HomeMy WebLinkAboutDR 01-003
DATE:
MARCH 19, 2001
,:,y 0
(;,C~,~
---- _._._--_..._._---~ ------ ~
~......,)
.-~ ..,....-.
Inter-Com ,)~~
TO: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
FROrJi: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW 01-003
APPLICANT: GALARDI GROUP REALTY CORP
WIENERSCHNITZEL RESTAURANT
4440 VON KARMAN AVENUE, SUITE 222
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
ATTN: BARBARA FORBES
PROPERTY
OWNERS: ALICE B. HOLMES, TRUSTEE
HOLMES FAMILY TRUST
11542 PLANTERO DRIVE
SANTA ANA, CA 92705
LOCATION: 105 EL CAMINO REAL
ZONING: FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN - COMMERCIAL,
RESTAURANT USE
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS: THIS PROJECT IS EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15270,
OF TITLE 14, CHAPTER 13 OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF
REGULA nONS (GUIDELINES FOR THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT) WHICH STATES THAT
CEQA DOES NOT APPLY TO PROJECTS THAT ARE
REJECTED OR DISAPPROVED BY A PUBLIC AGENCY
REQUEST:
AUTHORIZATION TO PAINT THE ROOF OF THE EXISTING
DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 105 EL
CAMINO REAL BRIGHT YELLOW
RECOMMENDATION
Pleasure of the Zoning Administrator.
Zoning Administrator Report
DR 01-003
March 19,2001
Page 2
BACKGROUND
On February 25,1974, Use Permit 74-01 was approved for a 1,530 square foot drive-
through restaurant. The building was approved as a wood sided building with a cedar
shake roof. In February 2001, it was brought to the attention of City staff that the roof
had been repainted with a bright yellow color. On December 4, 2000, City staff notified
the store manager that the roof color was not in compliance with Tustin City Code
Section 9272(c) in that approval of a Design Review is required prior to changing the
exterior color of the building. The store manager informed staff that the roof color
change was a corporate decision and requested that staff contact the corporate offices.
On January 4, 2000, City staff spoke with the property owner's representative and
informed her that she would have to submit an application on or before January 12,
2001. On January 12, 2001, the applicant had not submitted the application, and a
second notice of violation was issued. On January 24, 2001, the applicant spoke with
City staff regarding the Design Review process and the information required for
submitting an application. On January 31, 2001, the applicant had not submitted an
application and a third notice of violation was issued with a deadline of February 7,
2001, for application submittal. The applicant did not submit an application by the
February 7, 2001, deadline and the case was referred to the City Attorney. On
February 14, 2001, the applicant submitted Design Review 01-003 for the Zoning
Administrator's consideration.
Site and Surrounding Conditions
The site is located on the southeast corner of First Street and EI Camino Real and is
developed with a drive-through restaurant (Attachment A - Location Map). The site is
within the Town Center Redevelopment Project Area and the First Street Specific Plan
Area. Surrounding uses include the Learning Village Pre-School to the east, office and
retail uses to the west, a car wash, tire store and vacant parcel to the north across First
Street, and a residential use in a commercial zone directly to the south.
DISCUSSION
The initial building plans for the building do not specify exterior colors, but they do
specify a cedar shake roof. Currently, the exterior of the building is painted white with
red fascia and doors. The signage and awnings on the building consist of red with
yellow accent colors. The applicant is proposing to change the roof color to a bright
yellow with a pale yellow color trim around the window areas. (Attachment B -
Submitted Plans). No changes to the exterior wall colors or signage are proposed.
In determining whether to approve the Design Review, the Zoning Administrator must
determine whether or not the location, size, architectural features, and general
appearance of the proposed colors would impair the orderly and harmonious
development of the area, the present or future development therein, the occupancy
,..-~
Zoning Administrator Keport
OK 01-003
March 19, 2001
Page 3
thereof, or the community as a whole. Consideration in this case needs to be given
specifically to exterior materials, colors, and signage. In making these findings, the Zoning
Administratorwill need to consider the following items:
1. Exterior materials and colors: The building consists of wood siding
painted white with red trim accents and doors. The roof material is
cedar shake. The proposed color change of bright yellow is out of
character and not complementary to the style of the building or the
existing white and red exterior paint scheme. Other more integrated
colors that compliment the existing building exterior could be
developed.
2. Appearance and desiqn relationships: The overall color palettes for
properties surrounding the project site consist of subdued and
integrated color schemes that compliment the building exteriors. Staff
has included a table that identifies the color scheme of the surrounding
properties (Attachment C - Surrounding Property Photos) which
illustrates the integration of building and roof colors.
3. Tvpe and pitch of roofs: The architectural style of the building was
designed to create a roof area that comprises more than fifty (50)
percent of the view of the building. Since so much of the roof area
would be visible from the street and surrounding area, the use of a
bright yellow color is too discordant with the site and surrounding
properties, particularly since the proposed color is not a typical color
for cedar shake roof materials.
4. Location and appearance: The proposed roof color is not consistent
with the existing architectural design of the roof, the colors of the
existing building or existing development along First Street and EI
Camino Real. The proposed roof color would be visible from First
Street and EI Camino Real, and the color of bright yellow would impair
the harmonious appearance of the area.
5. Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted bv the Citv Council:
The proposed color is not compatible with the Design Review criteria
in that the use of bright yellow on such a large area of the building
would impair the orderly and harmonious appearance of the area.
6. First Street Specific Plan Site Plan Review Criteria: The proposed
color is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the First Street
Specific Plan Design Guidelines, which indicate the use of subtle
warm earthen tones, pale pastels, and white colors.
Zoning Administrator R~pC)rt
DR 01-003
March 19,2001
Page 4
7. Town Center Redevelopment Plan: The proposed color is not
compatible with the Town Center Redevelopment Plan which
stipulates that structures, which by reason of appearance are not
compatible with the surrounding uses, are not allowed within the
project area. The use of bright yellow on such a large roof area would
be incompatible and discordant with the area,
Given the architectural style of the building, the atypical yellow cedar shake roof, the
existing building colors and the overall color palette of the surrounding uses, the intent of
the First Street Specific Plan and the Town Center Redevelopment Pan, the proposed
color of bright yellow would be inappropriate,
Alternatives
1) Deny the proposed color scheme as submitted by adopting Zoning Administrator
Action 01-002 (Attachment D) and direct staff to ensure that the building is repainted
in accordance with the originally approved construction. Findings to deny the
request are included in Zoning Administrator Action 01-002 (Attachment E).
2) Request that the applicant propose an alternate color scheme that integrates the
exterior building colors and is consistent with and complementary to other
developments within the area for the Zoning Administrator's consideration.
,1?~o(lo~
Pa~s
Assistant Planner
'lj. ;J,-
, ~\.(L-, ;-r( 11--1~
I ,./'-_. --
Karen Peterson
Senior Planner
ZAreport:DR01-003.doc
Attachments: A - Location Map
B - Submitted Plans
C - Surrounding Area Color Photos
D - Zoning Administrator Action 01-002
~
ATTACHMENT A
Location Map
LOCfi,TIOf\1 MAP /,/ J ((
N 0 ~
~ "
'20
'"
'"
15' P[P.OE.~ ;,;;;[[
160 PARK
170
IBD
I ~
, N g
0
200 CITY 0, TUSTIN
'" SENIOR CSliTER
2aO
220
2"
:.>~o TtJST:N UNiFISD
250 SCHOOL DISTRICT
ADMlJ\]SjRATION
BUILDING
i~L=.1 .3::;0
4 e
, ~20
rC'SirN
prr[S5Y~[,~:A.,\'
DESIGN REVIEW 01-003
105 EL CAMINO REAL
WIENERSCHNITZEL REST A URANT
)'
/
I "h._.
l/
/' .-:~~-><
.:
PROJECT SITE
~ l.", J (:
G
co
~ - e . :::;~ N C
V " -
THIROSIREET
J05' ':~~:r JD' 3DJ 'n
II r- JC!5J07 "
315 II JOO (') "
, ,. JJJ-J5 "
325 : I ____ ~ "
.337-.39 "
m I -r-~~,l 0 I ..~ ,I
~ 0 0
~
N R 0
0 .
'"
'" '"
155 15'
'" '50
," 17'
18' ; , 18'
195 ~ 0'
., , 19'
- -
SECD'iD STREET
~ ~ R 200
'"
no
-
,., 224
c- 2"
~ ~ ~
2~O
'" 15'
liS- "'
125 120
135 '"
'" ,,'
155 15'
16'
lBl-BJ-eS
18'
v
,os v
SECOND Sl'R[[T
205 . ~
0 '"
215-17 0
~
225 ~ 2:lO ~
m
" ()
2J5 ~ :;'40 -<
,,' 250 >
<
:'55 ~ !::
C
m
10'
us
137-15\
155
'85
:2 ~ :,
225
THIRD STR~TT
oJ]]
'- -
'"~
->
N
o
l CO" I
o 33 Iii :
'i~ I
___________L.
,i i ,~:~:~\il-~--II
I I ~->",
'. "
1-
1;:;;1
1'"''-''' l_~__
: 1~4-20e
,
,
I \.____
'------
I :>:0-14 215-19
~-''"''''-
~ 225- 2;-
:', 203D- 34 ~ :?!s. J~
" ~
) ~ 2~G-~4 0 2~S~~,
IN'" ~ ~
I ~ co ~ ~....
N .... I.
g; Z '" 8 8
J:'>~-:?4 J2S-:?:
,DO-J4 JJS-J~
~-~
I
NO SCALE
ATTACHMENT B
Submitted Plans
WIENERSCHNITZEL #287
105 EL CAMINO REAL
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680
RIGHT ELEVATIONS
~
WIENERSCHNITZEL #287
105 EL CAMINO REAL
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680
RIGHT ELEVATIONS
WIENERSCHNITZEL #287
105 EL CAMINO REAL
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680
LEFT ELEVATIONS
WIENERSCHNITZEL #287
105 EL CAMINO REAL
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680
FRONT ELEVATIONS
...>~)";:'~.~C' ..
.- :'/_:~:~~~,t>'..'m.".:}'1-~.......
' ~."o. ,,"'-' ,:-,.
l{
WIENERSCHNITZEL #287
105 EL CAMINO REAL
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680
REAR ELEVATIONS
WIENERSCHNITZEL EXTERIQR PAINT COLORS
ALL COLORS ARE FRAZEE MIRROGLlDE, ACRYLIC ENAMEL, SEMI GLOSS WATER
BASED PAINT.
COLOR NAME
STOCK NUMBER
SAMPLE
Southern Phoenix 124 AC1 04Y
(bright yellow)
Roof color and speci~ed
trim areas
Ivory Paper 124 7701 W
(pale yellow)
For specified trim areas
Arresting Red 124 AC 111 R
(bright red)
Sign trim, roof trim, lower
walls and planters
Barrister White 1248740W
(buff)
For all exterior wall surfaces
(stucco, brick, etc.)
ATTACHMENT C
Surrounding Area Color Photos
LH,EV.t.P.D
53!;
-'''',
~ 7 e
17:'
:70
17.':
151:.
Ie:,
loe ~ I 'OJ
. ~'e ~~
I::--":<~
i;-1~;.J _
~
, 'u I
~
TREE:T
e .
:.:: ...
~
<
) S01'!~~7
~ 'I"
, .
=I~i
~ , ... I
, I
i !
i
" I
I
^
"
c ~ i ~ I
'1'1
! I
~ I
2 I
~ ,~ -"! ~
u 1:::- !
w
~
STREE:T
I ' =
~ !: ! :?
Iii
! i :
! '----.:
I 1
----.J ~ ~:' I
, ,
~ "
I"
1;
~
",I..",
.,,!
~ ~ E
H~
;~~
us
:.D
\Jl
~ 2 S
1010
IT
10:1
l;j
22C! ::
I c.,
I :<
23:1
i
I
~~. ,
-~~ i
.'::<=1
i
,
'" ! ~:
I 2 ,<
,
I
,
,
i
I "
jTriA.." ;
I
i
" ! ~
^I
/t!.!. ;';;:iIT0
:,P,~riT:l;;!lT:;
^
o
-
'I
,
<
!
~ I ~ I ~
:25
'" ''', I
I
H5
1.55
155
175
^
"
-
I ~ I
225
I::: I I
255 !"I
'1 0
, .
- -
~'S
I
"' ~:
~
~I =: ::::
~I ~I-l
! i
, ,
, 'I i
Ii'
I
1 I
U'
1:::--1
~I
1
I::,
~
I
I
I",
I ~I
L.=
o
'--
I 178
~
'"
1
~
e ~l~
, c
i '
:2:;
:.3:>
\(0
150
:70
lee
"
200
210
w
w
..~'.. !::
"
2JO
P
2'0
250
2(:2
3n
Jsa
o
'50 I
~5:)
5'0
52C
:-3:'
'<.;"
~i
I
/
~, ,
lED
11:J
\2:i
1 '" I
':; i H~ I
I '''I
(O'5~1 ::::
~ I ~ o! ~ I ~ I '" I
175
:7,::
106
1~:.
I,,, I
I,,,::; I
',,::; I
~ 1(:; t: I
:;; I
' ~.:
'"
:0 I '" I
1.38
I '" 1 iJO
I ,',
L:2~_2'.,...,.-v_=':
C'c' I '2 J
100
15e
'"
He
:2~
~
P~=,~~,;;: TR~~
PARK
150
>7,
>70
'ee
'00
ISO
>50
"6
~ 1"5
~
o 1
I ", ". i. I.
'\7/: ~ ", Gt:t~J[~ .
150 ~ ~ lil,~ L~ i ~ ·
no; ~ I ~ I ~ I ' I 0 I e I "
P,6,>lK ;:>~A:E
LaCy-wOOD <n
I ~ ~ :g ~ I ~ ""
" , i
I T,':{;"~i r~51
I
I
~ ~ :: :; ~I ~ '
leJ
1?~
\7.3
10:.5
1(.3
1::'5
1~J
~ ',.)
:20
"0
~
",
II
"'-'1'" _
:~5
1.::.':
125
~
~
o
N ! g
-
Q ~.:lC
HS
I ~c
1S5
15:)
1:5
150
"5
1E5
\70
'80
"
,
~I I 5 ~ 190
1es ';;l
S::CDNO STREET
'T. ,,",;;- TUSTlN
CI.) .." C"'NTER
SEl"I'JR ~ 200
'-'l~' l!NIFED
TU':::l I' 'T'
~r"OOL DISTRIC I
;,,,:; JON
ADlI~;~~:3TRA T
BCiLDING JOO
'~
~ '5 TIN
~F,:::~~;'~~;/AN
^
~ .JJ
N I :::;
-~, ,--, ~,~ 9
:,..,.~,,~
o
"
,
~:j
505
5:5 i,.:;.~;~i 321
I
I
1 5"
[;OSll-iIRD:S~m
, : : '''J I ~
" >-
315 I 3:
11_____ Z
, 0
'"
m
>-
,..
I",
~
500
SiO
22~
2~D
~ ~
~
4
2:::D
.:125
JJ5
o
o
"5
UO
'50
505
<6,
525
ooo;.::g~~~~~;
~ ;;;~J;...............
~
:u 0'" '" ~ ~ "
~ ~ ~ ;, J,;, '" '" "
^ ^
5J5
'"
5:'0
530
5'0
550
" ,I " ,
'" ~ ~ -
105
'15
125
us
'"
1~5
'"
181-83-es
"
,
"5
SECOND Sm~ET
225
u
, ,
:;1
1
1 .
2J5
,.5
255
,
3013DJ ::
JDSJ07 ::
J.33-J5 II
..337-39 II
\
'"
397-99
~ 0 ~ ~
I
I
~05
~2'
4<11-43
445_47
"~9-51
515
SiO
~
'"
110
120
"0
"0
150
150
o
230
240
250
p
o
~
, ,
o .
,
.
I
j
(
,
o
.
I
I I
I I
'rUITt"I' ']u'r{'t1f,{,r"(IT,
i J,l"-;!J:;u),cL:~,';~/"i
I U':':;;/']"j''( iHFfUfTl
I ut"},;,::;,,,,.:..,
r-' "
' 1
II ':.J, TV:' ',,', ;>_/,~:
- !"/P.-/'~I";;J
,
I.", I , 1
\ '
~
~
::::;::e
(
" ~
, '
, ,
<
J
riC~' I ~ I
'" I
m""U
"
~~
1::5
I
i
~'~~u~'~'
1(" ,,, i
I I '" I _
I I t ~"I::
, '"
' I ~ "'!::;:
: I ''>0,-.> '
, c
:~;
:~1:7e-1e2
I 118~_ 20!:
, '
, '
, '
I l..____
l.-_____
I 2:0-1"
1~5
L
."
'"
o
'"
~ 2'~
n
-;
>-
<
m
Z
c
m
I:::
I..,
~'~:::
,.., .-.
~
M .,~,
~ I <
~l.i..
rT'
~
I,,,
~
I'"
,..
~
2:'5
~ :20-2~
""""' 2~O-J4
~240-"4
~ ~ ~
o
, "
m "
" .
D
320-2"
J30-3(
U'::s.:
~>:
-~
<t=:]
~;:;:;...,
:=J tJ:
en
I
D,
I' ,
.....',:r
C"''-''
"
"
,
"
,
, .
, ,
MAIN SiN:
N ,
, ~,
:; 0 C 0
~
g
o
n
~
PHOTO 1
PHOTO 2
PHOTO 3
PHOTO 4
PHOTO 5
'"
i;;
~
,
,
i
,
I
,
I
--------
~-,
~
~
C,
PHOTO 1
130 EL CAMINO REAL
SOUTHVVEST OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
PHOTO 2
100-132 FIRST STREET
DIRECTLY VVt.ST OF SUBJECT PROPEKTY
~--,
PHOTO 3
101 E. FIRST STREET
NORTHWEST OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
PHOTO 4
121 E. FIRST STREET
DIRECTLY NORTH OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
/~~,
PHOTO 5
150 FIRST STREET
DIRECTLY EAST OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
ATTACHMENT D
Zoning Administrator Action 01-002
2
3
4
5 I.
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION 01-002
DESIGN REVIEW 01-003
The Zoning Administrator of the City of Tustin hereby resolve as follows:
The Zoning Administrator finds and determines as follows:
A. That a proper application, Design Review No. 01-003, was filed by Barbara
Forbes of Galardi Realty requesting authorization to paint the roof color of
the building located at 105 EI Camino Real a bright yellow color.
B. That pursuant to Section 9272(c) of the Tustin City Code, the Community
Development Department finds that the architectural features and general
appearance of the proposal would impair the harmonious development of the
area, the present and future development therein, and the occupancy as a
whole. In reviewing the project, the Community Development Department
has considered the following items:
1. Exterior materials and colors: The building consists of wood siding
painted white with red trim accents and doors. The roof material is cedar
shake. The proposed color change of bright yellow is out of character and
not complementary to the style of the building or the existing white and
red exterior paint scheme. Other more integrated colors that compliment
the existing building exterior could be developed.
2. Appearance and desiqn relationships: The overall color palettes for
properties surrounding the project site consist of subdued and integrated
color schemes that compliment the building exteriors. The proposed color
is not sufficiently integrated into the building colors and is not subdued.
3. Tvpe and pitch of roofs: The architectural style of the building was
designed to create a roof area that comprises more than fifty (50) percent
of the view of the building. Since so much of the roof area would be
visible from the street and surrounding area, the use of a bright yellow
color is too discordant with the site and surrounding properties,
particularly since the proposed color is not a typical color for cedar shake
roof materials.
4. Location and appearance: The proposed roof color is not consistent with
the existing architectural design of the roof, the colors of the existing
building or existing development along First Street and EI Camino Real.
The proposed roof color would be visible from First Street and EI Camino
Real, and the color of bright yellow would impair the harmonious
appearance of the area.
2
Zoning Administrator Action 01-002
DR01-003
Page 2
3
5. Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted bv the City Council: The
proposed color is not compatible with the Design Review criteria in that
the use of bright yellow on such a large area of the building would impair
the orderly and harmonious appearance of the area.
4
5
6
6. First Street Specific Plan Site Plan Review Criteria: The proposed color is
inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the First Street Specific Plan
Design Guidelines, which indicate the use of subtle warm earthen tones,
pale pastels, and white colors.
7
8
9
10
7. Town Center Redevelopment Plan: The proposed color is not compatible
with the Town Center Redevelopment Plan which stipulates that
structures, which by reason of appearance are not compatible with the
surrounding uses, are not allowed within the project area. The use of
bright yellow on such a large roof area would be incompatible and
discordant with the area.
11
12
13
14
C.
That the proposed roof color conflicts with the following City of Tustin
General Plan Policies:
15
16
Policy 6.2: Encourage and promote high-quality design and physical
appearance in all development projects. The proposed roof color
does not promote high-quality design and physical appearance in that
the existing building utilizes wood siding painted white with red trim
accents and a cedar shake roof. The use of clashing colors and the
inconsistency with the white and red colors detracts from the aesthetic
quality of the development along First Street and EI Camino Real and
the surrounding area and does not present an integrated and subdued
appearance.
17
18
19
20
21
22
Policy 10.8: Encourage rehabilitation of existing facades and signage
to comply with the First Street Specific Plan Guidelines and any future
guidelines for Old Town. The proposed roof color does not maintain or
ensure consistency with the community design and development of
the First Street Specific Plan which encourages the use of subtle
warm earthen tones, pale pastels and white.
0'
_0
24
25
26
D.
This project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15270 of Title 14,
Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (Guidelines for the California
Environmental Quality Act), which states CEQA does not apply to projects
that are denied or disapproved by a public agency.
27
28
29
2
Zoning Administrator Action 01-002
DR01-003
Page 3
3 II.
4
5
6
J
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
IJ
18
19
20
21
22
J-
-,
24
25
26
2J
28
29
The Zoning Administrator hereby denies Design Review No. 01-003, a request to
amend the roof color to a bright yellow on the building located at 105 EI Camino
Real, and directs the applicant to paint the roof back to the color that was used with
the original building construction.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Zoning Administrator of the City of Tustin, at a
meeting held on the 19th day of March, 2001.
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Zoning Administrator
Eloise Harris
Recording Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, Eloise Harris, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Recording Secretary of
the Zoning Administrator of the City of Tustin, California; that Zoning Administrator
Action 01-002 passed and adopted at a meeting of the Tustin Zoning Administrator,
held on the 19th day of March, 2001.
Eloise Harris
Recording Secretary