400%
200%
100%
75%
50%
25%
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
RPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 02-02-87
ACTTON AGENDA ?'u~'T~ '-P ~ ~'~ ~ N~-'C6)e~I ~'S lro~' REGU~R MEETING &ANUARY 26, 1987 RE PORTS NO. 1 2-2-87 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Puckett, Weil, Baker, Le Jeune Absent: Pontious PUBLIC CONCERNS: None. 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. Minutes of January 12, 1987 Plannt~ng Commission Meeting. Co.mlssloner #ell moved, LeJeune seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. carrted 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS t4ott on Laura Pickup informed the Commission that neither public hearing could be considered tonight due to the fact they were not properly published. Cmmtsstoner #etl moved, Baker seconded to continue Use Permit 87-1 and Use Permit 87-2 based upon the fact of tmproper nottce to thetr next regularly scheduled Planning Cmmtsston neetlng. Morton carrted 4-0. 2. USE PERMIT 87-1 Applicant: Location: Request: Enrico Ristorante de Italia 14430 Newport Avenue Authorization to sell beer and wine for on-site consumption in conjunction with a restaurant use. Presentation: Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner RESOLUTION NO. 2388: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING A BEER AND WINE LICENSE FOR ON-SITE SALES AT 14430 NEWPORT AVENUE. RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVE USE PERMIT NO. 87-1 BY THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2388. Planning Commission Action Agenda January 26, 1987 page three STAFF CONCERNS 5. REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTIONS JANUARY 19, 1987 · Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development COPIHISSION CONCERNS Commissioner LeJeune queried the two different meeting times for the City Council and Planning Commission. He expressed the downtown residents' appreciation for the recent tree trimming. He further expressed a resident's concern over flooding on Main Street during rains. Commissioner weal was concerned with freeway identification signs SO0' from the center line. She wondered if that would only apply to businesses near the exit. Christine Shingleton advised the Commission she would'put that matter on the agenda for review. Commissioner Baker questioned the status of the school district/developer fee negotiations. Christine Shingleton advised the Commission the District adopted a resolution adopting some fees to go into affect 60 days from their last meeting; maximum of $1.50 per square foot in residential prode~s., The City is continuing negotiations with the District due to the City's strong opposition to several points in the District's proposal. Chairman Puckett questioned new dealer ground breaking in the auto center. Christine Shingleton responded there is no time frame available at this point. Chairman Puckett further expressed the Commission's appreciation to Ken Samples for on his last night with the City for his~"behind the scenes" assistance during Commission meetings. ADdOURNlqENT Cnmmtsstoner Ledeune moved, Well seconded to adjourn at 8:50 p.m. to their next regularly scheduled Planning Co,,~ission ,~ettng. Motion carried 4-0. AGENDA TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR I~ETING JANUARY 26, 1987 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/XN¥OCATION ROLL CALL: Puckett, Wet1, Baker, Le Oeune, Pontlous PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 mtnutes 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. Minutes of January 12, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. USE PERMIT 87-1 Applicant: Location: Request: Enrico Rtstorante de Italia 14430 Newport Avenue Authorization to sell beer and wine for on-site consumption in conjunction with a restaurant use. Presentation: Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner RESOLUTION NO. 2388: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING A BEER AND WINE LICENSE FOR ON-SITE SALES AT 14430 NEWPORT AVENUE. RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVE USE PERMIT NO. 87-1 BY THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2388. Planning Commission Agenda January 26, 1987 page two e Applicant: Location: Request: USE PERMIT 87-2 Chantry Ltd on behalf of Fat Freddies Mexican Diner 1571 E1Camino Real Authorization to install a 100 square foot freeway identification pole sign. Presentation: Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner RESOLUTION NO. 2389: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING A 46 FOOT HIGH, 100 SQUARE FOOT FREEWAY IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN AT 1571 EL CAMINO REAL RECOMMENDATION: PLEASURE OF THE COMMISSION. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS 4. IMAGES FOR HAIR, 1030 IRVINE BLVD. Appeal of Community Development Deprtment denial of Sign Permit No. 1830. STAFF CONCERNS 5. REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTIONS JANUARY 19, 1987 Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development COMMISSION CONCERNS ADdOURIOqENT Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. HI#UTES TUSTIN PLANNING COHHISSION REGULAR NEETING JANUARY 12, 1987 CALL TO ORDER: 7:32 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGZANCE/ZaVOCATION ROLL CALL: PUSLTC CONCERNS: All present: Puckett, Hell, Baker, Le Oeune, Ponttous arrived at 7:35 p.m. Also present: Christine Shtngleton, Lois Jeffries, Laura Pickup, Mary Ann Chamberlain, Jeff Davis, Donna Orr. None. CONSENT CALENDAR: Chairman Puckett pulled Consent Calendar Item No. [ from the Consent Calender for correction. 2. 3. 4. Mtnutas of December 22, [986 Planning Commission Meeting. Waiver of Undergroundlng, 333 E1Camtno Real Final Tract No. 12759, [rvtne Pacific Final Tract No. 12732; Bren Commissioner Wetl moved, LeJeune seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. carried 5-0. Motl on Commissioner Well moved, Baker seconded to approve the December 22, 1986 Planning Commission minutes with a correction to the public hearing on Use Permilt 86-36 reflecting Commissioner Well's clarification on directional signs for parking across the street. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes January [2, [987 page two PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. USE PERMIT 86-38 Applicant: Location: Request: Mr. James Ktncannon on behalf of The Learning Village 150 E. First Street Authorization to install a preschool for 72 children in an existing building at [50 E. First Street P resentati on: Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDED ACT[ON: APPROVE USE PERMIT NO. 86-38 BY THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2384. RESOLUTION NO. 2384. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUll~ORIZlNG A PRESCHOOL FOR 72 CHILDREN AT 150 E. FIRST STREET. Laura Pickup explained to the Commission that due to the lease expiration at U1-F School The Learning Village is looking to relocate their business to [50 E. First Street. Formal Finding 86-1 requires a use permit to allow this type of use in a commercial district. Laura highlighted the disagreements between staff and applicant: 1) on-site trash enclosure required for all commercial purposes to be a 6' x 8' block wall type enclosure with a separat~ gate to include a g cubic foot bin; 2) landscape strip along southerly border of the property proposed to be approximately 3' wide with acceptable planting materials; 3) marbelite street light on the westerly portion of the lot facing First Street and some dedication and easement requirements. 4) The City Engineer further clarified and revised the dedication requirements of public right-of-way along First Street and Prospect. The City Engineer has devised a plan that will not require the applicant to install any improvements on site thereby causing further cost to the project. The applicant should provide a 2.5' dedication along First Street to bring the lot into conformance with the First Street improvement plan. There is an existing 5' wide landscape strip along Prospect directly adjacent to the curb line and then a 5' sidewalk portion which is actually on the applicant's property. The City Engineer agrees that an easement for that 5' portion on the applicant property would be acceptable but proposes an interim easement allowing access to the existing sidewalk which is currently private property. Laura further explained one of the major issues of the'project is cost for the applicant because this is a small business and the War Memorial is a non-profit corporation. Laura further highlighted the changes to the resolution to reflect the landscape strip and sidewalk easement. Planning Commission Minutes January [2, [987 page three Laura presented a slide presentation. Christine Shlngleton added corrections to the resolution: Exhibit A I.F.2. delete. And, 14. The last two sentences should be reworded: place a note on the landscaping plans that installation of all landscaping and irrigation should be in compliance with the approved landscaping and Irrigation plans. Any field changes require approval of the Community Development Department. Chairman Puckett clarified the changes to the resolution and then opened the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. requesting people in favor speak first. James Ktncannon, Kincannon Architects, commented this has been a very difficult project because originally the building was built in [956 and the First Street Specific Plan w&s not in place at that time.- They are reluctant to do the sidewalk and street light improvements due to the cost. The interim easement issue is tnl~ortant to them. The location of the trash enclosure would create problems because the truck would have to come completely on site with no exit so he would have to back out onto Prospect. An additional 3' landscape buffer zone next to an 8' wall is ludicrous, it will be 15 years before the trees have any affect on sound attenuation since they would have to plant new trees. The play area will be completely enclosed and 47' away from the entrance. The street light is a $[500 installation cost. He wondered why the requirement is being imposed on a project with only 1700' addition. Paul Coyne, Director of' the preschool informed the Commission they preferred to stay · at their current location but Utt wil~ need to be used for the new student~ generated by East Tustin. He made himself available for questions. Commission and applicant discussed the number of students, how many square feet they presently utilize, concerns with safety on a busy corner, and questioned any plans to expand the number of children. Ga¥le Pierce, has a child in The Learning Village and is very satisfied. The noise generated by the school is a happy noise of children playing. George Theodorou, 130 S. Prospect, spoke in favor of the 3' landscape buffer for visual and noise attenuation and hopefully to help water drainage. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Chair~n Puckett closed the hearing at 8:12 p.m. Commissioner Well proposed raising the south 30" wall to 6'8" for safety to the children who may climb on it. Also, set up the trash enclosure at the front part of the driveway, against the southern wall. Christine Shin~leton explained that the landscaping .strip required in the Plan was _ really for aesthetic appearance of the parking lot. Planning CommtssJon Mfnutes January 12, 1987 page four Staff has attempted to confine the perimeter landscaping to one location due to the shared parking. The 30" wall, if raised to 6' would represent a significant cost and would have to be structurally redesigned. A reasonable compromise might be to eliminate the trees along the building and to recognize that the landscaping strip can be bermed up and to install a 42" wood lattce fence. Staff is not too concerned where the trash enclosure is located. It should be easily accessible to the trash company and not present a hazard to the children. On Prospect there was an original requirement for full dedication, staff disagreed with the Engineering department on this and worked closely with the applicant to try to keep the costs down. Street improvement costs could have exceeded $7,000 both on Prospect and First. Staff was able to get the Engineering department to reduce that requirement. The only way the Engineering department will accept the interim easement would be an acknowledgement that this use remains. It is practical that if the property sold they will want to apply the most current standards of development to the property. The light pole is a current standard and they will not recommend waiving it. Commissioner Well was against berming the landscaping and still wanted the wa'll ~aised. Laura Pickup referred to the site plan and informed the Commission the wall is actually located on the property to the south and not on the property line. Discussion ensued concerning the pick up and drop off procedures relative to supervision of the children. Further-discussion ensued amongst the Commission, staff and Mr. Ktncannon concerning trash pick up procedures, location of entrance and sand box, the level of the parking compared to the neighboring property and potential drainage problems. Commissioner Wetl moved, Pontlous seconded to approve Use Permit 86-38 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2384 with corrections to Exhibit A as follows: 1.A. Dedication of two and a half {2.5) feet along First Street. 1.B. Provide an interim easement of five (5) feet along Prospect Avenue. 1.F.2. delete. 1.F.3. change number to 1.F.2. 3. Remove "at the southwest corner of the lot" at the end of the first sentence. 14. Delete last two sentences and put in: "Place a note on the plans that 'any field changes require approval of the Community Development Director. Installation of all landscaping and irrigation to be in compliance with the approved landscaping and irrigation plan'. Add 18. A minimum four {4) foot high solid wood or wood lattice fence shall be provided along the southerly property line for a distance of 55 feet from the required Prospect Avenue setback. This fence shall be installed next to the existing concrete block wall along the southerly property line and is subject to final approval of the Community Development Director. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes 3anuary 12, 1987 page five OLD BUSINESS None. NE~ BUSINESS DESIGN REVIEW 86-33, FAT FREDDIE'S RESTAURANT Presentation: Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner Laura Pickup presented slides of the existing site pointing out improvements that will be made. Commission discussion ensued concerning exposed neon tubing and the potential problems with weather on this type of lighting. Commissioner Baker pointed out that this is one of the entrances to East Tustin and confirmed the project would not be affected by the widening of the freeway and widening of E1Camino Real. Further Commission and staff discussion ensued concerning the semi truck parking problem on the existing site. Commissioner Ponttous moved, Baker seconded to approve Design Review 86-33 by the adoption of Resolution 2386. Motion carried 5-0. 7. PERMIT TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE, 13781 MARSHALL LANE Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Mary Ann Chamberlain introduced an anonymous letter submitted in opposition to the large family day care home. Lois Jeffrtes, Deputy City Attorney, advised that since the letter is anonymous and doesn't request a hearing the Commission is not obligated to set a public hearing. Commission discussion ensued with questions of staff and applicant regarding potential parking problems and State licensing requirements. Commissioner Baker moved, Well seconded to approve a permit to operate a large family day care center by Minute Order. Motion carried 5-0. Be PERMIT TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE, 14501WESTFALL ROAD Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Mary Ann Chamberlain advised the Commission that no protests were received in this matter. Planntng Commission Mtnutes January 12, [987 page six Laura Pickup informed the Comnrisston that staff did a field investigation this date at 5:00 p.m. to determine any potential traffic problems with pick up and delivery of the children. No problems were noted. There were excess vehicles on the premises due to current construction. Commission discussion ensued concerning the fact the applicant is not the property owner. Staff advised that the a~plicant and the house is licensed; the applicant does not have to own the property. Commissioner Baker moved, Well seconded to approve a permit to operate a large family day care center by Minute Order. Motion carried 5-0. REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTIONS JANUARY 5, 1987 Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development COHHZ$$ION CONCERNS Commissioner Wetl questioned the new legislation regarding construction fees and the potential i~act by the Tustin Unified School District. Christine Shingleton replied that she and the City Manager have referred the matter to the City Attorney office for opinion: Staff's initial analysis is that the district would be authorized to institute a fee of $1.50 per square foot for residential development and $.25 per square foot for commercial/industrial. Co'missioner Baker questioned the status of the Bent, satellite dish. Laura Pickup responded he has appealed and is awaiting a court date. Commissioner Baker further apprised staff of a satellite dish on a trailer at the Church of Scientology on Irvine Blvd. Chairman Puckett congratulated the Tustin High School baseball team and announced they would be presented with a proclamat!on at the 1st Council meeting in February. ADJOURI~qEEi' Commissioner Well moved, Baker seconded to adjourn at 9:30 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on January 26, 1987. Motion carried 5-0. CHARLES E. PUCK[TT, Chairman 'DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary Planning Commission DATE: SUBdECT: APPLICANT: PROPERTY O#NER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIROI~ENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: dANUARY 26, 1987 USE PERlqIT 87-1 ALBERTO CANDIVI AND DELVINO FOGLI 14430 NEWPORT AVENUE TUSTIN CA. 92680 INDEPENDENT DEVELOPf4ENT CO. 2727 NEWPORT MENUE: SUITE 200 NEWPORT BEACH, CA. 92663 14430 REWPORT AVENUE C-1 RETAIL COIqlqERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXElqPT CLASS I AUTHORIZATION FOR AN ON-SITE BEER AND WIRE LICENSE [N CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT USE. (LICENSE TYPE 41) RECOI~ENDATION: Approve Use Permit No. 87-1 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2388. SUR~ARY: An application has been filed by Mr. Fogll and Mr. Candivi on behalf of Enrico Ristorante de Italia. This restaurant is an independent restaurant serving italian cuisine. The applicant is now requesting authorization for on-site beer and wine sales in conjunction with a restaurant use. The proposed location for this restaurant is at 14430 Newport Avenue. Staff has identified certain critical issues related to this application regarding hours of operation and proximity to schools, supervision of employees who sell alcoholic beverages and outdoor seating as discussed below. ANALYSIS AND CONSLUSIONS: In discussion with the applicant the proposed hours of operation for Enrico's would be similar to other restaurants in the area. These hours will be from 10:00 a~m. to 10:00 p.m. As with all Type 41 Licenses (on-site beer and wine sales in conjunction with a restarunt use), the majority of gross sales must be in food items as opposed to liquor. Community Development Deparlment Planning Commission Report January 26, 1987 Page two The closest school to Enrico's is Jeanne Thorman Elementary School. This school is 3200 feet (over half a mile) away, therefore, school children are not considered to be affected. The floor plan for this restaurant includes an outdoor seating area. This area will be completely surrounded by fencing and is only accessable by entering through the restaurant. This area, as designed, meets all Alcoholic Beverage Control requirements. Staff has prepared the following requirements as conJitions of approval: 1. All alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on-site. 2. Alcoholic beverages shall be sold during the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and only when food is concurrently sold. 3. The restaurant menu shall consist primarily of foods that are prepared on-site. 4. "No "bar" type s~ating-is allowed at this location. 5. Authorization for an on-site beer and wine license is contingent upon the use remaining as a restaurant. At such time the restaurant use is discontinued, authorization for the beer ahd.wine license will be null and void. 6. All persons 'selling or serving alcoholic beverages must be at least 18 years of age and the restaurant shall be supervised by someone over 21 years of age or older while the restaurant remains open. With these conditions staff considers this use appropriate for the area and recommends approval by the adoption of Resolution No. 2388. LCP:pef Attachments: Resolution No. 2388 Site Plan Floor Plan Director of Community. Development Corn munity Development Department STATE Gl= CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL DIAGRAM 01: LICBSED PRh%41S £ FOGLI, Delvino '& CANDIVI~ Alberto C. 14430 Newport Ave., Tustin j "41" The Dia6ram below is a tru~ and co.-rear descriptic~ of the en~, exits, interior ~ ~ ~=rd exterior boundaries of DIAGRAM: '© CD ~ 1Tr..t4EN 91oce: Santa Aha ,,G...U,, Spec;a/Instructions fo, Appl/c~ts for Public Premises Type Licenses Your signa~re above acknowledges that you are aware that in premises operated as a PubJic Premises no.persons under years of age are to be oilawed. A si~ at least 7" x 11" stating"~o Person Under 21 AHowed" must be posted near each entTance and at a prominent place in the interior of the premises. DEPARTMENT use only. My planned operation of the premises can be~t be described as: Hotel/~t el Fast Food Cocktail Lounge . _ Tavern: Beer or Beer & Wine Cafe/Coffee Shop Private Club Complete Restaurant --Bowlt.ug ALley --Other (Describe): Deli or Specialty Restaurant -- Discotheque General description of the neighborhood o'f %he premises: -- Residential - Commercial -- Industrial - Rural -- Other (Describe): $ Mixed Commercial/Presidential Premises' is located on: ~ Major Street (i.e. Blvd., Highway, 'Streeb) Other (Describe): Description of the 's~ructure: ~ Single Story - Two-Story Multi-Story: ('No of Stories) Do you intend to employ a m~nager? Hours of o.oeration: Sun.-Thurs. Fri. & Sat. Secondax~- Street -- (i.e. Reuidentie~) llnm-llnm llam-llnm Premise~ is located in: Free-Standing Buildin~ Small Shopping Center (Lees b~h~n 10 businesses) Large Shopping Center - (l_O..or ~x~re bus~n~?ss.e.s) - '!es x No Fi~ed Bar: Tes . _x No Do premises have off-street park~ng _x Yes _ No No Food- Mdnimal Food (Sandt~n[ches, snacks, etc~) Restaurant: Italian-food ~YPe of me~s off ere~ "' ~:~.e. ~ seafood Kitch~ ~ipment: (i.e.: r~e~ ovens, ste~ers etc · ) ~zer~ refrigeration etc. ~ of mean sub~tt~ -- Hmms of ~stimatc w~t percent~e of ~ tot~ s~.es ~ be ~coholie be~-erages: 2~___ %~ the presses c~rently oper~t~: .. Y~s _ No 28 Number of Cars: 30 EN ?ERTA Ii'I M~';T Juke box or recorded music Pool table s/co~ ,operated ~am.e machines Car~ Pnorn Bikini/Tooles s Floor Sho~~ ~her 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 22 23 25 26 27 28 The Planning follows: RESOLUTION NO. 2388 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING A BEER AND WINE LICENSE FOR ON-SITE SALES AT 14430 NEWPORT AVENUE Commission of the City of Tusttn does hereby resolve as The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application (Use Permit 87-1) has been filed by Mr. Candivi and Mr. Fogli requesting authorization for an ABC license (type 41) to sell beer and wine for on-site consumption at 14430 Newport Avenue. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application. C. That establishment, maintenance and operation of the use applied for will not, under the'circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, evidenced by the following findings: 1. The sale of beer and wine is on-site consumption only. 2. That sale of beer and wine is limited to hours of operation between 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and only when food concurrently sold. 3. The closest school is over three-quarters of a mile away, therfore, school children are not affected. 4. The use applied for is in conformance with the Tustin General Plan. 5. The use applied for is an allowed use in the C-1 Retail Commercial Zone. D. That the establishment, maintenance and operation of the use applied for will not be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, nor to the general welfare of the city of Tustin, and should be granted. E. Proposed development shall be in accordance with the development policies adopted by the City Council, Uniform Building Codes as administered by the Building Official, Fire Code as administered by the Orange County Fire Marshall, and street improvement requirements as administered by the City Engineer. F. That this project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, Class 1. 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 -17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2388 page two II. G. Final development plans shall require the review and approval of the Community Development Department. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 87-1 to authorize the issuance of an on-site beer and wine license at 14430 Newport Avenue subject to the following conditions: A. All alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on-site. B. Alcoholic beverages shall be sold during the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and only when food is concurrently sold. C. The restaurant menu shall consist primarily of foods that are prepared on-site. D. No "bar" type seating is authorized at this location. E. Authorization for an on-site beer and wine license is contingent upon the use remaining as a restaurant. At such time that the restaurant use is discontinued, authorization for the beer and wine license will be null and void. F. All persons selling or serving alcoholic beverages shall be eighteen years of age or older and shall be supervised by someone twenty-one years of age or older while the restaurant remains open. G. The applicant shall complete and return an "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form as required by the Director of Community Development. ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin on this of , 1987. PASSED AND day CHARLES E. PUCKETT, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary LCP:pef Report to the Planning Commission Item #3 DATE: SUB,1ECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: dANUARY 26, 1987 USE PERMIT NO. 87-2 1571 EL CASINO REAL MR. BARRY HERMANSON/CHANTRY LTD. 2915 BRISTOL AVENUE COSTA I~SA, CA. 92626 MR. EDWARD PANKEY 320W. MAIN STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 C-2: CENTRAL COI~ERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT CLASS 1I AUTHORIZATION TO INSTALL A 100 SQUARE FOOT, 46 FOOT HIGH FREEWAY IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN RECO~ENDATION: Pleasure of the Planning Commission. SUI~ARY: On January 12, 1987 the Planning Commission approved Design Review No. 86-33 authorizing use of exposed neon tubing for Fat Freddie's Restaurant at 1571 E1 Camlno Real. The applicant is now proposing to upgrade an existing pole sign to reflect the new tenant and design. All pole signs for commercial uses require a Conditlonal Use Permit. Staff considers the p~oltferatton of pole signs to be a problem fn the victntty of the proposed sign. Although, other recent applications involving service station pole signs (Mobil 0tl, Shell 0tl and Exxon) have been previously approved by the Commission. BACKGROUND: Prior to the installation of Fat Freddte's restaurant, this building was occupied by Love's Restaurant. This site was annexed into Tustin in 1980 and the pole sign used by Love's was installed prior to the sites annexation to the City of Tustin. i Community Development Deparlment Planning Commlsslon Report January 26, 1987 Page two According to Section 9481-f of the Municipal Code eating, lodging and auto service facilities within 500 feet of a freeway, may install a pole sign if authorized by a Conditional Use Permit. All pertinent issues regarding this application are discussed below. ANALYSIS - SIGN SIZE AND VISUAL IMPACT: The previously existing sign for Love's Restaurant is approximately 55 feet high (base of pole to top of sign can). The applicant is proposing to install a rectangular shaped can six (6) feet high by sixteen (16) feet eight (8) inches wide. This can, as proposed, is to be mounted on top of a 40 foot high pole creating a sign 46 feet in total height. The sign is designed to match the neon concept proposed for the previously approved building wall signs. The sign pole and can is painted a cream color to match the building. The advertising area includes black can letters with yellow neon and four (4) trim tubes using a turquoise color which matches the building. The Overall sign design would coordinate with the 1950's diner theme which has been approved for the building. ANALYSIS - FREEWAY VISIBILITY: A Freeway Identification sign i's directed towards attracting highway travelers. This type of sign is not to be used for attracting ~n street traffic. Therefore the applicant has increased the proposed sign height for freeway visibility. The site for Fat Freddie's is located just north of E1Camino Real near Red Hill Avenue. The structure ispartially blocked from freeway view by Taylor's Restaurant on the south, the Sixpence Inn on the east and a Mobil gas station on the west. Any wall mounted installed on the building may not be visible from the freeway unless a monument sign was placed directly in front of the site. The proposed sign would be high enough to alert traffic in the west bound direction on the I-5 Freeway while being too tall to be visible from nearby surface streets. The proposed restaurant is new and may be somewhat of an attraction. The applicant, in applying .for this type of sign feels that the business will greatly benefit from freeway visibility. The Commission must determine whether or not this pole sign is necessary for the use intended. community DeVelopment Department .f Planntng Commfssion Report January 26, 1987 Page three CONCLUSIONS: Staff has prepared two (2) alternative resolutions for this application: One forapproval of the sign and the other for denial. Should the Commission wish to approve the sign, staff would consider the proposed sign appropriate only if certain conditions are met. These conditions' · include a requirement that no other free-standing signs are to be installed on the property. Specifically, the previously approved wall mounted signs are visible from all surface streets, precluding necessity for a free-standing ground based sign. Laura Cay Assistant Planner LCP:pef Attachments: Resolution No. 2389 Site Plan Sign Plan Building Elevations Dlrector of Community Devel opmen'~ ~ Comrnuni~' Devetoprnen~ Department J 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2389 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING A 46 FOOT HIGH, 100 SQUARE FOOT FREEWAY IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN AT 1571 EL CAMINO REAL The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That a proposed application, Use Permit 87-2 has been filed on behalf of Mr. Barry Hermanson of Chantry Ltd. to request authorization to install a 46 foot high, 100 square foot freeway identification pole sign at 1571 E1Camino Real. B. That a public hearing was duly calied, noticed and held on said application. Co That establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, evidenced by the following findings: 1. The site is located in the C-2 Commercial Zone. The use aplied for is in conformance with the Tustin Sign Code [Section 9481 (f)]. ' Fo Ge The sign advertises a use allowed in the C-2 Commercial Zone. That 'the establishment, maintenance, and' operation of the use applied for will not be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, nor to the general welfare of the City of Tustin, and should be granted. Proposed development shall be in accordance with the development policies adopted by the City Council, Uniform Building Codes as administered by the Building Official, Fire Code as administered by the Orange County Fire Marshal and street improvement requirements as administered by the City Engineer. This project is catagorically exempt {Class 11) from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Final development plans shall require the review and approval of the Community Development Department. 1 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2389 Page two II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 87-2 to authorize a 46 foot high, 100 square foot freeway pole sign at 1571 E1 Camino Real subject to the following conditions: The sign shall be constructed and installed pursuant to the submitted plans, or as herein modified, date stamped January 26, 1987. Any modifications to these plans require the approval of the Community Development Director and/or Planning Commission. B. No other, freestanding signs shall be installed on-site. C. All provisions and regulations of the TUstin Sign Code and applicable Building Codes shall be met. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 1987. Charles E. Puckett, Chairman Donna Orr, Recording Secretary LCP:pef 1 2 3 4 5 The 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2389 (d) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE C~TY OF TUSTIN, DENYING A 46 FOOT HIGH, 100 SQUARE FOOT FREEWAY IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN AT 1571 EL CAMINO REAL Planning Commission of the City of Tustln does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ae That a proposed application, Use Permit 87-2 has been filed on behalf of Mr. Barry Hermanson of Chantry Ltd. to request authorization to install a 46 foot high, 100 square foot freeway identification pole sign at 1571 E1 Camino Real. Bt That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application. C. This project is catagorically exempt (Class 11) from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. That establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use · applied for will, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons' residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, evidenced by the following findings: 1. The site is located in the C-2 Commercial Zone.' 2. There is a proliferation of pole signs in the area creating visual clutter. The applicant may install a freestanding ground based sign on the 'site with the appropriate permits. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 1987. Charles E. Puckett Chairman Donna Orr Recording 'Secretary LCP:pef Report to the Planning Commission Stem #4 DATE: SUBJECT: APPEALANT: JA#UARY 26, 1987 APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DENIAL OF SIGN PEP, HIT #UMBER 1830 HR. BRAI) STEINGRABER OH BEHALF .OF IMAGES FOR HAIR LOCATION: 1030 IRVIHE BLVD. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: ANY ACTION TAKEN CONCERNING THE SUBJECT CASE IS EXEMPT FROM REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CLASS II) ZONING: REQUEST: THAT TIlE COI~ISSION OVERRULE THE COF~IJNITY DEPARTMENT'S DENIAL OF SIGN PENMIT NUMBER 1830. DEVELOPMENT RECONMENDATION: It is recommended that the Commission uphold staff's dental of Sign Permit Number [830 based upon the ftndfng that the sign as installed is not consistent with the Tustln Sign Ordinance. Commission action may be taken by Minute Order. BACKGROUND: On an undetermined date, a business identification sign for Images for Hair (1030 Irvine Blvd.) was painted on the facia above the unit being occupied by said tenant. The sign was applied without required staff review and the mandatory sign permits. According to the applicant in this case, the sign was painted by a licensed sign contractor and the the appealant was aware that a sign permit may have been required. On August 1, 1986 the tenant was advised that the sign was illegally installed since proper permits were not obtained. The tenant was also informed that the sign as applied to the building did not comply with the Tustin Sign Ordinance in terms of copy size, and that from a design standpoint, the City has not in the past approved painted wall signs. Accordingly, the tenant was advised to remove the sign. Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Images for Hair page two After subsequent discussions with staff, and hts own review of the Stgn Ordinance, a sign permit was applled for. Based upon staff's Interpretation of the law, and from a general destgn standpoint, the permtt was denied. Following this denial, staff's action has been appealed to the Commfssion. CASE ANALYSIS: In reviewing this case, several issues should be considered. Specifically: 1. The application of the sign without first obtaining permits; 2. The method in which staff calculates sign area;. 3. General design criteria utilized by staff. Application of the Sign without permits-Asa point of contention, the appealant argues that the sign installed should notbe required to be removed because of costs involved. However, had the appealant and/or the sign contractor contacted the Planning Division (pursuant to Section 9412 of the Sign Ordinance) prior to application of the sign, issues involved in this case could have been reviewed, discussed, and resolved prior to any work being done. Therefore, any unnecessary costs incurred by the applicant could have been avoided. .Method in Which Sign Area is Cbtculated - There are several.sections of theSign Ordinance that are applicable to the case before the Commission. First, under "Definitions" (Section 9430) the following items are relevant. "Advertising Surface" n~ans the total area of the face of faces of the si~ structure designed to carry copy, whether or not there is a copy on a)l surfaces. Architectural design embellishments and structural elements are not construed to be defined as advertising surface. In the case of a sign of irregular shape, .the total area is defined to be that of a rectangle or circle, circumscribing the advertising surface. "Aggregate Area" means the total area of {he advertising surface. "Attached Sign" means any sign attached, painted, pasted, or affixed to a .building or affixed to the.external surface of a building. Staff's interpretation of these definitions as itapplied to the present case is summarized as follows: 1. Since there is not a "sign structure" involved (e.g. channel letters, sign can or plex-type face), the advertising surface in this instance is the facia upon which the sign is painted. The area of the facia is a total of 94.5 square feet. 2. That the definition of "attached sign" only identifies potential types of signs and does not authorize any particular type. In this manner signs ~'~ Community Development Depamment ~ ~Pianntng Commission Report Images for Hair page three that were in existence at the time of sign ordinance adoption would be covered. A second area of the Sign Code to be discussed pertains' to signs permitted for tenants located in a shopping center. Section 9494 provides that for front wall signs, a business may have one (1) sign of a size up to 15~ of the front wall not to exceed 75 square feet. In this case the tenant is only authorized 33 square feet (15~ of 220.5 sq.ft.) Staff's interpretation here is that the area of the actual sign structure has been deemed as the allowable square footage. In this case since the "sign structure" is interpreted to be the facia upon which the sign is painted, the area of the facia is considered to be the dimensions of the sign. In sum, the existing sign is considered to be approximately 61 square feet larger than permitted. The final relevant area of the sign code addresses non-conforming signs. Section 9460 specifically references painted wall signs and states: "Painted wall signs which do not comply with the requirements of this Chapter shall be brought into conformance within 120 days from the effective date of this Chapter and shall no longer be permitted as non-conforming uses." 'Staff ha~ interpreted this section in two ways. First that si.nce "painted.wall signs" are one of only tw~ types referenced in the non-conforming Section, it is .assumed there was intent to give particular attention to these signs. Secondly, since staff considers the wall area (in this case the facia) upon which the sign is painted to be the "advertising surface" and sai~ area generally exceeds the maximum square footage allowed, such signs are by definition not in compliance "with the requirements, of this chapter .... " General Design Criteria - In addition to general standards such as sign area allowed, staff when reviewing sign plans evaluates several other aesthetic items. Color, compatibility, relation to scale of structure served and clutter are all taken into consideration during .review. Authority for this review is identified in Section 9412 b of the Sign Code which states, "This review and approval shall consider the requirements of this chapter (the Sign Code), the Zoning Code, and applicable codes and policies of the City Council". By reference then, the general design review criteria established in the Zoning ~ode (Section 9272) must also be considered prior to issuance of a sign permit. The complete text of the design review aspect of the Zoning Code is included herein as Exhibit A. Under the authority given by the Design Review section, staff does not consider the sign appropriate in terms of appearance, design relationship to the structure served, or the surrounding community. Additionally, staff has concerns, that as required by the Design Review Guiding Principles, consideration has not been given toincorporation of design and colo~ promoting a homogeneous development. Community Development Department fP'lanning Commission Report Images for Hair page four Specifically, the cluttered appearance of script encompassing the entire facia above the suite (front and side elevations) is not consistant with symetrical balance found with other approved signs in the vicinity. In terms of design {scale) relationships the size of the sign is not proportional with the storefront served, nor with the remainder of the building. In fact, an element of the "Images" sign extends to an adjoining tenant's sign. This further detracts from the appearance in that the area of both signs can be viewed as one mass upon the facia. Additionally, this extension violates a guiding principle established in the design review section of the City Code in that .consideration was not given to harmony and proportion in the elements of a structure. Finally, and again delineated as a guiding principle of design review, staff cannot see where any attention was given to the sign design in terms of incorporation of the sign into the overall design of the entire development. A painted wall sign is not consistent with other types' of sign structure. COMCLUSIONS: Based upon review of the proposed sign and staff's interpretation of the Sign Code, it is concluded that the sign as installed may not remain as applied. To summarize, staff's findings in this matter are as follows': 1. .The sign is larger than the square footage maximum permitted in that the entire facia is considered the "sign structure". The existing sign is 94.5 square feet while only 33.~quare feet is allowed. 2. That. staff's interpretation that. the facia is the sign structure is supported by Sections g430and 9460 of the Sign Code. 3. No attempt has been made by the appealant to install a sign homogeneous with surrounding development. 4. The design of the sign is not compatible with design standards in terms of scale and/or clutter. Wi th staff's denial of Sign Permit No. 1830. The sign was applied to the building without proper review and required permits. The appealant by his own admission was aware that a permit was "probably" required yet authorized work without said permits. Therefore any argument that the sign should be permitted to remain because of costs is unfounded. these circumstances in mind staff recommends that the Commission -uphold JD:do attach: letter f,r,o,m, appealant ~ ' Exhibit A Design Review Criteria Community Dcvoiopmont Department Community Developmemt August 5, 1986 Images for Hatr 1090 ~rvtne Blvd. Tusttn, CA 926~0 Attention: Ltnda CERTIFIED Department of Community Development SUBdECT: POSTING OF BANNER WIllIOUT PERHITS A#D PLACEMENT OF UNAUTHORIZED PAZ#TED gALL SIG#. ! 10990 IRVT#E BLVD. Dear Ltnda: )~LEGAL AND Per our conversation on August 1st, I notified you that the new painted wall sign and the banner sign advertising "Grand Opening" either required permits or were not currently allowed by city code. First, the banner sign itself can be issued a temporary use permit the form of which is enclosed with this letter. Please fill it out and return to me with a $25.00 permit fee and a $50.00 refundable bond fee which is returned to you once the banner sign is removed. Secondly, the painted wall sign which has been installed on the butldlnq doe~ .OOt meet ~rrent City Code. Accord'~n~ to Tq~ttJ~ Si~n Ordinance, tenant identification only is allow&d~ therefore all verbaqe containing information on 'hburs o~eration, your telephone number ~nd a.n¥ other sign verba~e which doe~ n~ ~ontain the worus "Images tot Hair" must be removeda AlSO~ according to ~urrent design review stanUards~ the City of Tustin does not permit painted ~ail ' -signs. Therefore~ it will be necessary to contract with a sign maker to make a can sign or channeled letter sion to be installed at your location along with obtaining all necessary permits. Please contact me as soon as possible to initiate the permit procedures necessary for the banner sign. I will be willing to work with you on the placement of a new wall sign. I realize they are costly and this will take some time, therefore, please let me know your schedule and we will work together to get you the stgnage you need. Should you have any questions, or need additional information, please feel free to call me. LAURA CAY PICKUP, Assistant Planner LP:do enos. 300 Centennial Way · Tustin, California 92680 · (714) 544-8890 October 10, 1986 Department £~ ~_m_u tLi.ty' pevelopment CER/I~I~U M~IL #P 136 062 033 Business Owner Images for Hair 1030 Irvtne Blvd. Tustin, CA .92680 SUBJECT: PAINTEO WALL SIGN AT 1030 IRVINE BLVD., TUSTIN Dear Business Owner: Please refer to our previous correspondence regarding the subject sign dated August $, 1986. Although efforts were made to get permits for the sign, it was determined that' the Planning Commission must approve the permit. As of this date, the necessary information has not been filed and the sign remains in violation of the City Code by reason that a permit has not been issued. Please contact me as soon as possible to fill the necessary information. Also, it was noted that a business license has not been issued to this new business owner or name. Please contact Penni Foley at 544-8890 to initiate license procedures. Thank you for your prompt attention to these matters. Sincerely., LAURA CAY PICKUP {J Assistant Planner V LCP:em 300 Centennial Way · Tustin, California 92680 · (714) 544-8890 November 18, 1986 Mrs. Linda St~ingraber 1030 Irvine Blvd. Tustin, California 92680 Subject: Violation of City Code Unauthorized Sign Dear Mrs. Steingraber: It has been brought to the attention of this office that you are in violation of the Tustin Sign Ordinance which prohibits place- ment of banners, or similar advertising or decorating material prior to obtaining a Temporary Use Permit. Your property currently contains a painted wall sign installed without permits. Such sign must be removed immediately. As City Attorney for the City of Tustin, our office has been requested to bring legal action to enforce compliance with the pro- visions, of the Tustin City Code, if such compliance is not voluntar- ily given. Failure to comply will result in a separat~ offense being charged to you for each day, or portion thereof, that the violation continues. If we do not hear from the Community Development Department that this matter has been taken care of by Monday, December 1, 1986, we will assume that you do not intend to comply with the City's Ordinance. 300 Centennial Way · Tustin, California 92680 · (714) 544-8890 Mrs. Steingraber November 18, 1986 Page 2 We are'returning the plans you recently submitted to the city, as well as your check and permit application. As you will note, the plans have been marked to indicate they are unacceptable as the sign is too large, and the materials are unacceptable. Additionally, the plan fails to call out the sign colors, and only one set was submitted to the City. You may contact the Planning Department direct- ly regarding the inadequacy of ~our plans. Please note that your currently existing sign must be removed by December 1, and it may not remaia in place while you attempt to submit proper plans for a new sign. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact the undersigned directly. Very truly yours, CITY OF TUSTIN Suzanne D. Atkins Deputy City Attorney MAT:sb:D:ll/14/86 enclosures: 3 cc: Laura Pickup Chris Singleton William Huston f- ,.': ff C C APPLICATION FOR SI ,N PERMIT APPLICANT: PLEASE FILL IN SHADED AREA ONLY I USE INDELIBLE PENCIL' BALL POINT PEN OR OTHER [ ~] NON-ERASASLE SUBSTANCE · CITY OF TUSTIN ~:-' : ~ ~?~: ADD AL~R flEPAI R MOVING OEMONSTR, e ~, OWNER ZONIN~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ FREE STANOlNG PORTABLE [~~~~~~-- ~ ROOF FLAG OR PENNANT ~~~~ GROUND B~ED REAL ESTATE ~~~ ~ ~,~*', '~ ~ BOND REQUIRED DIRECTIONAL ' AMOUNT~c~i~ NO. TRA~ I.D. CO~TRUCTION IN~ECTION RECORD O.~.c. ~O. ]u.~. No. IVA~. ~O. APPROVAL - DATE I~PECTO~ I HOLE E~G. OE~T. APPROVAL. i O~SU~ORT ~NEW ~ADD ~ALTER ~RE~AI~ COMMENT BLDG. PE~ REC. NO, VALUATION $I $ PERMIT VALIDATION PERMIT EXPIRES (TEMPORARY) .1- Date: OF TUSTIN Commum~ Develo. pment Dept. 300 Centenfl,al Way Tustln, CA 92680 TEMPORARY USE P£RNZT Receipt No., % A petition t's hereby made to the Director, Community Development Department, pursuant to the provisions of Tustin City Ordinance {Sign Ordinance No. 684 and Ordinance 157) for consideration of the property and intent herein described. PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE. To request the following: Location of Display. or Event (Include Business Name"and Address) Applicant Name Address o City/State Zip Code Phone Number '- ~scription o~~Jor .Event* t)umber Of Otsplay{s) ~ Purpose Location of Display or Event *Should more space be' needed to complete this form, please use the reverse side. TO 8E COMPLETED ~Y THE CITY Permit Approved Amount of Bond Posted Yes No Bond Required Yes No Bond on File - Yes 'No Receipt No. of Bond Date Posted Remarks or Special Conditions: PERtIIT EXPIRATION DATE: ISSUED BY: Thi's permit is by the Co~unity Development Director. Issuance of this permit is descretiona~y and the use applied for is not allowed by right and is subject to revocation tf all conditions of approval are not met. Should the display or event continue beyond the expiration date, the applicant and property owner are subject, to formal abatement proceedings and possible loss of any ~onds posted with the City. The applicant and property owner aggPee to all of.the conditions imposed by this permit. '~ ,-~ '~, ,. , \ ' ./i !' Applicant Date- Property Owner Date CURRE#T TEMPORARY USE PER~ZT POLI~CY TEMPORARY SIG~S AND OUTDOOR SALES: 1. One display per building or street frontage. 2. Banners must be fixed to the building, hung below the roof line. 3. Banners must be of a cloth material and professionally made. 4. Decorative flags, bunting, etc., shall only be permitted for original grand openings-for a period of 30 days. Advertising for purposes other than grand openings is restricted to periods of up to 30 days. Oisplay of banners should be for special events only, and not for each promotion a nattonal--'ir~nchise might wish to publicize. All temporary use permits are issued subject to approval of the Otrecto~ of Community Development. 6. Any banner used for the sale, lease or rental of property may be issued one (1) 120 day permit per year or as authorized above. SPECIAL EVENTS ANO OUTDOOR SALES: 7. Temporary outdoor sales are limited to one sale per calendar quarter for each location. 8. Sales are limited for up to three days in duration, and only on weekends. 9. Temporary outdoor sales are allowed in all commercial zones (excluding professional office zones). 10. Any deviation from the above guidelines requires approval of the Director of Community Oevelopment. Should any permit be denied by the Director of Community Development, all decisions can be appealed to the Planning Commission. Corn munity Develop~ment Deparlment et, 9272 DESIGN REVIEW l~view Required (1) The City Council finds that poor quality in the exterior design, development and maintenance of structures, landscaping and general appearance affects the desirabil- ity of the neighboring and the community as a whole, and impairs the benefits of both potential and existing occupancy of other properties to the detriment of the public health, safety, comfort and general welfare. (2) The City Council further finds that quality evaluations are necessary to fully accom- plish the purImse of regulations designed to control such matters, since such regulations cannot both allow reasonable latitude for diversity and originality of design and s~ill be specific enough to control all the aspects of the different uses that can adversely ~Tect the community. The Community Development Department is hereby established to accomplish the above objectives and shall have the following responsibilities: (3) REV: 7-8~ LU-2-66 TUSTIN CITY CODE ZONING 9272a(3Xa) (a) To provide for the review of building design, site planning and site development in order to protect the increasing value, standards and importance of land and development in the City due to the urbanization of Orange County. (b) To retain and strengthen the unity and order of the visual community. (c) To ensure that new uses and structures enhance their sites and are harmonious with the highest standards of improvements in the surrounding area and total community. (4) In carrying out the functions of design review, consultant services may be utilized as budgeted by the City Council. (Ord. No. 587, Sec. 2) b Scope of Jurisdiction Prior to the issuance of any building permit, including new structures or major exterior alteration or enlargement of existing structures, building to be relocated, and signs to be constructed or modified, the Community Development Director shall approve the site plan, elevations and landscaping for such development. (Ord. No. 587, Sec. 2) c Conditions of Approval The Community Development Director shall approve the submitted plans if he finds that the location, size, architectural features and general appearance of the proposed development will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, the occupancy thereof, or the community as a whole. In making such findings, the Direct6r shall consider'the following items: (1) Height, bulk and area of buildings. (2) Setbacks and site planning. (3) Exterior materials and colors. (4) Type and pitch of roofs. (5) Size and spacing of windows, doors and other openings. (6) Towers, chimneys, roof structures, flagpoles, radio and television antennae. REV: 7-85 LU-2-66.1 TUSTIN CITY CODE ZONING 9272¢(7) ~7) Landscaping, parking area design and traffic circulation. (8) Location, height and standards of exterior illumunation. (10) Location and appearance of equipment located outside of an enclosed structure. (11) Location and method of refuse storage. (12) Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the neighborhood. (13) Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures to existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. (14) Proposed signing. (15) Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council. d Procedures and Time Limits (1) The Community Development Department shall review all applications for use permit, variance and other proceedings subject to public hearing before the Planning Commission, and shall render to the Planning Commission a report of its review, observations and recommendation prior to the date of such public hearing. (2) Pertinent information shall be furnished to the Community Development Department to enable review and evaluation of proposed developments. (3) The decision of the Co--unity Development Director in matters of original jurisdiction and those referred to him by the Planning Commission or City Council shall be final, Unless appealed in writing as herein provided. (4) Development shall commence within a period of eighteen months, other- wise, a new evaluation and review shall be required prior to any development. e Guiding Principles Implementation of the development preview process relative to external design shall be guided by the following principles: (1) Individual initiative shall be encouraged. Control shall be reduced to the minimum extent possible, while insuring that the goals stated in this Chapter are achieved to the fullest possible extent. (2) Good architectural character is based upon the suitability of a structure for its purposes, upon the appropriate use of sound materials and upon the principles of harmony and proportion in the elements of the structure. (3) Good architectural character is not, in itself, more costly than poor architectural character and is not dependent upon the particular style of architecture selected. (4) When considering signs, particular attention shall be given to incorporating the design, including colors, of the sign into the over-all design ofthe entire development, so as to achieve homogeneous development. (5) Building to be relocated must be previewed as to their compatibility with neighboring structures and with existing or proposed structures on the same site. (Ord. No. 587, Sec. 2) REV: 1-79 Report to the Planning Commission ITEM# 5 DATE: S~4E~: January 26, 1987 REPORT ON COUNCIL ACT[ON$- January 19, 1987 Oral presentatt on. do Attachments: Ctty Council Action Agenda - January 19, 1987 Community Development Department ACTION AGENDA OF A REGULAR ~EETING OF THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 19, 1987 7:00 P.M. 7:04 I. CALL TO ORDER ALL PRESENT II. ROLL CALL III. PROCLAMATION PRESENTED TO THE OFFICERS IV. 1. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OFFICER OF THE MONTH DURING 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS DIRECTED STAFF TO 1. PROPOSED RANCHWOOD/BELLEWICK ANNEXATION NO. 138 PROTEST HEARING PREPARE A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE TERRITORY The proposed annexation was initiated by Council on October 6, 1986. ANNEXED WITHOUT AN The area consists of approximately 20 acres located at the southeasterly ELECTION corner of Irvine Boulevard and Browning Avenue which is fully developed with 80 single-family dwellings known as the Bellewick Homeowners Association. Recommendation: Direct staff to prepare a resolution making one of the following findings regarding the value of written protests: A) Terminate the proceedings if written protests have been filed and not withdrawn by 50% or more of the registered voters within the affected territoryl OR B) Order the territory annexed without an election. NONE V. PUBLIC INPUT AT 7:16, THE COUNCIL RECESSED TO A CLOSED SESSION WITH THE CITY A1-FORNEY TO DECIDE WHETHER TO INITIATE LITIGATION, BASED ON EXISTING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ON WHICH THE CITY AITORNEY WILL AOVISE THE COUNCIL UNOER THE AUTHORITY OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNNENT COOE SECTION 54956.g(c). THE COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 7:39 P.M. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR APPROVED 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 5, 1987, REGULAR MEETING APPROVED 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,146,845.65 RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT'OF $150,724.36 APPROVED STAFF 3. RECOMI~NDATION LAMBERT SCHOOL LEASE RENEWAL Renew the lease with the Tustin Unified School District for the use of Lambert School for a period of one year commencing February 1, 1987, and ending January 31, 1988, at an annual cost of $18,600.00 as recommended by the Community Services Department. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page I 1-19-87 PROVED STAFF 4. _COlelENOATI:ON APPROVED STAFF 5. RECOI~IENDAT[ON ADOPTED RESOLUTION 6. NO. 87-8 ADOPTED RESOLUTION 7. ]~.0. 87-9 APPROVED STAFF 8. RECOI~IENDATION REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM ORDINANCE NO. 949 REGULATING SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES Grant the request from Elizabeth Howard's Curtain Call-Dinner Theater for exemption to Ordinance No. 949 on the basis of causing great hardship and financial loss when the facility is utilized as a restaurant, as recommended by the Administrative Services Depart- ment. PROPOSED EVENINGSIDE/RAINBOW ANNEXATION NO. 139 Authorize staff to advertise a public hearing for February 2, 1987, on Council's intent to adopt a resolution as application for subject annexation as requested by 34 property owners in an area bounded by Irvine Boulevard on the south, Browning Avenue on the west, La Colina on the north, and the Irvine Ranch on the east, as recom- mended by the Community Development Department. RESOLUTION NO. 87-8 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 12732 (SYCAMORE GLEN) Approve Final Tract Map 12732 for the Sycamore Glen condominium project located in East Tustin Phase I, Area 2, by adoption of Resolution No. 87-8 as recommended by the Community Development Department and Planning Commission. RESOLUTION NO. 87-9 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF TUSTIN APPROVING FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 12759 (EAST TUSTIN APARTMENTS) Approve Final Tract Map No. 12759 for the East Tustin Apartments project located north of the Santa Ana Freeway, west of Jamboree, east of E1 Camino Real, by adoPtion of Resolution No. 87-9 as recom- mended by the Community Development Department and Planning Commis- sion. EXTENSION OF CURRENT EMPLOYEE CONTRACTS FOR EARL ROWENHORST AND REED JENSEN Approve extension of subject agreements, VII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - None. VIII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION - None. IX. OLD BUSINESS ADOPTED RESOLUTION 1. NO. 87-11 ELECTION CONSOLIDATION - RESOLUTION NO. 87-11 Pursuant to Council direction at the January 5, 1987, meeting, staff has prepared subject resolution to consider consolidation of the municipal election with the statewide general election held in November of even- numbered years. Recommendation: Adopt the following resolution setting the matter of the proposed consolidation of elections for a public hearing on February 2, 1987, and prescribing notice. RESOLUTION NO. 87-11 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO REQUIRE ITS GENERAL MUNI- CIPAL ELECTION TO BE CONSOLIDATED WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION AND FIXING A TIME AND PLACE OF PUBLIC HEARING THEREON CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 2 1-5-87 X. NEW BUSINESS POLICY FOR SIDEWALKS TO BE UNIFORm4 WIDTH OF 5 FEET 1. WIDTH OF SIDEWALKS IN THE INDUSTRIAL AREAS A request from the Planning Commission for a formal policy decision from Council regarding sidewalk widths and requirements in the industrial areas. On two separate occasions at the request of developers, projects were granted 5-foot sidewalk widths in lieu of the full 8-foot widths required by Council Resolution No. 81-4. Since then, sidewalk require- ments have been established on a project-by-project basis subject to site circumstances, proposed use, and specific zoning regulations. Engineering staff indicates a uniform policy for 5-foot, utility clear sidewalks for the entire industrial area is appropriate, except areas with concentrated retail uses. Sidewalk meandering would be subject to specific design guidelines of specific plans and other documents. Com- munity Development staff .supports this position with the note that Plan- ning Commission be allowed to deviate from those standards if considered appropriate. Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. APPROVED STAFF RECO~NDATION 2. SANTA ANA FREEWAY (I-5)/COSTA MESA FREEWAY (RTE. 55) INTERCHANGE MODIFI- CATION CalTrans is planning complete modification of subject interchange along with widening of both freeways within the immediate vicinity of the interchange. Recommendation: Approve the Freeway Agreement with the State of California for Stage II and Stage III work on the I-5/Rte. 55 Inter- change Modification Project; and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute same as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. APPROVED STAFF RECO~ENDATION WITH CONDITION THAT WE )(AVE A REVIEW IN THREE YEARS AND THE TENANT AND LANDLORD SHALL AGREE FOR A RENEWAL OPTION 3. COLUMBUS TUSTIN PARK CO~CESSION STAND LEASE AGREEMENT An agreement for the use of the concession stand at Columbus Tustin Park. Mr. David Ascher has decided to make the concession stand a for- profit corporation with the intention of making donations to non-profit youth organizations in the Tustin area. Recommendation: Approve the agreement with Mr. David Ascher for the lease of Columbus Tustin Concession Stand for a three-year term, with the City to receive 10% of gross receipts (but not less than $100 per month) as recommended by the Community Services Department. ROOPTED RESOLUTION 4. NO. 87-10 VISUAL FLIGHT RULES - JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT - RESOLUTION NO. 87-10 The proposed resolution provides that the County of Orange and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) should adopt regulations requiring general and commercial aircraft arriving/departing John Wayne Airport to parallel the Costa Mesa Freeway (Route 55), which would result in significant decrease in the number of overflights in residential areas. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 3 1-19-87 Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. If Council desires, adopt th~--f-6-1Towi ng ~ APPOINTED ~. 5. BELLEVILLE TO SERVE ON THE CO~ITTEE RESOLUTION NO. 87-10 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, ADOPTING A RECOMMENDED NOISE ABATMENT FLIGHT PATH APPOINTMENT OF CITIZEN REPRESENTATIVE TO AVIATION NOISE ABATEMENT COM- MITTEE Mayor Saltarelli requested subject item on agenda for Council considera- tion. AUTHORIZED THE 6. MAYOR TO SEND A LETTER STATING OUR POSITION THAT ll4E MARINE CORPS STOP FLIGHTS OF THE Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. MARINE HELICOPTERS OVERFLIGHTS Mayor Saltarelli requested Council consider adoption of a position urging the Marine Corps to stop flights of the CH-53E Super Stallion helicopter over populated areas until there is conclusive evidence the CH-53E SUPER STALLION helicopter is safe. OVER POPULATED AREAS UN~IL THERE IS CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE 1}mE HELICOPTER IS SAFE. XI. REPORTS RATIFIED WITH THE 1. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS - JANUARY 12, 1987 ~--'CEPTION OF APPEALING HIT TO O~ERATE A All actions of the Planning Commission become final unless appealed hy -~GE FAMILY DAY CARE the City Council or member of the public. .- CENTER AT 13781 MARSHALL LANE. NOTICES TO BE GIVEN TO RESIDENTS ON MARSHALL LANE. RECEIVED AND FILED 2. INVESTMENT SCHEDULE AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1986 Recommendation: Receive and file the report dated January 13, 1987, as recommended by the Finance Department. RECOMFIENDED THAT 3. THIS BE REFERRED TO THE PLANNING C0P~qlSSION AND THEN BROUGHT BACK TO THE COUNCIL PARKING ISSUES City Council has recently expressed concern regarding parking issues impacting new development in Tustin as follows: 1) Research & Develop- ment (R&D) parking standards vs. office parking standards; 2) Mid-size parking stalls vs. compact size parking stalls; and 3) Parking manage- ment strategies such as flex plan to offset traffic increases and park- ing needs. Recommendation: That the City Council: 1) Instruct staff to initiate amendments to the Municipal Code to define R&D uses and establish parking standards for such uses; increase the amount of 'permitted compact parking spaces, the minimum dimensions for such spaces, and decrease the minimum driveway aisle width; and provide opportunities for joint use of parking when approved by the Planning Commission; and 2) Instruct staff to utilize minimum project size and employee thresh- olds in requiring parking and transportation system management strategies as a condition of approval on new projects. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 4 1-19-87 XlI. OTHER BUSINESS _,iD WE ~AD THE SAMPLE OF THE FINANCIAL VISIBILITY REPORT THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO RECEIVE AND PERNAPS ~E COULD GET WITH RON NAULT AND BILL HUSTON THIS WEEK. KENNEDY SAID THE NEW RESTAURANT AT REDHILL AND EDINGER WAS EXTRAORDINARY AND S~E REQUESTED THAT THE PAYOR SEND THEN A LETTER OF COI~qENDATION. IF THERE IS GOING TO BE FURTHER DELAY ON FIXING THE PARKING STRUCTURE, KENNEOY SUGGESTED THAT IT BE FENCEO AS CHILOREN ARE PLAYING ON ~ AROUNO IT. KENNEOY REQUESTEO THAT THE COUNCIL SCHEOULE DISCUSSION OF RESOLUTION NO. 86-S6 FROM THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH REGARDING THEIR INTENTION TO CREATE AN OCEANIC PARK/NATIONAL PRESERVE. THRYER TO HAVE A RECOFIqENOATION FOR' THE NEXT I~EETING REGARDING LARGE TRUCKS PARKING ON STREETS. EDGAR SUGGESTEO A SIGN ON NEWPORT INDICATING THE CIJANGE FROM BRYAN AVENUE TO PAIN STREET. SALTARELLI REPORTED THAT THURSDAY, PLAZA LAFAYETTE WILL BE OPENING AT NEWPORT AND IRVINE BLVO. THERE WILL BE A SCHOOL DISTRICT I~EETING TUESOAY NIGHT TO OISCUSS FEES FOR CONSTRUCTION AND RECOIqMENOEO THAT STAFF OR THE PAYOR BE THERE TO VOICE OUR CONCERNS RELATIVE TO A PROPER AOMIN- ISTRATIVE PROCEOURE BEING ESTABLISHED BEFORE ANY URGENCY UROINANCE. SALTARELL! RECOMMENDED THAT WE A~NJOURN OUR ~ETING TO WEDNESDAY AT 4:00 P.M. IN THE EVENT IT IS I~CESSARY TO DISCUSS THIS PA'rTER. FARELLI RECOMMENOEO THAT THE ~ETING BE AOJOURNEO IN I, IEMORY OF FRANK JOSEPH HAHN. RECESSED TO XIII. CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION FOR PERSONNEL MATTERS City Council will recess to a Closed Session to consider personnel matters pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. 8:41 XIV. ADJOURNMENT Recessed to the Redevelopment Agency Meeting, thence' to a Closed Session as stated above, thence adjqurn to an adjourned meeting on Wednesday at 4:00 P.M., and thence to the next Regular Meeting on Monday, February 2, 1987, at 7:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 5 1-19-87 AGENDA OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUSTIN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY JANUARY 19, 1987 7:00 P.M. 8:41 1. CALL TO ORDER ALL 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT APPROVED 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 5, 1987, REGULAR MEETING Recommendation: Approve. APPROVED 4. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS Recommendation: Approve demands for the month of December, 1986, in the amount of $10,440.90 as recommended by the Finance Department. APPROVED 5. 'AFF CO~ENDATION PARKING AGREEMENT FOR 333 EL CAMINO REAL An agreement allowing the grantee to make monthly, non-refundable payments to the Redevelopment Agency for parking as permitted by Specific Plan No. 1. Once the downtown parking structure is repaired and reopened, the agreement allows the applicant to lease the required five spaces from the structure. Recommendation: Approve the Agreement and Grant of Parking Rights with Richard Rengel; and authorize the Chairman and Recording Secretary to execute same for 333 E1 Camino Real as recommended by the Community Development Department. HOESTEREY 6. OTHER BUSINESS ASKED THE PROGRESS OF RUBY'S RESTAURANT. CHRIS SHINGLETON RESPONDED THAT THE PROJECT DEVELOPER IS HRVING SOME FINANCING PROBLEMS. THIS WILL COME BACK FOR OESIGN REVXEW, HOPEFULLY WITHIN 60 DAYS. 8:44 7. ADJOURNMENT To the next Regular Meeting on Monday, February 2, 1987, at 7:00 p.m. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION AGENDA Page I 1-19-87