000 square feet; that it is now above average in size; originally had 3 bedrooms and now has 5 small ones; that it is a cul-de-sac surrounded by two story structures; and that people can park on both sides of the street; and that as long as the improvement improves the value of the neighborhood, it is alright. Mr. Chunq, architect, noted that Mr. Kim has been living in an apartment for ten years and came to Tustin for a better education for his children; that the rooms are small; that the house will be 2,459 square feet; that the loft addition will be for an office; that the guest house if for his parents who visit annually from Korea; and that the wet bar is to provide sink facility for convenience of the parents. Commissioner Le Jeune asked how a glass of water differs from a wet bar or a bathroom. Mr. Chunq replied that it will also be able to store cookies, coffee, etc, like a hotel. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the proposed addition was 2,459 square feet; and if it is a two story building. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1991 Page 10 Mr. Chung replied that the property is now 960 square feet and the addition is 1,499 square feet; that it is a one story building with a loft and they are adding a new garage in the front. Commissioner Weil asked if they propose four (4) bathrooms; and if there would be a bath in the loft. Mr. Chung replied that there will be one (1) bath in the guest house and two (2) in the house; and that there would not be one in the study. Mr. Farrar stated that the plan indicated three (3) bathrooms in the house and one (1) in the guest room. Staff replied that the plans indicate a bath in the loft, the master bedroom and the guest room, plus the original which equals a total of four (4). Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the loft was for storage. Staff replied that it was an office. Commissioner Kasparian asked if it was two (2) story and the height of the building. Staff replied they are utilizing the raised portion of the ceiling and not putting a full second story on; that it will be 28 feet high including the chimney; and that homes on the street are all single story, but the homes around him are two story and is allowed. Commissioner Le Jeune asked the architect if the loft was for storage. Mr. Chung replied negatively; that the owner wants to use it for a study; that, after all of the changes, he forgot that they added a bathroom; that the area is open space; that the height limit is 30 feet; and that this is the only street with one story units. Commissioner Baker asked how many square feet the loft would be and how high the ceiling would be. Mr. Chung replied that it is approximately 15 x 15 feet of open space; and that the lowest point of the ceiling is 6 feet 8 inches. Commissioner Baker suggested that the room could be a finished room at some time. Mr. Chung replied that it was open to the entry and the dining and family areas; that it does not have a separate access; and that there is no reason to make it into a room. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the loft had windows. Mr. Chung replied that there is one (1) tiny window in the front. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:48 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune felt that there is a problem with the wet bar. Commissioner Weil stated that the wet bar is the only problem she sees; that there may be a precedent set if it is allowed; that the house does not lend itself to a multiple family dwelling; that an office in the home is convenient; and that she is concerned about Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1991 Page 11 the parking on the lawn, but assumes that it will be rectified with the new garage. Commissioner Kasalek agreed and noted that the design layout is attractive and sensitive to the other homes in the area; that the layout does not look like a multi-family dwelling; and that the wet bar might become a problem with a future owner. Commissioner Kasparian appreciated that there will be more people and cars with a four (4) bedroom home; that the house does not lend itself to a multi-family home; that the lack of windows suggests sensitivity to the neighbors; and that only the wet bar location would lead him to deny the project. Commissioner Weil asked if Mr. Sauers' building at the last meeting had a kitchen. The Director affirmed and noted that it was processed as a second dwelling unit on a lot over 12,000 square feet. Staff suggested they add item 3.2, as moved. Commissioner Weil moved, Baker seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 91-18 and Design Review 91-16 by adopting Resolution No. 2940, revised as follows: Page 1, Item I.A, fourth line, add "detached" before "garage" Exhibit A, Page 1, Item 1.6 should read: "A certificate of occupancy shall not be issued for the guest room conversion until a certificate of occupancy is issued on the proposed new garage addition." Add Condition 3.2: The applicant shall remove the wet bar from the submitted plans for the guest room and no authorization for installation shall be granted. Motion carried 5-0. 7. Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 88-15 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: GRAPHIC SOLUTIONS 1750 KETTNER BLVD. SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-2524 IRVINE RETAIL PROPERTIES COMPANY 2 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 300 IRVINE, CA 92714 TUSTIN MARKET PLACE MIXED USE - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15311(A) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-15 TO ALLOW REVISIONS TO THE MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE TUSTIN MARKET PLACE Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the primary amendment to the sign program by adopting Resolution No. 2939, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Paula Rankin, Associate Planner Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1991 Page 12 Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the theme banners would be similar to those at Larwin Square; and noted that he was concerned that they would be used for advertising as Larwin Square has done. Staff affirmed; and stated that specific criteria is discussed on page 9; and that they could add criteria prohibiting advertising. Commissioner Weil stated that she would be in favor of eliminating the streamers. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of an approved sign contractor; and if the theme banners would be permanent. Staff replied that the document would be handed to the tenant and the contractor would be approved by the tenant; and that the banners would be semi-permanent and would be changed when damaged or on a seasonal basis. The Director stated that the theme banner approach is in the Sign Code. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of bullet B on page 45; and for a clarification of an in-line tenant. Staff replied that the temporary use permit for banners allows them for thirty (30) days, with one (1) per quarter and sixty (60) days in between. Staff replied that in-line tenants are distinguished from stand-alone pads. Commissioner Baker asked for a clarification of permanent signage as noted on Page 6; how many are using the banners for more than thirty (30) days. Staff replied that they would be allowed a temporary banner for store name identification until the permanent sign is installed; that there are a few cases using their banners for more than thirty (30) days; that this is the applicant's request to be allowed to continue using the banners, but staff is not in approval of the request. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:10 p.m. Clarence Barker, Retail Property comments. Vice President and General Manager of Irvine Company, introduced himself as available for Ruben Andrews, Graphic Solutions, suggested they try the banners. Commissioner Le Jeune asked how many of the theme banners would be installed. Mr. Andrews replied that there would be forty (40) pairs. Mr. Barker noted that the light poles are located in the village area. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if they could agree not to use them for advertising. Mr. Andrews replied that they do not intend to use this as an advertising vehicle; that it would be used to display graphics for events or identify the Market Place. Commissioner Baker asked for a definition of "event." Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1991 Page 13 Mr. Andrews replied that it might be to promote a civic event. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if it could mean an anniversary sale. Mr. Andrews replied negatively. The Director responded by stating that it was for ready identifi- cation of the imagery; and that there are separate temporary signs allowed for special events; and that the language provides protection from merchandising or center-wide sale advertising. Commissioner Weil asked if they wanted to promote a center- sponsored event in conjunction with something like Tiller Days on the theme banners, would they require a temporary use permit. The Director replied that Page 9 and Page 45 provide language regarding temporary event banners; and that there are only two types of banners that staff can authorize, building tower banners or tenant lease space banners, but not the light standard banners. Mr. Andrews addressed addendum item number 2: that the scale of the Market Place should be considered differently than other centers due to the distance across the parking lot; that they are encouraging the use of logo imagery instead of block lettering; and that it might be appropriate to consider application of extra square footage. He continued with item number 3: that the blade signs are three (3) feet high thirty (30) inches wide and are to identify the shops down the walkway since their signs are difficult to read from a tight angle; that in Phases I and II they would be allowed to use these signs in place of the ones allowed. Mr. Barker noted that the people drive past the stores perpendicu- larly; and that the blade signs will better identify the in-line tenants. Mr. Andrews continued with item number 4: that the process of designing and implementing these signs has led to delays of individual tenant signs, which is the reason they need the extensions for the temporary signs, but it might be reasonable to limit the renewals to 60-90 days. Commissioner Le Jeune asked why it takes longer than normal for these signs. Mr. Andrews replied that they have to create a special logo and bid it out, then go through the approval process. Commissioner Weil commented that she was worried about setting a precedent; and suggested they create a new temporary sign category for Temporary Primary Business Identification Signs to be implemented into the Sign Code. Mr. Andrews continued with item number 1: that the North Village might be an appropriate place for light-heartedness; provided examples of areas for animation; that they will limit animation to 25% of sign area and will limit to active imagery in graphics; that this area is not visible from the public right-of-way; that it is appropriate for the entertainment area; that they will work with the staff if the Commission is not comfortable with the policy wording. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:35 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1991 Page 14 The Director asked if there was concurrence regarding the prohibition of product merchandising and center-wide sale advertising on theme banners. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if it was consistent with the policy on theme banners. The Director affirmed; asked if there was concurrence on the issue of streamers. The Commission concurred. The Director noted that staff provided modification to the sign plan for pages 25 and 26, and asked for concurrence. The Commission concurred. The Director asked if there was concurrence on the addendum number 4, the issue of renewal of temporary use permits and special event banners on page 45; and to add language that the item was subject to all City Code requirements. The Commission concurred. The Director asked if there was concurrence on addendum number 3. Staff commented that they had seen some of the blade signs and felt that they were high and obscured the primary business identification sign on the sign band; that they are above the view plane of pedestrians; that this proposal does not satisfy the requirement of enhancing pedestrian siting. Commissioner Kasparian stated that he was concerned with the location of the blade signs; and asked if anything could be done for the signs placed in the sidewalk. Staff replied that the planter areas are existing, and that some of the blade signs are located in the planters; and that there are 25- 30% located where there are only sidewalks. Commissioner Kasalek felt that the blade signs cheapen the look of the center; that the location of the current signs will improve with relocation; and that she is opposed to the blade signs. Commissioner Le Jeune agreed and asked if there was a provision in the Code for arcade signs where applicable. The Director replied that staff could continue to work with the applicant on this issue. The Commission concurred that the blade signs should not be permitted. Commissioner Weil suggested projecting signs instead of blade signs if the relocation of signs is ineffective. Commissioner Le Jeune suggested that some tenants do not have a post for a projecting sign. The Director commented on sign area for stand-alone tenants; that there is not a lot of difference between the distance for these Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1991 Page 15 tenants and for normal street frontage for other tenants City-wide; and that they would be setting a precedent. Commissioner Le Jeune noticed that the trees are obscuring the buildings and that additional signage may not be beneficial. The Director replied that the applicant has the right to choose their primary elevation for the larger signage; that they are allowed a larger amount of signage than other centers; and that they can split it up any way they want. Staff noted that these tenants are allowed signage on four (4) elevations whereas other tenants in the City are only allowed signage on three (3) elevations; and that the Market Place is allowed 25 square feet extra. Commissioner Weil noted that she would be more comfortable with a larger "Red Robin" sign, for example, and less neon; that there is too much of a visual impact; that if there is more signage, there needs to be less neon; and that the stand-alone buildings are farther away from the entrance than other stand-alone buildings in the City which would allow for findings to support the opinions. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if they were talking about the entertainment center. The Director replied that they are referring to the stand-alone pads; that they are very close to E1 Camino Real street frontage; and are not uncommonly placed. Commissioner Le Jeune felt that the animation would be setting a precedent. Commissioner Baker agreed and noted that it grants a special privilege. Commissioner Weil felt that the center causes enough dissatisfaction in the community; and that they cannot justify animation. Commissioner Kasalek agreed, but noted that the designs are terrific and that the entertainment village is the perfect place for them; that not everyone would be as tasteful; but they would be setting a precedent by allowing a special privilege. The Director provided additional conditions, as moved. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve the primary amendment to the sign program by adopting Resolution No. 2939, revised as follows: Add Condition 1.9: ao Page 9, Section E - Theme Banners - include the language "product, service, merchandizing or center-wide sale advertising shall be prohibited" Page 9, Section E - Theme Banners - delete the sixth bullet item stating "streamers may be used in conjunction with banners" C. Page 16, Exhibit 6 - remove graphic depiction of streamers Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1991 Page 16 De Page 45 - Temporary Signage - Item B, last bullet statement - "banners may be established for 30 day periods subject to Tustin City Code provisions related to time extensions" Page 25 and 26 - Wall Sign Copy Area Allowance Charts - add footnote to criteria for open line sign elements in all phase stating: "*Subject to Design Review by the Community Development Department In approving, denying or modifying a proposed open line element, the following criteria shall be utilized: The size and spacing of the open-line elements shall be in proportion to the lettering and closed- line figures of the proposed sign and height, bulk and area of the building facade. Open-line elements shall generally be an integral component of and relate to the overall sign design. Open-line elements shall not be used to merely "fill-up" the allowable placement area or as an attention-getting device." Motion carried 5-0. 8. Amendment to Design Review 87-37 APPLICANT: GRAPHIC SOLUTIONS 1750 KETTNER BLVD. SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-2524 LAND OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: IRVINE RETAIL PROPERTIES COMPANY 2 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 300 IRVINE, CA 92714 TUSTIN MARKET PLACE MIXED USE - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THE AMENDMENT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) APPROVAL OF FOUR (4) ADDITIONAL BUILDING BASE AND EIGHT (8) ADDITIONAL BUILDING TOWER AND ACCENT COLORS Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve, by Minute Order, three (3) additional building base and eight (8) additional building tower and accent colors for the Tustin Market Place shopping center. Presentation: Paula Rankin, Associate Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the terra cotta color was authorized to be changed. Staff affirmed, but for the building fronts, only. Commissioner Le Jeune replied that the largest masses are at the backs of the buildings; and asked what new colors were approved. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1991 Page 17 Staff replied they are tan colors, and that the purple shade was dropped from the color board. Commissioner Kasalek asked why they are not painting the backs of the buildings since they are the largest areas. Staff replied that they would then have to paint the entire backs; and that these colors are to be used as spot colors; and that the sections between architectural elements would be painted one of the new colors to bring out the section. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the new colors were compatible with the existing colors; and that he did not like any of them. Staff replied that they feel they are compatible, but they are asking for tests. Commissioner Weil noted that it was hard to tell from a small sample, but they look compatible. Commissioner Le Jeune asked what would happen if staff does not approve them. The Director replied that they would work with the applicant. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasalek seconded to approve by Minute Order, three (3) additional building base and eight (8) additional building tower and accent colors for the Tustin Market Place shopping center. Motion carried 5-0. OLD BUSINESS: 9. Status Reports Received and filed. NEW BUSINESS: STAFF CONCERNS: 10. Report on actions taken at August 19, 1991 City Council meeting Commissioner Le Jeune - Asked if there were any plans for a joint meeting with the City Council. The Director replied that the City Council agendizes meetings on an as-needed basis. Staff reported on the subject agenda. Staff reminded the Commission of the upcoming R/UDAT workshop from September 27 to 29. Staff informed the Commission that a task force was being gathered in relation to the Marine Corps Base closure and it is encouraged that the Commission choose a Commissioner to serve on the task force. This will be agendized for the next meeting. Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 1991 Page 18 COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Le Jeune -Asked who was responsible for the weeds on the empty lot at the 5 Freeway and Tustin Ranch Road. Staff responded that work was still being done by Cal Trans. -Inquired about the Planning Commissioners' terms. Staff responded that they were tied to the elections in April. Appointments would take place in July. -The groundcover along Tustin Ranch Road is overgrown. Staff will refer this to Public Works. Commissioner Kasparian -Asked about financing available for the owners of houses in the historical resources area. Staff responded that a manual is being compiled in this issue and a copy will be forwarded to the Commissioner when it is available. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kasparian moved, Weil seconded to adjourn the meeting at 10:26 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on September 9, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. ~a~. n Bake~ ,//Chairman Kathle~n ClanCy - - ~ Secretary