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!'