The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Minutes 01-26-87 HINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING CO~ISSION REGULAR I~ETING ,JANUARY 26, 1987 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Puckett, Well, Baker, Le Jeune Absent: Pontlous PUBLIC CONCERNS: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of January 12, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Well moved, LeJeune seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS Laura Pickup informed the Commission that neither public hearing could be considered tonight due to the fact the Tustin News did not publish the requested notices. Commissioner Well moved, Baker seconded to continue Use Permit 87-1 and Use Permit 87-2 based upon the fact of improper notice to their next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0. 2. USE PERMIT 87-1 Applicant: Enrico Ristorante de Italia Location: 14430 Newport Avenue Request: Authorization to sell beer and wine for on-site consumption in conjunction with a restaurant use. Presentation: Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner RESOLUTION NO. 2388: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING A BEER AND WINE LICENSE FOR ON-SITE SALES AT 14430 NEWPORT AVENUE. RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVE USE PERMIT NO. 87-1 BY THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2388. Planntng Commission Minutes January 26, 1987 page 3. USE PERMIT 87-2 Applicant: Location: Request: Presentation: Chantry Ltd on behalf of Fat Freddies Mexican Diner 1571 E1 Camino Real Authorization to install a 100 square foot freeway identification pole sign. Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner RESOLUTION NO. 2389: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING A 46 FOOT HIGH, 100 SQUARE FOOT FREEWAY IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN AT 1571 EL CAMINO REAL RECOMMENDATION: PLEASURE OF THE COMMISSION. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS e IMAGES FOR HAIR, 1030 IRVINE BLVD. Appeal of Community Development Deprtment denial of Sign Permit No. 1830. Jeff Davis informed the Commission the issue before them is whether or not the sign that was installed should be allowed to remain. The sign was applied to the building by a sign contractor without proper permits. The tenant was advised a permit was required and was informed in staff's opinion the sign is larger than permitted by Code. Staff's concerns are: 1) sign installed without a permit; 2) the method used to calculate sign area; and 3) installed sign area conflicts with the Sign Code and Design Review requirements. Jeff Davis presented the Commission with slides depicting the existing sign. Chairman Puckett opened the meeting for comment from the audience. Brad Steingraber, Images for Hair & Nails, reviewed his conversations with staff, what he thought were inconsistencies with department's position and reviewed his perception of the nature of the misunderstanding. He emphasized the matter of obtaining a permit is not the issue because he can remedy that. The real issue in his opinion is the department's lack of written policy or guidelines regarding painted wall signs. Commission discussion ensued concerning interpretation of painted wall signs according to Code; maintenance of painted wall signs vs. a more structured sign with a crisper appearance; need for Contractor to obtain proper permits at the time he painted the sign; and requested clarification on interpretation of method used to calculate sign area. Planntng Commission Minutes January 26, 1987 page three Jeff Davis advised the Code is silent on the explicit authorization or prohibition of painted wall signs. Suzanne Atktns advised the Commission the Code's silence does not mean a painted sign is allowed or prohibited. What is at issue is how to calculate the sign area and compliance with the City's design review procedures and necessary findings. Christine Shtngleton noted issues identified by staff relate primarily to sign area and design review. Required findings or guiding principles in our design ordinance require the Director or staff to find that the location, size, architectural features, general appearance of a sign does not impair the orderly and harmonious development of an area. There also has to be attention paid to incorporating the design of the sign including colors and materials into the overall design of the entire development so as to achieve a homogeneous appearance. Chairman Puckett explained that he felt the matter was one that affected uniformity. The particular sign does not appear to be compatible with other signs in the center. He upheld staff'sconclusions outlined in the staff report. Christine Shingleton clarified to the applicant the appeal process. He can appeal the findings made in the design review and can apply for a variance relative to the sign size. Commissioner LeJeune moved, Wetl seconded to uphold staff's recommendation to deny Sign Permit Number 1830 based on the following findings: The sign is larger than the square footage maximum permitted in that the entire facta is considered the "sign structure". The existing sign is 94.5 square feet while only 33 square feet is allowed. That staff's interpretation that the facla is the sign is supported by Sections 9430 and 9460 of the Sign Code. o No attest has been made by the appealant to install a sign homogeneous with surrounding development. The design of the sign is not compatible with design standards in terms of scale and/or clutter. The sign was applied to the building without proper review and required permits. e The appealant by his own admission was aware that a permit was "probably" required yet authorized work without said permits. Therefore any argument that the sign should be permitted to remain because of costs is unfounded. Definitions of an attached sign only identifies potential types of sign and does not authorize any particular type. 0 The authority is given to the staff for design review by the design review section of the Zoning Code Section 9272. Motion carried 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes Oanuary 26, 1987 page four STAFF CONCERNS REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTIONS JANUARY 19, 1987 Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development COHHISSION CONCERNS Commissioner LeJeune queried the two different meeting times for the City Council and Planning Commission. He expressed the downtown residents' appreciation for the recent tree trimming. He further expressed a resident's concern over flooding on Main Street during rains. Commissioner Weil was concerned wi th freeway identification signs 500' from the center line. She wondered if that would only apply to businesses near the exit. Christine Shlngleton advised the Commission that this matter would be discussed when the Commission discusses revisions to the Sign Ordinance. Commissioner Baker questioned the status of the school district/developer fee negoti ati on s. Christine Shtngleton advised the Commission the District adopted a resolution adopting some fees to go into affect 60 days from the District Board's last meeting; maximum of $1.50 per square foot in residential projects. Chairman Puckett questioned new dealer ground breaking in the auto center. Christine Shingleton responded that no time frame was available at this point. Chairman Puckett further expressed the Commission's appreciation to Ken Samples on his last night with the City for his "behind the scenes" assistance during Commission meetings. ADdOURI~qENT Commissioner LeJeune moved, Well seconded to adjourn at 8:50 p.m. regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Recording Secretary to thel r//~t Motion ~arr~d 47.~,~ ~ PUCKETI, Chairman