Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 03-12-90 M I NUT ~ S TUSTIN PL~/qNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING March 12, 1990 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Le Jeune, Shaheen, Baker, Kasparian 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 February 26, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting 2. Time Extension, Conditional Use Permit 89-11 RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission grant a six month extension to Conditional Use Permit 89-11 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2756, as submitted or revised. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve the consent calendar. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. CONTINUED HEARING ON USE PERMIT 90-1 APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES 1200 N. HARBOR BOULEVARD ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92803 CODY SMALL CMS DEVELOPMENT 3100 AIRPORT LOOP DRIVE; A-3 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 14041 NEWPORT AVENUE (AT THE I-5 FREEWAY) ASSESSOR'S PARCEL # 402-371-1-3 AND MORE SPECIFICALLY AS lOT 1, 2 AND 3 OF THE NEWPORT AVENUE TRACT; A PORTION OF LOT 15 IN BLOCK D OF BALLARD'S ADDITION; AS SHOWN ON MISCELLANEOUS MAPSAND RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER PC COMMERCIAL - PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) AUTHORIZATION TO INSTALL A 24 FOOT HIGH 72 SQUARE FOOT ALUMINUM CABINET BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 1990 Page 2 either: 1) Deny Use Permit 90-1 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2747, as submitted or revised; or, 2) Approve Use Permit 90-1 as revised by staff regarding location, orientation and size by the adoption of Resolution No. 2747(b), as submitted or revised. Presentation: Susan Tebo, Senior Planner CommissioD~r Baker asked for clarification of the sign height. Staff replied that the pole would be 18 feet and the sign 6 feet for a total of 24 feet. Commissioner Kasparian asked if Cal Trans would be removing the shrubbery; and what provisions for trimming could be made in the meantime. Staff replied that the shrubbery would be removed within two (2) years by Cal Trans; and that CMS Development has a permit from Cal Trans to trim the bushes to (6) feet and possibly remove two (2) trees along the property line within the Cal Trans right-of-way. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the drivers could see the sign as they approached the off-ramp; and if the dots on the photographic presentation represent the size of the sign. Staff affirmed that the sign would be visible; and that the size is represented by a gray shaded area, not the dots. Commissioner Kasparian noted that the sign for a taco restaurant on 17th Street had a pole sign with "Drive-thru" listed on it; he felt that this was not directional but informational. Commissioner Le Jeune asked for clarification of the sign's location; and asked if it would exceed the height of the building. Staff replied that the applicant originally wanted a 50 foot sign oriented toward the freeway, and that the 24 foot sign was to be oriented toward Newport Avenue; and that it would not exceed the height of the building. The Director noted that the tenant directory sign on Newport and wall signs on all three elevations of Carl's Jr. would provide significant street signage. Commissioner Le Jeune asked what would happen if there was no approval of the requested 24 foot high sign. Staff replied that there are two resolutions in the staff report: one denying the applicant's request, and one approving the request that taking action on the denial would take care of the entire issue. Commissioner Kasparian asked if they could act on Resolution No. 2747 (b) and change 50 square feet to 72 square feet. The Director affirmed, but cautioned that the applicant had modified their request to a 36 foot high sign which was not noticed and that they would have to renotice if the Commission wishes to approve the 36 foot request; also that "Drive-thru" would not be allowable based on the Sign Code requirements without a variance request. Commissioner Kasparian noted that he did not find that restriction in the Sign Code; he only found restrictions regarding food, and identification of business, but did not feel that it addressed directional, drive-thru, or informational. Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 1990 Page 3 The Director noted that the standards are noted on Page 4 of the Staff Report; offered to provide Code citations in the staff report in the future; and offered to provide Commissioner Kasparian with the citation in question. Commissioner Kasparian asked if this could be continued until he is able to review the citation. The Director replied that it could be continued if the majority of the Commission wished the matter continued. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:25 p.m. John Baker, of Carl Karcher Enterprises, 222 S.Harbor Blvd, Anaheim, noted that the line-of-site drawings from Cal Trans are not accurate, they should be from the driver's line-of-site; he showed the photo enlargement to illustrate that a star hung from a crane at 24 feet was completely hidden within the tree line, but that at 35 feet it would be visible; that the Cal Trans permit was out of Carl's Jr.'s control since it was held by the property owner. He also noted that they are closing the nearby Carl's Jr. that does not have a drive-thru window. The new facility will have an expanded dining area; the drive-thru could provide 30-40% of gross business; there is an obvious connection between the freeway and the drive-thru sign; and they are making a sizable addition to the location. They feel that the drive-thru is a service provided to the community that is currently not offered; and they do not feel that there is a conflict requiring a variance. Commissioner Shaheen asked how big the Drive-thru sign would be. Mr. Baker replied that it would be 22 square feet, but that an average monument sign is 42 feet; that a freeway sign could be quite a bit larger; and that a 72 square foot freeway sign is still very limited. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the permit from Cal Trans is held by Carl's Jr; asked if the sign could be altered, or if they were pre-made; and felt that they needed immediate visual identification. Mr. Baker replied that it is owned by CMS Development; the fee paid is for a one-time permit; that they are at the mercy of Cal Trans; that the sign was custom-made for the development and might be able to be modified; and that identity and drive-thru were their first concern, and size was secondary. Commissioner Le Jeune asked what CMS Development's opinion was regarding trimming of the trees; and asked how high the bushes currently are, and to what height they would be trimmed. Mr. ~aker replied that the permit was only for trimming, not removal, but that there is no permit, as yet; that they are concerned about the widening; and that the bushes are currently 15- 22 feet high and that they could be trimmed to 6 feet. The public hearing was closed at 7:40 p.m. Commissioner Baker asked for a clarification of the Code research done by staff. Lois Jeffrey, City Attorney, stated that the Code reads: "An identification sign is a sign referring to the name, service, or trade of a business. She interpreted that as allowing one of three things: either the business name, the service, or the trade are Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 1990 Page 4 allowed on the sign, but not all. She felt that the applicant was requesting the name of the business and the service, which is not allowed by the Sign Code. The Director noted that to interpret this fully, the definition section of the Sign Code must be referred to and understood. Based upon the Code a drive-thru sign has been determined to be a directional sign, which means an on- or off-premise sign designed to guide or direct pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Section 9482 (b) 4 indicates the permitted square footage of an on-premise directional sign, which is cited on Page 4 of the staff report. Commissioner Kasparian noted that he could take issue with the City Attorney's interpretation of "or"; and that a drive-thru sign on a monument or with an arrow would qualify as a directional sign, but on a pole sign he feels that it does not qualify as directional. The Director replied that there are conditions in the field that she has no control over; that there are ambiguities, but that when the staff makes interpretations, they are placed in writing so that they are consistently applied, based upon the procedural manual; and that it is important to receive input from the Commission so that issues can be dealt with correctly by staff in the future. Commissioner Baker asked if the City Attorney's comment regarding the drive-thru request was not for a directional sign, but for a service. Ms. Jeffrey replied that based upon the applicant's input, drive- thru would indicate a service offered, however, the Code does not allow for a service to be listed along with the name. ¢omm~ssioneF Shaheen noted that Cal Trans can be delinquent on a lot of items; and that the applicant made a valid presentation, and should have the 35 foot sign approved. Commissioner LeJeune commented that CMS Development is responsible for trimming the trees, not Cal Trans; and that because the trees are not trimmed it is not a City problem. Commissioner Baker noted that CMS Development wants Carl's Jr. as a tenant, and will take care of them; and that the tree trimming issue is, therefore, a mute point. Commissioner Kasparian asked how they could be sure that CMS would trim the trees. Commissioner Baker noted that he felt the signs are necessary to the business; that he is not offended by the drive-thru signage requested; and asked if they were in a position to approve the drive-thru this evening. Ms. Jeffrey replied that they could approve the drive-thru request, since it had been noticed; however, it would be setting a precedent. The Director noted that it might set a precedent which would allow other businesses to display signs such as "take-out", etc. Commissioner Shaheen noted that they should take each case individually, on its own merits. The Director replied that with future applications, it is the special cases that applicants will refer to; and that since they have spent three years of work creating a Code which would provide Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 1990 Page 5 consistency, this places staff in an uncomfortable position. Commiss~oDer Shahee~ rejection. asked for a clarification of staff's The Director replied that the applicant has a right to apply for a sign exceeding 24 feet, but that anything higher was not noticed for this meeting; that staff would have to renotice; that this issue has been delayed twice; that they received the request for 35 feet too late for noticing for this evening's meeting; that "drive-thru" is not permitted by Code; and that setting a precedent is important, as future requests will argue that privileges were given to Carl's Jr. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the Commission had the option of determining height as well as sign area; and asked if staff and legal would object to adding "drive-thru" to the sign. Ms. Jeffrey replied that the only problem is that to approve something higher, they must renotice. The Director replied that they recommend against adding "drive- thru" for the reasons cited without noticing a Variance request; and that the applicant can put it on the monument sign at the entrance without Variance. The Public Hearing was re-opened at 7:55 p.m. Commissioner Kasparian asked the applicant if they would proceed if the area and height were agreed upon. Mr. D~ker replied that they would like to pursue the variance, if available. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the applicant was aware that the Commission could not approve the 35 foot height this evening. Mr. Baker affirmed; and noted that they were willing to continue to have the 35 foot approval; and noted that they were not being negligent in applying earlier for the 35 foot height, because they did not feel it was really an option. The Director recommended that they continue and renotice, rather than act on something that the applicant does not want. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the applicant had received a copy of the notice. Mr. Baker replied that they picked up the staff report on Friday. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:02 p.m. Commissioner Kasparian noted that he had no problem with the sign, since their main advertising thrust is for freeway not street identification; and that he is empathetic with someone who has to rely on someone else to maintain his property. Commissioner Baker noted that he was not against the additional height, nor the "drive-thru" signage; but he disagrees on the premise of the tree trimming. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Baker seconded to continue Use Permit 90-1 to enable the applicant to renotice and apply for a 36 foot sign. Motion carried 4-0. OLD BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 1990 Page 6 4. League Planning Commissioner's Institute Reminder Presentation: Development Christine Shingleton, Director of Community No Commission action necessary. 5. Bryan Avenue Street Lighting Presentation: Development Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Commissioner Baker noted that he appreciated that the Public Works Department reviewed this item, and has agreed that additional lighting might be necessary. The Director noted that the Commission could choose between installation of additional fixtures on existing wood poles, or install new marbelite poles. Commissioner Baker noted that since the lighting is intermittent, the task could be accomplished with installing fixtures on wood poles; and asked if the signal at the corner of Farmington was approved and if it required additional lighting. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the Commission needed to recommend this. The Director replied that the signal was approved by City Council, but that she did not know if it required additional lighting; and that staff would direct a memorandum to the Public Works Department indicating that this could be pursued without going to the City Council. Commissioner Kasparian noted that luminaries on existing poles require only the operating costs, and asked for a clarification of the $58,000 expense; and asked who does the installation. The Director replied that the $58,000 cost would be for a new lighting system and would need Council approval; and that Public Works would work with Southern California Edison for installation of the system. Commissioner Baker noted that he assumed the lights would be similar to the existing lights. The Director replied that the marbelite is one unit, and that there may be different fixtures installed on the wood poles than currently exist. The Commission chose option No. 1 by consensus. NEW BUSINESS 6. Summary of Work Projects Presentation: Development Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Commissioner Le Jeune asked for a clarification of Construction Project 1.B regarding Poles. The Director replied that it was for architectural alternatives to pole signs at the entrances to the City; staff is awaiting design approval from the Council Sub-committee. Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 1990 Page 7 Commissioner Le Jeune asked about the Civic Center Construction project; if there would be an alleviation to the current parking problem; and what the HCD program was. The Director replied that the construction drawings are 85% complete, and that they are approximately 90 days away from completion; that staff will provide a presentation at the next meeting; that they will be building an additional parking structure which will have joint use with the library; that they will be removing the courtyard to accommodate additional parking; that HCD was Housing and Community Development projects; and that in 1991 Tustin will become an entitlement city and be eligible to receive additional funding. Commissioner Kasparian asked if they expect 50,000 residents in 1991. The Director replied affirmatively. No Commission action necessary. 7. Redevelopment Update Newsletter Presentation: Development Christine Shingleton, Director of Community The Director noted that they will be providing a marketing brochure in the future regarding development plans; that for every dollar spent, they have received $20 in investment; that most other cities have a $1:4 ratio; that Dan has done all of the typesetting for the brochure; and she recognized Susan and Anne's contributions to the project. No Commission action necessary. STAFF CONCERNS 8. Report on actions taken at March 5, 1990 meeting Presentation: Development Christine Shingleton, Director of Community No Commission action necessary. COM)IlSSION CONCERNS Commissioner Kasparian asked that when a code is referenced in a report that a copy of the code Section be included in the body of the report. He also asked for a copy of the Housing Element. Commissioner Shaheen asked that Code Enforcement action be taken regarding the paint in the street at 2232 Apple Tree and a deserted car at 14601 Alder Lane. Commissioner Baker invited Commissioner Kasparian to his shop to obtain a better understanding of landlord negotiations. Commissioner Le Jeune asked about a 99 cent banner for happy hour at a local restaurant be investigated and what was happening regarding the General Plan revisions. He also asked about some vacant land in the East Tustin area and noted that the crosswalk at Main and "B" on the north side had no crosswalk painted on the street for pedestrians. The Director indicated that contract services for General Plan Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 1990 Page 8 revisions have been budgeted for and a request for proposal will go out in late April. She also noted that the two vacant parcels are a church site and a neighborhood park site and that the crosswalk at Main and "B" would be referred to the Public Works Department for further action. At 8:40 p.m. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasparian seconded to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Planning Commission meeting on March 26, 1990. Motion carried 4-0. Penni Foley Secretary Donal~-d Le Jeune Chairman