Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 03-17-80 TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of Regular and Continued Meeting March 17, 1980 The Planning Agency held a regular meeting Monday, March 17, 1980 in the Council Chambers of the Tusfin City Hall, 300 Centennial Way, Tusfin, California. The meeting was called to order at 3 p.m., by Vice-chairman Saltarelli in the excused absence of Chairman Schuster who was affendin9 a function af the mili- tary air base. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Mr. Sharp and the invocation was given by Mrs. Kennedy. ROLL CALL Present: Vice-chairman Salfarelli, Sharp, Kennedy, and Welsh Absent: Chairman Schuster Also present: Dan Blankenship, City Administrator Mike Brofemarkle, Community Development Director Alan Warren, Senior Planner James Rourke, City Attorney Midge Mehl, Recordin9 Secretary Other staff members: 8 General audience: 3 ~INUTES The minutes of the regular meeting held March 3, 1980 were approved as written, with the waivin9 of readin9 same. INITIAk PUBklC HEARING ~endmenf to U~e Permi.t. 78-18 Applicant: Location: Request: Design II Signmakers on behalf of Orange Tree Realty 13132 Newport Avenue Authorization for commercial signing in the Planned Con~nunify District, on a professional office buil4ing as a modification on the Master Plan of Signage for Packers Square. Mr. Brofemarkle said the master plan of signing for building "D" did not desig- nate specific use so if was deemed to go undor the standards of the Professional District. This would restrict signs fo a maximum of 6 square feet in area. The applicant has already installed a 24 square foot decorative window sign and is requesting an additional 14.6 square feet in area. Staff concerns would center around the fact that the commercial portion of the Center is only author- ized 17.3 up fo a maximum of 25.3 square feet per lease space depending on size, in accordance with the submitted sign plan. Approval of this request would grant more sign area fo a professional office than permiffedfor the commercial tenants, possibly leading to requests from the commercial businesses for more signing. Also, in the professional building itself, at what point would other uses in the office building not be eligible for sign increases. Vice-chairman Salfarelli asked if this request were not approved, would they receive any signin9 at all. Mr, Brofemarkle said currently they would be granted 6 square feet, under Code, as a PR office building, Mr. Welsh asked when the development was created, was it intended to be com- mercial or professional. Mr. Brotemarkle said it was indicated as a professional office and real estate offices, in 1973 had been determined to be a permitted use in the PR zone, by a finding of fact by the Planning Agency, subject to compliance with sign re- quirements. Vice-chairman Saltarelli declared the public hearing open and asked if there was anyone who wished fo speak in favor or opposition to the Amendment to Use Planning Agency Minutes - March 17, 1980 page 2. Permit 78-~8. Mr. David Kaplan, representing Design II Signmakers and Orange Tree Realty, said the window sign was installed a little bit after the fact and he had two photos which he would like fo show to the Agency, which indicated that it was quite nondescript. We are trying to get permission for the Agency fo look af this as an interior appointment as opposed fo exterior signage. Mr. Brofemarkle said although this might be considered a very decorative aesthetic type of window treatment, if still, by code definition, constitutes a sign of 24 square feet in area. Mr. Welsh asked i¢, within tho Sign Code, internal signs were permifl'ed as being not counted as overall signing. Mr. Brotemarkle said it's riel' counted as part of the sign area. Mr. Warren said if actually applied to the window, it's considered a window sign. If inside the building, viewed from the street, not attached to the window, it's been interpreted fo be exempt. This is actually a window sign with characters on the window and considered as a countable area, under the Sign Code. Under discussion, Mr. Brofemarkle said that this is a '9ray' area of the code; however, we are dealing with a PC master signage plan for the Center and not solely a code consideration. Mr. Kaplan said the sign, as requested in the use permit, is of the same dimensions as the commercial users have, which seemed fo be acceptable under the master plan. Vice-chairman Saltarelli declared the public hearing closed and asked the pleasure of the Agency. He said if seemed fo him that there were two questions; (1) whether or not fo allow one sign as a window sign and (2) whether or not fo :llow an additional commercial sign on a professional building. Staff indicated that what was requested was still less than permitted by the City's sign code and pointed out that specific provisions of any resolution prepared for the next meeting, if the request were approved, would detail appli- cability of tho master plan modification fo all tenants in building "D". Mr. Salfarelli said he felt there would have [o be limitations or tenants would think that if you need more signage all you have to do is fake your store front and make it a stained glass window. Discussion was held on the difference between commercial and professional centers under different zoning classifications, determination of which standards apply,and parking impact. MOTION by Saltarelli to approve amendment fo Use Permit No. 78-~8. The motion dies for lack of a second. Mr. Salfarelli said his thinking was fhaf as long as if didn't violate tho Sign Code it could be approved. There is already a problem in that Center, it's a difficult place fo do business due to parking problems. As long as if doesn't exceed what any other commercial uses would be allowed and a stipu- lation is put in any resolution of approval that any other uses, permitted such signage in the professional building would be specifically designated, approval should be granted. He asked how many square feet of signing would be allowed in commercially zoned areas under our Sign Code. Mr. Warren said if this use was in a commercial building, a sign of 75 square feet would be permitted. Mr. Saltarelli said that means the request is for half of the maximum allowable. Planning Agency Minutes - March 17, 1980 page 3. MOTION by Sharp, SECONDED by Saltarelli, fo approve the amendment to Use Permit 78-18, as requested in that this is a use which is authorized in the commercial zone and that commercial signing is appropriate, and Further that staff develop an appropriate resolution for action by the Agency af the next meeting. Mr. Welsh asked if the staff felt this action would put the City in an awkward position concerning parking regulations and needs. If was concerning this proJect that we discussed the parking problems. Would we be prostituting our requirement for parking if we were to grant this particular request? Mr. Brotemarkle said no, because a real estate office, the point in case, is still a professional office. We are only considering signage. Had the de- veloper initially purported a plan fo provide equal signing for all the tenants, the City may have approved such a request because on an overall basis if would still be less than permitted by code. Mr. Welsh said he could support the motion based on the fact that we are not jeopardizing our parking as we would require of another developer and that if is still within our own ordinance. Mrs. Kennedy asked if there would be a signing problem if a bank, escrow office, or similar professional use located in buildin9 "D". Mr. Brotemarkle said the staff would propose, as part of the resolution, affect- ing the master plan of signage for building "D" fhaf such approval would be only for specified commercial uses. Vice-chairman Salfarelli asked the pleasure of the Agency on Mr. Sharp's motion. AYES: NeE S: ABSENT: Sharp, Kennedy, Welsh, and Saltarelli None Schuster Mr. Salfarelli said he tended to be less and less sympathetic to requests after the fact. Developers submit their master sign standards, but if ought to be pointed out they could request more area under our existing code so we don't have to be granting so many changes. When somebody signs a lease they should be well prepared to live by what sign area is permitted. Mr. Welsh said it would be appropriate that the requirement for commercial signin9 be well explained for future prelects, so we don't have a developer affempfin9 fo circumvent our parkin9 requirements lhrough a sign request. pUBLIC CONCERNS G~ll~ry 9f Homes - Signs Mr. Vic Batfiafo, representing Gallery of Homes, said he would like fo address the Agency concerning notification fo Irvine Boulevard real estate brokers about signs, indicating they should remove "open house or open office" signs in fronfyards of their offices. If is not in accordance with the City Sign Ordi- nance Code No. 684 and staff had indicated the Agency was the source of possible changes in the ordinance to allow such signs. The signs are small but when someone is driving down Irvine and looking for a real estate office there is a sign that says "open" and pointing afa door. We have an identify problem with only a six square foot sign. What we would like fo have is fo be able to fell people we are open and who we are. I'm speaking for a number of realtors with the same problem and illegal signs. Mr. Saltarelli asked if he was talking about a moveable sign. Mr. Baffiato said yes, it is taken in each evening. The landlord will not allow us fo have the sign out all the time. Maybe a one by two foot sign Planning Agency Minutes - March 17, 1980 page 4. which would be a stake-type and removable should be permitted; he didn't think if would offend anyone. In his building he would be the only one that would have a need for that sign, so not many would result. Mr. Salfarelli said Tusfin Associates had been doing this for years with a little wrought iron sign saying "Tustin Associates" and now Southland Realtors has a little arrow fhaf says "open" and they set if up every morning on the grass, in fi-onf of their door. Mr. Brofemarkle said there has been a proliferation of these signs in the setback area. We've had approximately six notifications sent out, at the present time. This was discussed back in October of 1973, the initial time when the concern was brought up in the PR District. He said real estate sales offices were not a permitted use in the PR zone. In '73 there was a finding of fact by the Planning Commission that established real estate offices as appropriate uses in the PR District, however, subject to the sign control of the district. Mr. Brotemarkle said granting special relief to permit such signs created a problem as fo whom and under what circumstances they would be permitted. There could be a tremendous proliferation of signin9 and other office uses would likely want similar consideration. It's been in the last month that staff has sent notifications out fo the various businesses that are puffing these signs out front. Mr. Salfarelli said he would like to authorize the staff fo look info this problem and brin9 a recommendation back fo the Agency, with some more infer- marion. He said he felt if is a problem that needs fo be addressed as if has been done for quite some time and hasn't heard a lot of complaints about if, but he would like fo have this agendized within thirty days. Mr. Brotemarkle asked if it was the Agency's desire that staff suspend any enforcement action until after staff had a chance fo review if. Mr. Salfarelli said yes. The Agency agreed that a study should be made of this matter and a recommendation from the staff be brought back to the Agency. OLD BUSI NESS Resolution No. 1885 - Steelcase Mr. Brotemarkle said he had been in contact with both representatives of Sfeelcase and The Irvine Company. The Irvino Company would not approve more than one sign, however they would approve one sign in excess of 200 square feet. They would prohibit an additional sign on Bell Avenue. Since approval by the Irvine Company was a condition of the Resolution, he asked if the Reso- lution should be amended fo coincide with what the Irvine Company ultimately approved. Mr. Salfarelli said the motion to approve Variance 80-4 was fo authorize what tho Irvine Industrial Complex permitted in order fo allow companies in the area to bo compatible and remain competitive. In one sense they are more re- strictive and another more liberal than anticipated. The City's action should be in agreement with the Irvine Company's action. MOTION by Saltarelli, SECONDED by Kennedy, to continue Resolution No. 1883 until staff could modify the resolution to conform fo what the Irvine Company would authorize. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Sharp, Kennedy, Welsh, and Saltarelli None Schuster Planning Agency Minutes - March 17, 1980 page 5. Resolqtion No. 1884 - Tusfin Arms II MOTION by Saltarelli, SECONDED by Welsh, to approve Resolution Noi 1884. AYES: Sharp, Kennedy, Welsh, and Salfarelli NOES: None ABSENT: Schuster Resolution No. 1885 - Stewart Development Company Mr. Salfarelli asked if the Agency wanted fo hold this off until the evening meeting when Mr. Schuster would be in attendance. Mr. Welsh said it would probably be appropriate to continue the matter. Mr. Salfarelli asked the pleasure of lhe Agency. MOTION by Welsh, SECONDED by Kennedy, fo continue Resolution No. 1885 until the 7:30 p.m. meeting this date. AYES: Sharp, Kennedy, Welsh, and Salfarelli NOES: None ABSENT: Schuster NEW BUSINESS None CORRESPONDENCE None STAFF CONCERNS None A~ENC¥ CONCERNS None AD ~ OURN/~ENT There bein9 no further business to come before the Plannin9 Agency af this time Vice-chairman Saltarelli adjourned the meefin9 at 4:03 p.m., fo meet again for a 7:30 p.m. meefin9 this date. The Plannin9 Agency reconvened at 7:32 p.m., with Chairman Schuster conducfin9 fha meefin9 and with all members present. Chairman Schuster said a matter was held over from the afternoon meefin9 in order that a full Agency would be in attendance fo vote on the item. Re~olutiQn No. 1885 (continued) - Stewart Development Company MOTION by Salfarelli, SECONDED by Sharp, fo approve Resolution No. 1885. Mr. Sharp asked about fha design of this buildin9. Mr. Brotemarkle said he had received no final answers, but they are 9oin9 fo fake into consideration, in fha final design, the color the reflective 91ass and the final design would come back fo the Agency for Action. Mr. Sharp indicated he had suggested fo Mr. Brofemarkle the use of bronze anodized extrusions and bronze 91ass to give a lighter effect. Mr. Salfarelli questioned if numberin9 of fha Resolution was correct. He said fha agenda indicated Holt and Irvine, yet the Resolution is for 14742 Newport Avenue. Planning Agency Minutes - March 17, 1980 page 6. Mr. Brofemarkle indicated that the agenda designation of Holt-lrvine was in error. Resolution No. 1885 is for the Stewart development at Newport and Sycamore, approved af the last regular Agency meeting. The Chairman asked if everyone was clear on the matter and hearing affirmative replies he asked the pleasure of the Agency on Mr. Salfarelli's motion. AYES: NOES: Sharp, Saltarelli, Kennedy, Welsh, and Schuster None AD~OURN/~NT There being no further business to come before the Planning Agency, Chairman Schuster declared the meefin9 adjourned at 7:38 p.m., fo meet again for a regular meefin9 fo be held April 7, 1980 at 3 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Tustin City Hall. Don Salfar, c:~-r'~, V, ce-cha~rman Stephen L.V Schuster, Chairman M.I. Mehl Recording Secretary