The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 11-17-86ACT]ON AGENDA TUSTIN PLANN]NG COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 1986 REPORTS NO. 1 11-17-86 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Puckett, Well, Baker, Le Jeune, Pontious, PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1.. Mi nu~es of October 27, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting. Comissioner Wet1 moved, Ledeune second to approve the Consent Calendar. carrted 5-0. Mot1 on PUBLIC HE~LRINGS 2. VARIANCE 86-7 (continued from October 27, 1986) Applicant: Location: Request: Presentation: RECOMMENDED ACTION: San Juan Partners 1421 San Juan Street Authorization to vary with the lot width requirement in the R-3 multtple family residential district in order to allow three apartment unt ts. MARY ANN CHAMBERLAIN, Associate Planner APPROVE VARIANCE FOR THE LOT WIDTH ONLY. DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION WITH CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED IN EXHIBIT A. Commissioner Wetl moved, Pontious second to direct staff to prepare resolution for the vartance o, the lot width frith conditions provided in Exhibit A. Motion carried 5-0. Plannfng Commission Action Agenda November 10, 1986 page two Applicant: Location: Request: Presentation: USE PERMIT 86-31 Burnett Ehltne Properties and Bental Properties Northwest corner of Newport Avenue Irvine Boulevard "La Fayette Plaza" To install a pole-type center identification sign to be located at the center of the principal site frontae on Newport Avenue. Patrizia Materasst, Planner RECOMMENDED ACTION: TO DENY USE PERMIT 86-31 Commissioner #etl moved, Baker second to approve Use Permit 86-31. 5-0. Motion carried OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS None. STAFF CONCERNS 4. Report on Council Actions of November 3, 1986. Presentation: ROB BALEN, Planning Consultant COMMISSION CONCERNS Commtssoner LeJeune questioned if Ruby's Restaurant would be demolished. Jeff Davis responded the decision hasn't been finalized. Commissioner Puckett expressed the Commission's appreciation to him for the excellent job he's done in managing the Community Development Department during the Director hiring process. ADJOURI~ENT Commissioner Wetl moved, Baker second to adjourn at 9:25 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled Planntng Comdsston meeting on Nove,~r 24, 1986 at 7:30 p.'m. AGENDA TUSTIN PLANNTNG COF~ZSSION REGULAR I~:ET1'NG NOYEHBER 10, 1986 AAA,AA CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., Ctty Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEG[ANCE/ZNVOCATION ROLL CALL: Puckett, Wet1, Baker, Le Jeune, Ponttous, PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Ltmtted to 3 mtnutes per person for 1rems not on the agenda) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) Minutes of October 27, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. VARIANCE 86-7 Applicant: Location: Request: Presentation: RECOMMENDED ACTION: (continued from October 27, 1986) San Juan Partners 1421 San Juan Street Authorization to vary with the lot width requirement in the R-3 multiple family residential district in order to allow three apartment units. MARY ANN CHAMBERLAIN, Associate Planner APPROVE VARIANCE FOR THE LOT WIDTH ONLY. DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION WITH CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED IN EXHIBIT A. Planntng Commission Agenda November 10, 1986 page two 3. USE PERMIT 86-31 Applicant: Location: Request: Presentation: Burnett Ehltne Properties and Bental Properties Northwest corner of Newport Avenue Irvine Boulevard "La Fayette Plaza" To install a pole-type center identification sign to be located at the center of the principal site frontae on Newport Avenue. Patrizia Materassi, Planner RECOMMENDED ACTION: TO DENY USE PERMIT 86-31 OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS None. STAFF CONCERNS 4. Report on Council Actions of November 3, 1986. Presentation: ROB BALEN, Planning Consultant C(~MISSIOM CONCERNS ADJOURNIqENT Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. MI#UTES TUSTTN PLANNZNG COHHTSSZON REGULAR EL'TING OCTOBER 27, 1986 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., Clty Counctl Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGZANC£/TNVOCATTON ROLL CALL: Present: Puckett, Wet1, Baker, Le Jeune, Ponttous, )~lT~-P-Fesent: Rob Balen, Jeff Davis, Mary Ann Chamberlain, Laura Ptckup, Patrtzta Materasst, Suzanne Atktns, Donna Orr and about 20 people tn the audience. PUBLIC CONCERNS: CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Mtnutes of Octobef 13, 1986 Planntng Commission ~eettng. ~ommtsstoners Wet1 and Puckett commended the Recording Secretary on the Minute :ontent and preparation. Commissioner Wet1 moved', Baker second to apprb~e the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEAR]NGS 2. USE PERMIT 86-32 AND VARIANCE 86-8 Applicant: Location: Request: Deborah Crane 333 E1Camtno Real Authorization to vary with the off-street parking requirements to allow more than 50% of office uses. Presentation: LAURA CAY PICKUP, Assistant Planner Laura Pickup informed the Commission that this date .the applicant has requested a four week continuance to work out aspects concerning the sale of the property and to confirm availability of off-site parking. Commissioner Wetl questioned the building construction. Her concern was with UBC application to older buildings in reference to earthquakes. Ms. Pickup explained measures must be taken to ensure concrete is reinforced with steel. In this request the Building Division is working with the applicant and property owner to x-ray the outlding to ensure the building is brought to code. Commissioner Well questioned if the inspection reports would be available for the continued meeting. Ms. Pickup responded the reports would be required by the resolution of approval and all Uniform Building Codes (health/fire/safety) must be conformed to as a condition of approval for the project. Planntng Commission Minutes - October 27, 1986 )age two Chairman Puckett opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. Deborah Crane, applicant, requested a four week continuance to work out details with the owner. She explained she has discussed the seismic problems with a structural engineer and they will be installing a sheer frame and I-beam system from the basement, across each floor and across the roof. X-rays have been done showing inadequate reinforcement. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Chairmen Puckett closed the hearing at 7:37 p.m. Commissioner Wetl moved, Baker second to approve the applicant's request for a four week continuance to November 24, 1986. Motion carried 5-0. 3. VARIANCE 86-7 Applicant: Location: San Juan Partners 1421 San Juan Street Request: Presentation: Authorization to vary with the lot width requirement in the R-3 multiple family residential district in order to allow three apartment uni ts. MARY ANN CHAMBERLAIN, Associate Planner Mary Ann Chamberlain requested a two 'week continuance to allow staff to review the new site plan submitted today. Commissioner Well noted the applicant requested the continuance due to a late submittal of a revised site plan. Commissioner Well moved, Pontious second to continue Variance 86-7 to November 10, 1986. Motion carried 5-0. OLD BUSX#ESS None. BUSINESS 4. SIGN CODE REVISIONS/WORKSHOP Presentati on: MARY ANN CHAMBERLAIN, Associate Planner Commission and staff discussion ensued concerning some suggestions, revisions and :dditions to the Sign Code. Staff recommended the Commission defer their formal recommendations until a public hearing is scheduled. Chairman Puckett appointed Commissioners LeJeune and Pontious to a sub-committee to work with staff on the Sign Code revisions. When the sub-committee has formulated the Sign Code revisions, the matter should be set for public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1986 page three SITE PLAN/DESIGN REVIEW, DOW AVENUE AT MYFORD ROAD Presentation: PATRIZIA MATERASSI, Planner In answer to some of the Commission's concerns from the last meeting, Patrizia Materassi explained the City Council relaxed the requirements on sidewalk width from 8' to 5'; there is no minimum distance required between buildings provided the walls are insulated against fire, in fact, these are 3' in excess of the parking lot dimension requirements; and the project landscaping is in excess of the city's requirements. Oar¥1 Mason, Hlmes Peters Architects, reviewed the project concept: complex of multi-tenants with square footage ranging from 1,500 to 4,800 s.f.; typical tenants 25% - 50% office with the remaining area being warehouse, assembly, etc.; one street for access and two streets for visibility fronting larger units on Jamboree; trying to keep the service area access in rear following the railroad track from view; auto traffic would be routed through the site, loop-type circulation in and out off Dow; multi-tenant signing will be placed on the accent strip of spandrel-glass with larger tenant signs placed above accent strip; they will add more landscaping than usual along Jamboree because it is more visible. Commissioner LeJeune questioned the parapet across the top. Daryl Mason explained it would probably be painted plywood to appear as'a continuous part of the building. Commiss(oner'LeJeune further questioned the trash container capacity and expressed concern with tenant ratio to trash receptacles, and pick up schedule. Ms. Materassi explained that in the plancheck process they will ensure the minimum requirements are met. Jeff Davis further explained that excess parking spaces could be converted to trash enclosures if it became a problem. C~mmtsstoner Wetl questioned if the development might be converted to condo/separate ownership. Ms. Materassi explained they could not become condos without going through the Conditional Use Permit process. Kevin Hanson, Bedford Properties, clarified that at this time they do not intend to sell the units individually however, if converted at a future date they would follow the city procedures. Commissioner Well further questioned if the units would be built with utilities in place for a possible future conversion. Kevin Hanson, explained they would separate meter the buildings to more efficiently qonitor the use of the utilities to bill back the tenants. Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1986 -oage four Commissioner Well questioned if there will be a master sign program for the center. Mr. Hanson responded affirmatively: all signs would be within the signage band except for larger tenants needing more signage. Chairman Puckett questioned if the Commission would review a request for a large sign. Ms. Materassi responded it would not be necessary after conceptual plan approval; it could be approved at staff level. Commisioner Well commended Patrizia Materassi for an excellent job on her first project. She further commented the project will be a fine addition to the City. Chairman Puckett also commented the project will be an asset to the community. Co,,,,,lsstoner Baker questioned if the applicant may consider adding a second story. Kevin Hanson responded economics would be better with a higher density, however, tenants don't like that type of product. The single story concept has a better chance of being leased and being successful. Commissioner Baker was concerned with sidewalk reduction from 8' to 5' and questioned if there is any landscaping within the sidewalk. Ms. Materassi responded it is a olld sidewalk, no landscaping. Commissioner LeJeune moved, Wetl second to approve the following Resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 2368: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL 'DESIGN OF 192,125 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE BUILDING TO BE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF DOW AVENUE AT MYFORD ROAD Motion carried $-0. 6. FINAL TRACT MAP, THE BREN COMPANY Presentattonl JEFFREY S. DAVIS, Acting Senior Planner Commissioner Well moved, Baker second to recommend to City Council approval of the following Resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 2370: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TRACT MAP NO. 12868. Motion carried $-0. STN~F CONCERNS --7. Report on Council Actions of October 22, 1986. .resentation: ROB BALEN, Planning Consultant Planning Commission Minutes - October 27, 1986 )age five COHHI$SION CONC£RNS Commissioner LeJeune commended the Poltce Department. They contacted him regarding the door knob on his office which appeared to have been tampered with and he was impressed they would take the ttme to nottce tt and notify him. Commissioner Well requested staff provide her with the Resolution wherein the Council officially relaxed the criteria on sidewalks tn industrial areas. She ts concerned with setting precedents in approving projects with 5' sidewalks rather than 8' sidewalks. Commissioner Baker questioned when the striping would be in place on Bryan Avenue. Rob Balen will r~quest the information from Public Works. Commissioner Pontious expressed concern with a large sign placed in front of a real estate office located at 14145 Redhill Avenue. Mary Ann Chamberlain responded staff is aware of the sign and will follow up with enforcement. ADJOURi~qENT Commissioner Well moved, Baker second to adjourn at 9:30 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting, Monday November 10, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. ,, CHARLES E. PUCKETT, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary Plannin Commission DATE: SUBdECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: NOYET4BER 10, 1986 VARIANCE 86-7 SAN JUAN PARTNERS 1421 SAN JUAN NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAN JUAN AND GREEN VALLEY ZONING: R-3-2700 (#ULTIPLE-FAHILY RESIDENTIAL) I UNIT PER 2700 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LAND AREA ENYIRONRENTAL STATUS: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN FILED TO CONFORH #ITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONRENTAL QUALITY ACT. REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO VARY gI'~H TH[ LOT WIDTH AND REAR SET-BACK REQUIRERENTS TO ALLON THE CONSTRUCTION OF 'rgo NEW APARTHENTS AND THE REHABILITATION OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE. RECOI~ENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the project be approved with the variance for the lot width only. Direct Staff to. prepare a resolution with conditions as provided in Exhibit A. BACKGROUND: The subject property was annexed into the city in November, 1980, and was prezoned with the designation of R-3 (2700). This designation permits the construction of apartment units to a ratio of one unit to every 2,700 square feet of land area. The applicants in this case are proposing 2 additonal apartment units which are within the prescribed density requirements for the property. Resulting from the narrowness of the lot the applicant is requesting a variance to the minimum lot-width requirements and a rear yard set-back variance from the code requirement of 10 to 5 feet. Corn munity Development Depariment Planning Commission Report Variance 86-7 Page two ISSUE A#ALYSIS: Minimum Lot Width: The subject parcel is 60.87 feet in width. The R-3 District requires a minimum lot width of 70 feet. At the time of the pre-zoning the parcel existed in this configuration. Therefore, the owner has. the right to develop the property to the density allowed by the city code which in this case ts three units. Also, since the parcel is a corner lot, with limited frontage, circulation and access can be taken from Green Valley. Rear Yard Set-back: The applicant has requested a variance for the rear yard set-back requirement from l0 feet to 5 feet in order to accommodate the project as submitted on the attached site plan. The developer had submitted 3 different site planswhtch have been reviewed by staff. All 3 of the plans showed the need for variances with various zoning code and City development standards. However, this plan meets all city development standards in regards to parking, landscaping and open space but requires the rear yard variance. The applicant has requested, that this rear-yard variance .be granted for the following reasons: ' This variance if approved, ~ould not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood because the existing structure northerly of the north property line would be & minimum of 35 feet from the proposed structure which would encroach 5 feet into the rear set-back area. That because of the shape of the property (narrowness) the strict application of this rear-yard set-back would deprive the subject property of privileges e~joyed by others under the identical zone classification.. That because the parcel is a corner lot and has limited frontage, circulation and access for a front driveway would cause a traffic conflict, therefore causing all access from the side street. However, staff suggests that the rear-yard variance should not be granted for the following reasons. If the new units as shown on this site plan' were moved southerly 12 feet and attached to the existing single-family home, a rear-yard set-back variance would not be neede~ and other code requirements could be met. Also, since the project is essentially two Stories,. the 10 foot set-back will ensure at least a 15 foot separation between the new units and potential future construction on the lot to the North.. Corn munity Development Department Planning Commission Report Variance 86-7 Page three Site Plan Revlew: The attached site plan shows an existing single-family home with 2 proposed apartment units. Six garage units will be provided with one guest parking stall to meet code requirements. A proposed recreation area is planned along the westerly property line. A landscaped plan will be required for thts area in addition to an irrigation plan. Architectural £1evattons: The proposed elevations show Navajo white siding, heritage blue trim and roof material of flintkote frosted brown. Staff recon~ends that the color of the roof material be changed to match the proposed elevation colors. To ensure compatibility on the site, a condition of approval should require that the existing structure be treated and upgraded with the same materials and colors used on the new construction. CONCLUS[O#S: If the project is approved as staff recommends, the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood will be greatly enhanced by the addition of these units while allowing the developer to retain the existing structure.. The variance request concerning lot width 'is justifiable and approval is supported by staff. However, variance with the. rear yard ~set-back cannot be supported for reasons outlined in this report. Associate Planner Senior MAC:id Attachments: Plans Proposed Exhibit A - Proposed Conditions of Approval Development Review Sun~ary i, Community D~velopment Department DEVELOPMENT R~VIEW SUMMARY Project: Variance 86-7 Location/District: Action: 1421 San Juan - R-3 (2700) Authorization to vary with minimum lot width and rear-yard set back requirements. Building: Front Setback Side Setback Rear Setback Gross Square Footage Net Floor Square Footage Height Humber of Stories Materials/Colors Lot Size Lot Coverage Parking: LOt Width Number of Spaces Ratio (space/square footage) Percent of Compact_Spaces Type USES: Number of Public Notifications (Owners): Environmental Status * No Standard District Requirement 10' N/A 35' 2 7,000 70' 7 1:2700 Standard Apartments 300' Radius Negative Declaration Proposed 20' 10' N/A 24' 2 Asphalt shingle Wood siding 8,76O + Approximately 35% 60,87' 7 1:2920 Standard EXHXBXT 'A' Conditions for Approval for Variance 86-7 A complete landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. Said plan shall include location and description of the following: LANDSCAPE a. Plant materials b. Provision of recreation amenities IRRIGATION a. point of connection; b. back flow prevention device(s); c. location and types of valves; d. location and sizes of piping; e. sprinkler head types, locations and manufacturer model; f. automatic sprinkler controller location and specifications. A separate street improvement plan will be required and should show all existing and proposed public improvements adjacent to this development. All missing or damaged public improvements will require construction or replacement. Construction items shall be referenced to the applicable City standard drawing numbers and shall include but not be limited to the following: a. Curb and gutter b. Sidewalk c. Street trees d. Street light{s) e. Domestic water f. Sanitary sewer service(s) Payment of Orange County Sanitation District No. 7 sewer connection fees will be required at the time a Building Permit is issued. Payment of East Orange County Water District fees will be required prior to issuing the Building Permit. Payment of the required fees for the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program wil be required at the time a Building Permit is issued. A grading plan shall be submitted for review and it should be based on the Orange County Surveyor's Bench Mark Datum. Exhibit "A" Page two Show the size and location of the domestic water service and sanitary sewer lateral. The property owner will be required to annex this parcel to the Tustin 1972 Lighting and Landscape District. The City of Tustin Engineering Division will require fromt e property owner a letter stating that he will not protest said annexation. The annexation of this parcel will take place in July, 1987. The property owner will be required to pay installation charge for any required street light(s) to the Edison Company and pay to the City of Tustin the advanced energy charge to cover the operating/maintenance costs for a period of 18 months. Any excess advanced energy charge collected will be refunded to the property owner once the annexation is finalized. Continuous 6" concrete curbs shall be provided along landscape planters adjacent to parking spaces and drive aisles. 10. All utilities serving the subject property shall be required to be underground. 11. Payment of parkland dedication fees prior to permit issuance {$600.00). 12. The exterior of the existing structure shall be upgraded to match the colors and materials of new structures. MAC:id Planning Commission DATE: SUB~]ECT: APPLICANT: NOVEMBER 10, 1986 USE PERNIT 86-31 ARCHITECTS ORANGE ON BEHALF OF BURNETT-EHLINE PROPERTIES AND BENTAL PROPERTIES INC. LOCATION: CEQA STATUS: REQUEST: NORTHWEST CORNER OF NEWPORT AVENUE AND IRVINE BOULEVARD - 'PLAZA LA FAYETTE" CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) TO INSTALL A POLE-TYPE, CENTER IDENTIFICATION SIGN TO BE LOCATED AT THE CENTER OF THE PRINCIPAL SITE FRONTAGE ON NEWPORT AVENUE. RECO~ENDED ACTION: It it recommended that Use Permit Application 86-31 be denied. BACKGROUND: On July 1, 1985 the Redevelopment Agency reviewed and approved the design of a shopping/multi-use center at the Northwest corner of Newport Avenue and Irvine Boulevard. Currently the project is under construction and preliminary master sign plans and the color scheme are under staff review. Section 9494 of the City Code pertaining to signage provides that, subject to a conditional use permit, pole-type center identification signs may be authorized subject to the following criteria: a. One sign per street frontage with 50 square feet per face, 24' high. b. Minimum street frontage required to install a pole-type sign is 200 feet. c. Planter base or landscape area equal to or greater than the area of one face of a sign. d. Shall not be located so as to create traffic hazard for driveway or corner radius as determined by the City Engineer. e. Vertical clearance of 10 feet required for freestanding sign projecting over vehicular passage way. ANALYSIS: The applicant proposes to install a pole-type center identification sign to be located on the perimeter landscaped area, facing traffic on Newport Avenue. Community Development 'Department Planning Commission Report Use Permit 86-31 Page 2 Proposed pole sign is 17'6" high and the sign face is approximately 49.4 square feet in size. The sign reads "PLAZA LA FAYETTE" in green painted letters. Sign characteristics consist of: cast metal pole - metal face with in-laid marble - metal hardware for attachment to the pole - halo lighting hidden amongst perimeter banding - banding will be painted rose, green, purple and golden as shown in the model - face of sign includes the name of the center, a golden rooster and the year (in roman algarisms). (A colored model of proposed sign will be available at the meeting.) Proposed sign meets the criteria required by section 9494 of the Sign Code. However, there are several issues and design criteria that should be addressed: 1. The Sign in Relation to its Surrounding Environment: A. General Poli'cy Regarding Pole-Type Signs: According to the philosophy of the sign .code, pole-type signs are discouraged for that they create clutter and impair the development of wide and clean City streets. Emphasis on maintenance of street trees and streetscape, underground installation of power wires and other similar measures have been taken to insure aesthetic Quality and .maintenance of property values in the City. Therefore, pole signs are not recommended. B. Need for a Pole-Type Sign': The proposed center is characterized by extremely articulated architecture and dynamic color scheme and tenants signage. Also, the center is located adjacent to two major City Arterials and is highly visible. These features decrease the demand for a pole sign to name the center. The center will rely very little on a pole sign for its attraction purposes. Therefore, a different type sign is desirable. A much smaller, maybe mqnument type sign which is designed to be compatible with other si.g~s in the complex would effectively name the center. Such signs would be more compatible with the philosophy of the sign code and be less detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the area. Community Dev~loprnent Department Planntng Commission Report Use Permit 86-3! Page 3 2. The Sign tn Relation to the Center: A. Form/Shape and Materials: Proposed tenant Identification signs for the center have rounded and oval shapes, with soft designed outlines without bandings. These stgns are of a flextble nature. Proposed pole sign ts retangular in shape, has sharp edges and latd-in marble material which make the sign even more rtgtd In nature. Staff considers that these Incompatibilities are significant and that the proposed pole sign is not In harmony wtth the slgnage for the center. B. Colors: The center color scheme consists of light basic colors with sharp, brignt and contrasting acceEt colors. The colors proposed for the pole sign are generally consitent with the center colors. However, applicant provided no specification of chip color number, and color name that could be related back to the proposed color scheme. Rather, the colors .of the pole-sign, as shown, in the colored model are more of 'a pastel nature. Moreover, the design: review Of the color scheme is not yet 'completed. So that accuracy of color compatibility cannot be assured at this time. 3. The Sign Itself: A. Proportion - support system vs. face: The 'design of the sign as shown in the plans is not proportional. While the support metal'pole is very high and thin, the face looks very heavy and unfitting. The structural integrity of this pole is not being questioned, just the aesthetic features of the design. B. Logos: Logos are allowed. However, there is no precedent of a review, approval or installation of a sign that contains the figure of an animal, in the City of Tustin. The proposed pole sign includes a golden rooster. Staff does not encourage this type of stgnage. However, should the commission deem it. appropriate in this situation, special findings specifically addressing the issue and identifying special circumstances should be included in any approval. Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Use Permit 86-31 Page four CONCLUSIONS: It is recommended that the Use Permit 86-31 be denied, and that the Planning Commission direct staff to write a denial resolution, on the grounds that: a pole sign is not in harmony with the philosophy of the sign code and would impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area. the architecture of the center and its. proximity from major arterials do not justify the use of a pole sign. - The design of the sign as is does not meet certain design criteria and is not compatible with proposed signs for the center as a whole. PATRIZIA MATERASSI, Planner PM:id Attachments: sign and site plans. Community Development Department l:ll :: ii I~: t~ !ti I MONUMENT 5' I0# PLAZA MCMLXXXVI Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: NOVEMBER 10, 1986 REPORT OH COUNCIL ACTIONS - November 3, 1986 0ral presentation. do Attachments: City Council Action Agenda - November 3, 1986 Community Development Department ACTION AGENDA OF A REGULAR NEETING OF THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 3, 1986 7:00 P.M. 7:02 I. CALL TO ORDER ALL PRESENT II. ROLL CALL III. PROCLAMATION PRESENTED TO WERTER 1. "THE REVERE HOUSE" - THIRTIETH ANNIVERSARY IV. SPECIAL PRESENTATION PRESENTED BY BOB KERR 1. 1985 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ACHIEVEMENT AWARD - AWARDED BY AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TO CITY OF TUSTIN V. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None. JA~iES I~Y VI. PUBLIC INPUT ASKED WHAT ACTION I~D BEEN TAKEN ABOUT NDVING THE HELICOPTERS FROM LOS ALANITOS TO TOSTIN. CITY MANAGER RESPONDED ll.lAT THE TOSTIN I#U~INE IL~SE IS OPPOSED TO THIS HAPPENING. THE VII. / VED APPROVED CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1986, ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $241,262.06 RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $171,347.10 APPROVED STAFF RECONI~NDATION ADOPTED RESOLUTION 4. NO. 86-129 REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 86-43; CLAIMANT: JERRY N. GANS; DATE OF LOSS: 9/6/86; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 9/22/86 Reject subject claim as recommended by the City Attorney. RESOLUTION NO. 86-129 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 12868 (Southeast Corner of Browning & Bryan Avenues - East Tustin Residential, Phase I) Adopt Resolution No. 86-129 as recommended by the Community Develop- ment Department. APPROVED STAFF RECONI~NDATION TRACT NO. 12106 - RELEASE OF SUBDIVISION WARRANTY BONDS (Southerly Side of Walnut Street between Newport Avenue and Orange Street, Ainslie Development) Authorize release of Subdivision Warranty Bond No. 3 SM 572 912 in the amount of $2,250 as recommended by the Public Works Department/ Engineering Division. ADOPTED RESOLUTION 6. NO. 86-130 RESOLUTION NO. 86-130 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE ANNUAL PAVEMENT MARKING PROGRAM AND DIRECT CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS Adopt Resolution No. 86-130 as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. VIII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - None. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 1 11-3-86 IX. (ED ORDINANCE NO. 978 ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION 1. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TUSTIN & THE IRVINE COMPANY RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT AREA - ORDINANCE NO. 978 ORDINANCE NO. 978 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT {EXHIBIT A ATTACHED HERETO), AS DEFINED BY SECTION 65865.2 OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE, BETWEEN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE IRVINE COMPANY PERTAINING TO DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT AREA X. OLD BUSINESS - None. XI. NEW BUSINESS - None. XII. REPORTS RATIFIED 1. RECEIVED AND FILED 2. ~J~F TO REDRAFT 3. EI-FER WITH MORE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS - OCTOBER 27, 1986 All actions of the Planning Commission become final the City Council or member of the public. PACIFIC BELL EJqPLOYEE WORK HOUR PHASING SCHEDULE Recommendation: Receive and file. INFLUENTIAL SQUARE STORM DRAIN unless appealed by JUNCIL'S CONCERNS Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. CUNrAINED IN IT AND ~GO OIFr ON A DAILY I~SIS DURING TIMES OF POSSIBLE FLOODING DIRECTED XIII. OTHER BUSINESS ' STAFF TO PROCEED WITH SEI'rLEMENT OF FREITAS V CIl~f OF llJSTIN CLAIM PI. AJINING STAFF TI) STAJ~T DIAJ.OG WITH DOWNTOWN RESIDEPrrs REG~U~DING WI~RT IS ~ BLEST WAY OF LOOKING AT THE RESIDENTI,~U~ AREAS. r, ENNEDY REQUESTED THAT ENGINEERING AND POLICE Al)VISE THEM ON THE NEW TURNING 'SIGNALS. MDVED THE CITY SEND REFUND CItECKS OF $10.70 TO RESIDENTS ~ aVE OVERPAID ON THEIR BILLS. ~H lllE SENIOR CENTER FUND RAISER WILL BE FELD AT SIELLEY'S ON NOV. 16TH. THERE WILL BE A LARGE BUFFET. EVERYONE ~ URGED TO BUY TICKETS. STAFF TO AGENOIZE FOR THE NEXT FLEETING A REVISION TO THE S)~OKING ORDINANCE. DISCUSSION FOLLOI~'D REGARDING POSSIBLE ANNE)LRTION OF NORTH llJSTIN. DIALOG WILL CONTINUE ON THIS AFI'~ THE ELECTION. STAFF TO kI~ITE A LETTER TO THE COUNTY RE[JkTIVE TO PAYMENT REGARDING THE SAN JUAN ANNEXATION IN-RESPONSE TO SALTARELLI REGARDING THE RUBY'S RESTAURANT, ,)EFF DAVIS RESPONDED. THAT THE [ OPER HAS DENOLISHED THE BUILDING. IT IS TO BE RESTORED IN APPEARANCE AS IT WAS Q, .NALLY. THEY HRVE SUBNIITED SOI~ PLANS. 7:55 XIV. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA ADJOURNMENT To the next Regular Meeting on Monday, November 17, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. Page 2 11-3-86 ACTION AGENDA OF A REGULAR' MEETING OF THE TUSTIN REDEVELOPI~NT AGENCY NOVEMBER 3, 1986 7:00 P.M. 7:55 1. CALL TO ORDER ALL 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT APPROVED 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 22, 1986, ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING Recommendation: Approve. ADOPTED 4. RESOLUTION NO. RDA 86-13 KENNEDY WAS CONCERNED AGAIN BECAUSE OF DESIGN REVIEW - UNITED TECHNOLOGIES NORDEM SYSTEMS, 15272 DEL AMO - RESOLUTION NO. RDA 86-13 RESOLUTION NO. RDA 86-13 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DESIGN OF AN R&D INDUSTRIAL BUILDING TO BE LOCATED AT 15272 DEL AMO AVENUE EXCESS PARKING BEING PROVIDED TWAT HIGHT BE A# INDICATION THEY WILL CONVERT TO OFFICE USE. "~FF TO LOOK Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. RDA 86-13 as recon~nended by the Community J THE REASON Development Department. .~ SO MUCH PARKING. ~TAI~F TO LOOK INTO POSSIBILII'f OF PERHAPS CHANGING FROM COMPACT PARKING SPACES TO HID SIZED SPACES. 8:03 6. ADJOURNMENT To the next Regular Meeting on Monday, November 17, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION AGENDA Page 1 11-3-86