HomeMy WebLinkAboutN.B. 2 DESIGN REVIEW 91-07G 7' A E N D A!
I oil—A It
JANUARY 20, 1992
TO:
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT:
NEW BUSINESS N0. 2
/•-20-92
(// G
v
V00 , a S�
Inter -Com
I�S��$
APPEAL OF AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW 91-07N
tlr �-CdJ
Ab J
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council uphold the Planning
Commission's action by adopting Resolution No. 92-17, as submitted
or revised.
BACKGROUND
On September 3, 1991, the City Council approved Conditional Use
Permit 91-10, Design Review 91-07 and an Amendment of Conditional
Use Permit 89-25, thereby establishing a combined development site
for the businesses on the properties located at 135 South Prospect
Avenue and 240 East First Street. Subsequently, the applicants,
Mr. Kumagai and Mr. Paquette, requested and received approvals by
the Planning Commission for additional Lot Consolidation Bonuses
concerning signage, at the direction of the City Council. On
September 23, 1991, the Planning Commission approved an Amendment
to Design Review 91-07, which authorized a 48 -square foot monument
sign within the required ten -foot, front -yard setback and included
combined sign copy for both the tire and car wash businesses.
Resolution No. 2954 has been attached for reference.
On September 30, 1991, the Community Development Department
received an appeal request from Mr. Kumagai concerning the monument
sign approval. After a meeting with Mr. Kumagai on October 1,
1991, the appeal hearing was deferred, at Mr. Kumagai's request,
pending his request to submit an alternative sign proposal.
On January 3, 1992, the Community Development Department received
revised sign plans. Mr. Kumagai has requested that the Council
hear an appeal of the Planning Commission's action for the approval
of an Amendment to Design Review 91-07. Mr. Kumagai is not
appealing the sign's size or location, but is requesting that the
copy area be permitted to reflect only his car wash business and
not provide a copy area for the adjacent tire business located at
135 South Prospect Avenue.
City Council Report
Appeal of Amendment to DR 91-07
January 20, 1992
Page 2
DISCUSSION
The submitted plans propose a 48 -square foot monument sign, located
approximately 15 feet from the First Street driveway providing copy
area for the car wash business only. This proposal, for a single -
business monument sign, is similar to Variance 91-13 which was
denied by the Planning Commission and later appealed to the City
Council. The Council, recognizing that the approval for the
combined development site with the tire service business had been
granted, rejected the appeal and referred the concept of a monument
sign with combined copy with both businesses back to the Planning
Commission for consideration as an additional development bonus
under the provisions of the Lot Consolidation Program of the First
Street Specific Plan.
During the course of evaluating the monument sign with combined
copy, the Commission took into consideration the following:
1. City Code Section 9408(B)(1) states that a business
identification monument sign can be approved for an
individual business when the proposed sign measures a
maximum of 32 -square feet, standing at a maximum height
of six feet and where a property maintains a minimum of
150 -lineal street frontage. Alone, neither of the
properties located at 240 East First Street and 135 South
Prospect Avenue meet the required minimum street
frontage. Additionally, this Section pertains to
individual businesses that are not located within a
center and a center is defined as a development site
where a minimum of three businesses are maintained.
2. City Code Section 9408(C)(1) provides that a business
identification monument sign can be approved for an
individual business within a center subject to the
development standards stated above, with the additional
caveat that the individual business has a minimum of
5,000 -square feet of floor area. None of the businesses
on these two properties meet this standard.
Based on the above Code Sections and since the two properties were
combined, both architecturally and through a reciprocal access
driveway, the Planning Commission, at the direction of the City
Council, approved a 48 -square foot monument sign with combined copy
identifying both the tire and car wash businesses. The Commission
based their approval on the evidence that one monument sign,
combining the copy of both businesses, addressed the design
guidelines of the First Street Specific Plan and contributes to the
•
City Council Report
Appeal of Amendment
January 20, 1992
Page 3
to DR 91-07
•
cohesiveness of the design elements for both properties.
Additionally, the Commission concurred with the Council's desire to
maintain an uncluttered streetscape, which would be the result if
two 32 -square foot signs, one for each business, were ever
permitted.
Mr. Kumagai has indicated to staff that his fuel provider, Texaco,
will not supply his car wash business if the monument sign is
required to identify both businesses. However, staff has spoken
with representatives from Texaco on two separate occasions and it
has been represented that a shared sign would not pose a problem,
as it is their policy to work within the parameters of an
individual community's Sign Code. However, Mr. Kumagai has
represented that a conflict still exists. Staff is continuing to
pursue a written response from Texaco; however, as of the date this
report was prepared, nothing.had been received.
In view of the above discussion,
uphold the Planning Commission's
with combined copy.
Ariii< E. Bonner
Associate Planner
Attachment:
AEB:nm
it is recommended that the Council
action approving a monument sign
Resolution No. 92-17
Resolution No. 2954
•
Christine A. Shinglet
Assistant City Manage
Community Development
M-1-Ellit!�
t� ƒ,
\ / t -3
,
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2954
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW
91-07, GRANTING AN ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT BONUS
RELATED TO SIGNAGE PURSUANT TO THE CRITERIA OF THE
LOT CONSOLIDATION PROGRAM OF THE FIRST STREET
SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 135
SOUTH PROSPECT AVENUE AND 240 EAST FIRST STREET
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby
resolve as follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A. That the following applications were made:
1. Variance 91-13, was filed by Henry Kumagai to
request authorization to install a monument
sign within the front yard setback on property
with a deficient street frontage on the
property located at 240 East First Street.
2. A Development Bonus request was filed by
Stephen Paquette to request authorization to
permit a 64 -square foot wall sign along the
north elevation and limit the wall sign on the
west elevation to a maximum of 25 -square feet
for the tire service business on the property
located at 135 South Prospect Avenue.
B. That upon hearing the following appeals, on
September 3, 1991, the City Council provided
direction concerning signage for the subject
properties:
1. Appeal of Conditional Use Permit 91-10, Design
Review 91-07 and Amendment to Conditional Use
Permit 89-25, a request to establish a tire
service business with related site
improvements and authorize a reciprocal
driveway access along First Street.
2. Appeal of Variance 91-13, a request to install
a monument sign within the front yard setback
on property with a deficient street frontage.
C. That additional development bonus requests related
to signage were discussed on September 9, 1991,
before the Planning Commission.
D. That, pursuant to Section III.F of the First Street
Specific Plan, the additional development bonus
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 2954
Page 2
requested is within the scope of permitted bonuses
and addresses the design guidelines of the First
Street Specific Plan in that the monument sign will
consolidate the business identification of the tire
service business and the car wash business, thereby
furthering the cohesiveness of the development
site.
E. This project is considered to be Categorically
Exempt (Class 11) pursuant to Section 15311 of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
II. The Planning Commission hereby amends Design Review 91-07
and approves, subject to all conditions contained in
Exhibit A, attached hereto, the following additional Lot
Consolidation Bonus to permit a 48 -square foot monument
sign, overall height 61, width 81, within the required
ten foot front yard setback on the property located at
240 East First Street,
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning
Commission, held on the 23rd day of September, 1991.
ALD N L. BA i R
Chairman
KATHLEEN CLANCY
Recording Secreta
i
2
3
4
5
s
1C
11
li
13
14
15
lC
1�
1F
if
2(
21
2r
2"
24
2°
2(
2
2f
•
Resolution No. 2954
Page 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
•
I, KATHLEEN CLANCY the undersigned, hereby certify that I am
the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City
of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 2954 was duly
passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning
Commission, held on the 23rd day of September, 1991.
oo 2 �,�i-,�.-,
KATHLEEN CLANCY
Recording Secretary
DF: nm
EXHIBIT A '
RESOLUTION NO. 2954
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW 91-07
GENERAL
(1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform to the
submitted plans date stamped September 23, 1991 on file
with the Community Development Department as herein
modified or as modified by the Director of Community
Development.
(1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, all conditions in this
exhibit shall be complied with prior to the issuance of
any building permits for the project, subject to review
and approval by the Community Development Department.
(1) 1.3 Design Review approval shall become null and void unless
sign permits and all construction is completed within
eighteen (18) months of the date of this exhibit.
(1) 1.4 Approval of Amendment to Design Review 91-07 is
contingent upon the applicants signing and returning an
"Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form, as established by
the Director of Community Development.
*** 1.5 All applicable conditions contained in Exhibit A of City
Council Resolution No. 91-111 shall remain in full force
and effect.
PLAN SUBMITTAL
(1) 2.1 At building plan check and prior to the issuance of sign
(3) permits, the applicant shall submit two copies of plans,
including site plan, fully dimensioned and detailed
elevations, attached methods and electrical details for
illumination, structural calculations for footings for
approval by the Building Official.
SOURCE CODES
(1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT
(2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES
(3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (7) PC/CC POLICY
(4) DESIGN REVIEW
*** EXCEPTION
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval
Resolution No. 2954
Amendment to Design Review 91-07
Page 2
SITE CONDITIONS
(4)
3.1 The pedestrian bench shall
be relocated
easterly in order
***
to provide for a minimum
ten foot landscape separation
from the monument sign to
the bench.
(4)
3.2 The monument sign shall
be located
two (2) feet as
***
measured from back of sidewalk
of the
public right-of-
way.
(4) 3.3 The monument sign shall be located a minimum of ten (10)
*** feet easterly of the reciprocal driveway along First
Street.
(1) 3.4 The actual sign copy for all signs shall be reviewed and
(4) approved by the Community Development Department and
shall be limited to the identification of the actual
business names, addresses, and lawful use of the premises
upon which it is located and shall not include pricing
information or specific brand names, with the exception
of that information required by State Law. Brand names
or logos incorporated into the name of the business may
be considered when demonstrated to be part of the
business name. Identification of product, trade and
service information is permitted and is considered
supplemental provided it is subordinate to the business
name and does not total more than 25% of the total sign
area.
FEES
(1) 4.1 Payment of all Building plan check and permit fees shall
be made prior to the issuance of any building permits in
accordance with the Tustin City Code.
DF: nm
DATE: JANUARY 20, 1992
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM - NEW BUSINESS NO. 2
Inter -Com
As indicated in the staff report for the appeal of Amendment to
Design Review 91-07, written approval of the conceptual sign design
has been received from Texaco. The proposal to have both the tire
business and the car wash business on the same monument sign is
acceptable to the distributor for Texaco to Mr. Kumagai's car wash,
with some minor alterations that can be accommodated without
affecting sign copy layout or size of the sign.
Staff has informed Mr. Kumagai of this affirmation from Texaco;
however, he still desires to pursue an appeal of the Planning
Commission's action approving the monument sign.
CAS:AEB: w/texaprv. aeb
Attachments: Correspondence from Texaco
-JAN 17 '92 11:07AM TRML— L.R.D. P.2
Lr* .Angela, Texaco USA 10 Universal City Plaza
Markstlng PO Box 7812
Oivialro; Universal City CA 95606 7612
January 17, 1992
Ms. Ann Bonner
Associate Planner
City of Tustin, CA
Dear Ms, Bonner:
RE: Tustin Plaza Auto Wash
240 E. 1 9t.
Tustin, CA
Reference our conversation this morning concerning the above
car wash and the City of Tustin requirements for the
identification sign, the sign meets with our approval except
for the changes marked on the attached drawing. Those changes
are that where the prices of the different grades of gasoline
are posted, the numbers are white on a black background. The
Texaco star symbol should cover the entire area where it is
currently placed and the letters of Texaco should be removed.
It would have been better if all of this was presented sooner
than all of the trouble could have been avoided. Thank you
for your patience. Any questions feel free to ask.
Yours
ffmith
ining and Marketing, Inc.
Building M .a )7aalrion of Quality
•
4 ^
r r
p.1 al
• 1 � ■a n
r ■
•
0
CD
2
N
'R'H'1 - TI,PII I.M/L1•TT 7G. IT 41H!'
.' i 'A'•�A1'
I�II�.Mw �,•
'
•
0
CD
2
N
'R'H'1 - TI,PII I.M/L1•TT 7G. IT 41H!'