Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01-28-91MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 28~ 1991 CALL TO ORDER: 7:04 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Le Jeune, Shaheen, Baker, Kasparian, Kasalek 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: (ALL MATTERS 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 January 14, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Kasalek seconded to approve the consent calendar. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2. Amendment #1 to Design Review 90-48 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: CONSOLIDATED RIBS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. (TONY ROMA'S) 17245 SEVENTEENTH STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 MICHAEL D. BROOMELL GEORGE A. BROOMELL 440 PACIFIC TUSTIN, CA 92680 17245 SEVENTEENTH STREET CG - COMMERCIAL GENERAL THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 1991 Page 2 REQUEST: AUTHORIZE THE INSTALLATION OF EXPOSED NEON TUBING ON THE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AT THE ENTRANCES TO AN EXISTING RESTAURANT. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Amendment #1 to Design Review 90-48 by adopting Resolution No. 2870. Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Assistant Planner The Public Hearing was opened at 7:05 p.m. Dick Christie of Promotional Signs Unlimited spoke on behalf of Consolidated Ribs Company stating that they thought they had Commission approval at the meeting of November 13th. Commissioner Baker asked if the owners had determined which door was used most frequently. Mr. Christie replied that 68-70% of their business enters from the parking lot; but that they will be installing a sports bar which should attract foot traffic from 17th Street. Commissioner Shaheen asked if it was a matter of placing the neon on the inside or the outside of the arch way. Mr. Christie replied that based on staff's recommendation, placing the tubing inside the arch would be less obtrusive; that the owner wanted it on the outside for attention; that the architects indicated would enhance the building; and that they are willing to respond to the requirements of the Commission. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the parallel circles light up the name or if they are for decoration only. Mr. Christie noted that the Tony Roma's signs on each side of the building are not lit up; that placing the signs just inside the doorway was cluttered looking. Staff indicated on the illustrations where the neon would be placed, and noted that staff's recommendations would actually be attached above the entryway doors. Commissioner Kasparian asked if staff recommended placing the tubing 4.5 feet back from the edge of the overhang. Mr. Christie clarified that they wanted to place in on the edge of the overhang; but that staff suggested putting it inside, next to the wall, for a halo-like enhancement. Commissioner Le Jeune asked for a clarification of what was originally approved. Mr. Christie indicated that they felt that two (2) bands were approved for the outside of one entrance; and resubmitted the application for approval of the same for the rear entrance. Commissioner Baker asked for a clarification as to whether this had already been approved. Staff responded that the Planning Commission did not approve that request; that on November 13, the Planning Commission approved relocation of a neon sign from the interior of the structure to the exterior of the archway, only. Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 1991 Page 3 ¢ommiss$on~ Le Jeune asked how the applicant could misunderstand that to mean that neon tubing was approved for the outside when they never applied for neon tubing. Staff responded that the application was for relocation of an existing neon sign to the exterior of the building; and that they have since changed their mind and are requesting neon tubing strips for architectural embellishment instead of relocating the neon tube sign. Commissioner Le Jeune asked for staff's position of the issue. Staff responded that locating the strips under the eaves would provide less obtrusive, subtle lighting for the entryways. Commissioner ~aker noted that the original architects for the building approached the Planning Commission for approval of neon tubing outlining the building; and that at that point it was determined to be inappropriate for that center. Commiss%oner Le Jeune asked how the applicant determined the approval for the sign change to be approval for neon tubing. Mr. Christie replied that he thought it was all part of the same application of June 12; and that the sign was focused on, but that on the color renderings, the neon signs were indicated by colored lines. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the applicant was indicating that he did submit plans showing the neon tubing. Mr. Christie affirmed that his service did submit color renderings. The Director indicated that it would be checked on; but that she could guarantee that two separate elevations were not provided relative to this request; that an amendment would have been required; if this should be continued, staff will provide background information, but it will delay the applicant. Mr. Christie agreed. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the tubing is already installed. Mr. Christie replied that he has installed it at his own expense; that he is the one who will have to remove it, since he thought it was approved; that it is only installed on 17th Street. Commissioner Kasalek asked if there were any other options, perhaps just inside the edge of the overhang. Mr. Christie replied that staff has requested three-dimensional drawings showing exact placement and that they intend to get as close as possible to the back side of the overhang. Commissioner Kasalek asked if it could be placed just inside the edge. The Director commented that this is technically considered a sign, or building embellishment, and that the Sign Code does not permit roof signs; and that placement on the overhang is considered roof placement which is not allowed anywhere else in the City; and it should, therefore, be placed on the building wall. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:25 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 1991 Page 4 Commissioner Kasparian noted that one-half inch neon tubing is not large; that the two parallel circles is amenable for attraction of vehicles; that to attract pedestrian traffic it would be appropriate to place it inside of the overhang. Commissioner Baker commented that the City is providing a good compromise. Commissioner Kasalek noted that she was concerned about setting a precedent and that she could not approve the applicant's request. Commissioner Le Jeune agreed that he was also not in favor of putting the neon on the edge of the overhang; and stated that there was much criticism on approval of this building; and that staff's allowing the tubing underneath the overhang was more appropriate. Staff read into the record the authorization of Resolution No. 2853, conditionally approving Design Review 90-48 authorizing the installation of an exposed neon tube sign on the exterior of the existing building located at 17245 17th Street; and that nowhere in the staff report does it mention or discuss the use of the exposed neon tubing strips. Commissioner Kasparian asked if staff indicated that this should be considered $ignage. The Director replied that the overhang is part of the roof element; that neon is considered an advertising device even though it is an architectural embellishment; that it requires design review through the sign ordinance; that she is not aware of neon being approved on roof components in the City; that since roof signs are not permitted, it could set a precedent; and that the appropriate location for neon is on a building wall, not the roof element. The Director made changes to Condition 2.3 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 2870, as moved. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Baker seconded to approve Amendment #1 to Design Review 90-48 by adopting Resolution No. 2870 revised as follows: Exhibit A, Page 2, Condition 2.3 should read as follows: "Plans submitted at plan check shall indicate the location of exposed neon tubing to be installed on the building wall or window arch attached above the doorway/window elevation (not on the arch overhang itself). Amendment #1 to Conditional Use Permit 85-26 and Design Review 89-69 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: CAMELOT RESTAURANTS, INC. (CHELSEA'S CAFE) 1481 EDINGER AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680 MULLIN LUMBER 3355 VIA LIDO, SUITE 305 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 1481 EDINGER AVENUE M - INDUSTRIAL THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1)PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 1991 Page 5 REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT A 1,487 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION PROVIDING AN ADDITIONAL 62 SEATS FOR AN EXISTING RESTAURANT ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1481 EDINGER AVENUE Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2873, approving Amendment #1 to Conditional Use Permit 85-26 and Design Review 89-69, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Assistant Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked what the existing windows that are next to the addition look like. Staff replied that they are flush with the building lines and have no bay effect. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:35 p.m. Mr. Frank Creakman, who lives at 14931 Braeburn Rd., spoke to the Commission regarding noise late at night at The Barn restaurant which is directly behind his house. He stated his concern that he did not wish to have the same situation occurring at Chelsea's Cafe. Commissioner Shaheen asked if they would be having a live band. Mr. George Ristich, representing Camelot Restaurants, Inc., stated that there would be no live bands, only piano music. Commissioner Le Jeune asked the applicant why they are changing the windows. Mr. Ristich replied that the old style are difficult to clean; and that the new windows would give the same effect, but would be easily cleaned. Commissioner Baker asked how a smaller pane would make them easier to clean. Mr. Ristich replied that the old windows have wooden cross pieces and these are leaded. Commissioner Kasalek asked if he planned to replace the old windows, also. Mr. Ristich affirmed. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the applicant would object if he was required to replace all of the windows. Staff indicated that item 2.6 should reflect a recommendation on the window type to the Redevelopment Agency. The Director commented that the applicant has 18 months to meet all conditions of the Design Review; but that the existing windows may not require permits. Commissioner Shaheen asked if the applicant would be closing the restaurant while they were remodeling. Mr. Ristich replied negatively. Commiss%oner KasDarian asked if the applicant had any problem with the requirement to reduce the number of seating spaces due to the parking limitations. Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 1991 Page 6 Mr. Ristich replied that the new area will have the piano, and that reduction in seating plans will not be a problem. Commissioner Le Jeune asked about the status of the satellite dish on the roof; and if it was still on the roof. Mr. Ristich replied that it is currently disconnected due to inability to obtain the required permits, at this time; and that it is not on the roof. Mrs. Creakman, who also lives at 14931 Braeburn Rd., again spoke of the annoyance of noise late at night coming from The Barn restaurant behind their home; asked the hours of operation; and asked for absolute assurance that there would be no additional noise. The Director replied that there was no current recommended condition on the hours of operation. Commissioner Shaheen stated that Chelsea's was a "first-class" restaurant; that it is not a place for "rowdies" and that there should be no problem with noise if it is maintained as it is currently. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:45 p.m. Commissioner Kasparian agreed with the quality of the restaurant; and noted that as long as the applicant is willing to accept item 2.6 requiring the changing of all windows, he could approve it. The Director changed item 2.6 for the record, as moved. The Commission stated that they found the restaurant to be quiet and do not foresee it posing a problem with noise. Staff agreed to look into the noise problem at The Barn and contact Mr. and Mrs. Creakman as to the status. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Amendment #1 to Conditional Use Permit 85-26 and Design Review 89-69 by adopting Resolution No. 2873 revised as follows: Exhibit A, Page 2, Add Condition 2.6 to read: Proposed window details on the east and north elevations shall be consistent with the window treatment on the east and south elevations or existing windows shall be modified to match proposed window treatment. OLD BUSINESS: 4. Status Report Se No Planning Commission action necessary. Code Enforcement Tracking Commissioner Le Jeune asked if pole signs were permitted to have changeable copy; and asked about the status of the vacant lot at E1 Camino and Newport. The Director replied that pole signs require a Conditional Use Permit; and that they are currently pursuing code enforcement of that site. No Planning Commission action necessary. Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 1991 Page 7 lq~w BUSIIq~SS: 6. Siqn Code Authorization to Release Commissioner Le Jeune asked if it might be possible to accelerate the schedule if it was going better than expected. Staff replied that advertising must still be done for the public hearing portion of the schedule. The Director commented that the schedule is possibly overly optimistic. Commissioner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to authorize the Sign Code for Release. 7. Planning Commission Video No Planning Commission action necessary. STAFF CONCERNS: Report on actions taken at January 21, 1991 City Council meeting. Commissioner Le Jeune asked for clarification of the sidewalk width allowance in the industrial area. The Director replied that the Public Works Department's standard would have been ten (10) feet, but based on the project review at the time, there is now a policy document allowing a minimum of five (5) feet where retrofitting has taken place. Commissioner Le Jeune asked the City's cost for filing the annexations. The Director replied that the three approximately $14,000. proposals would cost Staff reminded the Commission of their dinner meeting with the City Council on Tuesday, February 5, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. at the Tustin Area Senior Center. Staff also asked if the Commission had any concerns or issues that they wanted to include in that meeting. The Commissioners stated that they wished to have the following issues brought up at the meeting: Earthquake plan, sign poles for banners, and screening of water works on Main Street. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Kasparian -Asked about sidewalks in industrial areas. Staff responded that there is pedestrian traffic in the industrial areas in the mornings and during lunch time. The sidewalks are warranted as they protect pedestrians from walking in the street which is hazardous and could be a liability to the City. Staff indicated that a copy of the policy on sidewalks would be sent to the Commissioner. -Asked if the bus stop on the corner of E1 Camino Real and west on Main Street could be moved as the buses turns left and angle across both lanes. Staff responded that the bus stops are under the Public Works Department's jurisdiction and a transmittal will be sent to Public Works on the matter. Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 1991 Page 8 Commissioner Le Jeune -Asked about the City's liability for the City Council authorized stop signs on Darsy Circle in Tustin Meadows. The City Attorney indicated that she would provide information to the Commission on this matter. -Expressed concern over the brick crosswalks and the lack of visibility of the crosswalks. He asked if bots dots could be placed in the crosswalks. Staff responded that the matter would be referred to Public Works for a response. -Asked about the post office boxes and Federal Express boxes at 17th Street. Staff responded that the matter would be referred to the Public Works Department and that the Planning Commission will review criteria on this topic in the future. Commissioner Kasalek -Inquired as to the opening of Nisson Road. Asked if Cal Trans could open the road during construction. She called Bob Jones of the Public Works Department but he was on vacation at the time. Staff responded that the matter would be referred to Public Works for a response from Cal Trans. ADJOURI~ENT: Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to adjourn the meeting at 8:27 p.m. A dinner meeting with the City Council is scheduled on Tuesday, February 5, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. at the Tustin Area Senior Center. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on February 11, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Kathlee-n- Clancy-- Secretary