Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 09-11-89MINUTES llJSTIN PLANNING COI~ISSION REGULAR I~EETING SEPTEMBER 11, 1989 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: PUBLIC CONCERNS: Present: Pontious, Le Jeune, Baker, Shaheen, Kasparian (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 CO~tISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1. Minu~gs ~f ~.he August 28, 1989 Planning Commission meeting Coe~issioner Le Jeune moved, Pontious seconded to approve the minutes of the August ~8, '1989 meetihg. Motio6 carried 4-0=1 [Baker abstained). 2. Final Map 13627 (Sector Map for Sector 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: FOOTHILL CO~4UNITY BUILDERS 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CA ROUGHLY BOUNDED BY CITY OF TUSTIN EASTERLY BOUNDARY AND FUTURE EXPANSION OF JAMBOREE ON THE EAST, PORTIONS OF THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE TUSTIN RANCH AREA AND FUTURE EASTERN BOUNDARY PROPOSED FOR PETER'S CANYON REGIONAL PARK ON THE WEST, FUTURE PORTOLA PARKWAY AND THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE CITY AND PETER'S CANYON REGIONAL PARK ON THE NORTH MINITERIAL PROJECT SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY 599 ACRES OF LAND PROVIDING FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SPECIFIC LAND USES PURSUANT TO THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 1989 Page two Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Final Map 13627 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2671 as submitted or revised. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to approve Final Map 13627 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2G71 with the following changes made by the Director: Item I.A. line 3 should read "creating 27 numbered and numerous lettered lot subdivision as" Item I.A.2.a. line 3 should read "and parkway landscape plans relative to Sectors 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the East Tustin Specific Plan Phase IV have been met." Item I.C.5. the last line should read "Tustin Unified School District and the Facilities Agreement consistent with the East Tustin Specific Plan." Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Variance 89-09 (Dynachem) APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MR. TERRENCE MCRELL MORTON THIOKOL, INC. DYNACHEM DIVISION 2631 MICHELLE DRIVE TUSTIN, CA 92680 2631 MICHELLE DRIVE PC-IND (PLANNED CO~4UNITY - INDUSTRIAL) THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 5) FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED PARKING FROM 389 SPACES TO 357 TO ACCOMMODATE APPROXIMATELY 8,000 SQUARE FEET OF MEZZANINE AREA FOR AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny Variance 89-09 by adoption of Resolution No. 2653. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Associate Planner Commissioner Shaheen asked how many employees were in the firm, and how many they anticipate after the addition. Mr. McRell replied that there are currently 270 employees and will increase by about 20 after Phase I. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of R & D and office requirements; he felt that the staff report based the parking requirements on office space only. Mr. McRell replied that the office and R & D space is all included in the calcula- tions for parking requirements. Planning Comnission Minutes September 11, 1989 Page three Commissioner Shaheen asked if the staff was basing the requirements on the Parking Code. The Director replied that it was based upon the segregated use of the building and the Irvine Parking standards for the area. Commissioner Baker noted that there seemed to be a discrepancy between the applicant's analysis of the AQMD's Regulation 15 and the staff's opinion. Commissionerr Pontious noted that the company must provide a plan, but could not mandate that the employees rideshare. Mr. McRell noted that the AQMD requires a progress report after one year, and if the progress is unsatisfactory, they may have to resubmit a plan with increased incen- tives to the employees for participation. The employer has no authority to force employees to participate. Commissioner Kasparian asked if there was a possibility of creating parking spaces on the east side of the building; and if there was an on-site traffic monitor for parking violations. Mr. McRell replied that there was not enough space for clearance on the east side; as yet, they have not had a need to monitor the parking lot. Arnie ~er~son, representative of applicant, replied that there is a 24-hour security department, and there is now an enforcement of parking. Commissioner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to deny Variance 89-09 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2653. Motion carried 5-0. 4. Amendment to Use Permit 88-15 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: DONAHUE SCHRIBER 3501 JAMBOREE ROAD SUITE 300, SOUTH TOWER NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 THE IRVINE COMPANY P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 THE TUSTIN MARKET PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL: COMMERCIAL EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN - MIXED USE THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15311(a) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO AMEND THE APPROVED SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE TUSTIN MARKET PLACE. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve an amendment to the Tustin Market Place Sign Program by adopting Resolution No. 2657, subject to the conditions contained therein, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Steve Rubin, Associate Planner Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 1989 Page four Staff made refinements to the Resolution. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the signs were monoliths or verticals. Staff replied that the freeway signs were vertical; the two (2) monoliths on Jamboree were 50 feet tall, and the two (2) at E1 Camino and Myford were 25 feet tall. Commissioner Shaheen noted that the white lettering with the subdued purple looked good. Staff replied that the two (2) signs on E1 Camino were actually the original purple, which has faded. Commissioner Kasparian asked why they were eliminating Condition M. Staff replied that the language in the sign program in Attachment 3 as proposed allows tenants to use 25% of their windows for temporary signs; they should be professional and are subject to the approval of the landlord; staff felt they need not be more specific. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a definition of temporary. The Director replied that irregardless of whether window signs were permanent or temporary, they are exempted in the Sign Code; the issue was presented by the company, and the City has no desire to enforce the matter. The public hearing was opened at 8:07 p.m. Glenn Myers, of Donahue Shriber, noted that the applicant agreed with staff on Item G (1.5.A), tower signs will face parking areas or Jamboree only, which are the full sides of the towers; Item K, regarding Theater marquee, they will work with 200 square foot sign approval. They disagree on the following because the sign program submitted one year ago was detailed, and comprehensive, and they now know more of the tenant requirements: 1) 1.5.B Freeway Signs--elimination of fast foods identification--Fast food users are spontaneous shoppers, a non-Tustin Market Place shopper might remember fast foods at the center and get off at the next exit, and the fast foods tenants are a major feature of the center. Commissioner Pontious asked the developer to go through each issue one by one and the Commission would respond. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the staff report lists ten (10) major tenants, and wondered if the fast food reference was approved, if a major tenant would be excluded from freeway signage. Staff replied that a mini-major (Shelves and Cabinets) was not included. Mr. Myers stated that the names selected were to assist in drawing customers, but there will be some that are not listed. Commissioner Shaheen asked if the applicant had the names of the fast food tenants. Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 1989 Page fi ve Mr. Myers replied that In & Out Burger and E1 Pollo Loco were sure, and there were two others that they were negotiating with. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the sign for the food locations would be of the same concept. Mr. Myers replied that it would identify Food and list four (4) tenants below. Commissioner Pontious asked if there would be any references to the restaurants in the center. Mr. Myers noted that they did not intend to include the restaurants, because these signs would not capture restaurant traffic. Commissioner Baker asked the height of the letters on the signs; and if they would be visible by drivers. Mr. Myers replied that the capital letters were 24 inches, and the small letters were 12 inches. Commissioner Shaheen felt that it also depended upon the contrast of colors on the signs as well as the height of the lettering. Mr. Cuyler replied that the contrast is good; the large letters will be 24 inches high which will be easily readable; there is a captive audience along the freeway; they will be readable once the drivers are up to the pylons; and by being separated, there is more of a chance to read each tenant individually. Isha Kenmore, co-owner of Krause's Sofa Factory, commented that her company has spent a great deal of time and money advertising their company as Krause's Sofa Factory, and are not yet known simply by Krause's. She felt that Sofa Factory could not clearly be seen on the signs; based upon customer polls and data compiled, they have determined that freeway signage was critical, and insufficient signage could cause serious negative economic consequences. John Baker, Karl Karcher Enterprises, noted that they are looking at the center as a potential new site and supported Mr. Myers' arguments for the fast food freeway signage. Signage is a major consideration when they locate in a new site. Claudia Wood, In & Out Burger, noted that most of their clientelle know them best by their signage, especially freeway signs, and feels that the request made by the applicant is modest in comparison with their usual freeway signs. Gary Brubaker, E1 Pollo Loco franchisee, noted that since he is concerned about the amount and visibility of signage for his location on E1 Camino Real, he felt that it was extremely important that the fast food restaurants be represented along the freeway. Commissioner Le Jeune felt that since the sign request was modest with no logos, that they ought to have ten (10) signs with fast foods included. Commissioner Shaheen commented that Tustin Market Place is well-sited but it is hard to see inside from the freeway, and that they need good signage to bring people into the center. Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 1989 Page six Commissioner Pontious asked for a consensus on Item D of Resolution 2657. Commissioner Baker asked if there would only be ten signs, without returning to ask for more next year. Commissioner Pontious replied that there would only be ten (10). Commissioner Le Jeune and Commissioner Kasparian noted that they were opposed to staff's recommendation. Commissioner Baker was concerned about the visibility; he is usually looking for the color of the restaurants from the freeway as an attractant. Commissioner Pontious noted that the Commission is in favor of ten (10) signs with fast food reference and would Revise Item G to include the names of fast food restaurants only as submitted per the model, with a maximum of four (4) names, as moved. The Director noted that staff would suggest appropriate language to the Resolution noting the special circumstances of the center so that the Commission would not set a precedent. Mr. Myers disagreed with Item H (1.5.C), noting that they have five (5) major tenant buildings, with the balance being shops. They have two (2) prospective major tenants, Clothestime and C&R Clothiers, who demand special signage. He feels that they will fit well within the merchandise mix, but the sign bands will not work for them. They are proposing special sign treatment to eliminate the sign bands in two (2) bays and install an additional sign band above the others. They will drop the building height to accommodate the signs. Commissioner Baker asked if the sign projected over the sidewalk, as shown in the presentation; and if it would project as much as the drawing showed. Mr. Myers replied that one sign would project over the sidewalk. Leason Pomeroy, project architect, felt the best compromise was to drop the building height down and make the signage similar to the mini-majors in Phase I. Commissioner Baker asked what the color of the signs would be and if they were canned letters. Mr. Pomeroy noted that the letters would be white, raised letters. The Director noted that the information presented was requested by staff, and they have no issue with the presentation. They would like to address the issues of: 1) modified plans of the sign band; and 2) since this tenant could move out and the sign is not an architectural pop-out, staff feels the need for greater flexibility. Commissioner Baker asked if this was for two (2) stores maximum. Mr. Myers replied that it was a maximum of two (2) tenants. Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 1989 Page seven Mr. Mi/ers disagreed with Item J (1.5.D.2) Option A) for flexibility within the Village only, they would like to eliminate the sign band, drop the building down and achieve a continuous sign band. Tenants will have signage above the store instead of one side of the columns or the other. They would like this as an option in the leasing agreements so they do not have to return in the future. Commissioner Pontious asked if lowering the building fascia was temporary; and asked what the advantage was of having the sign bands over the fascia. Mr. Myers replied that it would be permanent one way or the other in the Village. It could not be proposed for Section II since it had to match Section I, but the Village has a different architecture. Mr. Pomero~ replied that it would be more consistent, and elimination of the sign bands allows for more freedom and for more latitude. The Director noted that staff would support modifications so long as they pertained to all buildings within the Village. Since it affects the structure of the build- ings, the design would also have be submitted for plan check. Mr. Myers disagreed with Item E, regarding multi-tenant monument signs. The appli- cant felt that the original concept, based upon City Ordinance, allowed fast food pads to have signage along E1 Camino Real. Since the sign criteria stated that they could have monument signs, they assumed that they would be entitled to signs. They felt that there could be a cluttering of monument signs along E1 Camino Real. The staff report suggests incorporation within the directionals, but only about four (4) tenants could be listed and still be effective. Mr. Cuj/ler noted that they have done a great deal of study on decision points of signs; even the department of transportation will not put more than four (4) decision points on one sign. By putting too many points on one sign panel it makes the driver make too many decisions as they are driving. They, therefore, felt it would be better to spread the information apart. Mr. Myers noted that three (3) pads are well off of E1 Camino Real and cannot be seen from E1 Camino Real. Commissioner Pontious asked what information would be on the three (3) signs that were already approved. Mr. Mi/ers noted that the proposed signs will indicate "Left to home improvement", etc., so as to minimize the amount of information that the drivers must deal with. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the monument signs duplicate the information on these signs. Mr. Myers replied that these signs would not have the same tenants listed as on the approved signs. Commissioner Pontious asked if there was room on the directional signs for the information; and noted that she felt that it would be confusing to drivers. Mr. Myers replied that there may possibly be room. Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 1989 Page eight Mr. Cuj/ler replied that it may be too confusing since this was a decision point; they have tried to separate the information so that the drivers coming from Jamboree would not be slowing down, causing a back-up of traffic. Commissioner Pontious noted that the directional signs were at a signal, and if the drivers were not located in the correct lane for their turn, they could go further and turn around. Tom Shriber, applicant, noted that a major reason for the request was to provide for tenants without visibilty. Commissioner Pontious noted that she would rather see these signs integrated within the auto directory signs, but asked for a consensus of opinion. Commissioner Shaheen noted that he recognized the need for visibility. Commissioner Baker felt that they need signage, and if they kept the number of signs to the minimum he would approve it. A five minute break was called at 8:55 p.m Mr. Myers disagreed with Item C (1.6), regarding Tenant Areas (Type II): Without sign bands on the buildings housing Shelves and Cabinets and Krause's Sofa Factory, there is a void, and it looks as if there are no tenants in the building. They are proposing to sign the buildings with generic product types that would work with the architectural element. Mr. Pomero~ noted that the name of the company will be above the entry and four (4) sign bands would be used as a multi-tenant. As a major tenant takes the building, the sign bands would not be illuminated. To be consistent within the center, they should be illuminated, and are necessary at night because they illuminate the ground plane; it is very dark and uninviting, and it would make it appear that there is a tenant in the building. Commissioner Baker suggested that they install more lights. Mr. Pomero~ replied that they are preparing to. Mr. Cu~ler noted that there would be a continuous band of white light, because white neon is the only neon allowed in Phase I and II. Some towers will have full color, but not illuminating the sign bands has a tendancy to make the buildings look devoid of tenants. Commissioner Pontious asked if there was any way to eliminate the white sign bands. Ms. Kenmore noted that Krause's originally had three-quarters of the space they now have, but paid a premium to take the next space to balance out the sign. In terms of an informational guide to the consumer, the names identifying the product line would be helpful. Commissioner Pontious stated that item names would not be allowed by the Sign Code and would set a precedent for advertising of products as opposed to the business name. Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 1989 Page nine Commissioner Le Jeune asked what signage was currently on the building. Staff replied that no sign plan had been approved to date. was based on Donahue Shriber's representations to them. Krause's representation Commissioner Le Jeune suggested that this might be considered a separate issue. Staff replied that this was a customized program for the Tustin Market Place, and many of the criteria are not in keeping with the City's guidelines. That is the reason for a Conditional Use Permit. They are trying to set up criteria for future tenants to follow. The Director noted that staff have looked at the center and measured it against the existing standards and made concessions based on analysis. The issue on identification versus advertising is the more critical issue. The Sign Code does not allow advertising, only business identification. She suggested that the Commission beware of setting a precedent on this issue, as this application is available to any tenant. Whether they put signage on the sign bands is not the issue. Commissioner Pontious felt that the consensus of the Commission was to follow staff's recommendations. Mr. Pomeroy noted that they might include a graphic in lieu of advertising to develop a consistency of lighting. The Director replied that they would accept any presentation for review. Mr. Myers disagreed with Item B, regarding the signage of three (3) buildings: In the North Village there are two (2) free-standing major restaurants along Jamboree and south of E1 Camino Real is the nightclub. They expected the design to have a tower element. In that case, they propose two (2) sides of three (3) buidings to be signed with 64 square foot signs. Commissioner Pontious asked if it would eliminate the rear 25 square foot sign. Mr. Myers would like some flexibility and be allowed four (4) sides with 64 square feet on two (2) sides and 25 square feet on two (2) sides. Commissioner Pontious replied that the building would be two (2) 25 square foot signs and the tower would have two (2) 64 square foot signs. Commissioner Shaheen asked what would be on the signs. Mr. Myers replied that it would be the name of the tenant. Commissioner Le Jeune asked how many buildings would be affected. Mr. Myers replied that there were three (3) within the Entertainment Village that would be affected. The Director stated that staff had not had the ability to review this information, and could not recommend the modification without being able to evaluate the impact. Each pad would be subject to individual Conditional Use Permits. Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 1989 Page ten Commissioner Kasparian asked which item this affected. The Director replied that it was Item G. She suggested that they leave it as it stands, and as they receive design review and conditional use applications for induvidual pad, staff would return with analysis to the Commission. Commissioner Baker asked what the square footage of the buildings was. Mr. M~ers replied that the buildings would be between 6,000 and 10,000 square feet. He disagreed with Item P. Since they will put together everything into one document, they would like the ability to pull permits for tenants that were not controversial. He wanted assurances that if there were no problems, a tenant could pull the appropriate permits by the end of the week. The Director noted that the corrections to the Resolution could be made by the next day; they want to be sure that there is no question about language; and will fast- track the permits. She stated that the applicant needed to submit a revised copy of the sign program; the sooner they submit it, the sooner they could issue permits; so that there are no misunderstandings, they need to see a revised document. Commissioner Pontious commented that they needed the revised document so that each understood what was said and requested; staff will provide their revisions to the applicant for incorporation into the sign program, then the applicant should return it. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if this was the normal procedure. Mr. Myers was concerned that they were leaving with the approval of 200 square foot signs, but that the tenants could not pull the permits to create the signs the next day. The Director stated that this was a standard condition used on other master sign programs, it is not uncommon or unreasonable. Mr. Cu~ler replied that the 200 square foot amendment was already made. Commissioner Pontious noted that if there was anything in the Tenants' Sign Criteria, dated August 25, 1989, that had not been amended, they could pull permits. Mr. Myers disagreed with Item Q: In sentence 1, they need the wall along Jamboree which hooks into the monolith to be purple as a transisition from the monolith. Mr. Pomero~ noted that it may not be an extension, but just a short slot in the low wall. The original design was to have the wall on Jamboree and the monolith to be purple. Staff felt that the purple and terra cotta would have to end somewhere, and it would look more awkward ending someplace on the low wall. Mr. Pomero~ stated that they could make a notch or an architectural point in the wall. Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 1989 Page eleven The Director replied that the representation given staff was that there would be no problem in limiting the purple color to the monoliths. The cut-off could be handled either where the wall meets the monolith, or a gap can be cut. Staff does not want to subjectively accept the responsibility for what is an appropriate break point, when there has been such issue about the color. Mr. Myers felt that they had understood there to be an agreement for a transition. Roger Seitz, Irvine Company, stated that they specifically discussed with the Director the difficulty in resolving the point of transition; he feels that it is important to resolve it properly; their intention is not to have the wall be purple; they would like suggestions from architects so that they could do it properly; they would like to request the ability to make a transition. Commissioner Pontious was not adverse to a transition, but would like to review the options of plant materials, a break, or some architectural design. Commissioner Kasparian felt that this detail should be part of another resolution. Mr. M~ers wanted to bring the color issue to a conclusion; they want to eliminate the one (1) year decision date; he hates the idea of going back to the tenants who bought into a design in a year; if the residents of Tustin are still adamantly adverse to it in the future, the City of Irvine will respond. The Director noted the Commitment to return in one year for review waw not a staff original proposal but rather this was a representation made to a number of City Councilpersons in workshop sessions to gain support for retaining the purple color. Staff feels strongly that with the assurances that this commitment was given to certain members of the the City Council, that it should be included. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if that pertained to the one (1) year trial. The Director replied affirmatively. Mr. Seitz stated that he attended the workshops and represented that they would evaluate the program after a year. They were surprised, though, that it was a temporary situation with no approval for one (1) year. He felt that the approval should not be withheld for the year. Commissioner Baker noted that the wording stated that this was not a final action. Commissoner Pontious asked if it could be reworded. The Director provided language to modify the condition. Mr. Seitz agreed to the modification. Mr. Mi/ers asked for a clarification. Commissioner Pontious replied that it takes out "final approval", but the City reserves the right to return in a year for changes. Staff reviewed the decisions made by consensus of the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 1989 Page twelve Mr. Seitz suggested that the Commission add, "it may be reviewed.", to Condition P. Staff suggested that they agendize it for a meeting within the year. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of the procedure for agendizing the matter. The Director replied that staff would monitor the time frame through a tracking system. The public hearing was closed at 9:50 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeunemoved, Kasparian seconded to approve an amendment to Use Permit 88-15 (the Tustin Market Place Sign Program) by the adoption of Resolution No. 2657 with the following changes: Add Item I. D. The Planning Commission finds that the location of fast food restaurants in a 77~ acre shopping center is a unique condition that is not found elsewhere in the City and that freeway signage for the four such restaurants in the Tustin Market Place is therefore justified. Change the following items in Item II as follows: Ce Under Section 1.6 (Tenant areas) Type II, item #3 shall be deleted. ("One sign band identification per bay"). A maximum of 10 freeway signs shall be permitted, advertising the names of major tenants and fast food restaurants as submitted per model with a maximum of 4 fast food restaurants. The Planning Commission finds that the location of fast food restaurants in a 77± acre shopping center is a unique condition that is not found elsewhere in the City and that freeway signage for the four such restaurants in the Tustin Market Place is therefore justified. Section 1.5. G, Multi-Tenant Monument Signs; shall be modified to'limit the number of multi-tenant monument signs to two (2) signs. Lettering on existing and future Freeway Signs shall be revised in accordance with Exhibit 'B' of the amended Sign Program dated August 25, 1989 and included with the Planning Commission staff report dated September 11, 1989 as Attachment III. H® Section 1.5.C., Building Fascia Signs (Exhibit C); shall be amended to limit such signs to a maximum of two (2) tenants. The design of the fascia shall reflect that shown at the September 11, 1989 Planning Commission meeting and shall be flexible enough to accommodate the two foot high aluminum sign band should the need arise in the future. Revised structural plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Conmunity Development Department prior to field alterations. It shall be noted that no advertising shall be permitted only business indenti- fi cat i on. Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 1989 Page thirteen Section 1.5.C.1, Building Fascia Signs; North Entertainment Village, Building A (Exhibit C), shall be revised to restrict the fascia signs on Building 'A' in the theatre/retail facility of the North Village to tenants having access or frontage on the Village Center Court only. J® If Option A, as described in Section 1.5.D. is implemented, it shall be used for all tenants in all buildings in the North Entertainment Village Theatre Complex. Determination to implement option A shall be made prior to issuance of building permits. Appropriate designs shall be included with structural drawings at building plan check. Ke Section 1.5.H., Theatre Marquee (Exhibit H) shall be revised to limit the allowed square footage of the theatre marquee sign to 200 square feet, including the name of the theatre operator. (Item M is deleted and the remainder are relettered). Me All unamended provisions of the Master Sign Program of July 11, 1988, not herein amended per this Resolution, shall remain in full force and effect. Ne All applicable conditions contained in Resolution No. 2516, incorporated herein by reference and not otherwise amended by this Resolution, shall remain in full force and effect. Oe The applicant shall submit a revised Sign Program which includes all corrections made by this Resolution for review and approval by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of any sign permits affected by this Resolution. The revised Sign Program shall incorporate all sign criteria for tenant and project identification, for all Phases of the Market Place, into one comprehensive document. Pe The revised color combination for project signage, consisting of the subdued purple background with white letters, shall be used on project signage only, no walls (i.e. all perimeter and/or screen walls). At the conclusion of the one year time period from the adoption date of this Resolution, the Planning Commission will review the color of project signage and may request modifications to the approved color. Motion carried 5-0. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS 5. City Council Action Agenda - September 5, 1989 Meetin9 Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development No Planning Commission action necessary. Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 1989 Page fourteen COIIqISSION CONCERN Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the furniture store on Newport Avenue has storage in back"~nd there is a trash bin on site that is not in an enclosure. He also noted that there is a satellite dish in the Auto Center. The Director noted that staff would follow up on these matters. Commissioner Kasparian questioned whether the red curbing on Newport Avenue at Andrews Street was tied into the Champion development. The Director noted that it was not and that the painting of the curb has been put on the regular maintenance schedule for curb painting by the Public Works Department. Commissioner Baker noted there are a lot of window signs and sandwich boards at the Market Place. The Director incidated that the Code Enforcement officer would follow-up. Commissioner Pontious noted that she would be out of town for the September 25, 1989 meeting. AD,.)OURNMENT At 9:55 p.m. Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Planning Commission meeting on September 25, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Motion carried 5-0. P~n~i- Foley - Secretary c~li ir~an' P°nti °us \~