Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 10-08-90MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNINg COMMISSION REgULAR MEETINg OCTOBER 8, 1990 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL= PRESENT: Le Jeune, Shaheen, Baker, Kasparian, Kasalek PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda.) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE 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 September 24, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Kasparian moved Baker seconded to approve minutes. Motion carried 5-0. 2. Permit to Operate a Large Family Day Care Home APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: DIANA DAHLIN 14602 KIMBERLY CIRCLE TUSTIN, CA 92680 FRANK TOMES 3383 PUTTING GREEN COURT OCEANSIDE, CA 92056 14602 KIMBERLY CIRCLE PLANNED COMMUNITY - RESIDENTIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME Recommendation - It is recommended that the Chairman inquire if any person in the audience wishes to submit a protest, and then accept any protests submitted. If a protest is lodged, then the matter should be continued to the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting in order for staff to evaluate the protest. If a protest is not filed, the Commission should approve the subject application without further discussion by Minute Order subject to compliance with all requirements of Ordinance 991. Presentation: Rita Westfield, Assistant Director William Fraze, 14622 Kimberly Circle, asked if the children had to remain on the applicant's property in the back yard; noted that she is authorized for six (6) children now, with four (4) of her own; and that he is concerned because the children are outside. The Director replied that play yard areas are defined by State law; that the Commission cannot impose conditions other than listed in the ordinance; and that the restrictions of State law require the children to stay within the house or an enclosed area. Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1990 Page 2 Lois Jeffrey, City Attorney, noted that the applicant has the obligation of applying for a permit from the State; that the State does not allow unsupervised wandering; and that if that is occurring, the City cannot regulate it. Kim Leason, 14582 Deerfield, noted that this application was inconsistent with the residential use of the neighborhood; that there was an excessive amount of traffic now; that this would be adding more traffic; and that he was concerned with the safety of the children and the potential noise of the larger group. Ms. Jeffrey commented that to trigger a hearing, a complaint has to be made by a property owner within 100 feet of the applicant, which might apply to Mr. Fraze, but not Mr. Leason; has to be based on adverse impacts that present a detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community or surrounding properties; and that she did not feel that the protests fell within those categories that are allowed within the City Code under State law. Commissioner Kasparian noted that the 100 foot radius varies from the 300 foot radius requirement; and asked who they deal with if not the City. Ms. Jeffrey replied that they take it to the State licensing organization. Commissioner Kasparian asked if more children in the street was deemed an adverse impact. Ms. Jeffrey replied that it might be; that the Chairman could request a hearing; but that based on presentations so far they were not required to request a hearing. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the increase in traffic was a grounds for protest. Ms. Jeffrey replied that the increase in traffic might be related to the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding properties, but that the first gentleman's comments could not be used as his property was not within 100 feet; and that it was up to the discretion of the Commission, but based on protests presented, they are not required to have a public hearing. Edward Earl, 14592 Deerfield Avenue, stated that there was one (1) house between his and the applicant's; that there traffic is a problem; that six (6) cars may not seem like a lot, but it is more, every day; that the Meadows is trying to determine how to cut the traffic down; and that the traffic is worse every week. Rich Obermeyer, 1751 Heather Avenue, next door neighbor to applicant, commented that it is like a parking lot outside his drive every morning; that he has trouble getting out of his driveway; that there is no parking in front of the applicant's house; that traffic is a concern; that they are on a blind corner; that the children do run around; that there is a pool on one side of the applicant and he has a spa on the other side of her; and that this would mean more children to be concerned about possibly being hurt on his property. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasalek seconded to authorize staff to schedule a Public Hearing. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HE~%RINGS: 3. Conditional Use Permit 90-24 Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1990 Page 3 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MS. COLLY VAN DYKEN EL CAMINO PET GROOMING 150 EAST THIRD STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 NOZICK FAMILY TRUST MR. SEYMOUR NOZICK, TRUSTEE P.O. BOX 1013 TUSTIN, CA 92681 621 SOUTH "B" STREET, UNIT A PLANNED INDUSTRIAL (PM) THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15303 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PET GROOMING FACILITY. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2840, as submitted or revised, approving Conditional Use Permit 90-24 authorizing the establishment of a pet grooming facility at the property located at 621 South "B" Street, Unit A. Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Assistant Planner Co~ssioner Kasparia~ noted that the occupant of section A requires 3.2 parking spaces, and asked if that was deducted from the existing spaces; that State licensing prohibits overnight boarding; and asked the nature of the other violations. Staff replied that each unit is assigned 3.2 spaces, with 33 spaces for the entire building; and that parking is not seen as a problem; that the animals were being allowed to defecate on the public sidewalk; and that they imposed a condition to prohibit the defecation. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:22 p.m. Charles Anderson, 255 W. 6th Street, a 35 year resident, noted that the buildings created a lot of noise; that there is a parking problem; that he was concerned with animals boarding overnight and defecating on the property; and that noise and parking were the major factors to be considered. Pete Van Dyken, 235 S. A Street, father of the applicant and a merchant in Unit F, commented that there is no parking problem in that part of the facility; that 6th Street is empty all of the time in front of the units; and that no merchants have complained about the pet grooming facility. Commissioner Kasparian asked what happens when a client is late picking up a pet. Mr. Van Dyken replied that someone waits for the client or his daughter delivers the pet. commissioner Kasparian asked about the status of the code violations. Mr. Van Dyken replied that the dog droppings are cleaned up daily. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the pets are taken out of their cages and put outside during the day; and noted that some people probably let their pets run before boarding them for the day. Mr. Van Dyken replied that the pets are occasionally allowed out. Colly Van Dyken, 4095 California, Norco, applicant, noted that there is no overnight boarding; and that they clean up the droppings daily. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:30 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1990 Page 4 Commissioner Kasparian noted that the parking problems identified have nothing to do with the grooming center; and that he saw nothing to prohibit approval. Commissioner Baker noted that he might be concerned with noise, but since there are no complaints, he approves. Commissioner Shaheen noted that cleanliness is of the utmost importance outside the building. Commissioner Le Jeune asked staff to look into the complaint that the insurance company is using too much parking. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasparian seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 90-24 by adoption of Resolution No. 2840 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. 4. General Plan Amendment 90-02 and Zone Chanqe 90-03 APPLI CANT: CITY OF TUSTIN 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTIN, CA 9280 LOCATION: THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES FORM AN IRREGULARLY SHAPED BOUNDARY WEST OF NEWPORT AVENUE, LOCATED IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH AND SOUTH OF EDGEWOOD PRIVATE SCHOOL. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. REQUEST: 1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-02; TO RECLASSIFY THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM U (UNCLASSIFIED) TO PC (PLANNED COMMUNITY). 2. ZONE CHANGE 90-03; TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM UNZONED TO PC (PLANNED COMMUNITY). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 2835. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2819 and 2820 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 90-02 and Zone Change 90-03 to the City Council. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Commission Le Jeune asked when the letter from Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton was received. The Director replied that it was delivered but not received by the Director until after the agenda was issued, and apologized for it not being in the Commissioners' packets. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of Item 9 regarding outdoor storage. The Director referred to page 9, Item 3.3, Limitation on Uses. Commissioner Baker noted that the last page of the Negative Declaration was missing from the packets. The Director replied that the last page consisted of the signatures which were on file. Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1990 Page 5 Commissione~ Shaheen asked if the City made a commitment to adhere to the NTSP and how close this document came to the original document. The Director replied that they had a commitment to adopt the standards consistent with the NTSP, and that the documents presented are consistent with the commitments made. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. Carol McCauley, 13591 Saigon, Co-Chair of the Land Use Committee of the FCA, noted that they were glad that multi-family zoning was deleted; clarified that medical and dental uses were not allowed in the RSF-GO, only in the GO district, south of Warren, as listed in Section III, Page 23, No. 5 of NTSP; requested a variance procedure for the handling of unlisted uses; that the NTSP allows a public hearing even when an item is a permitted use and wanted it included; was glad that the Tustin Sign Code is more restrictive, but that the NTSP does not allow business signs other than a sign with a maximum of six (6) feet for identification; and asked for a clarification of fence height requirements. Harry Kay, 18672 Eunice Place, noted that he sent letters regarding this issue; that his property adjoins Mr. Cortese's; that he testified before the supervisors at the LAFCO meeting; that Mr. Cortese's beautiful buildings will interfere with his right of privacy; that the NTSP requires a 45 foot setback for two story buildings; that the buffer proposed is three (3) feet wide; that he was promised a seven (7) foot high fence with full trees; that he proposes the building be moved forward; and that Mr. Cortese proposes a parking garage to be erected on the zero property line which would provide easy access to his property. Francine Pace-Scinto, representing the Land Use Committee of FCA, noted that the NTSP was sensitive to the public review process; that it provides mechanics for public review of permitted uses within the GO district; that the standards within the NTSP are minimum standards; and that other areas of the city may not be as critical. Nancy Hamilton, 18681 Eunice Place, asked if medical/dental is allowed in the RSF overlay district or just in the GO area south of Warren; noted that Mr. Cortese announced his proposal to build dental offices; noted that there were no fee schedules in the packets; asked how much it would cost for a review application; and noted that she was concerned that the City maintain the Specific Plan and that the City keep its promises. Dennis Hamilton, 18681 Eunice Place, commented that he was disappointed that the workshop was cancelled; noted that he had an informal meeting with Mr. Cortese; that the buffer should be eight (8) feet; and that based on conversations with Mr. Cortese, he felt that his intentions are to not adhere to the plans; and asked that the project not be "varianced away." The Director replied to the questions by stating that medical offices are not a listed use in the RSF-GO overlay district, but are permitted in the GO district that the provisions for unlisted uses are contained in Item C of pages 4 and 7 giving the Commission the right to make a determination; that the minor modifications provision is not in the NTSP, but used in most districts of the City; that for a minor modification all the same standards are required for granting of a variance, and that findings have to be made after a noticed public meeting; that modifications are appealable to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council; that she would not recommend a public hearing be required for permitted uses, but that the Planning Commission does have the authority to require such a public hearing; that the City's Sign Code is more specific and restrictive than the County sign provisions; that even though the NTSP only allows identification signs, staff believes a business sign complies; that the minimum height of fences is 6 feet 8 inches atop a retaining wall, with higher heights Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1990 Page 6 allowed; that she will check the records for delivered mail; that direct line-of-sight is prohibited from a second story in the RSF-GO district; that a building in excess of 18 feet requires a 45 foot setback, and less than 18 feet requires a 25 foot setback, which is identical to requirements of the NTSP. She also replied that every applicant has the right of due process. Co~missioner Kasparian asked if the Director had addressed the concerns regarding setbacks. The Director affirmed. Commissioner Baker asked if the applicant could install a single story garage on a zero lot line. The Director replied that it could not be built on a zero lot line adjacent to a residential land use designation or district; referred to pages 4 and 7 of the Newport Warren Plan for clarification. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there was any other place in the City where it applied that staff reviewed public hearings on permitted uses. The Director replied negatively. Commissioner Kasparian asked if line-of-sight could be mitigated by shrubbery; and if the Commission has responded adequately to the Community's concerns. The Director replied that it required an architectural treatment which could include a landscape buffer, but could not solely use landscaping as mitigation. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the density requirement was eliminated; and if it was in the Resolution. The Director replied that any multiple-family or planned community development has been completely eliminated from the document; that the Resolution had no reference to that provision; and that it was referenced in the Document. Commissioner Kasparian noted that the Resolution date should be changed from September 10 to October 8. The Director agreed and requested a formal closure of the Public Hearing. Commission Baker moved, Kasalek seconded to close the Public Hearing at 8:14 p.m. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Baker seconded to approve the Environmental Determination by adoption of Resolution No. 2835 revised as follows: Resolution Page 2, change second paragraph to read: "Passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of October, 1990." Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Le Jeune seconded to recommend City Council approval General Plan Amendment 90-02 by adoption of Resolution No. 2819 revised as follows: Resolution Page 2, change second paragraph to read: "Passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of October, 1990." Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Le Jeune seconded to recommend City Council approval Zone Change 90-03 by adoption of Resolution No. 2820 revised as follows: Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1990 Page 7 Resolution Page 2, change second paragraph to read: "Passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the Sth day of October, 1990." Mo~ion carried 5-0. So Addendum No, 90-02 to Environmental Impact Report 81-01 (Silicon Systems, Inc.) R~COMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2842 recertifying EIR 81-01 and approving Addendum 90-02. Presentation: Dan Fox, Senior Planner CommissiQne~ ~asparian noted that paragraph 3 of Page 6 states that the facility treats most of the liquid waste and asked why they did not treat all of it. Staff replied that there are some byproducts which must be removed from the site by a professional hazardous waste team and taken to appropriate disposal sites and treatment facilities. Commissioner Kasparian asked if all of the water was treated either on- or off-site; that some water will have toxic materials in it, and asked if the subsequent water scrubbing would meet the requirements. Staff affirmed; and replied that their process involves the discharge of water to the sanitation district; that the reports from the sanitation district indicate that the materials are well below the allowable limits; that the process change will only be increasing the flow; that there should not be any change in the toxicity level; and that they should still be within the limitations of the sanitation district. Commissioner Kasparian asked if Item 1 D regarding the initial study showing no sign of environmental impact occurring was based on the equipment being in place or before they proceed. Staff replied that it was based on technical data the applicant has submitted, in review of the existing EIR, and the findings associated; that it was staff's determination that they would not create any greater impacts that would require further review pursuant to CEQA. Commissioner Kasparian asked if that was after everything was in place; and that the Negative Declaration is not prior to their putting everything in place. Staff replied that the mitigation measures assume that once the project is implemented there would not be an impact. Commissioner Kasparian commended staff on the report and noted that it seemed to be very difficult. Staff concurred and thanked Silicon Systems for their assistance. Commissioner Kasalek commented that she was impressed. Commissioner Baker asked how long a period it was that they were not in violation with the sanitation district. Staff replied that he reviewed the documents for the past year. Commissioner Baker moved. Kasalek seconded to recertify EIR 81-01 and approve Addendum 90-01 by adoption of Resolution No. 2842. as submitted. Motion carried 2-0. 6. Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 88-15 Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1990 Page 8 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: DONAHUE SCHRIBER 3501 JAMBOREE ROAD, SUITE 300 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 TUSTIN MARKET PLACE MIXED USE - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15303 (CLASS 3) AND 15311(a) (CLASS 11) 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 amendment to Conditional Use Permit 88-15 by adopting Resolution No. 2841, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Paula Rankin, Associate Planner Staff made changes to the staff report, as moved. Commissioner Kasparian asked if there was a conflict between the North Village and the Tustin Market Place sign plans, which supersedes. Staff replied that the criteria for Buildings A, B and C would prevail over Part I. Commissioner Kasparian asked if Part I refers to the Market Place. Staff replied that Part I and Part II refer to the Market Place, and that all references to the North Village have been eliminated from Part I. Commissioner Kasparian asked how many freeway signs there are; and what the point was in restating their number. Staff replied that there are ten (10) signs; that they were never shown on the site plan document, and they have now been included. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of the reference on Page 7 to "activate" the sign bands. Staff replied that in Phase I and II, the large tenants have two (2) sign band panels; that one has the store name on it and the other is blank; and that the blank portion should be filled with non-verbal graphics and count as signage area. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of ancillary service signs above nine (9) feet. Staff replied that the language was added for stores needing additional signs for customer service, etc.; that it was a condition that was not adequately addressed; and that they are not permitted below nine (9) feet. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:35 p.m. Thomas Schriber, President of Donahue Schriber, noted that Buildings A and C were considered unique to the development; that one tenant will occupy all of Building A; that because of the size and the scale of the project, and that the tenant will have more than one main entrance, the tenant needs additional signage on at least three (3) sides of Building A; that anything else would be considered tokenism due to being out of scale; that 25 square feet is a limited area for a secondary sign. He also commented on the animation; that Tustin Market Place is a unique Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1990 Page 9 center; that the North Village should have animation be considered to a limited extent with activating lighting; and that he understands the Commission's concerns as a precedent setting issue. He also mentioned that Building C will have only three (3) tenants, with three (3) sides, and two (2) entrances and that limiting the square footage of the signs might not make sense in this regard. Ruben ABdrews, lighting consultant for Donahue Schriber, noted that their use of animation in San Diego has been successful; that they have limited the amount of area that could be animated to 25%; that the entertainment quality of the North Village provides justification for animation; and provided a slide presentation. Commissioner Kasparian asked if he would be providing views of walls on Buildings A and C. Mr. Andrews replied that he only had Building B. Comm%ssioner Le Jeune asked if the background was constantly blinking; and if all the animation was based on neon. Mr. Andrews replied that only part would be animated. Co~missioner Baker asked if the representation was limited to 5%. Mr. Andrews affirmed. Mr. Andrews commented that they would like a sign in the courtyard between Buildings A & B;; that the scale is exciting; and that the signs are not overbearing in relation to the buildings. ¢ommissione~ Le Jeune asked if the presentation showed a sign of 75 square feet. Mr. Andrews replied that the largest sign on the left was less than 75 square feet. C~mmSssioner Se Jeune asked if the smaller signs presented exceeded 25 square feet. Mr. Andrews replied that they had approximately 40 square feet of lettering and 50 square feet of imagery; and that they would eliminate the block lettering. Mr. Schriber noted that they do not have the size of the signs represented, but suggested that he provide a mock up for the Commissioners; that it was the scale that was their concern; that they have two (2) street frontages; and that two (2) signs would be appropriate, but that four (4) are necessary for the tenants. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the photo representing the directory was full-scale at about eight (8) feet tall; if they would be placed around perimeter and inside the center; if they were designed for visibility by drivers; noted that he thought the directory would provide a listing of the locations of shops, not just a map; and that he was not convinced of the value of the directories around the perimeter. Mr. Andrews replied that they were seven (7) feet tall; that they would be placed at four (4) locations in the North Village, and six (6) locations in the outlying center; they are designed so that "Directory" can be seen from across the parking lot; that there is a listing as well as a map; and that they placed them in high use areas. The Director replied that staff has reviewed the proposal and would respond to his concerns. Staff replied that the use of the word "perimeter" was misleading; that the directories were all up against the sides of the buildings. Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1990 Page 10 The Director noted that staff has reviewed similar applications in centers of this size and determined that this is a standard application for a directory. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:50 p.m. Commissioner Shaheen noted that the idea is refreshing, original and very nice. Commissioner Le Jeune asked for a consensus of the issues. Commissioner Kasparian noted that he was concerned with it setting a precedent; that the usage of the limited animation does not justify granting a variance; that the rest is refreshing; that if the flashing signs were for theaters, etc., it might be in keeping with the North Village atmosphere, but it is for shoes, a stationery store, and a pharmacy; and that he does not feel it is justified to set the precedent. Commissioner Baker liked some animation, but had trouble picturing 25%. Commissioner Kasalek noted that she felt the Market Place needed to be livened up; that some animation might assist in drawing people to the theaters; and that she was concerned with the precedent setting aspect. Commissioner Shaheen disagreed, and noted that it may set a precedent, but that nobody has put as much money into a project in the City as this applicant; that since it is a tremendous project and has aided the City's income with sales taxes, it should be allowed to set a precedent; and that we should give them exactly what they want. Commissioner ~e Jeune noted that he is hesitant to set precedents; and asked staff how the City could protect themselves if they permitted this type of signage in this area. The Director replied that the Sign Code prohibits any oscillating signs, the use of moving, rotating, or flashing figures or letters; that a CUP would allow future applicants to point out this exception; that there would be no protections once the precedent is set; unless the Commission wants to permit it in the Sign Code; and that it would be in the context of the Sign Code, not tonight's decision. Commissioner Kasparian reminded the Commission that it would be difficult to have a meaningful paragraph in the Sign Code to allow some and prohibit others; and that they would have to leave it wide open to be approved by the Planning Commission on a case-by-case basis with no guidelines. The Director noted that the revision to the Sign Code provides a maximum degree of flexibility in size, color, and use of materials; that most of the presentation did not use animation, but used clean, exciting sign treatments. Commissioner Le Jeune asked for a consensus; replied that he liked the sign treatments; and that he does not see much difference between blinking and animation. Commissioner Kasparian voted no against animation. Commissioner Le Jeune voted no. Commissioner Shaheen voted yes. Commissioner Kasalek voted no because she was concerned about what would happen elsewhere; and that she liked the colors, and that the signs would be a terrific asset to the Market Place. Commissioner Le Jeune asked for a consensus allowing the signs on four (4) sides of the buildings. Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1990 Page 11 Staff noted that shopping centers in the City allow a maximum 75 square feet on a front elevation and 25 square feet on the remaining three (3) elevations, with 150 square feet total; referred to the table on Page 10 of Part II noting that a multi-bay tenant could have 80 square feet of signage per face, allowing a four-sided tenant to have 320 square feet; that this would be considerably more than would be allowed elsewhere in the City. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if Building A could have 80 square feet on all four (4) sides. Staff replied that they recommended that any one tenant be allowed the signage that would be allotted for two (2) sides; that the application was referring to multi-bay tenants which could have 2, 3, or 4 frontages. The Director noted that the tenant could have frontage on four (4) sides which would have to be distributed between the maximum authorized signage for two (2) frontages; that this would be somewhat higher than the current Sign Code permits, but not 200% higher. Staff noted that a multi-bay tenant could have 80 square feet of sign area, times two (2) frontages which would allow 160 square feet; that the tenant could then distribute this between 3-4 frontages as he chose. Commissioner Baker noted that the issue has been the size of the buildings; and that Building A was a single-tenant. Staff replied that Building A was not a single-tenant building; and referred to Page 15 of the site plan for clarification. Commissioner Baker asked if one tenant could have 80 square feet on the sign tower; and if the remaining tenant would have a small sign. Staff replied that the issue was regarding walls signs, and that the tower signs were a separate issue. Commissioner Kasparian asked whose name was on the tower sign. Staff replied that since it was listed as a tenant identification sign, it could be either of the two (2) tenants in Building A; and that she assumed it would be the larger tenant. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the table refers to the wall signs only. Staff affirmed. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the Sign Code relates to the area of the sign in relation to the area of the wall. The Director replied that there is a square foot maximum, and the ratio is not to exceed a percentage of the building frontage. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the applicant has laid out the area of the sign area or did they use the square footage. Staff replied that the wall areas are substantially large and that they are at the maximum limit. Commissioner Kasparian asked if that is how they laid out the project. The Director commented that she did not feel that they were looking at the current Sign Code; that this is a unique situation; that there are other unique characteristics, like the tower signs, that require referring to the current Sign Code; that this was the basis of the original approval made by the Planning Commission; that there were Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1990 Page 12 larger signs than the current Sign Code would permit, but there were also smaller ones. ¢0mm~ssioner Le Jeune asked if one of the walls could allow larger than a 75 square foot sign; and if 15% was normally applied throughout the City. The Director replied that the sign was not to exceed 75 square feet. Commissioner Le Jeune asked what 15% would constitute. Staff replied that she could not determine that without the full dimensions of the walls, but could get the information. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if it would be prudent for the Commission to consider limiting the signage to 100 square feet. Commissioner Baker asked what the difference was in the total square footage; and that Building A would have two (2) tower signs and four (4) wall signs, which would be a lot of neon; and asked the height of the tower. Staff replied that the allowable square footage was 160 square feet; and that the tower is 35 feet high and the building is 22 feet high. Commissioner Kasparian asked if this should be pulled and reviewed in two (2) weeks so that they could have further information to assist them in visualizing the size of the wall. The Director replied that tenant leasing is in progress and that the applicant might not want to continue this. Mr, Schriber noted that he did not want to delay this, but that he was concerned that it would not look right; and that he would approve of the Director making the final decision on the square footage if that was allowable. Commissioner Kasparian noted that he would approve of the Director making the decision, if that was allowed, but that he did not want to abrogate the decision to her; and asked for an illustration of the project. Commissioner Baker noted that Parts I and II refer to landlord and owner, and asked if they could both be worded the same. Staff agreed and suggested that Part II be clarified as owner or managing agent, and that Part I could be changed accordingly. Commissioner Baker asked if Item 5 on Page 2 of Part II was the City's business; if they were approving the Document; and if the City will have to police the item. The Director replied that the language was provided by the applicant. Staff replied that it was to help expedite processing. Lois Jeffrey replied that if the Commission feels that there was a failure to put into the document the language that was intended, then they should make the change in the document. Commissioner Baker questioned whether the language indicated that the document was giving the City more responsibility than it should; and asked who made the decision regarding the colors. Staff replied that it was the Community Development Department. Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1990 Page 13 Commissioner Baker asked if there were any appeals or variances for signs in Part I; and if non-conforming signs would be disapproved prior to installation. Staff replied that non-conforming was the wrong word; that they would not allow a non-conforming sign to be installed. The Director replied that the document is a resource to the owner which is like a set of zoning standards; the applicant has the right to whatever due process is available; and there is a minor modification standard. CoMmissioner Baker asked if Item L was the responsibility of the City. The Director replied that the document was to be utilized by the owner as well as the City. Staff noted that unless the items are underlined, they have already been approved by the Commission. ¢ommissio~e~ Baker noted an error on Page 6, Item B; and asked if Item J on Page 12 regarding tenant window signs was consistent with the 25% requirement as in the rest of the City. Staff affirmed. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the new Sign Code calls for 15%. The Director noted that they recommended 10%. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that based on the illustration, there are quite a few places to put signs. Commiss%oner Kasalek reiterated that if there was ever a building needing correctly scaled signage, this was it; and that she feels that they should give the maximum square footage possible. Commissioner Baker asked if the Sign Code restricts the square footage to Building A or all three (3) buildings; that each building has a different need. Staff replied all three (3) buildings. The Director noted that they were concerned about the multiple tenants; and modified condition 1.5, as moved, by providing a reasonable compromise allowing 80 square feet on three (3) frontages, which the applicant could apply as 60 square feet on (4) sides, not to exceed 240 square feet. She also indicated that the applicant would be allowed to utilize the minor modification procedure for approval of increased sign areas up to 10% in a unique situation. Commissioner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve amendment to Conditional Use Permit 88-15 by adoption of Resolution No. 2841 revised as follows: Resolution Exhibit A, Page 1, 1.5 should read: "...would be allowed for three buildings.." Resolution Exhibit A, Page 2, 1.7 should read: (up to a minimum of 10% increase..." Motion carried 5-0. "Sign Program OLD BUSINESS: NEW BUSINESS: STAFF CONCERNS: Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1990 Page 14 7. Report on Actions taken at October 1, 1990 city Council meeting. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Commissioner Kasalek asked what follows the correspondence to the transportation department regarding the rail stop. The Director replied that the preliminary plan was released for public review; that they transmitted concerns about that particular location; and that they are not recommending a transit stop in Tustin without approval of the City; that the site is proposed for development and the developer is not willing to consider a stop. Commissioner Baker asked if it would require an EIR. The Director replied that it was regulated by the PUC and that the City has no local control within the right-of-way; the transit stop would not be within the right-of-way and the City would then have control; and that a transit stop somewhere midway between the Santa Ana location and the Irvine Transportation Commission might be desireable, but this site would not be; and that other sights might be less environmentally confining. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Kasparian -Inquired about abandoned vehicles at the vacant lot on Sixth Street across from the Tustin Garage. The Director advised that these were actually old agricultural equipment in storage. Commissioner Baker -Asked when the new Planning Commission would be appointed. Director advised that she would research and advise at Planning Commission meeting. The next -Inquired about vacant land behind Home Depot being maintained. Staff advised that this was owned by the Irvine Company who were requested to maintain. ADJOURNHEN~ '. At 9:55 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Kasalek seconded to adjourn meeting to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan Workshop at 5:00 p.m. on October 15, 1990 and then adjourn to a Sign Code Workshop at 5:00 p.m. preceding the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on October 22, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. in the city Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Motion carried 5-0. Donaid Le Jeun~ - ~-- ' Chairman K~hleen Fitzpatrick Secretary