Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MINUTES 06-26-18 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION .TUNE 26, 2018 7:03 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Given. INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Lumbard All present. ROLL CALL: Chair Lumbard Chair Pro Tem Kozak Commissioners Mason, Smith, Thompson PUBLIC CONCERNS: Thompson Thompson introduced some members in the audience, True Tamplan, who is part of an executive's mentorship program, along with Kevin and Sean Liam, students at USC and UCLA. 7:05 p.m. Opened/Closed the Public Concerns Section. CONSENT CALENDAR: Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES— MAY 22, 2018 Minutes of the May 22, 2098 RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission That the Planning Commission approves the Minutes of the May 22, meeting. 2018 Planning Commission meeting as provided. Motion: It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Mason to approve the Minutes of the.May 22, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2018-02 PROPERTY OWNER/ Parke Miller APPLICANT: Lincoln Property Company 18200 Von Karman Ave., Suite 780 Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 1700 through 1787 Flight Way REQUEST: A request to establish a master sign plan for the Flight at Tustin Legacy's creative office development. Minutes—Planning Commission June 26,2018—Page 1 of 8 ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15311 (Class 11) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4366 approving CUP 2018-02 authorizing the establishment of a master sign plan for the Flight at Tustin Legacy office development. Hutter Presentation given. Thompson Thompson's questions/comments generally included: he asked if all signs would be illuminated or only the signs on the building and referred to Condition 2.7 which addresses illumination; he voiced his concern with regards to the higher signs (i.e. off of Barranca Parkway) illuminating towards the neighborhoods on the north side; he asked how the signs would be addressed for the businesses located within the development; and Thompson asked the applicant for the background on the proposed paper airplane sign being that the Legacy's arches represent the Hangar. Hutter In response to Thompson's questions, Huffer described the following, which generally included: there are different illumination applications and designs for the varying signs, some will be illuminated internally (i.e. the tenant monument signs will have a "soft glow" on the sides and the tenant names will also be illuminated.); the sculptural directional signs will have "edge" lighting on the paper airplane display and the other would simply be lighting the logo; the monument signs off of Barranca Parkway will not be seen by the residents to the north and the nearest residential is Amalfi development; and the tenant monument signage for the internal businesses are addressed in the Conditions of Approval, the applicant will submit a more refined copy at a later date. Smith Smith asked if there are any other rooftop approved signs in Tustin. Hutter Per Huffer, there are currently no other rooftop signs in Tustin. Mason Mason's comments/concerns generally included: the signage being different than what is customary but unique to the design of the building; she asked if there is a condition requiring a usage of the fonts and that the only unique branding of a company would be on the signage on the roof, that it would never appear on the art wall, would never appear on the signage and it would stay consistent regardless of the company or brand; and Mason asked if the landlord would ever be able to sell the art wall for commercial purposes or advertising. Hutter Hutter's response to Mason's questions generally included: that the master sign program does include specific fonts which were displayed throughout the sign program; the landlord does reserve the ability to approve a different font but primarily the font within the sign program will Minutes—Planning Commission June 26,2018--Page 2 of 8 be encouraged; the art tower would not be promoting a business or a product and would go through the design review process to see what images are being proposed; and Huffer confirmed Mason's statement that the landlord would never be able to sell the art wall for commercial purposes or advertising. Smith Smith referred to the signage and asked about the developer's flexibility to use other fonts, including colors (i.e. "Campbell's soup and Sera font"). Nutter In response to Smith's questions, Huffer referred to the staff report, which states that the developer's use of other fonts would be particularly for the tenant sign area, where as names and logos must be white. She added that corporate logo type names are permitted if approved by the building ownership association. Kozak Kozak voiced his concern with the rooftop signs (referred to Conditions No. 2.3 and 2.5). He asked how the two (2) rooftop signs would be monitored for maintenance and if there would be an inspection program. Also, Kozak asked if it would be up to the tenant or property owner regarding the maintenance of the rooftop signs. Hutter Per Hutter, if it is brought to the City's attention, that the signs are not in good condition, then the City will follow up and pursue a remedy. 7.25 p.m. Opened up the Public Comments Section. Bishop John Bishop, JB3D design firm, commented on the following, which generally included: favorable comments towards the City for working with him on the Flight project and sign program; the challenge of the building skins (i.e. tenant signs 1 sign companies, patched bricks, patched stucco); perforated patterns, metals and such are used on the buildings and his design firm's job is to make sure they protect the architecture; the rails, fins, tenant monuments, lighting will draw interest; the design/brand of the Tustin Legacy and the Hangars is iconic (the 2 arches resemble the Hangars) — purposely did not incorporate those; timeless font; wanted it to be sculptural; subtle reinforcement and the simplest form with the concept of Flight; installed the parking structure signage; and can see the sophistication, clean graphics. Mason Mason questioned the font used for the tenant name and if a national brand name were brought in, would the applicant defer to the tenant on what signage the tenant uses or would they encourage the tenant to use the existing font for consistency. Bishop Mr. Bishop's response to Mason's question generally included: the white font is consistent; he used examples - Apple Products could have the apple emblem on the sign in white, Campbell's Soup emblem could also be in white font on the sign; tenant monuments have one (1) font; allowing those brands (i.e. national/international) that typically have gone through a very detailed process to come up with a brand, it is important for them to be able to use it and for visitors to recognize who they are; it is Minutes—Planning Commission June 26,2018—Page 3 of 8 purposefully done to allow flexibility and to not allow damage to the buildings (i.e. fin faces would get replaced when a tenant moves out); the tenants at the Mess Hall have names listed on individual panels and creative brands which gives it extra visual texture; and the art towers do not have brands because they are intended to be art. Smith Smith asked Mr. Bishop what involvement he had with the rooftop signage. Bishop Mr. Bishop's response to Smith's question generally included: the client wanted rooftop signage to be seen by airplanes (note: the rooftop signage cannot be seen from the ground); he has worked on similar rooftop signage near the Staple Center in Los Angeles; the client's desire is to keep the maintenance up on the signage. student A member from the audience, who did not fill out a speaker form, made favorable comments regarding the paper airplane signage and he asked how people would figure out it is a sign. He also asked if anything could be done to make the paper airplane more "sign-like". Bishop In response to the previous questions, Bishop stated that there are a series of directional signs that have names and arrows pointing visitors driving in the right direction. The sign was intended to be a sculpture with a secondary directional sign and it was meant to be a whimsical creative piece. Mr. Bishop added that the directional signage will have reflective lettering (not lit). 7.42 p.m. Closed the Public Comments Section. Thompson Thompson made favorable comments towards the sign program (i.e. size of signs impressive, addresses stand out, sensitivity to non-illumination to the residential side; rooftop signage). He was in favor of the sign program. Smith Smith echoed the favorable comments previously mentioned (i.e. simplicity of the fonts, logos, branding, loves the concept). He added that this is a marketing property being that it is within eye shot view of the John Wayne Airport. Smith also commented that this is a "gateway property to say this is where Tustin is" and asked the Commission if they would consider discussing that the City work with the developer about adding the City's logo to the rooftop signage to recognize the City of Tustin. Binsack In response to Smith's previous comments, with regards to City logos, Binsack stated that if the Commission is desirous of Smith's recommendation, collectively, staff could present language to the Commission to amend the resolution to allow them an opportunity to delegate that responsibility to staff. A decision could be made then staff could work with the applicant on size, proportionality, etc. on the City logos being added. Minutes—Planning Commission June 26,2018—Page 4 of 8 Lumbard Lumbard added clarification that the proposed amended item would not have to go to the City Council, unless it is approved by the Commission collectively. Binsack Binsack stated that it would not have to go to City Council, unless appealed by either a member of the public or the applicant. Thompson Thompson did not feel the Commission should be changing the applicant's idea. If the City wants logo identification, he suggested adding the City logo to the Blimp Hangar, and then the City could maintain it to ensure it stays true to form. Thompson was uncomfortable adding the City logo to a private landowner's building. Smith Smith then added that technically the applicant is not in a position to have signage on the rooftops, with the exception of the Commission's approval. Mason Mason was in favor of Smith's idea, and she thought the entire project was creative and unique. The more flexibility, the more space to market the company or brand in various recognizable ways in order to attract tenants. She welcomed Smith's consideration on adding the City logo to the rooftop signs. Mason was in support of the sign program, but did not want to hold up approval to the applicant, but add consideration to the developer of designating this to use an innovative approach to allowing the larger tenants to get exposure on the rooftops. Smith Smith did not want to hold up the approval process being that he was excited about the project moving forward. Lumbard Lumbard asked Smith to clarify whether he was suggesting the City's logo or City of Tustin (i.e. project name at Tustin Legacy) idea. Smith Smith deferred to staff to work with the applicant on the logo idea. Kozak Kozak thought Smith's idea was innovative, but he voiced his concern with the City logo or the City of Tustin's name next to a commercial advertisement because it might appear to be an endorsement. Lumbard Lumbard reiterated that the Commission does not want to hold up the project and he encouraged staff/applicant to discuss City identification on the rooftops. If there is not, or the builder is not willing to do it, at least staff asked. But if there is, perhaps staff could be innovative. Smith Smith could not help but feel that this is an opportunity for staff to work with the applicant. Lumbard Lumbard was also in favor of encouraging staff and the applicant to discuss this idea further. Minutes—Planning Commission June 26,2018—Page 5 of 8 Bobak Per Bobak, since the idea is not included in the Master Sign Program, in order to have staff consider the issue and talk to the applicant, a condition would have to be added to the Conditions of Approval. If the Commission, collectively, is considering the idea, the item could be brought back as a design review. Binsack Binsack added there is some language that staff can work out later but still approve the plan, if the Commission is desirous of doing that, but give staff the opportunity to work with the applicant as well. At this point in time, nothing would have to be brought back to the Commission. Binsack read some verbiage to the Commission regarding incorporating rooftop signs. Lumbard Lumbard asked if the City has a review process for the rooftop signage as it currently stands. Binsack Binsack confirmed that the City does currently have a review process for rooftop signage, but not with the City's logo which is why a condition would have to be added to the Conditions of Approval. Again she stated that nothing would come back to the Commission. As per the language within the resolution, the City would propose adding Condition No. 2.12 which would state: "that the rooftop signs shall incorporate the City of Tustin logo and/or City branding, if desired by the City. The location and size of the logo and/or branding shall be determined by the Community Development Director at the time of permit application. The associated Master Sign Program and/or graphics shall be amended accordingly". Lumbard Lumbard reiterated that the Commission does not want to hold the project up over Smith's suggestion. Kozak Kozak was in favor of the program. He made favorable comments regarding the signs. 7.'58 p.m. Re-opened the Public Comments Section. Applicant Per Mr. Bishop, if he asks the client to add the City seal/logo, it would have to be fairly big in order for people to read it. He suggested that staff and the applicant consider either having the word "Tustin" as the solution and/or maybe "Tustin Legacy". Mr. Bishop also would want the signs to be effective and affordable in its maintenance. The City seal would be tough to write and to keep maintained versus having "Tustin" and the scale of those word or words would be such that one could actually see it since the idea was to only have one (9) logo on the rooftops, per the client. 7.59 p.m. Closed the Public Comments Section. Smith Smith commented on the language Binsack suggested could be added to the Conditions of Approval. Minutes—Planning Commission June 26, 2018—Page 6 of 8 Binsack The addition of Condition No. 2.12 will state that the rooftop signs shall incorporate the City of Tustin logo and/or City branding, if desired by the City. The location and size of the logo and/or branding, shall be determined by the Community Development Director at the time of permit application. The associated graphics of the Master Sign Program shall be amended accordingly. Lumbard Lumbard asked Bobak if the words "if feasible" and "required or desired by the City" should be added to Conditions of Approval. Thompson Thompson's final comment is that he would want what can collaboratively be worked out between the City and the applicant. Motion: It was moved by Smith to adopt Resolution No. 4366, as amended. Seconded by Kozak. Motion carried 5-0. 8:03 p.m. Closed the Public Hearing. None. REGULAR BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack Binsack informed the Commission that the City Council approved the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan. There will also be more outreach with regards to whether or not First Street will be narrowed. Substantial modifications were made to the conceptual plan as well. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Mason No concerns. IHOP did not change their name to IHOB. It was only a temporary name change. Smith No concerns. Thompson Thompson attended the following meetings/events: 5/24: 1-5 Widening meeting 6/21: Mayor's Business Recognition Luncheon 6/21: Symposium to recognize UCI Professor Betty Olson • 6/19: City Council Meeting - DCCSP - kudos to the public because they care about their community. 7/9: Thompson's going back to school for six (6) months and a formal request has been submitted to the City Council. Kozak Kozak attended the following meetings/events: 6/19: City Council meeting • 6/21: Mayor's Business Recognition Luncheon Minutes—Planning Commission June 26, 2018—Page 7 of 8 Kozak He has also been attending the Concerts in the Park, Kudos, to Director Wilson and staff! Happy 4th Of July everyonel Lurnbard Lum,bard attended the following meetings/events: 0 6/1 Tustin Street Fair & Chili Cookoff 0 6/5: Annual classical dance center recital * 6/21, Mayor's Business Recognition Luncheon, 6 6/21: He participated in the world's largest swim lesson at Blue Buoy Lumbard asked that the meeting adjourn in celebration of Cole Kennon Gallagher's birthday (June 13, 2018). &15 p,rug. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is, scheduled for Tuesday, July 10, 2018, at 7.-00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300, Centennial Way, AUSTIN LO'B"AAD Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Minutes- Planning Commission June 26, 2018 -Page 8 of 8