The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNB 3 NEON TUBING REQ. 08-01-88A~, ~ ~lk ! ~ ~ NEW BUSINESS J 'J,,,, J'~JJ JL~ ,~ ~ ~ NO. 3 DATE: AUGU~ 1, 1988 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIN~ A. HUSTON, CIll MANAGER COI~UNI~ DEVELOPHENT DEPART)lENT EXPOSED NEON TUBING SIGN REQUEST AT 174 EAST MAIN STREET RECOI,~ENDATION: Pleasure of the City Council. BACKGROUND AKD ANALYSIS: On July 11, 19~8 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2517 which denied the request of Daddy-O's Restaurant to allow the use of exposed neon tubing on the front and side elevations of the subject business. The staff report was originally scheduled for the June 27th Planning Commission meeting, but at the request of owner the item was continued to the July 11th meeting. However, the owner did not appear at the meeting on July 11th to answer Commission questions. The Commission discussed the "Fat Freddie's" Restaurant neon and pointed out · that it was not located in the .Old Town Area but next to the I-5 Freeway. They also discussed the Sizzler neon and the fact that it is covered by clear plastic. The Commissioner's decided that this request was not an issue of exposed neon but rather that they could not find that the sign was consistent with the surrounding area. The Planning Commission based their decision on the following ~indings: 1. The Planning Commission has never approved any exterior mounted, exposed neon signs in the "Old Town" Area and thus would be setting.a precident. 2. The E1 Camino Real Specific Plan which is currently in place states that signs shall be of uniform size, color and style while being compatible with and complimentary to the village identification. The recently adopted Cultural Resources District also requires a finding of compatibility with surrounding properties. The proposed neon sign is inconsistent with the surrounding en vi ronmen t. 3. The existing sign, although modern in design, has a cleaner look than neon and would not be as bright. City Council Repor. t 174 East Main Street (Daddy-O's) page two Attached to this report is a copy of the Planning Commission Resolutionj staff report. In the event the City Council wishes to uphold the Planning Commission's decisiom this meeting a resolution upholding their decision is attached for the City Council. In the event the City Council wishes to approve the proposed sign, staff will return at the Council's next meeting with an approval resolution for the Consent Calendar. ~fa]~y An~ Chamber 1 ai n ASsociate Planner MAC: CAS: ts Attachments Christine A. '$hi~Sqeton Director of Comm6nity Development Community Development Del3arTrnent , ~ 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. 88-87 A RE~OLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF DESIGN .REVIEW 88.-13, DENYING THE REQUEST FOR THE USE OF EXPOSED NEON TUBING AT 174 E. MAIN STREET The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application, Design Review 88-13, was filed on behalf of Daddy-O's Restaurant at 174 E. Main Street requesting approval of exposed neon tubing for (2) two exterior w~ll signs. B. Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tusttn Miunicipal Code, the Planning Commission on July 11, 1988 found that the location, architectural features and general appearance of the proposed sign would impair the orderly and harmonious development of the old town area, subject to the following findings: 1. The Planning Commission has never approved any exterior mounted, exposed neon signs in the "Old town" Area and thus would be setting a precident. 2. The E1 Camino Real Specific Plan which is currently in place states that signs shall be of uniform size, color and style while being compatible With and complimentary to the village identification. The recently adopted Cultural Resources District also 'requires a finding of compatibility with surrounding properties. The proposed neon sign is inconsistent with this surrounding environment. ® The existing sign, although modern in design, has a cleaner look than neon and would not be as bright. II. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby uphold the findings of the Planning Commission as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2517 dated July 11, 1988. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on the day of 1988. Ron~l d B.I Hoe~te6~y, Mayor Mar~' Wynn', City Clerk Report to the Planning Commission DATE: dULY 11, 1988 SUB,1ECT: APPLICANT' OWNER' LOCATION: ZONING: ENV IROI~qENTAL STATUS: REQUEST- DESIGN REVIEW NO. 88-13 DADDY-O' S RESTAURANT PAUL HARTINO 174 E. NAIN STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 JOHNSTO#N ANERICAN 23201 LAKE CENTER DRIVE EL TORO, CA 92630 174 E. NAIN STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 C-2 CENTRAL CONMERCIAL . . CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT CLASS-1 AUTHORIZATION TO INSTALL EXPOSED NEON TUBING ON AN EXISTING RESTAURANT BUILDING LOCATED AT 174 E. NAIN STREET. RECOI~IENDATION: Deny the request for the use of exposed neon tubing by the adoption of Resolution No. 2517. SUII~RY: The applicant, Mr. Martino, recently redecorated the former La Spada Restaurant into Daddy-'O's Restaurant. The restaurant is a free-standing building wi th an adjacent parking lot at 174 E. Main Street. The style of the interior and exterior modifications reflect a 1950's art deco concept. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The original design review for Daddy-O's was a request for an internally illuminated awning which included a front sign. This proposed awning encroached into the public right-of-way which meant that the City would have had to enter into an "Hold Harmless Agreement" with the property owner before an encroachment permit could be issued for the awning. .Due to the complexity of the permits i nvol red, the. restaurant owner decided to apply for an internal ly , Community Development Department Plannl ng Commt ssion Report Design Review No. '88-13 July 11, 1988 Page two illuminated sign without the awning. At that time, staff informed the applicant that any form of exposed neon would require Planning Commission approval. Because the applicant was anxious to have the sign installed for the grand opening, staff worked with the applicant to bring the style and design of the sign into conformance wi th both the old town area and "the 1950's art deco concept. (Please see the attached picture of the existing 'Sign.) Now that the sign is installed and Daddy-O's has had their grand opening, the applicant has reconsidered and is requesting authorization to remove the plastic covers in order to expose the neon of the signs. The applicant believes this would be more in keeping with the 1950's theme of the restaurant. Staff is recommending that the exposed neon be denied for the following reasons' le The Planning Commission has never approved any exterior mounted, exposed neon signs in the old town area and thus would be setting a precident. ® e CONCLUSION: The E1 Camtno Real Specific Plan states that signs shall be of uniform size, color and style while being compatible with and complimentary to the village identification. -.. The existing sign, although modern in design, has a cleaner look than neon and would not be as bright. Staff contends that the overall design of the building with the use of-neon would not be in keeping with the old town area and, therefore, recommends denial of the use of the exposed neon tubing as requested. Ma~y An~r chamberlain As'sociate Planner MAC' CAS :per attachments Christine A. S~ingle~- - Director of CommunitI{ Development Community DeveloPment Department 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2517 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF'THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING THE REQUEST FOR THE USE OF EXPOSED NEON TUBING AT 174 E. MAIN STREET The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1.5 16 17 18 19 23 ~5 28 A. That a proper application, Design Review 88-13, was filed on behalf of Daddy-O's Restaurant at 174 E. Main Street requesting approval of exposed neon tubing for (2) two exterior wall signs. Be Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tusttn Miunicipal Code, the Commission finds that the location, architectural features and general appearance of the proposed sign would impair the orderly and harmonious development of the old town area, subject to the following findings: The Planning Commission has never approved any exterior mounted, exposed neon signs in the old town area and thus would be setting a prectdent. 2- The E1 Camino Real Specific Plan which is currently in place states that signs shall be of uniform size, color anu style _. while being compal~ible with and complimentary to the village identification. The recently adopted CUltural Resources District also requires a finding of compatibility with surrounding properties. T~e proposed neon sign is inconsistent with this surrounding environment. The existing sign, although modern in design, has a cleaner look than neon and would not be as bright. II. The P~anning Commission hereby denies the use of exposed neon tubing at 174 E. Main Street. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the llth day of July, 1988. Penni Foley Secretary "A. L."Baker" ' Chairman