Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-24-02MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING June 24, 2002 7:02 p.m. Given Jennings absent Staff present None Approved Adopted Resolution No. 3834 7:04 p.m. Ashabi Kozak Ashabi Kozak CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director Doug Holland, Deputy City Attorney Karen Peterson, Senior Planner Minoo Ashabi, Associate Planner Justina Willkom, Associate Planner Eloise Harris, Recording Secretary PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 10, 2002, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. It was moved by Denny, seconded by Kozak, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 02-006 A REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO PROVIDE OUTDOOR SEATING IN CONJUNCTION WITH A COFFEE HOUSE. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 1450 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE A, IN THE RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-1) ZONING DISTRICT. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3834 approving Conditional Use Permit 02-006. The Public Hearing opened. Presented the staff report. Questioned the size of the proposed potted plants and their scale as related to the outdoor furniture; and, asked how the plant materials are consistent with the landscaping plan. Indicated there are two fan palms near the outdoor seating area; the proposed plants are Birds of Paradise and impatiens that would be within the center's theme; the 24-inch size was recommended because anything larger would impede the travel path. Asked if five plants are being recommended. Minutes - Planning Commission June 24, 2002 - Page 1 Ashabi Responded in the affirmative. Kozak Peterson Kozak Peterson Kozak Denny Peterson Director Davert Keith Glassman, representing Starbucks Coffee Hamilton Mr. Glassman 7:14 p.m. Kozak Adopted Resolution No. 3836, as amended Asked if there might be an opportunity to add one more street tree along El Camino Real toward Redhill. Indicated she had spoken with Doug Anderson, Traffic Engineer, about the street tree situation and was informed no street trees were located easterly from approximately space 19 on the site plan because of the site distance to the traffic signal; Public Works' staff indicated that street trees would obstruct visibility as cars approach the intersection; in addition, there is a potential for a future right turn lane in that area; Public Works' staff assisted the applicant during the plan check process to ensure there were a number of trees on the site along the area between space 19 and the intersection; the site plan shows 6-10 trees clustered in that area. Asked if those were trees to be planted by the applicant. Responded in the affirmative. Reiterated his hope that a sixth potted plant could'be included as an added amenity. Asked why the type of seating material is specific when this is not the case at other outdoor seating locations in the City; and, indicated Peppino's has plastic chairs. Stated this condition is intended to more tightly control seating materials in the future. Added that the Outdoor Seating Guidelines were established in the late 1980s and would not have applied to any use before that. Invited members of the public to speak. Stated he was available to answer questions; and, noted the applicant will attempt to include the additional plant requested by Commissioner Kozak. Asked Mr. Glassman, regarding Condition 2.9 referring to amplified noise or live entertainment, if the applicant concurred with that condition. Responded in the affirmative. The Public Hearing closed. Stated the applicant has met the requirements of the City's Outdoor Seating Ordinance regarding three tables and six chairs; noted applicant's willingness to provide additional landscape amenities if possible; and, stated his support of the application. It was moved by Denny, seconded by Hamilton, to adopt Resolution No. 3834. Motion carried 4-0. , CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 02-012 AND SIGN CODE EXCEPTION 02-001 A REQUEST TO INSTALL A FIFTY (50) FOOT FREEWAY POLE SIGN FOR A RETAIL CENTER WITH THREE (3) RESTAURANT TENANTS. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 1450 EL CAMINO REAL IN THE RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-1) ZONING DISTRICT. Minutes - Planning Commission June 24, 2002 - Page 2 7:15 p.m. Ashabi Hamilton Davert Hamilton Davert Ashabi Hamilton Director Hamilton Ashabi Hamilton Kozak Director Kozak Director Kozak RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3836 approving Conditional Use Permit 02-012 and Sign Code Exception 02-001. The Public Hearing opened. Presented the staff report. Asked if the existing two story building will shield the pole from motorists traveling north on the I-5 freeway or El Camino Real. Questioned whether Commissioner Hamilton was referring to the building under construction. Indicated the building that now exists but was not shown in the photo-simulations. Asked staff the building height. Answered 28 feet. Referred to the photo-simulation which shows the pole visible from the ground up. Referred the Planning Commission to Attachment B which shows a dashed line indicating the portion of the pole that will be covered by the building. Asked how much of the pole would be visible from the freeway and El Camino Real. Answered more than 20 feet. Stated that he had spoken with Brett Blanchard prior to the meeting. Asked staff for confirmation that the Shell and Mobil signs are non-conforming signs, and that Wendy's, Taco Bell, Carl's Jr., and the Exxon station on First Street are conforming signs. Confirmed those signs are as stated by Commissioner Kozak. Noted that all those signs, including the two non-conforming signs, represent one tenant, one use; and, asked staff what guidance the Planning Commission has regarding the multi- tenant sign proposed in this application. Stated this is a discretionary action; the Sign Code does not address multi-tenant advertising on freeway-oriented signs; in other situations where there are multiple tenants, the sign programs are a part of a conditional use permit; if the Commission desires to allow only one tenant, freeway-oriented pole signs, that standard would have to apply to everyone and would require a Code amendment. Commented that his reason for naming the individual signs as conforming or non-conforming was that the conforming signs were approved by the Commission; the non-conforming signs have not been approved by the Commission; the height of this pole sign and the multi-tenant nature of the sign run counter to the trends in past approvals. Minutes - Planning Commission June 24, 2002 - Page 3 Davert Peterson Davert Peterson Davert Peterson Director Davert Director Davert Director Davert Jack Fovell, representing Southwest Signs Denny Mr. Fovell Denny Mr. Fovell Indicated he also spoke to the applicant; and, asked if the Wendy's sign conforms to the Sign Code regarding the height issue. Answered the Sign Code allows a 24-foot high sign. Stated the Wendy's sign is 45 feet high. Stated the Wendy's sign was approved through a Sign Code exception; the older signs--Mobil, Shell, and Denny's--do not have any variance or Sign Code exception and are therefore non- conforming. Clarified that the Taco Bell, Wendy's, and Carl's Jr. signs were all above the height standard and were allowed because of the contour of the freeway through that area; and, asked if there is a significant difference in the freeway wall height between Wendy's and the sign proposed in this application. Stated there is an increase not only in the freeway, but also in the grade of the land. Noted that Attachment B shows the freeway level, with the sign significantly higher. Suggested that the proposed height is comparable with Wendy's and Carl's Jr. signs. Indicated the proposed sign is five to fifteen feet higher than those two signs. Asked if the height is necessary due to the sound wall. Responded in the affirmative. Restated that none of the more recent signs mentioned met the Sign Code, but exceptions were granted; this application is consistent with that practice; the multi-tenant issue has not been dealt with before, but this applicant should not be held to a standard not imposed on other applicants; since more than half the sign pole will be shielded by the building, stated he supported the application as submitted. Stated his agreement with staff and the recommendation for approval of the project; clarified that Conditions 3.1 and 3.2 were included to allow for tenants other that restaurant uses to be allowed on the sign; the 15-inch minimum letter height is actually a maximum size allowed on the sign; Starbucks Coffee can only be accommodated with 11-inch letters. Asked if there is a third tenant for the sign at this time. Answered in the negative, indicating the building is in leasing at the moment; everything shown is conceptual; the intent is to conform to the Code with freeway uses as defined by the Sign Code. Noted he also received a telephone call from the applicant; and, asked what is planned for the third spot on the sign in the event the space cannot be sold and/or tenants change. Answered this type of signage is an asset to any property, and tenants for this type of advertising are not difficult to find. Minutes - Planning Commission June 24, 2002 - Page 4 Denny Mr. Fovell Kozak Mr. Fovell Kozak Mr. Fovell Hamilton Mr. Fovell Kozak Director Brett Blanchard, representing the property owner Davert Mr. Fovell Hamilton Director Fovell Davert Asked if four tenants and the center name on the sign were in the original plan. Responded in the affirmative. Asked if a 45-foot sign, equivalent to Wendy's, was considered. Answered the 35-foot height of the sound wall suggested 50 feet would be the appropriate height for visibility over the sound wall from the angles that are most important. Restated his concern regarding sign clutter; and, asked what material will be used for the sign face. Stated the face will be acrylic, similar to the neighboring signs; the body of the sign is fabricated aluminum with a text coat painted to match the building. Asked how much space each tenant will be allotted; suggested that Starbucks "Coffee" is redundant because everyone knows the product; and, added clutter could be reduced by removing Coffee from the sign. Indicated that is a Starbucks brand issue. Pointed out this is a discretionary action; the Planning Commission can approve one, three, or four tenants; and, stated his concern is setting a precedent for tenant signs along the freeway. Noted that staff had the same concerns related to the number and height of the letters; the intent of a freeway-oriented sign is to advise motorists of facilities that might serve their needs as they travel on the freeways; staff's concern was that multiple tenants would make reading the sign difficult for motorists, and 15-inch letters seemed appropriate to alleviate this difficulty; Condition 3.1 dictates that only restaurants may be advertised on this sign; this is the first pole sign in the City advertising multiple tenants; the Planning Commission may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application and direct staff with the appropriate findings; if the Commission desires to prohibit such signs in the future, staff would need to analyze and propose a Code amendment in accordance with that policy direction. Stated the applicant envisions Starbucks, Subway, and Robeks Juice as the three tenants; indicated Robeks has signed a six- year lease; and, noted that Starbucks requires Coffee in the name. Asked the applicant if the 15-inch letter height is feasible. Indicated the panel would support 15-inch letters; the limiting factor in the sign design is the length of the sign; applicant does not object to a minimum letter height. Asked for the rationale for staff's choosing 15 inches. Answered that 15 inches allows for the best freeway visibility. Restated the limiting factor is the length of the sign. Requested the specific reason staff chose 15 inches. Minutes - Planning Commission June 24, 2002 - Page 5 Peterson Hamilton Director Davert Director Denny Fovell Mr. Glassman Davert 7:49 p.m. Davert Hamilton Davert Kozak Indicated 15 inches is the letter size Caltrans uses for junction signs. Asked if 15 inches is the standard or pronouncement. Stated that Caltrans has maximums and minimums regarding the roadway, speed limit, etc.; staff attempted to choose a reasonable size, given the location of the proposed sign. Asked staff for confirmation that the Sign Code does not address maximum or minimum letter size. Stated this is a discretionary item; with three separate panels, a long tenant name would shrink lettering; if the motorist cannot read the name, the sign is not meeting its intended purpose. Asked the applicant if Robeks Juice could be accommodated by 15-inch letters. Answered in the affirmative; and, added that this sign was designed to appear as though it is a part of the architecture and to enhance the area by indicating to motorists this is an active, exciting center. Suggested that a larger sign would fit 13- or 14-inch letters. Responded that a larger sign would not be acceptable. The Public Hearing closed. Noted, given the limited size of the sign, he is willing to let the applicant determine the content; this is not an ugly sign, even though it does have three tenants; there could be three separate poles with three separate businesses; there are distance requirements and other considerations; combining tenants on signs may prevent clutter in the future; concerning the height, because of the way the freeway was rebuilt, the contour changed so drastically that the Planning Commission should look at pole signs on a case-by-case basis; the Planning Commission has been consistent in doing that; none of the signs previously approved meets what the Code says for freeway signs, but exceptions were granted at varying heights depending on what the freeway configuration was; this proposed sign is much further off the freeway than the Wendy's sign because of the onramp; he approves this proposal and is not concerned about the 15-inch minimum; he is willing to let the applicant decide the content if the Planning Commission determines the size; Condition 3.1, concerning the restaurant limitation, should stand as is because that is part of the Sign Code; he would like to see a condition that, in the event of a vacancy, no for lease or for rent signs be allowed on the sign. Agreed with Davert's comments, except there should be a minimum inch requirement for the sign letter height. Proposed 11 inches; 15 inches is what Caltrans uses, but their purpose is differentBgiving directions, not advertising commercial products. Stated his lack of enthusiasm regarding a 50-foot sign with multiple tenants, but he recognizes this is a solid proposal; agreed that the appearance of the sign in terms of the materials and the blending of architecture with the building itself; agreed Minutes - Planning Commission June 24, 2002 - Page 6 Denny Ashabi Peterson Director Davert Director Davert Denny Davert with the Chairman's comment that, if there is an absent tenant, no for lease sign can be inserted; suggested perhaps removing the panel and replacing with a blank panel; reluctantly supported 50 feet; asked for a minimum standard for the letter size; noted staff has a good rationale for 15 inches, however, 14 inches may be good as minimum that would address the concern for motorists being able to see the sign from the freeway and also give some flexibility to the sign design; and, stated the sign should be restricted to restaurant uses. Noted the 15-foot differential from the top of the sound wall to the sign; and asked if that is comparable with the Wendy's sign differential. Stated the sign is more than 15 feet above the freeway, but the Wendy's sign is more visible than this one would be. Stated the primary issue with the Wendy's sign was visibility from the freeway and at what point motorists would be able to see the sign and make a safe exit; 15 inches is the standard for Caltrans junction signs. Noted, with respect to the minimum letter sign, staff is concerned about redesigning something that the Planning Commission would be approving without having seen it. If the applicant is proposing something smaller for all three, staff feels it would be beneficial for the Planning Commission to see it in a photo-simulation from varying distances. Since the sign is identified as 5¼ feet high by nine feet wide, the dimension of the sign could be changed to accomplish both the desired goals of providing three tenants and acceptable visibility for the motorists. Stated, given where this sign is located, it will not necessarily attract motorists the first time by, but on the next visit motorists will remember Starbucks and get off the freeway; being able to see it from three miles down the freeway is not essential; he is willing to let the applicant determine the content. Clarified the content is dictated by the Code. Suggested, if the applicant believes they are getting adequate coverage with 11-inch letters, it is not the Planning Commission's job to second guess them; stated the applicant would have the same visibility concerns that staff and the Planning Commission have; if the applicant thinks l 1-inch letters will be effective, that should be left up to them as a business decision. Supported Chairman Davert's comments as well as the staff recommendation relative to a potential empty tenant space on the sign. Stated if the Planning Commission opposes a 15-inch letter requirement, he is not inclined to support a motion. Looking at the signs the Planning Commission has approved along the freeway (since the current members have been on the Commission over the last six or seven years), the Planning Commission has done a good job on all of them. The only difference between this sign and the earlier signs is the multiple tenants. That may be an issue the Planning Commission needs to address in the Sign Code down the road. Since no restriction exists now, it is not fair to impose conditions on this applicant. Minutes - Planning Commission June 24, 2002 - Page 7 Denny Kozak Davert Kozak Hamilton Davert Hamilton Davert Director Davert Applicant Stated he has experience designing Iogos and believes some businesses are more concerned about their brand than what the logo says. Starbucks' brand is "Starbucks Coffee." Telling a tenant their brand must be identified in a 15-inch letter height may leave out some applicants, depending on how their logo appears. He is inclined to agree with the Chairman in allowing the owner to maintain flexibility relative to dimensions of letters on the sign, as long as the integrity of the Sign Code is maintained and the freeway requirements for signs in terms of restaurants and gas uses, not real estate signs, are kept. Stated the 15-inch minimum presented by staff in terms of motorists' visibility also serves an ancillary purpose of minimizing clutter; if there is no minimum standard, there may be two or three lines of letters, creating more clutter; as Planning Commissioners, that is something to be avoided since a concern is the aesthetics of our community; while not wanting to create additional work for the staff, he suggested perhaps the Planning Commission should allow a sign proposal to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. He supports 15 inches, although 14 would work. Suggested allowing 11 inches with one tenant per line. Stated that would be a good compromise. Stated that nine feet by five and a half feet, taking off the 8-inch top, leaves 60 inches. If letters are eleven inches, that's only thirty-three--leaving almost half open space; suggested making the sign wider would accomplish the desire for larger letters. If anything, 11 is arbitrary compared to 15, since staff provided 15 as a specific example. If staff knew of other sizes as a standard, he would feel more comfortable approving that 1l- inch size. Stated making the sign wider was not an option. Beyond that, the applicant feels 11 inches is adequate. The potential for clutter would be diminished by limiting the lines of type, thereby eliminating the problem. As a compromise, the Planning Commission can add a condition regarding the lines of type. He is not worried about a minimum line height, because no applicant is going to put up a sign people cannot read. Stated 11 inches with one line of type solves the problem but that he would be more comfortable if that standard were established. Suggested the Planning Commission may want to revisit this issue in the future as part of the Sign Code update; and, asked staff for language amending the resolution. Provided language amending Condition 3.1, requiring a solid plex sign face be inserted in the event of a vacancy and prohibiting any lease, rent, or similar advertising; and, amending Condition 3.2 to allow for a minimum size of 1 l-inch letters, with one line of copy per tenant. Asked if that was agreeable to the applicant. Replied in the affirmative. It was moved by Hamilton, seconded by Denny, to adopt Resolution No. 3836, as amended. Motion carried 4-0. Minutes - Planning Commission June 24, 2002 - Page 8 Adopted Resolution No. 3835 Willkom Hamilton Director Director reported Hamilton Davert Hamilton REGULAR BUSINESS . GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY DETERMINATION FINDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE WATER QUALITY TESTING, HEALTH INSPECTION, AND PLAN CHECKING SERVICES WITHIN 45,000 SQUARE FEET OF AN EXISTING BUILDING. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 14511 MYFORD ROAD IN THE PLANNED COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3835 determining that the location, purpose, and extent of proposed water quality testing, health inspection, and plan checking services within 45',000 square feet of an existing 85,514 square foot building located at 14511 Myford Road is in conformance with the Tustin General Plan. Presented the staff report. Asked if the 45,000 square feet exits the property tax base. Answered that, if the property owner requested, the footage would be removed; the land would not, only the leasehold area. It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Hamilton, to adopt Resolution No. 3835. Motion carried 4-0. STAFF CONCERNS , REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN AT THE JUNE 17, 2002, CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Presentation: Elizabeth A. Binsac~, Community Development Director The City Council held a Budget Workshop at 5:30 p.m.; another Workshop will be held July 1, 2002, and will focus on the seven- year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and parks projects. The Public Works Director indicated he would be happy to provide a workshop or presentation at a Planning Commission meeting once the CIP and budget are adopted. COMMISSION CONCERNS Stated he enjoyed the tour arranged by Brian Ragland of the underground water storage facility. Thanked staff for their work on tonight's projects; and, added that he believes a standard sign letter height should be examined. Indicated he noticed a construction yard near the corner of El Camino Real and Browning Avenue; and, asked if staff had any knowledge of that use. Stated that is the location for equipment storage by the contractors working on the Old Town streetscape project; this storage will be discontinued by September. Asked if staff plans to review existing cell site towers and initiate a means of hiding them better. Minutes - Planning Commission June 24, 2002 - Page 9 Director Denny Kozak Kozak Director Davert 8:20 p.m. Answered in the affirmative; and, stated it is staff's intention for the carriers to have the ability to propose alternatives prior to Planning Commission consideration. Thanked staff for their work tonight. Thanked staff for the opportunity to visit the reservoir project and asked that thanks be passed on to the Water Department staff; and, mentioned that an invitation was extended for the Planning Commission to visit the desalting facility on 17th Street. Suggested that photo-simulations in the future should show the photo-simulation of not only what is allowed by the Sign Code but also the proposed height, so the Commissioners have some knowledge of what is being compared. Indicated The Barn at Redhill and Edinger is in terrible condition, especially the trees overgrowing the sidewalks; and, asked staff for the status of that site. Responded that the Code Enforcement officers have been in contact with the property owner on various occasions and will follow up again; stated an application will be brought to the Commission for a multi-use proposal which is still in the preliminary design phase, but includes self-storage, retail, and office; added the property is odd-shaped which limits design options, and, noted there are a number of easements under the parking lot area involving limitations as to what can be done on the property. Echoed the other Commissioners' comments regarding the tour of the water facility. Wished everyone a happy and safe Fourth of July. ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Monday, July 8, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Elizabeth A. Binsa~,k - - Planning Commission Secretary oug~ass ~: D v~r~ Chairperson Minutes - Planning Commission June 24, 2002 - Page 10