HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Hearing #4 6-01-87 PUBLIC HEARING
~ ~ '~ ~"- NO 4
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DENYING
TII_(;'I'TII PI A7A MASTER STRII PLAN/BRISTOL ~PAS
DEVIATION FROM
RECOI~ENDED ACTION:
M. O. That City Council uphold the Planning Commission action denying deviation
from the Tusttn Plaza Master Sign Plan for Bristol Spas.
BACKGROUND:
In conjunction with final approval of Tusttn Plaza, a project Master Sign Plan
was submitted by the developer and approved by the Community Development
Department. The complete text of the approved sign plan is attached to this
transmittal as Exhibit "A".
On February 9, 1987 the Planning. Commission authorized deviations from the
adopted sign plan for "Blimpie's" and "Chin's Chinese". Following deliberations
for these two cases, the Commission directed staff to work with the developer to
expand the sign color palette for the center.
Subsequently, on April 13, 1987, the Commission revised the Master Sign Plan to
include colors proposed by the developer expanding the color palette to include:
white, red and Emerald green. These colors are in addition to previously
authorized colors of turquoise and terra cotta.
Prior to the expansion of the color palette a sign permit was issued for Bristol
Spas. On the approved sign plan it was indicated that the sign to be installed
must comply with the adopted' Master Sign Plan and was to display the turquoise
color. However, as installed, the letters of the sign were orange, not
turquoise as approved. Additionally, the sign as constructed and installed did
not meet requirements of the Uniform Electrical Code and must be replaced.
Electrical current to the sign has been disconnected.
After the applicant was advised by staff of Code violations and that the sign
did not conform to the approved Master Sign Plan, he requested that a deviation
of the Master Sign Plan be considered by the Commission.
Ctty Counctl Report
June 1, 1987
Brt stol Spas
Page two
On May, 11, 1987 based upon conclusions noted in the attached "Report to the
Planning Commission", the applicant's request was heard and denied by the
Commission. The applicant has appealed said action to the City Council.
DISCUSSION:
It is staff's understanding that the Commission desires a uniform sign plan for
the center that allows flexibility while offering continuity. This concept was
the original intent of the Master Sign Program. Incremental deviations from the
revised .plan will reduce the desired affect of continuity and in essence will
render the Master Sign Plan ineffective.
In terms of the specific case before Council, several factors lead the Planning
Commission to a dental. First, the applicant was aware of the Master Sign Plan
prior to installation of the sign. Second, after the deviations for Chin's and
Blimpie's, the Commission took a comprehensive look at the Sign Plan making
revisions to the color palette as requested by the developer. Orange was not in
the series of colors requested. Finally, the sign installed must be removed and
completely reconstructed to be in compliance with the Uniform Electric Code as
adopted by the City. As such, the cost to the applicant is.minimized in
contrast to what it would be if the sole issue revolved around a color change.
Based on these factors, upon testimony and action by the Planning Commission it
is recommended, that City Council uphold the Planning Commission'S denial of the
subject sign thereby denying the appealants request. Action may be taken by
mi nute order.
Senior Planner
Christine Shtngleton
Director of Community Development
JSD-pef
Attachments'
Letter of Appeal
"Report to the Planning Commission" dated May 11, 1987
Exhibits
.. Community Develooment DeJ:~_~.~rn~nt
May 15, 1987
City Council
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
Subject: Planning Commission
Denial of Deviation from
Master Sign Plan on May 11, 1987
Dear Sirs:
Reference the above subject, please consider this a
request to appeal the ruling of the Planning Commission
at the next City Council meeting.
Sincerely,
BRISTOL SPAS/~.~,
Stuart Swidler
SS:ljl
Planning Commission
DATE:
SUB~IECT:
APPLICAEr:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
ENY IRONMEErAL
STATUS:
REQUEST:
MY 11, 1987
MASTER SIGN PLAN DEVIATXON
BRISTOL SPAS
TUSTIN PLAZA
13771 ND/PORT AVENUE; UMXT !
PLANNED COPlqUNITY ~RCIAL
CATEGORICALLY EXD~T CLASS'I
TO DEVIATE FROM THE COLOR REQUIREI~NTS OF THE TUSTXN PLAZA IqASTER
SIGN PROGRAH
RECOI~IENDED ACTION:
It is recommended that the Planning Commtsst.on deny the Master Sign Plan
deviation requested for Bristol Spas by Minute Order.
S~Y:
With approval of the Tusttn Plaza a Master Sign Plan was developed for the
Tustin Plaza project, ne Plan was designed to promote flexibility for major
tenants while providing uniformity in the balance of the center. To accomplish
this, key shop locations were allowed to display corporate col ors and
logo/trademark identification. The remainder of the complex was required to
display channel letters in helvetica medium type style in either the color of
turquoise or terracotta. The excessive expense of terracotta materials (it is
not manufactured in mass quantities) resulted in most tenants opting for the
turquoise color.
On April 13, 1987 the Planning Commission revised the Tustin Plaza Master Sign
Plan to allow shop tenants a wider choice of colors for *their signs. This new
color selection includes white, red, turquoise and Emerald green.
On April 27, 1987 the Planning Commission continued their consideration-of a
requested deviation from the revised Master Sign Plan to permit Bristol Spas to
display an orange sign. The continuance was felt necessary to clarify a number
of issues requiring additional information.
Plann. tng Comnmtssi. on Report
Hay 11, 1987
Page two
BACKGROUND:
.
On March 26, [987 a stgn .permtt was tssue.d authorizing a turquoise colored st§n
for Brtstol Spas. This' sign permtt was tssued tn conformance with the 'Master
Stgn Plan. However, an orange stgn was subsequently installed whtch was also
not tn the helvetica type style. The sign also dtd not meet butldtng code
regulations; extensive modifications wtll be requtred to bring the sign tnto
conformance.. The applicant request for a deviation from the Master Sign Plan
came at a time when staff was working with the project developer in an attempt
to revise the color scheme for the Master Sign Plan as requested by the Planning
Commission. On April 13th-the Commission granted the developer's request to
include white, red, turquoise and Emerald green in the Master Sign Plan color
palette. Orange was not a color submitted nor was it discussed on April 13th.
ISSIJ[ ANALYSIS:
Based upon discussion of April 27th, two issues are of imPortance in Commission
deliberations. Specifically, the structural integrity of the installed sign and
the orange color.
As installed, the subject sign does not meet Uniform Electric Code requirements
in that it does not display required Underwriter's Laboratory (UL) labels.
~urther, information verified by the City's Building Division staff indicates
that the sign as constructed and installed cannot be modified to meet UL
standards and must be completely reconstructed. As a result, electrical current
to the sign has been shut off for safety reasons. While the structural aspects
of the sign are not within the Commission's review authority it may be an
important consideration when determining how to proceed with the issue of sign
color.
Staff's presentation on April 27th established that the applicant was notified
prior to installation of the subject sign that turquoise letters were required.
The applicant confirmed this. notification but still instructed the si gn company
to proceed with the orange sign. At issue is whether the modified Master Sign
Plan should be further altered. Items such as cost, while certainly not to be
taken lightly, should not be a basis upon which any design decisions are made.
Particularly, when it is known that the applicant was aware of sign plan
requirements and that the sign must be completely reconstructed to comply with
Uniform Electric Code requirements.
The modified Master Sign Plan as it now exists retains some semblance of the
original sign concept for Tustin Plaza while allowing individual identification
for major or key tenant locations and still provides for diversity for "shop"
IIII
Planning Commtsston Report
May !1, 1987
Page three
tenants. Gtven the prescribed letter type and available colors, continuity and
uniformity tn the use of st gns on the center ts retained. Staff supports tl~e
Master Stgn Plan as revtsed by the Commission and accordingly recommends that
one of the approved colors In the helvetica medtum type style be uttllzed for
the Brtstol Spa slgn.
CONCLUSIONS:
GIYen key Information 'that the subject stgn must be completely reconstructed to
comply wlth applicable codes; that the applicant was aware prtor to stgn
Installation of the existence of a Master Stgn Plan; that the Commission did
expand the color palette allowing color flexibility for "shop" tenants; and that
orange was not included in the revised scheme, it is concluded that the
deviation from the Master Sign Plan requested should be denied. Commission
action may be taken by Minute Order.
JSD:pef
Ch~-i~fne Shingleton ' ./
Director of Community Development
MASTER SIGN PLAN
TUSTIN PLAZA- RETAIL
1. All signage 'go conform to City of Tuscin Sign Ordinance.
2. Letter heights of all signs for the project shall not exceed the
maximum'or be less than the minimum i~dicated as follows:
BUILDING NO. 13681
Space 1
Spaces 3-9
Spaces 10-11
One (1) 12" to 16".high Type 1 sign (secondary-5% of
storefront or storefront sized wall area with a
maximum of 25 square feet) facing the parking lot
and; one (1) 12" to 16" high Type 1 sign facing the
corner of Newport Avenue and Main Street and; .one
(1) 16" to 24" high Type 1 sign (primary-15% of
storefront area with a maximum of 75 square feet)
facing Newport Avenue.
One '(1) 14" to 24" high Type 1 sign (primary-15% of
storefront area with a maximum of 75 square feet)
facing the main parking lot; one (1) 8" to 12" high
Type 2 sign (secondary-5% of storefront or
'storefront sized wall area with a maximum of 25
square feet) facing Main Street.
One (1) 14" to 24" high Type 1 sign (primary-15% of
storefront area with a maximum of 75 square feet)
facing the main parking lot add; one (1) 12" co 16"
high Type 1 sign (secondary-5% of storefront or
storefront sized wall area wich.a maximum of 25
square feet) on the angled wall facing Main Street
entrance.
BUILDING NO. 13721
Space 1
One (1) 14" to 24" high Type 1 sign (primary-15% of
storefront area with a maximum of 75 square feet)
facing the main parking lot add; one (1) 12" to 16"
high Type 1 sign (secondary-5% of storefront or
storefront sized wall area with.a maximum of 25
square feet) on the angled wall facing Main Street
entrance. ·
Spaces 5-8,10 One (1) 14" to 24" high Type 1 sign (primary-15% of
storefront area with a maximum of 75 square feet)
facing the parking lot and; one (1) 8" to 12" high
Type 2 sign (secondary-5% of storefront or
storefront sized wail area with a maximum of 25
square feet) facing Main Street.
'USTIN PLAZA
.~STER SIGN PLAN
Spaces 9-14
One (1) 28" to 36" high Type 1 sign (primary-15% of
storefront area with a maximum of 75 square feet)
facing the main parking lot and; one (1) 12" to 16"
high Type 1 sign (secondary-5% of storefront or
storefront sized wall area with a maximum of 25
square feet) on the wall facing Main Street.
BUILDING NO. 13771
Spacei 3-14
Space 1
Spaces 15-17
One (1) 14" to 24" high Type 1 sign (primary-15% of
storefront area with a maximum of 75 square feet)
facing the main parking lot.
Oue (1) 16" Co 28" high Type i sign (primary-15% of
s~orefront area with a maximum of 75 square feet)
facing the main parking lot.
One (1) 16" to 28" high Type 1 sign (primary-15% of
storefront area with a maximum of 75 square feet)
facing the main parking lot and; one (1) 12" to 16"
high Type 1 sign (secondary-5% of storefront or
storefront sized wall area with a maximum of 25
square feet) facing 6th Street.
BUILDING NO. 13791
Spaces 1-, 4
One.(1) 14" Co 24" high Type 1 sign (primary-15% of
storefront area with a maximum of 75 square feet)
facing the parking lot and; one (1) 8" to 12" high
Type 2 sign (secondary-5% of storefront or
storefront sized wall area with a maximum of 25
square feet) facing Main Street.
Space 3
One (1) 14" to 24" high Type 1 sign (primary-15% of
storefront area with a maximum of 75 square feet)
facing the main parking lot aHd; one (1) 12" to 16"
high Type 1 sign (secondary-S% of storefront or
storefront sized wall area with a maximum of 25
square feet) on the angled wall facing Main Street
entrance.
~USTIN PLAZA
MASTER SIGN PLAN
PAGE 3
The T~stin Plaza color palette for primary signage will include the
following colors:
Color 1
Color 2
Color 3
Turquoise Green
Terra Cotta
Corporate Color
NOTE: The actual specifications for these colors will be
determined by the Owner. The following is a summary of those
colors:
Spaces 4, 10, 11
Spaces 3, 8, 9
Spaces 1, 9, 12, 14
Spaces 5-8, 10
·
Spaces 1, 15-17
Spaces 3-14
Spaces 1, 4
Space 3
BUILDING NO. 13681
Corporate color (No. 3) and design
Color (No. 1) turquoise helvetica medium letter
style
BUILDING NO. 13721
Corporate color (No. 3) and design
Color (no. 1).turquoise helvetica medium letter
style
BUILDING NO. 13771
Coporate color (No. 3) and design
Color (No. 1) turquoise helvetica medium letter
style
BUILDING NO. 13791
Corporate color (No. 3) and design
Color (No. 1) turquoise helvetica medium letter
style
LLI
.1_ r
'x J
Planning Commission Report
Tusttn Plaza Master Sfgn Program
Aprtl 13, 1987
Page two
·
ANALYSZS:
Carver Development has submitted a color palette Including the fol'~owing colors'
1. Turquoi se
2. White
3. E~ral d Green
4. Red
This palette, as reco~nded, would be offered to all shop tenants in units 8 to
10 of the 13681 building, units 6 to 8 and 10 of the 13721 building, unit 3 of
the 13791 building and units 3 through 14 of the 13771 building as illustrated
below:
TUSTIN PLAZA SITE PLAN
.
NEWPORT AVENUE
Com'munitv Development Deparfmenr