The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04 SIGN CODE APPEAL 03-19-01AGENDA RE'-')RT No. 04 03-19-01 MEETING DATE' TO' FROM' SUBJECT: MARCH 19, 2001 WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER .. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPEAL OF SIGN CODE EXCEPTION 00-001 SUMMARY Sign Code Exception 00-001 is a request to authorize an existing monument sign, originally approved as a joint sign between two adjacent properties, for exclusive use of 145 West First Street. The Planning Commission denied the request on February 12, 2001, and the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision on February 20, 2001. Applicant/Appellant: Arnold Surfas, Surfas Ltd. RECOMMENDATION . That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 01-28, upholding the Planning Commission's action and denying the appeal. BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting approval of a Sign Code Exception to authorize the reface of an existing monument sign. The monument sign is located at the easterly side of the property line between 145 and 155 West First Street and was approved in'1977 as a joint sign for two businesses located on the two properties (Attachment A- Location Map). The sign exemption was granted on the basis that the combined street frontage of 145 and 155 West First Street would provide sufficient frontage to meet the requirements of the Sign Code for installation of a monument sign (Attachment B - City Council Staff -Report/Minutes/Sign Permit). Each property, independently, did not have sufficient street frontage to permit a monument sign for each business. Although the current sign regulations were adopted in 1991, the requirement for sufficient street frontage was in effect when the sign was approved. A permit was issued for the joint monument sign on March 23, 1977, to Econo Lube at 1.55 W. First Street, and Tustin Auto Parts at 145 W. First .Street (Attachment B). The sign was used by the two properties until late 1999. In December 1999, the sign had been modified and in February 2000, the Econo Lube 'N Tune business owner notified the City that the sign was refaced without authorization from Econo Lube 'N Tune. The City sent letters in December 1999 and February 2000 and two notices of violation in August and September 2000, notifying Surfas Furriers to return the sign to its shared City Council Report Appeal of Sign Code Exception 00-001 March 19, 2001 Page 2 condition. The applicant submitted a Sign Code'Exception application on September 12, 2000, to authorize the use of the sign for 145 W. ~=irst Street (Attachment C - Submitted Plans). The project was scheduled for the October 23, 2000, Planning Commission meeting. On October 17, 2000, the applicant requested an extension until January 22, 2001, to submit additional documents (Attachment D- Submitted Letters). in addition, staff received an opposition letter from Econo Lube 'N Tune business owner, Mr. David McCombs, that was presented to the Planning Commission at the October 23, 2000, meeting (Attachment D- Submitted Letters). Mr. McCombs was present at the meeting and expressed his concern about the reface of the monument sign (Attachment E - Excerpts of Minutes of October 23, 2000, Planning Commission meeting). Because the sign was modified without the benefit of permits and continuance of the hearing was for-a significant amount of time, the applicant was required to either a) remove the sign and supporting structure or completely cover the monument sign cabinet with an opaque material by November 14, 2000; or, b) return the monument sign to its previous approved condition by inserting the required sign panel identifying Econo Lube 'N Tune by November 27, 2000 (Attachment F - November 6, 2000 Letter). On November 14, 2000, the applicant responded that he was unaware of the sign requirement when he purchased the property, that the sign provides him business identification, and the sign should be considered a minor issue (Attachment D - Submitted Letters). He also requested approval to maintain the existing sign as mOdified until the Planning Commission meeting. On January 8, 2001, the applicant submitted a revised sign design and a survey of existing monument and pole signs on First Street to clarify and support the sign code exception request (Attachment C - Submitted Plans dated January 8, 2001 ). Prior to the January 22, 2001, meeting, the applicant was provided a copy of the staff report prepared for the Planning Commission. On January 18, 2001, the applicant submitted an e-mail and requested a meeting with staff to discuss possible alternatives prior to a public hearing on the matter. At the January 22, 2001, meeting, the item was continued to the February 12, 2001, Planning Commission meeting. The meeting between staff and the applicant is described under the "Discussion" portion of the staff report. The Planning Commission considered the project on February 12, 2001, and denied the request. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision on February 20, 2001 (Attachment G - Appeal Letter). DISCUSSION The applicant is proposing to use forty (40) square feet of the existing sign to identify three (3) businesses, which would require an exception from the requirements of the City Council Report Appeal of Sign Code Exception 00-001 March 19,2001 Page 3 Tustin City Sign Code. Section 9405c of the Sign Code states that the Planning Commission has the authority to grant or conditionally grant exceptions to various regulations of the sign code subject to the following' Sign size and placement restrictions of the sign code shall be closely followed as practicable. The intent and purpose of the sign regulations of the land use zone in which the sign is to be located shall be followed as closely as practicable. · There are special circumstances unique to the property to justify the exception. · Granting the exception will not have a negative impact on the surrounding properties. The sign application promotes the public health, safety, welfare, and aesthetics of the community and that the granting of the exception meets findings and the intent of the sign code. Sign Code Requirements The First Street Specific Plan Design Guidelines include general provisions related to wall-mounted signs; however, for specific standards, the City's Sign Code is applicable (Attachment H - Excerpts of the First Street Design Guidelines). Since the property is located in the "Commercial as Primary" zoning designation of the First Street Specific Plan and the applicant proposes to locate three (3) businesses on the property, the Commercial District sign regulations for Individual Business Identification or Center Identification (Attachment H - Excerpts of Section 9408 of the Tustin City Code) are applicable. As shown in the table below, the sign exceeds the allowable sign area for Individual Business Identification by eight (8) square feet, identifies three tenants rather than one as allowed, provides only 57 percent of the required street frontage, and does not maintain the required separation from the side property line. Criteria Sign Area Number of Signs Height Number of Tenant Signs Street Frontage Separation Individual Business Identification 32 Square Feet Maximum 1 Monument 6 Feet Maximum 1 Tenant Sign 150 Feet Minimum 25 Feet from Side Property Line 145 W. First. Street Sign 40 Square Feet 1 Monument 6 Feet 3 Tenant Signs 86 Feet 6 Inches from Side Property Line City Council Report Appeal of Sign Code Exception 00-001 March 19, 2001 Page 4 For Center Identification Tenant Directory, the sigri area exceeds allowable sign area for tenants, provides only 43 percent of the required street frontage, and does not maintain the required separation from the side property line. Criteria Sign Area Number of Signs Height Size of Tenant Signs Street Frontage Separation Center Identification 75 Square Feet Maximum 1 Monument 6 Feet Maximum Tenant Signs Limited to 6 Square Feet 200 Feet Minimum 25 Feet from Side Property Line 145 W. First Street Sign 40 Square Feet 1 Monument 6 Feet 3 Tenant Signs Ranging from 7 to 26 Square Feet 86 Feet 6 Inches from Side Property Line Aesthetics The building was renovated in 1999 with exterior features of ornate ltalianate design and decorative cornices. The proposed sign is a simple brown cabinet and gold face which does not complement the remodeled design of the light blue and white detailed building. In addition, the sign appears excessive in size in relation to the surrounding buildings. The proposed tenant signs also present a variety of information including phone numbers and supplemental information in a variety of font types. The signs are not integrated into a harmonious design. Visibility Surfas Furriers is currently identified by the proposed monument sign. There are no wall- mounted signs. The majority of the building is setback fifty-one (51) feet from First Street and a portion of the building that contains a blank wall facing First Street is thirty-three (33) feet from the front property line. The applicant has noted that a wall-mounted sign will not be visible from First Street and therefore would not provide sufficient signage. However, the Tustin City Sign Code would allow Surfas Furrier and the office tenant to have a wall sign that is 15 percent of the storefront or a maximum of seventy-five (75) square feet. Given the size of the existing building wall, a forty-eight (48) square foot wall sign could be permitted.. In addition, the business would be allowed to install a banner for special promotions for up to a maximum of 120 days per calendar year. The applicant has also used a temporary banner sign (hung from the east side of the building) visible to west-bound traffic on First Street for several months during the past two years. City Council Report Appeal of Sign Code Exception 00-001 March 19, 2001 Page 5 General Assessment of First Street for Monument Signs There are more than 61 lots zoned for commercial and office uses along First Street. Staff has prepared a survey of the existing ground-mounted signs (Attachment I - Sign Survey). This survey demonStrates that many of the signs existing along First Street were installed prior to adoption of the current Sign Code and are considered non-conforming, in addition, staff developed photosimulations which show a partial view of the proliferation of signs that may occur if commercial properties with less than 150 feet street frontage were granted sign code exceptions to install monument signs (Attachment J - Photosimulations of Potential Monument Signs). First Street Specific Plan Lot Consolidation Program The previous sign exemption that granted the joint use sign at the property was the only discretionary approval that allowed a monument sign for a substandard lot width as a joint sign. The applicant has noted that the property was consolidated and that the First Street Specific Plan includes a Lot Consolidation Program that allows flexibility for various provisions of the code (Attachment K- Lot Consolidation Provisions). However, staff was not able to confirm the lot consolidation. The records show the existing parcel with approval of a site plan prior to adoption of the First Street Specific Plan. Although the bonus provisions related to lot consolidation do not refer to sign standards, the property owners at 145 and 155 West First Street did receive the benefit of combining the two lots for the purpose of meeting the street frontage requirement for a monument sign. Staff's Meeting with the Applicant On January 18, 2001, staff received an itemized letter via e-mail discussing several issues in response to the Planning Commission staff report for the project (Attachment L- E-mail dated January 18, 2001). Staff met with the applicant on January 23, 2001 to 'discuss the following issues noted in the e-mail: The City Council has approved signs for other properties with less than 150 lineal feet of street frontage (Godfather's, Weliprint, Remax, Kinko's, .and Washington Mutual). These signs were approved in the late 1970s under a different Sign Code that conditionally permitted pole signs with no minimum street frontage requirement. Only monument signs required a minimum street frontage. Staff was unable to find a permit for the Godfather's pole sign. The Wellprint sign was conditionally permitted as a pole sign with a tenant directory by the City Council in 1977. The Remax pole sign was conditionally approved by the Development Preview Commission in 1973. The Kinko's monument sign was approved by the Planning Commission under Variance 79-3 which allowed an increase of six (6) feet above the allowable height of six (6) feet; no discussion of insufficient street frontage was City Council Report Appeal of.Sign Code Exception 00-001 March 19, 2001 Page 6 included. The Washington Mutual sign was approved in 1979 and is located on a site with more than 150 lineal square feet of-street frontage. The sign code is loosely worded and states that the intention of the sign code should be followed as "closely as practical," which makes it difficult to understand. The Sign Code states that exceptions may be granted subject to five considerations identified on page 3 of this report including "Sign size and placement restrictions... shall be as closely followed as practicable" and "["I-]he intent and purpose of the sign regulations ... shall be followed as closely as practicable." The purpose of the Sign Code, in part, is to avoid sign clutter and limit the number and area of signs to maintain and enhance the City's appearance (Attachment M). The exception process allows for reasonable deviations when justified. The sign code exception that was previously granted for 145 and 155 West First Street was for a joint sign that would serve two substandard properties that together met the minimum street frontage requirement. Given these considerations, the proposed signs should not deviate significantly from the regulations unless there are special circumstances related to the property which justify an exception. Since there is a blank wall (over 300 square feet in area) facing First Street where a wall sign up to 75 square feet could be installed, staff does not believe there are special circumstances which justify an exception. The sign as proposed has a sign face area of 33.25 square feet as opposed to the 40 square feet noted in the staff report. The Walgreen sign is over 75 square feet. The existing monument sign at 145 W. First Street is fifty (50) square feet in area and the proposed sign area is forty (40) square feet. Staff could not verify the 33.25 square feet that the applicant noted. The Walgreens property is a corner lot and has more than 150 feet of street frontage. The sign is 74 square feet in 'size and the sign copy is 34 square feet which complies with requirements for signs in commercial districts. This property is not similar to other properties along First Street Which have equal setbacks and are visible from either direction along First Street and wall signs on the east, west, or north elevations would not be visible. A wall-mounted sign on the east or west facing walls would not be permitted since wall signs are required by the Sign Code to face streets or parking areas. However, there is a blank wall (over 300 square feet in area) facing First Street (north elevation) where a wall sign up to 75 square feet could be installed. This size of sign would not be obstructed by the existing ficus trees when they are trimmed and maintained properly and would be visible from east- and west-bound traffic. City Council Report Appeal of Sign Code Exception 00-001 March 19, 2001 Page 7 The report is the first time that there has been anY City guidance and limited guidance is provided in the staff report. Due to the inconsistency with the original City Council approval, staff has advised the applicant to return the sign to its original condition or remove and install wall signs that are consistent with the Sign Code. This direction was declined and a Sign Code Exception request was submitted. The applicant was advised that the proposal would not be supported by staff. The photosimulations of First Street are generally office buildings and not retail buildings that rely on drive-by traffic (Attachment J- Photosimulations). The photosimulations are included to provide a possible image of First Street with proliferation of signs on lots that do not meet the minimum street width requirement. If a precedent-setting exception to the requirements of the Commercial District of the Sign Code were to be granted, this type of proliferation could occur on commercially zoned properties throughout the City that do not meet the minimum street frontage.requirement. PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION On February 12, 2001, the Pian. ning Commission received public testimony and considered the applicant's request (Attachment N - Minutes). The Econo Lube 'N Tune business owner, located at 155 W. First Street, Mr. McComb, was present at the meeting. He stated that the Econo Lube 'N Tune had paid for the sign installation and the electricity provided to the sign until the recent reface. Mr. McComb also noted that since the sign has been refaced, Econo Lube 'N Tune has experienced a significant loss in their sales and patrons. The applicant, Mr. Surfas, was also present and discussed issues previously discussed with staff and in submitted letters. Mr. Surfas noted that he would be willing to relocate the sign away from the side property line as much as possible given the existing location of the driveway. The Planning Commission unanimously noted that the extent of the exceptions could not be supported and asked the applicant to work with Econo Lube 'N Tune for a solution that would benefit both properties. APPEAL In his appeal, the applicant states that he is willing to relocate the sign and that the proposal would only require approval of two (2) exceptions rather than four (4) as noted in the Planning Commission's staff report. If the sign is considered a Business Identification Sign, the following exceptions would be required' City Council Report Appeal. of Sign Code Exception 00-001 March 19, 2001 Page 8 1. Sign Area The sign would exceed the allowable area by eight square feet. o Number of Tenant Signs Three signs are proposed; one (1) would be permitted. 3. Street Frontage The site provides 57 percent of the required street frontage. . · Separation from Side Property Line The existing driveway approach is twenty-eight (28) feet from the westerly property line. If the applicant relocated the sign to meet the twenty-five (25) foot distance requirement from the side property line, the sign would be encroaching into the ten (10) foot'minimum visibility clearance area for driveway approaches. To meet the ten (10) foot requirement from the driveway, the sign would need to be located eighteen (18) feet from the side property line. To qualify for a Center Identification Tenant Directory Sign, at least three (3) tenants are required. City records indicate that two (2) tenant spaces were proposed and approved with the remodel of the site in February 1999. in addition, there is only one (1) business license on file for 145 W. First Street. However, if three (3) businesses were established at the site and the sign considered a Center Identification Sign, the following exceptions would be required' · Size of Tenant Signs The proposed signs exceed the maximum size of six (6) square feet per tenant sign. 2. Street Frontage The site provides 43 percent of the required street frontage. 3. Separation The existing driveway approach is twenty-eight (28) feet from the westerly property line. If the applicant relocated the sign to meet the twenty-five (25) foot distance requirement from the side property line, the sign would be encroaching into the ten (10) foot minimum visibility clearance area for driveway approaches. To meet the City Council Report Appeal of Sign Code Exception 00-001 March 19, 2001 Page 9 ten (10) foot requirement from the driveway, the sign would need to be located eighteen (18) feet from the side property iin~. RECOMMENDATION Given the nature and extent of exceptions that would be required for either sign type, staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny the appeal by adopting Resolution No. 01-28 (Attachment O). in addition, the applicant should be directed to do one of the following: · · Reface the sign to a shared sign with the two (2) businesses at 145 and 155 W. First Street in conformance with the City Council's previous approval within fifteen (15) days; or, · Remove the existing sign within ten (10) days. Minoo Ashabi Associate Planner Elizabeth A. Binsack Director of Community Development s :cdd\pcrepo rt\sce00-001 .doc Attachments: A - Location Map B- March 7, 1977 City Council Staff Report/Minutes and Sign Permit and Plans Issued March, 1977 C- Submitted Plans and Photographs D - Submitted Letters E - Excerpts of the Minutes of October 23, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting F- November 6, 2000, Letter G-Appeal Letter H- Excerpts of the First Street Design Guidelines and Excerpts of the Tustin City Sign Code I- Sign Survey of First Street J- Photosimulations K- First Street Lot Consolidation Provisions L- E-Mail Dated January 17, 2001 M -Sign Code Purpose N -Resolution No. 3755 and Minutes of February 12, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting O-Resolution 01-28 ATTACHMENT A Location Map LC .ATIO N MAP 2 14851 14(331 177 , 175 166 ~73 160 1~5 158 16~ 150i · I~! 14o 14~ 130 1133 IRVINE BOULEVARD TRACT $31I ., 175 178 173 170 165 168 TRACI' 39§ 163 160 149 ~ 1~ 14~ j 140 135 1~6 12g FIRST STREET TRACT 334 135 , 14j.45.47.4g 140 , 155 150 165 160 175 170 185 180 !95 I lgo , ,, 205 200 215 22~ 240 2~ 254 145 ! ~' '~ '~ 140 155 150 TUSTIN CDMMDN$ ~ E[COND STREET · VILLA V/ENID APARTMENTS :1 120 135 135A 130 145 140 155 I~ 165 160 175 170 'q 21o 225 220 235 t 230 245 240 25O __ -- r 1.15 · 1.10 . , 181-53-85 180 . NO SCALE ATTACHMENT B. March 1977, City Council Staff Report/Minutes and Sign Permit and Plans Issued March 1977 TO' C i t y {:c>~nc i 1 SUBJECT. Co.~:r...tuli ty Devolo[),,~e. nt' I)el>t. Rcq'.:est for Sign Exempt BACKGk~:iD A2ID DISCUSSION: Tustin Auto Supply (145 W. F~rst Street) and Econo I,u_be Inc. (]55 'ti. First Street) are req,~,.~tin, g exemption [rom the ])rovj.qior~s of Sign Code 684 a,.~ ~>t4t,:d in Article VII Section 1. The req,.,,:.~t is for the construction of ~ 6[; sq. fro, 8' high mor~,~.,~.nt sign to be located at :.he n~ared prot,erty l~ne of t:},,; two bu:;j, nr.::~.,~e.-..; and ~:<li,,'"'r',l. to the public r lqlqt of wa'/. This tyf:e of proj)~:;t,1 was suggested to t:h~; ~,,,:, b:].:.~i~e:;:;us individu,:lly '-"-eh it became evident t~tal, both ~:ish to have fr(;.r; :~!.o.r,r. limg signing. It wa_= staffs opinion that two fr,.:(: .~t'a~]¢li.i,g signs (one per proper, tV) would be highly un-).,;is.~_bie due to the lack of '.;tlff.tcic, nt First Street fror, t'ageo Thc end result wo.;!:l ha:/e been a ¢:lut-te~,ad~, d.[s~]ay, of signing. _Tr. wa" ?,O;,,.,', that a shared sign wo,~ld re'd'~c~: thc: ~os~b].e imp/~ct :~ t'h(.' area. Mr. R.R. C°/r'r:.~,_-'zest and ~,',r. P.A. f:;trri.:i;on were able to work out ~an ,~qrr.:emer:t for a shared sJ.-~ a::"] is :;ubmitte.'.] for ,:,our con.'.;ideration. Staff believe-; t)lis concept has del!nit:, bc.r~c, fits for problem .arc:a:; w~c:'rc busir~c:r~:.; c!(~.r;i, res fr::,. ~;tand.in~.; signi~go - .,.;' -r.r. '. ...... frontage, of tt~c; two i,rop,"~*~,'.s~ ..... (F'i~;t "t, . and "C" Si. feet) 219 r~ Thr, maxim,.tm ';trer~t fronta~;e r,'rtui~r'.mi2r;t for ,, l~n~r~n+ f~:et ~'hic~l r,cith,.r of t'he pr,)t,rtrtien ha,' ~r,dividua]ly. .. Th,, ,".az'- ..... '"n ,~uthori.;,,ed for .~ ';ir~q'Lo I~tl:;inr:.'..~" r;=-~r',u~':~(:.r~r: ,'jqr'~ i" [12 :;'1. ft. · p",')~.,'.,';r:d "i:/r, rz;sl].'.; for '~0 ';(I- ft. ].)(..r .~)t.l,'jn(..,;:; or' 6(i [;.ri. f.'r,r, tt in tot:al.. Si:'. f::r:t ;';' t'~,. .m;~×[m,~3n .hc'['l}~t ~.~t~t.}l,~r'izr'tl t'r~. ~ rnonum,;nt :;J.¢jn. a h,:iqht ',: ~;' fr(>'.n grade. '~%,: ;,lan:; indicate. Th,.. ;~uto ;.ar':~ :;tore J..'-; tuckr, d ,'t'~ay fr.r:m I.'i.r"t 5t'.rc. ct ,/ir..:',; l,y "t r,~r:::Urr.r; on r~Jt.t~r.r ~i.,.l,:. q'nc :'.c.';¢.[(~?~_,r of t-tlr.: l,:.~rt:; :;tore wa".i~dvi..;ed at. th,: ti:::~: of l,]ar~ review, to con~.;j,;er th,. ;/3ter, ti.'al probl.,..m of vJ.:;[bil.ity for t:h,:: l,roperty ar,,! t.hat ~'. free star~dir0g :i:;:, is not a guarant(i,r,d rig[it ur~der t},r.* .',igrt ordin;.:nr.'r.. Th~. Ecor/~ ,.~.,: facility i:{ c]r.~:;(, to tier. stre¢:t (10') and does r~ot., a[,pr.;,r to have an identity problem with a 54 scI. foot wail. ~.;ign ·facing ?:irst and two ;;uppl~:mental signs (1O sq. ft. total)on "C" St'rer:t'. 97]e suppler~_,ntal signing wa~.s ap.~.;.roved by the Planning Commission with the Use Permit for tho facility. · .. · ~~~ d~ve~opmen~s. _ · Tust. in Auto Supply requests identity of a trade name product "'Napa", This i; not permitted by t3~e ordinance unless the trade name is included in th, name of the business ~COfl]~]~DATI O~: It is recom=~nded that the City Co'uncil approve a shared monument ~£gn for the two busi~sse= with the f~llowing conditions: · q. That the sign not exceed 40 sq. feet per face. ... ' .'' '" b. That the sign not exceed 6 'feet in height. ¢. That the front wall signing of the two businesses be reduced to 25 square feet as authorized for secondary ID signing. ~ ~ ~'"! · ~.1 cf precise plans to sta~ for review and apprcrcal R~s.Dectful!y s:,_bm./tted, ~~ - R. K~n~net~h Fleagle, D.P.A. Assistant Cit-.; Administrator Coumr~nity Development Director o, / ",City Council Minutes ? 3/7/77 Page four Xo OLD BUS INESS XI. NEW BUSINESS 1. ANTICIPATED REVENUES - PROPOSED ANNEXATION, RED HILL-MELVIN Analysis of expenditures and revenue presented by Mr. Bopf. Councilman Edgar stated he felt that the Council has a commit- ment for annexation of areas south of Irvine Boulevard to square off City boundaries, but that he was more in favor of the church - area than all of Red Hil~ Avenue right-of-way. Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Welsh,'that the City should pro- ceed with this annexation without the flood control-area and northern section of Red Hill, taking only the Red Hill right-of- way...adjacent to the church property..Carried. 2. RECONSIDERATION OF POLICE REASSIGNMENTS Moved bY Edg.ar, seconded by. Schuster, that the recommended action be authorized. Carried unanimously. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 77-18 A Resolution of the Tustin City Council APPROVING THE CITY OF TUST~N PORTION OF THE 1980 FUNCTIONAL USAGE STUDY, THE URBAN AREA BOUNDARIES OF SAID CITY, AND THE DESIGNATION OF FEDERAL-AID URBAN ROUTES IN SAID CITY. Moved by Edgar, seconded by Saltarelli, that Resolution No. 77-18 be passed and adopted. Carried unanimously. 4. BENCH REPORT Report presented by Mr. Bopf. Councilmen Welsh and Saltarelli were designated as a subcommittee of the Council to study and'.'report back. 1. TRAFFIC COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS a. Parking Removal on Treehaven Drive Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Welsh that this matter be tabled for six months. Carried. b. Orange County Transit District Parking Restrictions on First Street (adjacent to Larwin Square) Moved by Saltarelli, secon~de_d by Ed~..ar, that Commission recom- mendations for no stopping and no_'.parking t? bjeL p_.la?e~d on the south side of First Street in areas between Centennial and New- port be approved. Carried unanimously. Staff directed to pursue off-street bus stops in future develop- ments. 2. ~RE?UEST FOR SIGN EXEMPTION (145-155 W. First Street) Moved by Saltarelli, sec6nded by Welsh that staff recommendations .be approved. Mr. Carrison and Mr. Overdevest, purchasers of property at 145-155 West First Street, explained problems and .reasons for sign exemption requests. Co~cil discussed visibility, sign location, height limit of monument sign, as well as use of pole sign. City Council Minutes 3/7/77 page five XII. OTHER BUSINESS Substitute motion - Moved by Edgar, seconded by Welsh, that Council approve a monument siqn 6' total height, 2%' high and 10' wide each sign, a 1' pedestal, and existing, wall sign to remain. Carried unanimously. 3. REQUEST TO FILL VACANCY Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Welsh, that recommendation to fill vacancy for records clerk-be approved. Carried. ' 1. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr. Bopf requested an executive session following this meeting. 2. DENIAL OF CLAIM Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Welsh, that claim of Laurence Doyle be denied as recommended by City Attorney. Carried. 3. BIKE TRAIL COMMITTEE Councilman Schuster reported that a meeting had been held with a representative from the County in attendance to explain County bike trail plans. An EIR is now in process to be heard by the County. Plans have been formulated for further meetings and report to Council. 4. FIRE SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Councilman Edgar reported that they will be soliciting help from interested parties. 5. EFFECTIVENESS OF PARKS AND RECREATION YOUTH COMMISSIONER Council discussed modifying ordinance to eliminate youth and appoint an adult from one of the youth .sports groups or from the newly formed Tustin Area Sports Council. Matter to be agendized for next regular meeting. 6. PLANNING COMMISSION MATTERS In answer to questioning relative to zoning of property north of Irvine, east of Holt, Dr. Fleaql~ stated that the action to follow will entail a Council hearing for a General Plan Amend- ment from Commercial to Residential, at which time establish density, then hearings will be held by the Planning Commission' and Council. Precise plans to be required for total develop- ment at time of zone change hearings. 7. RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION Staff to prepare a resolution commending Ted Bartlett for his years of service to the City of Huntington Beach. 8. NEOCCS Mayor Sharp requested comments from the Council on NEOCCS report now being circulated. 9. EXPO 81 Each City will be requested to appoint a representative. DE DAVID I:L HAY D.C. & ASSOCIATES CHIROPRACTIC TER o. C~ A J, ,CATION FOR SlC=N ,RMIT. APi'~.~ ........... ~ PLEASE FILL 'IN SHADED..=AONLY . USE INDELIBLE PENCIL, BALL POINT PEN"oB OTHEF:I NON-ERASABLE SUBSTANCE CITY OF ~ .. DUI LQ!.NG ......................... ~ ..... , ....... ~ ~,~ .... ~-~'~4 ...... ~;;~ ...... ~':m~ ....... A P NO "'A D'D RE SS ~:::.5~'~' :'"' '~::'~ "~' ~':'~:~:~;?~. ~ ::~'' :]?~:::~%~" ' :.~" ,~:: ,.~ ..~ ~.. ~{ '"'"(~ "~,,=~'~ ............. ' D A T E I S S U E D . . ........ __ . · ;. '.' .' ......... . ' : .'":t :. "":.""; ?..~'::=: %?'::".::.;...' ~]' ~';~'=::~:~'"'?F~::"~.':~"[~;:~?~'"'~ TR ACT LOT ADDRESS . .. ' '" "'"'" ~:. '.'.~=:'? ....: .... ~.::.=[ ...... : :;].:;~ :'~=]?:::?? :......~,? ~::".:~ ....... ;:::.:?::,~.;.~?~?~;;~:~;~;]~?.;~/~?~?~;): . B LOC K "' "~m':".' ~'~:~:';~=:':::":~:;::.;: .' :".:...':':.::::~NO;:;./:'.:': '....'.:~'?.::" ~~ ~~~~ .... ---- · ' ...... · D ESS' ' .. '..~. . .".::.'r..'.:. ':'...~ ?',...........:.::.: ~:~.::,: J.?:,,~.':,~u...,~. .... ;:~'::~*~.~::.:,:~.~,. ........... ~,::~:~:q~:, ~ ~~ ~ ~~ . . . .. ~...............,. :... ...... .... '...::.::::::~...~... ........... ,:.~.~. ~ ~?~::~.:.' ~..~;:~?. ~.::.:':".'.'"~:;:~~ ~: ~ ~~." '..' .,;' ...:.:' ::' .'.:-:,:'.?~? ...... "': .... ....' .... ;~ ..:~.::,~:~1~'~,~ ~; ..... ~~~. '.~: sLU~ . ..:ADDR:ESS~..::;.'..':~:::....:.:'.~..:~ .... :,:;:::??~,~:~ .... ~:~'"":;:j ~~ ~ "' ..~ ~' ~~.~~.?':" · · '::". ~:'::~ ...':.:: .?: .~-'..~'.'~.". ...... =.~::-~'='":~-' "~:~:~"'~ L.~ ........ ; ~~~ .......... ~:~?:~.~;;):~ ~::.'~ ~'~*' ~. USE ZONE ZONI NG CITY ' · ...... ":' · ' ""'" "" .............. ~ .... · ....... ',~'"' ~ ~~ ~"~,~: '~' ~ · "...: ...... :' ... ".-' ...... :'::,.-:'.'::.'?~'?:-'?:'.:':":'.S~ ~E.'.~:~ ....... ~ ......... ~'~:~;~ ~.~,..~ ~ ~::~:: ..... ' .... · ...... ':':~. ..... ....:...': :::..:::::..:'.L~, ..N.¢).~~: ~ ~:¢~: ~ TEMPORARY ..L~C NO. '"" .'" ...... ' ..... "'.":~:.'~-'""" ................ .":':, ..... ; ........ *~?'?"*'¥"::~:"~ ....... '' ........ ............ ~?'..~ ~(~;~, PERMANENT ,,, . ,-.. .:. .,..,:,,,.:. ............... , ~,.~:~'~ :,~:; ,~ .. .. I hereby acknowledge that I have'read th'i~':'a~pii~'~io:a::~.~:d'..;i~:~:~:~:::.::?.~ FREE STANDING PORTABLE ulating building construction and I.. shail:'..not' em~.i'0y;.";a"~.~:~:;~"~'~?i~::?;~ WALL I hereby ce~lfy that I am:..pr'oPeri~:-'iiC'a~8);:a~:;~a::~.~.'~:~d.~;¢~:~(~..~ ROOF State o f Cali fo rn ia BuSiness. an d .'.P. r0fe~'l~'~:~:.~'~.de~..~..D;[~i~'i~::~'~;~'~ ~:~-~?;;~ F L A G O R P E N N A N T · and that such licenses are in full forc.~.?~.nd...~ef.fec{:';~"~.].i:':.'a~:.;[~':~'~'~:~L~:~;] / .the provisions of the State of.calif0~i~?Ba=~:i'n'b~"=~:an~"::p~0:~'~:i~:-~':~:~~q~;?;· GROUND BASED ~ REAL ESTATE --. . . ..... . . ... ...... .....: .....:... ~. :.;'?,......... ........... '.:.. ....... ...:... ....... :~..~..::.:., ::.:::::~'..... ~.~:~::~?.' D,vis,on 3, Chapter 9 ..... ' .............. · '...~...'. ...... ,'?.?:::.:'.:..:/:::.?.?:~:';~.~:.:~ :.:::::~:~5:?;~:~??~;:~;:;~:~? BON {...:: D, E QU , E D O A, X ~ . ' . . . ....: .' ....: · .... :..~ :... :..: :::~'~-. :'-.'...." '....: '::.'::.??~:. ;:;;::.~;.'.: ':7::~:.:~::.:..:.: :..j.'~.~:.':' %::: ~::? ;:'~:~::. ::~:..::g~:?;~ ~,':~;~:: -A 5 i~ ..U R E '. O F ..P:E R.M .I'~.~.E.E:..'?;:: .:.~....?:~:.~:;.:?.?~:~:.~:::~?~::;,~:~::~.~:~'.~:~?:. A M 0 U N T - ~ESd~PT~O~OF'WO.K~ ...... '"' ................... ' ...... "~ ~,AC~,.~. POSTED NEW .US~NESS c. ~ c. ~o. tu.P. NO. ]VAR. NO. INSPECTION RECORD j '~ APPRO V AL DATE I NS P E CTO E~Q. DEPT. APPROVAL HOLE R,gmT OF WAY OR SUPPORT DE;T. APPROVAL. 2 6 IS'ZE ;ALL FACES) ~~) HEIGHT APPROVE.D S,~. r . FINAL EW ~ADD ~ALTER ~REPAIR ~DEMOLISH ~ _ P~MIT VA'LI DATION - EXTENDED TO- By ~ III I I I I I PERMIT EXPIRES ! / . ~! i,~t /' /I : /: /'/ / ATTACHMENT C Submitted Plans and Photographs urfa5 urrier5 145 West First Street, Tustin, California 92780 (714) 832-9802 FAX (7_14) 832-9804 September 12, 2000 ATTN' Minoo Ashabi City Of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Reference' Monument Sign at 145 W. First Street VIO00-812 Sign Code Violation Dear Ms. Ashabi, Supplemental Application 1. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES 145 West First Street is set back from the street and is hidden between the vacant lot to the east, which is fenced to the lot line on all four sides, and Econo Lube N Tune to the West. When ! purchased the property I asked the previous owner if there were any easements regarding the sign as well as checking the title policy and there were none. I would request that the existing monument sign be allowed to remain for the Two businesses which are located at 145 West First Street. Due to the lot size it is not possible for Surfas Ltd. to meet the lineal foot requirement. The signage is consistent with signs located within the First Street Specific plan at: Walgreens, Washington Mutual Bank, Union Bank (two signs, pole and monument), Good Year Tire and Brake, Wienershnitzel, Bel Air Motel, Shakey's Pizza, WellPrint, God Fathers, Sunwest Bank, Kinko's, Manga Grill and Big O Tire. o SPECIAL PRIVLEGES The Tustin City Code Sign Regulations (9405 c) provide the city the latitude to allow oversized signage. The First Street Specific plan also provides for flexibility when a lot has been consolidated. Old Worm Service New World Generation Foundation --i frl r-' Z Z 1/2" bolt i · · · ~Rebu~ld Ex~st~ng Monument Sign . .. - ~_ r- ~; f .p .if i i ~ ~' ' ~ ~'''' '~ ~ I - , ~ · ,/' X 145 W. FIRST TUSTIN, CA. · ~,==t · ~=.=1 0 o ~ · .:o.....':..:?... ., ... .. .. .:..,. z. ~ 0 0 0 < < ~ · · . · · . · : . :. · ... :. · :. · .. . . . i. · . · u'") CO. '...] ;: '1 · iI ...-.,. 8 · · · , · ..'::::: :'..'.. :':?::.:', .. · .-...-:.... ::~ .' "..' .' :..'3 ;'. 3, · .' ...' ...... . ...::-: .- .. ·. '...':.. .... ..... . ....'...-::......:....:....:.:: .... ... ...... . .. .....,... · . ..... · . · ... · . · . · · . .... .. ... · .. . -...;j .~111 ,' · i ~ PRO--CT s.. ~ T Tt.J~TIN CITY L.A. 1-I28 TRACT NO, 3 1414 9-4 TRACT NO. 555- M.M~ 26--15 PARCEL MAP PJI. 23-31 gPDSES DtVL Y. 4RANrEE AS TD Atvr L/AB IL 11Y ~E REPRDDUCED. ~999 ~' ~' ALLEY TUS T~ (ABAS. ST.) STREET '--'---"'--~--~---'"---, -I~["_ I TRACT :,~:,, ;,..~:,,.. ''i ''i~'' ,- ! IPA~ ~1 I I ~ I I /'~ I I I '= I I~ / I ~ ~ i I P.U. 123-~t I I ~ J6 ,,,~,' 8 (10 12 ~s, . .ss.._' __ '" 2 ~, _~:! __.. ........ . I i ' ,,~ ~ ~.~! ', ..... I L. PROSPECT 7..i '*---i RPflSE$ ONLY. 4RANTEE 45 TO ANY L IABIL I TY 1999 L. ~"'PROSPECT ~' 0 .:7.! 4842 PaGE · o! 0 0 0 0 FASHION 16 I P4R, t R.$, ~$.5 .. .TRACT -? RE-SUB. 933 - ?$ ~orQ t ~. LANE NO. 6617 f. OTQ t ~ 1. $17 .4C~ NO, 10477. · Ig~O l NO. 29 = I00 Tt~ACT LOT 11 FASHION'~ NO. 6617' LANE .,-? ! I I I ! 1 I · I I I ! ,,, I :1 ! · ! ~ ! ! .~ ! X O. L___i /09-to~, ATTACHMENT D Submitted Letters burfa urrier5 145 West First Street, Tustin, California 92780 (714) 832-9802 FAX (7_14) 832-9804 October q 7, 2000 ATTN: Minoo Ashabi City Of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Reference' Monument Sign at 145 W. First Street SCE 00-001 Dear Ms. Ashabi, It is very difficult for me to prepare a proper presentation for the Planning commission during the Holiday Season. As the staff is aware it takes considerable time to adequately prepare a fitting design. I would appreciate a continuance until 23 January 2001. This is the busiest time of year for my business. ~rrc'e re iy."'Z~~~' ~/.~.,~~ ./' Arnold Surfas RECEIVED OCT ~ 7 2000 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ElY' ............. OM .World Service New World Generation urfa [tl . Vurriera 145 West First Street, Tustin, California 92780 (714) 832-9802 FAX (714) 832-9804 November ~4, 2000 ATTN' Ms. Elizabeth A. Binsack City Of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Reference' Monument Sign at 145 W. First Street SCE 00-001 Dear Ms. Binsack, Thank you for reiterating the sign code requirements and reviewing the letters, which were sent out by the city. i chose to avail myself of the city policy to grant exceptions to existing regulations and was granted a continuance until 23 January 2001, as you are aware. When i submitted the Sign code exception and later requested the extension until January 2001, there was no mention that there was something else to be accomplished. Had I known that those actions were insufficient i would have pursued a more incomplete design. Mr. McComb of Econo Lube N' Tune chose not to avail himself of the possibility of an exception in 1996 and changed his signs. What he did should have no bearing on what l do. It makes no logical sense for me to remove the sign to have it reinstalled. As i indicated when I requested the Sign Code Exception; my business is set back from the road and is hidden by the vacant property that is fenced to the lot line on all four sides to the east of my property and on the west by Econo Lube N' Tune. To cover the sign is costly as is removing and replacing the sign. The sign is not a life and death issue. I am amazed that you would send out a letter over a holiday weekend after you and your staff cogitated on the issue for three weeks and then only give me a couple of days to respond. I spoke with Scott Reekstin as soon as I received the letter and expressed my thoughts verbally to him on Wednesday, November 8t", 2000. ! purchased the property at 145 West First Street in December 1998. At that time I received a Title Policy which made no mention of an easement to allow Econo Lube N' Tune a right to use my property. I asked the previous owner of the property if there was an existing lease arrangement for the use of space on the sign. He indicated that he had none. in May 1999, I notified the manager of the Econo Lube N' Tune that I would be redesigning the monument sign. I indicated that if he wished to continue on the sign there would be a rental fee required and that I would need to have a response by the end of the month. The sign was in disrepair and a hazard to the citizens who passed by. I did not receive a response until September 1999 that was long after I Old World Service New World Generation Monument Sign at 145 W. Fi,. _,~reet 14 November, 2000 Page 2 had already committed to change the sign. Had I been aware of a requirement to provide signage for another business when I purchased the property I would have done' things differently. The City and the businesses/property owners who entered into the agreement in 1977 should have added the easement into the county records. The city planners in 1977 recommended against having a requirement for one property owner to be required to maintain signage for another property owner. I am alarmed that a permit is required to maintain a light fixture. A sign is nothing more than a fixture. I would appreciate the city living up to its continuance to 23 'January 2001. I am not interested in maintaining a sign for another property owner for free. My tenants pay rent by the square foot. There is no reason why I would provide a free billboard. Arnold Surfas Encl Time Line Letter to Econo Lube N' Tune 4 May, 1999 Letter to Econo Lube N' Tune 16 September, 1999 Letter to Econo Lube N' Tune June 27, 2000 CC: Karen Peterson Scott Reekstin Minoo Ashabi Felix Garcia Old World Service New World Generatio.n Time Line 11981210 19990504 1999O723 19990726 19990914 Purchased 145 West First Street Notified Mr. Eckman that Sign being redesigned and available for rent - Deadline for sign 990528 - Negative Response Installed Banner over existing sign Banner Stolen Sign Face Reversed Mr. Eckman Called that he was going to block sign with new sign - Again I reiterated that the space was available for rent 19990924 Econo Lube N Tune Notification that sign was joint use 19991015 New Sign installed/repaired/refaced Old sign face thrown away 19991220 City Letter indicating sign was in non compliance 20000217 2nd City Letter indicating sign was in non compliance 20000622 Econo Lube N Tune looking for old sign 20000809 City Code Violation 20000905 2nd City Code Violation 20000912 Application for Sign Code Exception 20001010 Completeness of Application 20001010 20001017 20001018 Completeness of Application Planning commission Meeting 20001023 Request to reschedule to 20010123 for design Approval to reschedule Completeness of Application Planning commission Meeting to 20010123 20001019 Staff recommendation to reschedule to 20010123 20001023 Fax from Ms Ashabi w/opposition letter , , , urfas .~urriers 365 El Camino Real, Tustin, California 92780 (714) 83.2-9802 4 MAY, 1999 Attn: Mr. Kevin Eckman Econo Lube N'Tune 155 W. l't Street Tustin, CA 92780 Subject' Econo Lube N'Tune Sign @ 145 W. First Street Dear Mr. Eckman, Recently I purchased the property at 145 W. First Street. i wiil be relocating my business to that location and I will be redesigning the plastic insert for the existing monument sign. if you would like to continue with your existing sign there will a monthly rent of Two hundred dollars ($200.00) per month, lf l do not hear from you by May 28, 1999 i will remove your existing sign. Sincerely, Arnold H. I. Surfas Old World Service New World Generation burfa5 gurrier5 365 El Camino Real, Tustin, California 92780 (714) 832-9802 16 September, t 999 Attn' Mr. Robed OverDevest Econo Lube N'Tune 4911 Birch Newport Beach, CA 92627 Subject: Econo Lube N'Tune Sign @ 145 W. First Street, Tustin, CA Dear Mr. OverDevest' I own the property at 145 W. First Street. i wili be relocating my business to that location and I have redesigned the plastic insert for the existing monument sign, which is located on the property of 145 W. First Street.. As a courtesy I notified Mr. Eckman the beginning of May that if Econo Lube N'Tune wished to continue with a portion of the eXisting monument sign there would be a monthly rental. Attached is a copy of the letter, which I sent to him. i did not hear from him until this past week. I installed a banner over the sign on 23 July 1999 and on 26 July it Was stolen. Both the police and ! asked if anyone at Econo Lube N'Tune had seen the banner? No one was aware of anything happening to the banner. The plastic face, which had Econo Lube N'Tune on it, was turned around so that it was not legible. One week later someone reversed it other than myself so that it was legible. Mr. Eckman knew nothing about the switch either. About a week after that I again reversed the plastic so that it was not legible. On 10 September Mr. Eckman called to discuss the sign. i was not in and I spoke with him on 14 September. Mr. Eckman indicated that he was going to block the sign with another sign. I indicated that l had already committed to a replacement of the sign and that the rent would be $300.00 per month if he wished to retain sign space on the monument sign. Today, 16 September, ! spoke with him again he indicated that the rental fee would be up OM worm Service New World Generation S~bject: Econo Lube ,. ane Sign @ 145 W. First Street Tustin, CA 16 September, 1999 to Corporate. l felt that he threatened me when he indicated "Good luck keeping.a sign in place". As the manager of the Econo Lube N'Tune I believe that he is acting as your agent and I believe that you will be responsible should anything happen to my. sign in the future. I provided both you and Mr. Eckman with more than sufficient time to discuss the rental fee. Currently we expect to replace the sign the last week in September. Sincerely, Arnold H. I. Surfas Enclosure NS CC Law office of Walter Greene Jr. Mr. Eckman urfas urrier5 145 West First Street, Tustin, California 92780 (714) 832-9802 FAX (714) 832-9804 June 27, 2000 ATTN' David L. McCombs National Director of Construction And Development Econo Lube N Tune, Inc. 4911 Birch Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. McCombs: Your penultimate letter of June 22, 2000, is referenced. Basically, as i understand your analysis, 23 years ago, two businesses, Tustin Auto Parts and Econo Lube N Tune, elected to build a permanent structure on property that i now own. Because of that 23 year old agreement between Econo Lube N Tune, and some probably defunct third party, you claim a right existing in property that l own. ! disagree. When I bought this property, there was a rusted out, dilapidated monument sign, which showed no evidence of any recent maintenance, It would not have been cost effective to have repaired the sign. My Title Insurance Policy showed no easements or other rights exiting in the land by Econo Lube N Tune, or any other outside party. I am unaware of any written agreement, anywhere, between Econo Lube N Tune, and any party that would bind me as a subsequent purchaser of the land. Hence, I can only view your letter as a threat to trespass, and I believe you know it. I bought the property known as 145 West First Street, Tustin, California, unencumbered... Until someone shows me that I am legally wrong in that assumption, that is my belief.. I would suggest that you make sure of your legal rights before you trespass on my property; because if you choose to do so, please be advised that I will seek all remedies available to me in a court of law. Old World Service New World 'Generation DAVID L. McCOMBS ECONO LUBE N TUNE, INC. June 27, 2000 Page 2 I bought this property, and now I wish to quietly enjoy the property and get along with my neighbors and run my business. Please do not interfere with my right to do so. .. Very truly yours, ARNOLD SURFAS SURFAS, LTD CC' Walter Greene Jr., CPCU Old World Service New World Generation Econo Lube N Tune, Inc. 4911 Birch St. Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Ph: 949/851-2259 Fx: 949/250-3162 . City of Tustin Planning Commission Scott Reeckstin, Sr. Planner Tustin City Hall 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA. 92780 October 18, 2000 Faxed to: 714/573-3113 Delivered By Hand 10/20/00 Re: October 23, 2000, Planning Commission Hearing. Subject: Sign Code Exemption. Dear, Mr. Reekstin This letter is informal opposition to Mr. Surf as ' application for Sign Code Exemption 000-001. This is also a formal complaint to the City of Tustin in the above referenced matter. The following are the historical facts associated with this sign. 1977- Econo Lube N Tune Inc. petitions City for Joint Sign Permit for 145 ahd 155 West First St. 1977- City grants "Joint Sign Request" March 8, 1977. 1977- Econo Lube N Tune Inc hires Golden State Sign Co. to install shared monument sign. Econo Lube N Tune pays 100% of the cost for the permit, cabinet, electrical hook- up and Econo Lube sign face. Electricity feed from south Econo Lube building from 1977 to 2000. 1977-1996 Econo Lube N Tune pays 100% of the electricity and maintenance for the entire cabinet. Other tenant at 145 West First St. paid for installation and removal of their respective sign faces only. 1996 Overzealous Econo Lube N Tune franchisee updates building and monument siguage including repairs to the cabinet (while painting and performing maintenance to the building) without City permit. The City issues violation to Econo Lube N Tune Inc. and Econo immediately brings signage in compliance with City standard. 2000- Arnold Surfas sends letter to Econo Lube N Tune Inc. claiming ownership of the cabinet. Econo Lube sends letter to Mr. Surfas informing him of the above. Mr. Suffas ignores Econo Lube N Tune letter, removes and discards City permitted Econo Lube N Tune sign faces (installed 1996). Further, reportedly without permit, Mr. Suffas electrically disconnects the sign cabinet from the hardwire connection at the South Econo Lube building, shorting circuit breaker and leaving ~ of the building without power. The lead wires were let~ dangling out of the building covered by small amounts of electrical tape and wire nuts. 2000- I personally visit the City to protest Mr. Surfas' illegal use of our sign face. I am assured that the matter will be looked into and if found in violation Mr. Suffas would receive a violation and be forced to return the sign to its legal, configuration. The franchisee goes out of business claiming loss of ear count due to less signage. 50% of Econo Lube business is from drive by customers who see the sign (National average). Franchisee leaves owing Econo Lube N Tune Inc. $70,000 (Between two franchisees during this sign problem). Business dropped of dramatically forcing the failure of the franchisee. October 17, 2000- Mr. Suffas still enjoying use of our sign area. The City has not responded to me regarding my protest. I receive a fax of the City of Tustin Official Notice regarding the upcoming October 23, 2000 hearing on Mr. Surfas request for Sign Code Exception. October 18, 2000- I call the City and leave message with Code Enforcemem Dept. October 19, 2000. Phone call with the City informing me that the hearing would be postponed until mid January. He needs time to redesign his sign to get he City to pass the "Exception". I am extremely disappointed at the manner in which this has been handled. Why is the City even entertaining this "Exception" when the current signs are in violation of City permit? Not to mention the proposed extension where he gets to continue to use his violating sign? Why is Mr. Surfas being given special privileges not extended to Econo Lube 3 years ago when we minimally violated the code? In 1996 we mistakenly updated our building signs without a permit. The City issued us a violation and we immediately worked with the City and brought our signage in compliance with the Code. Why is the City giving Mr. Surfas so much latitude to disregard City ordinance and damage our business? Mr. Surfas also has a banner sign draped over the side of his building that, on last inquiry, was also un-permitted. Now the City is considering allowing an extension so Mr. Surfas can continue to enjoy his illegal, bootlegged, un-permitted, City'code violating sign and destroy our business? Why?? /. \ As a 23 year Tustin business owner and a 10 year Tustin resident I find this situation unbelievable, I strongly urge the City Planning Commission to Reject Mr. Surfas' request and further force him to remm the sign. s to their originally permitted condition. We want nothing more or less than permitted 23 years ago. Sincerely, David L. McCombs National Director of Construction and Development Econo Lube N Tune Inc. Personal contact #909/627-3651 Personal fax #909627-5425 Sufas Ltd. Furriers Arnold Surfas 145 West First St. Tustin, CA. 92780 June 22, 2000 Re: 145-15.5_..W=est First Subject: 7 Da_v_ Notice to return si~ml.__~er_Cjty. Joint_Sign Agreement (March 8..1~.7_~. Dear Mr. Surfas, As we discussed Tuesday morning you have removed our sign face from our cabinet. While you are correct the sign is on yom property there is a 1977 "Joint Sign Request" grantzd by the City of Tastin for 145 and 155 We~-'t First Street to equally share use of that sign. You had no rigl~t legally to take om our sign or to discard it. Your claim of ownership of the sign based on its location is erroneous. This letter will serve as a formal 7 day notice to remm the monument sign to the condition in which you found it {se~ enclosed diagram). If'you fail to do so w, may, at our sole option, remove our sign cabinet fi'om your property (as we own tho sign cabinet ~nd paid for its construction and maintenance.for the last 23 y,ars) and re-place it directly in front of our building. You will of course have access to 1/2 of the sign as described in the 1977 "Joint Sign Request". If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 949/851-2259, Sincerely, ~ David L MeCombs National Director of Construction and Development Econo Lube N Tune, Inc. 4911 BIRCH STREET, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 · RO. BOX 2470, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (7 ~ 4) 85 ~-2250 LUBE N'® & BRAKES September 24, 1999 Nh'. ,~-nold H. I. Surfas SURFAS LTD. 365 E1 Camino Real Tustin, CA 92780 Dear Mr. Surfas' I am in receipt of your letter dated September 16, 1999 and your letter to M.r. Eckman dated May 4, 1999. The monument sign (5 x 10) was constructed and paid for by Econo Lube N' Tune, Inc. The electric inside the box runs through the Econo Lube N' Tune power box. As you can see in the letter from the City of Tustin dated March 8, 1977 (enclosed) they authorized each business to have a sign face of 2 ½ x 10' on each side of the monument sign. Your building was odgin~ly a parts store. If you would like to make any modifications to the exi~g sign, you will have to work out the details with the current fi'anchisee, Mr. AggarwaI. For your convenience I have enclosed copies of the correspondence and permit pertaining to this matter. rely, Robert R. Overdevest President RRO:jr RXRe ELNT 7 92399.doc cC' Mr. Varinder-Aggarwal 155 W. First Street Tustin, CA 92680 Enclosures 4911 BIRCH STREET, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 P.O. BOX 2470, NEWPORT BEACH , CA 92658 (949) 851-2259 March 8, 1977 M~. R. R. Overdevest Econo Lube Inc. 155 West First Street Tustin, CA 92680 Subject- Joint Sign Request 145-155 West First Street· Dear Sir- I am pleased to advise that the City Council on March 7, ._or a 1977, favorably considered your joint application ~: monument sign. The conditions of approval authorized each business to have a sign face of 2 1/2' X 10' on a monument sign not to ex- ceed 6' in total height. The existing signing was authorized to remain as presently installed. It was further mutually agreed that the rear alley would be paved, as required by the Use Permit, prio_r to the issuanqe of a sign permit. . You may submit two (2) copies of a plan for design review and permit at your convenience. , ..- Sincerely yours, R. Kenneth Fleagle Assistant City Administrator Community Development Director RKF/ms City Center Centennial a~ Main Tustin, California 92680 o (714) 544-8890 urfas 365 El Camino Real, Tustin, California 92780 (714) 832-9802 4 MAY, 1999- Attn' Mr. Kevin Eckman Econo Lube N'Tune 155 W. l~t Street Tustin, CA 92780 Subject: Econo Lube N'Tune Sign @ 145 W. First Street Dear Mr. Eckman,. Recently i purchased the property at 145 W. First Street. I wiii be relocating my. business to that location and i will be redesigning the plastic insert for the existing monument si~n. If you would like.to continue with your existing sign there will a monthly rent of Two hundred dollars ($200.00) per month. If l do not hear from you by May 28, 1999 I will remove your existing sign. _Siscerely, '- Arnold H. I. Sud:a~ Old World Service New World Generation ur.fa _ urrirr 365 El Camino Real, Tustin, California 92780 (714) 832-9802 16 September, 1999 Attn' Mr. Robert OverDevest Econo Lube N'Tune 4911 Birch Newport Beach, CA 92627 Subject: Econo Lube N'Tune Sign @ 145 W. First Street, Tustin, CA Dear Mr. OverDevest: · i own the property at 145 W. First Street. l wiil be relocating my business to that location and I have redesigned the plastic insert for the existing monument sign, which is located on the property of 145 W. First Street.. As a courtesy I notified Mr. Eckman the beginning of May that if Econo Lube N'Tune wished to continue with a portion of the existing monument sign there would be a monthly rental. Attached is a copy of the letter, which i sent to him. I did not hear from him until this past week. I installed a banner over the sign on 23 July 1999 and on 26 July it was stolen. Both the police and I asked if anyone at Econo Lube N'Tune had seen the banner? No one was aware of anything happening to the banner. The plastic face, .which had Econo Lubi~ N'Tune on it, was turned around so that it was not legible. One week later someone reversed it other than myself so that it was legible. Mr. Ec_kman knew nothing about the switch either. About a week after that ! again reversed the plastic so that'it was not legible. On 10 September Mr. Eckman called to discuss, the sign. i was not in and ! spoke with him o~ 14 September. Mr. Eckman indicated that he was going to block the sign with another sign. ! indicated that l had already committed to a replacement of the sign and that the rent would be $300.00 per month if he wished to retain sign space on the monument sign. Today, 16 September, I spoke with him again he indicated that the rental fee would be up Old World Service New World Generation Subject: Econo Lube N', ~,, ~e Sign @ 145 W. First Street Tustin, CA 16 September, 1999 to Corporate. i felt that.he threatened me when he indicated "Good luck keeping a sign in place". As the manager of the Econo Lube N'Tune ! believe that he is acting as' your agent and I believe that you will be responsible should anything happen to my sign in the future. I provided both you and Mr. Eckman with. more than sufficient time to discuss the rental fee. Currently we expect to replace the sign the last week in September. _ Enclosure A/S CC · .S4¢rc~ely, ~ .... ~-. Arnold lq. i. Suffas Law office of Walter Greene Jr. Mr. Eckman March 7, 1996 Community Development Department City of Tusti n 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 David L. McCombs 4911 Birch Street P.O. Box 2470 Newport Beach, CA 92658 SUBJECT: SIGN APPROVALS FOR ECONO LUBE N' 155 WEST 1ST STREET TUSTIN TUNE AT Dear Mr. McCombs- On February 29, 1996, a Sign Permit was issued to you for Econo-Lube N' Tune. This letter is to reiterate the conditions of approval regardin~ your. sig.n, plans...These conditions are as f011~ws- ....-'". ......... " .-.._ .- ..... .". .. , · . . 1) By MarCh "22, .... i996, ~upplement~l signage .on ,..the ,.west.. side o..f. the southerly building~"fr0'~ti'ng"ist S~re'et must. be red.u, ced to a combined total '0f."~.25'~ Square' feet', in order to met this requirement you will probably need to eliminate a number of the "Service Offered" listings or reduce the letter height of the listings. The top portion of the window panels must be solid color and not contain any signs. Director (714) 57.3-3031 Planning & Zoning Info. (714) 573-3140 Building (7'14) 573-3'13'1 (7.14) 573-3.132 Housing (714) 573-3117 Code Enforcement (714) 573-3134 Business License (714) 573-3144 Inspection Requests (714) 573-3141 Graffiti Hot Line (714) 573-3111 FAX Machine (714) 573-3113 2) By ·March 22, 1996, cabinet sign on nhe west side of building fronting 1st Street must have the current "Tune-up" sign copy face replaced by a sign copy face stating "Econo Lube n' Tune." 3) 4) By March 29, 1996, cabinet sign on the "C" Street side of the northerly building with "Econo Lube" copy must be removed or have sign panel replaced.with blank face. _ . . . By March 29, 1996, board sign on the "C" Street side of the northerly building indicating ,'Customer Lounge" must be removed. Customer lounge signage may be painted on the door glass. David L. McCombs Re- Econo Lube N' Tune MaTch 7, 1996 Page 2 In addition, the northerly building has individual letter sign copy mounted above the service bay doors. Your application for sign permit does not identify this sign. I would advise you to submit plans to Mr. Gte9 Gubman, Associate Planner, as soon as possible. It appears, however, that this additional signage may not be approved since cumulatively the allowable signs would be exceeded. If you have any questions or need clarification of these conditions, please contact Gte9 Gubman at (714) 573-3127 or myself at (714) 573-3149. SincerelY, Georg~ W. Code Enforcement Officer RW:GW:kdv~o[ trs\155215t. [ tr cc- Gre9 Gubman Rick Fernandez, Econo Lube N' Tune ATTACHMENT E Excerpts from Minutes of the October 23, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting Planning COmmission October 23, 2000 Page 4 The Commission responded the latter would be preferable. The Director suggested deed-restricting the property. Chairman' Kozak asked staff if it would be appropriate to ask for a motion to continue the item. ' The Director responded affirmatively. The Public Hearing remains open. Commissioner Pontious moved, Commissioner Bell seconded, to continue this matter to the November 14, 2000, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. REGULAR BUSINESS' o Sign Code Exception 00-001 to authorize refacing of an existing joint use monument sign originally approved for businesses at 145 and 155 West First Street for exclusive use of Surfas Furriers at 145 West First Street. APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNERS: SURFAS FURRIERS LTD. ATTN: ARNOLD SURFAS LOCATION' 145 WEST FIRST STREET RECOMMENDATION' That the Planning .Commission continue Sign Code Exception 00-001 to the January 22, 2001, Planning Commission meeting. The Director mentioned correspondence at the dais from a neighboring property owner who was in the audience and wished .to come forward to provide testimony. The Deputy City Attorney approved the taking of testimony. David McCombs, representative for Econo Lube N Tube, stated opposition to continuing the matter;, Mr. Surfas removed a sign which was owned and maintained by Econo Lube and co-shared with the previous tenant for 23 years; for the past year Mr. Surfas has illegally used the sign in violation of City ordinance; Mr. Surfas. has been given two notices of violation and has failed to comply; three years ago new signage was put'on Econo Lube's building and the City found this sign was in violation; Econo Lube removed that sign and complied with City Codes; Mr. Surfas has' been using Econo Lube's monument sign without permission and against City ordinance; continuing this matter creates a hardship for Econo Lube as 50 percent of their , Planning Commission October 23, 2000 Page 5 business is drive-by; the Econo Lube sign should be brought back to permitted use; and, when that is accomplished, have Mr. Surfas request a continuance to formulate an agreement at that time. Chairman KoZak commented that the proposed c. ontinuation is for consideration of the sign code exception; other code enforcement actions would Continue. Mr. McCombs asked why the Commission was considering an exception when the sign is in violation. Chairman Kozak answered that the Commission had not seen applications or a staff report and required additional time for those developments. The Director stated that Econo Lube N Tune's signs were expeditiously removed; Econo Lube N Tune was being a good neighbor; this issue has been a pending code enforcement action; the City did not authorize or condone the actions of Surfas Furriers; two notices of violation were sent; the Planning Commission has the ability to bifurcate the sign code exception and code enforcement issues; Mr. Surfas may continue his pending request for a sign code exception but that does not mean that the City will not compel him to return the sign to what it was; and, staff will work with Mr. McCombs to accomplish a proposed course of action. Chairman Kozak asked for a motion to continue. Commissioner Jennings moved, Commissioner Pontious seconded, to continue this matter to the January 22, 2001, Planning Commission meeting. STAFF CONCERNS' Report on Actions taken at the October 16, 2000 City Council Meeting Presentation: Elizabeth A. Binsack, Director of Community Development - Adopted amendment to the Sexually Oriented Businesses Code. Approved the assignment of the lease agreement for the food and beverage concession at the Tustin Sports Park to the operators of Caf~ Piemonte. Approved the amendment to the agreement between' Orange County Water District and the City for the construction, operation, and acquisition of a groundwater desalter project for replacement of failed well. Chairman Kozak asked about the Planning Officials Forum. The Director indicated that attendance was up, and the Forum went well. Staff will provide the survey results to the Planning Commission when that information becomes available. ATTACHMENT F November 6, 2000 Letter Community Development Department November 6, 2000 City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 714.573.3100 S urfas Furriers Attn: Arnold Surfas 145 West First Street Tustin, CA 92780 SUBJECT' MONUMENT SIGN AT 145 WEST FIRST STREET Dear Mr. Surfas: In letters dated December 20,1999 and February 17, 2000, the City of Tustin notified you that the monument sig-n located on your property at 145 West First Street was not in compliance with its original approval by the City Council on March 7, 1977. The City Council approved the installation of a joint monument sign equally divided to serve the businesses at 145 and 155 West First Street. However, the sign has been modified and only identifies your business. Your property does not qualify, for its own monument sig-n because the property has approximately 86 feet of lineal street frontage, and the Tustin City Code requires 150 feet of lineal street frontage per monument sign. The two letters were followed by notices of violation dated August 9, 2000 and September 5, 2000, in which you were notified by the City's code enforcement staff that the changes to the monument sig'n on your property were made without approval and permits from the City of Tustin. On September 12, 2000, the Community Development Department received your application for a sign code exception to allow the reface of the monument si~n. Additional code enforcement action was put on hold at that time pending a determination on the sign code exception by the Planning Commission. At your request, the Planning Commission continued the consideration of the sign code exception on October 23, 2000 to January 22, 2001. Because the continuance is for a significant amount of time and the sign remains in violation, please take the following actions by the dates specified' Remove the sign and supporting structure or completely cover the monument sig-n cabinet with an opaque material by November 14, 2000. Mr. Arnold Surfas 145 West First. Street November 6, 2000 Page 2 Remm the monument sign to its previous approved condition by inserting the required sign panel identifying Econo Lube 'N Tune by no later than November 27, 2000. If the original sign panel is not retrievabl.e, please have a replacement panel approved by Econo Lube 'N Tune fabricated and inserted. City approval is also required prior to the installation of the sign panel. Failure to comply with the deadlines established in this letter may result in a citation being issued to you and/or the case may be referred to the City Attorney for legal action. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Scott Reekstin, Senior Planner, at (714) 573-3016 or Karen Peterson, Senior Planner, at (714) 573-3115. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter Sincerely,. Elizabeth A. Binsack ,. Director of Community Development cc: David McCombs. Econo Lube N Tune Karen Peterson Scott Reekstin Minoo Ashabi Felix Garcia SR:code enlX. Surfas Fumers 1 l-O0.doc ATTACHMENT G Appeal Letter burfa5 145 West First Street, Tustin, California 92780 (714) 832-9802 FAX (714) 832-9804 February 20, 200~ ATTN: Minoo Ashabi City Of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Reference: Denial of Sign Code Exception 00-001 Dear Ms. Ashabi, I would like to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission to deny my request for an exception to the sign code. The Planning Commission to a person indicated that they would have approved the request if it had not been for the number of exceptions. The staff indicated that there were four (4) exceptions required. That is incorrect. There were only two exceptions required' · An exception from the minimum street frontage requirements; · An exception from the minimum distance requirement from the side property line; During the meeting ! indicated to the Planning Commission that ! would relocate the sign to meet the minimum distance from the side property line. When I applied for the sign code exception I essentially asked for Center Identification which resolved both: · An exception to the sign area; and · An exception to the number or size of tenant signs. · When i indicated that i would relocate the sign that should have resolved the issue. ~rno d Suffas '~ Old Worm Service New World Generation RECEIVED FEB 2 0.2001 COMMUNITY DEYELOP~NT , 1,1 , J_ ATTACHMENT H Excerpts of the First Street Design Guidelines and Excerpts of the Tustin Sign Code · 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ [303:: Om: ~0 ~ m [:3UJ ZI-,- II. uJ I-. z uJ z 0 z 0 0 0 0 0 ~ I (D O,.i.-! 4J (!) I I I (D ~ ~:L.IJ 0 O3 m"O (D~> a3 ~ ~ O3 (3.) ~ .IJ.I-.I (D O 03 0~-~ 03 .~.~ a3 ~ °) O0 ,, ~JSTIN CITY CODE SIGN REGULATIONS 9408[Cht] ~ ,' · -. · · .. · . l:~r: !1-91 LU-4-46 . o TUSTIN CITY CODE SIGN REGD~.TI ONS 940S[Cht] 0 o.. .M P~EV: 11-91 TUSTIN CITY CODE REV: 11-91 SIGN REGULATIONS ............... 9408[ChJ LU-448 TUS'TIN CITY CODE' SIGN REGULATIONS 9405[Cht] .. i.'.".:' '-:.: '... · . - . REV: 1!-91 LU-4-49 U -= .~_ TUSTIN CITY CODE SIGN REGULATIONS 9405[Cht] t{EV: 11-91 eJ '-- 'eJ '-' 0 ~ 0 u o ~ E'~ 'o · - =~ .- , , , ' .. ~ . -- , _ - '; ~ o ~ .~ , , . . , . , O ~ O' .. . , . . . O Om ~ ~ ~ u .= . , . ~ . - '. , LU-4-50 .. · , :.. .. . '-:~.:::...'.: .'%-' TUSTIN CITY CODE SIGN REGULATIONS 9408[Cht] o-' ;'; T i~EV: 11-91 LU4-51 ATTACHMENT I Sign Survey of First Street i I I J · I'INIAI' Iil. I ..I. i' A ATTACHMENT J Photosimulations of Potential Signs First Street Looking West First Street Looking East First Street Lookin~ East First Street Looking East ATTACHMENT K First Street Lot Consolidation Provisions LOT CONSOLIDATION PROGRAM Lot consolidation, for the purposes of this Specific Plan, shall refer to the legal combination of lots or the develop- ment of m61tiple lots under separate ownership as one cohe- . sively designed development. A single, parcel, existing at the time of adoption of this Specific Plan is not eligible for the lot consolidation bonuses. ~ a means to encouraqe lot 'consolidation along First Street rather than requiring it by specifying larger than presently existing lot sizes, the City Planning Commission ~ grant certain b'onuses for consolidations exceeding a certain level. The.s.e bonuses may include relaxed height limita- tions, being able to develop a secondary use under primary use site development .standards, relaxed setbacks or other such modifications as may be determined to be appropriate. How does it work? In order to qualify to request a lot consolidation bonus, the total a~ea of the lots being combined or cohesively designed must surpass the minimum required lot size by at least 50%. If a minimum lot size is not stipulated, the lots being combined area automatically eligible for bonus provisions. For example, two adjacent owners, want to cohesively develop 'their properties as one development. Property owner A's property is 7,500 square feet and prop- erty B's lot is 9,000 square feet. The minimum lot size requirement under which they are developing is 10,000 square feet. Combined, th'eir development parcel safely exceeds 15,000 square feet (50% over minimum or 15,000), therefore they may seek lot consolidation bonuses. It should be specifically noted here that this is a com- Pletely discretionarY' action of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is under no obligation to grant dev- el6pment bonuses. In addihion to determining-the degree of the bonus provision, they will also determine how well the development has addressed the design guidelines of this spe- cific plan. Any bonuses, may be granted by 'the Planning Commission on a case by case basis with past actions not affecting, future direction. Each development will stand, on its own meri't. , . The following bonus provisions are available but shall not be limited to- Parking reductions Height relaxation ~ Legal assistance in parcel assemblage Lot cove rage relaxation Ability to develop secondary uses under development standards primary use site Reduction or waiver of processing fees Agency.loan for infrastructure improvements Agency land purchase, lease or write-down · 12-2-85 111-20 ATTACHMENT L E-Mail Dated January 17, 2001 From: Arnold Surfas [surfas@ix. netcom.com] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 8:11 AM To: Elizabeth A. Binsack (E-mail) Subject: FW: Sign Code Exception 00-001 ..... Original Message---- Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 11:54 PM To: Elizabeth A. Binsack (E-mail) Subject: Sign Code Exception 00-001 January 17, 2001 Reference: Sign Code Exception 00-001 Dear Ms. Binsack, Thank you for taking the time to meet with me this afternoon to discuss the Staff Report. As I take the time to review the report ! believe that there are special circumstances which support my request for an exception. According to the resolution 3755 which staff is recommending to the Planning commission, I am responding according to points. D 1. Based upon other signs issued during the same time frame the city council did approve signs on properties with less than the required 150-foot or 200-foot requirement, Godfathers, Wellprint and Remax, Kinko's. The Council also far exceeded the size issue when it approved the (now) Washington Mutual Sign (18X8 by 24'8" high). D 2. This is the issue for which we are asking for an exception. The sign code is so loosely worded that there is no way for a business or individual to determine what is "closely as practical" ??????????????? D 3. The sign as proposed actually only has a face size of 33.25 square feet as opposed to the 40 square feet that staff is indicating. Walgreens monument sign, which was installed under the current sign code in 1996, is over 75 square feet. While Walgreens is not within the FSSP it does fall under the same Tustin Sign Code which is being applied here. This is just one of many signs that have been installed in the city. D 4. The property is not similar to other properties in that the building is set back and is hidden from the East by a 6' high fence built to the sidewalk. While there is a Wall on the East Side.that a sign could be installed on, it is quite possible for that sign to be covered up by a building on said vacant lot. From the West it is hidden by Econo Lube N' Tune. The wall which faces First street contrary to the staff response is not visible from the street as it is obscured by the 2 25' tall trees located in the sidewalk area and the 2 25' trees located on said property. Installing signs upon the fagade certainly would detract from the appearance of the building. D 5. This report is the first time that them has been any city guidance as to what they are looking for in a sign. Within this Staff Report (Attachment G) limited guidance is provided. D 6. As discussed in 1 D 4. This property is not similar to any other properties located on First Street. The other properties which had monument signs superimposed on them all are visible from the street. The adjacent properties have equal setbacks enabling the buildings to be seen from either direction (Attachment J). The buildings also are generally office buildings and not Retail businesses, which rely on drive by traffic. if you would like to proceed with this to the planning commission on Monday I will be prepared to talk with the commission. If you would rather postpone the issue, until you and I have had further time to discuss the issues, that will also be ok with me. I believe that if this is reviewed further staff will be able to agree with'the points, which I have made. The design proposals, which ! have prepared, were rough. It made no sense to provide a final design until the planning commission/staff provided additional guidance. The sign Faces can be adjusted base upon city staff input, for which I have received none. Thank you in advance for your support. I look forward to meeting with you at 0730, January 18th Arnold Surfas Surfas Ltd su rfas@ix, n etcom, com (7.14) 832-9802 FAX (714) 832-9804 ATTACHMENT M Sign Code Purpose TUST~N C]]-f CODE SJGN REGULATJONS CHAPTER 4 SIGN REGULATIONS 940] ...-.. - 9401 PURPOSE The purpose of ~his chapter is to promote community /dentiiy and effective business identification through the regulation and design o£ signs and sign structures within the City of Tustin. Because signs and graphics are an essential el&ment of our community, their loca- tion, number, size and design have a significant influence upon the community's visual and economic environment. The regulation thereof is considered necessary to promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare through consideration o£ safety and the aesthetics o£ any si=mas and graphics to be installed within the City. .. This chapter provides requirements for'the location, re=ma]ation, maintenance and design of signs that meet [he following object'yes: a. Ma_int'ain and enhance the quality of the City's appearance by avoiding sigm clutter and encou, ra~ng the coordination of signs on.multi-use or multi-tenant sites. b. To ensure that si=mas are compatible in design, ti>~pe and color with their surroundings and the community as a whole. . c. Regulate the number and size of signs according to standards consistent with the t3Te of establishment in each zoning district which are appropriate to the t3]oe of activity to which they' pertain or the business which they identify. · d.Limit off-premises signs in order to control sigma proliferation, protect the aesthetic goals of the City and maintain the visibility and effectiveness of on-premises.signs. e. Provide each siffn user an oppo~unity for effective identification While at the same time limiting the number and area of signs permiltted on a site. · · _ f. Ensure that all sig'ns are inherently safe and do not pose a hazard to pedestrian or vehicular traffic or property, and to a/low security surveillance by regulating view obscuring displays on businesses. ~ · (Ord. No. 1077, Sec. 1, 10-21-91) 9402 DEFINITIONS The following terms as used in this chapter shall have the respective meanings as set forth except when the context clearly indicates otherwise. A supplemental ~mraphic presentation of cema.in definitions is prov/ded as information and is included as section 9412. "Abandoned sigma" is a sign which no longer identifies or advertises a bona fide business, lessor, service owner, product, or activity, and/or for which no legal ox~mer can be found. "Act of God" is a natural occurrence such as wind, rain, flood, fire or earthquake. REX:: ~.9~ LU-4-3 TUST]N CITY CODm SIGN REGULATIONS 9402 "Aerial si~-m" is a sign which is inflatable or designed to be flown or attached to the ground, building, st. ruct. ure or o~her objec% which may or may no[ include copy. "Aggregate area" is the combined permitted sign sizes of all signs on any one (1) lot, site, building, structure or other premises, excluding temparar~ signs, noncommercial signs, spe- cial even~ signs, public information signs and traffic signs. "Alter" means to change color (o~her ~han copy color), size, shape, position, locaMon, or method of illumination of a sign. This shall not include replacemen~ of face copy on cabine~ ~ype signs. "Animated or flashing signs" means any adverMsing sign or str~c~ure 16coted outside of a building or within twelve (12) inches of the inside of a window which has any v/sible mov/ng part, visible revolving parts or visible movemen~ achieved by electrical,' electronic, ar kinetic means, including inte{-mittent, electrica/pulsaMons or by action of n3rmal wind currents2 "Arcade" is a covered passageway projecting from the exterior wall of a building and supported by posts or columns attached ~o the ground. "Arcade si__~n." means a sign projecting beneath or on the underside of any s~ructural overhang or passageway and perpendicular ~a the fron~ building facade; see section 9412. "Area" (See Si~, area o~ " "Attached si=ma" is any sign permanently aft-~ed to a but]ding or affixed ~o'the external surface of a building (inclucling wall signs). "At~racMon board" is a Changeable copy sign. "Automobile sera,ice business" is a business whose primary, purpose is gasoline sa/es, ancillary uses ma5' include auto repair, ~ire sa/es ~md auto supply sales. 1 "Ax~ming" is a rooflike s~ruc~ure extending over a door, window or al/or a_ny portion of a - build/rig wall and projecting from anal supported by the ext~erior wall of a bu//~ng; s.ee secMon · 9412. "A~ming sign" is a sign painted on, prin~ed on or a~ac}~ed ~o the front surface of an awning. "Balloons" means a sphere of nonporous material fzlled w/th air or gas. "Banner si=ma" is a temporm-y sign made 'of fabric or any nonri~d material with no enclosing framework. "Beacon" means any stationary or mov/ng light source or light w/th one (1) or more beams that rotate or move ]ocatecl outside of or inside a building, or within three {3) feet of a w/ndow and flashing with one (1) or more beams directed into the atmosphere or rtireeted at one (1) or more points not on the same lot as the light source. '~Beneh sign" means an5' si__ma which is placed or erected on a stationa_D' seat or bench. REX': ~_~.~ LU44 · .. · · . .. ATTACHMENT N Resolution No. 3755 and Minutes of February 12, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting 10 ]4 l? 20 2! 24 25 RESOLUTION NO. 3755 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING SIGN CODE EXCEPTION 00-001, A REQUEST FOP, 'REFACING AN EXISTING JOINT USE FIFTY (50) SQUARE FOOT MONUMENT SIGN FOR BUSINESS. -IDENTIFICATION 'OF THE BUSINESSES LOCATED AT 145 WEST FIRST STREET (SURFAS FURRIERS) The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as followS: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: That a proper application, Sign Code Exception 00-001, was filed by Arnold Surfas requesting 'approval to reface an existing fifty square foot joint use monument sign previously approved for identification of businesses located at 145 and 155 West First Street for exclusive use of businesses at 145 West First Street. Bo That the proposed project would require' approval of a sign code exception by the Planning Commission pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9405c prior to implementation. That the Planning Commission considered this item on October 23, 2000, and continued the matter to the January 22,' 2001, and February 12, 2001, meetings of the Planning Commission. Do Bo That this project is Categorically Exempt (Class 11) pursuant to Section 15311 of the California Environmental Quality Act. · That pursuant to the criteria set forth in Sign Code Section 9405c, the following findings support denial of the request for a sign code exception' The request is not consistent with the intent of the City Council's approval of the original sign exemption. in 1977, the City Council approved a sign exemption and a sign permit was issued on the basis that the combined street frontage of 145 and 155 West First Street would provide sufficient frontage to meet the requirements of the Sign Code for installation of a monument sign. Based on the Council's action, it does not appear. as though a sign exemption would have been approved if shared use of the sign for both properties was not proposed or provided. The applicant modified the sign, thereby eliminating joint use with the adjacent property. The current sign code exception request would l0 ]4 l? 20 2] 22 24 25 2? 28 Resolution No. 3755 February 12, 2001 Page 2 o 3~ , benefit one property which is inconsistent with the intent of the City Council's exemption. The sign size and placement restrictions of the sign code are not as closely followed as practicable. As Individual Business Identification, the sign exceeds the allowable sign area by eight (8) feet, identifies three tenants rather than one as allowed, provides only 57 percent of the required street frontage, and does not maintain the required separation from the side property line. As Center Identification, the sign area exceeds allowable sign area for tenants, provides only 43 percent of the required street frontage, and does not maintain the required separation from the side property line. The sign deviates significantly from the requirements of the Tustin City Sign Code and does not follow the restrictions as closely as practicable. A wall sign could be located on the building that would be visible to east- and west-bound traffic. The intent and purpose of the sign regulations of the land use zone in which the sign is to be located are not followed as closely as practicable. The purpose and intent of the sign regulations for the commercial district are to prevent proliferation of signs along a commercial corridor while providing for reasonable signage that is compatible with the size of the property. The proposed sign would establish a sign that would not otherwise be allowed due to the limited street frontage, in addition, as Individual Business Identification, the sign exceeds the allowable sign area by eight (8) feet, identifies three tenants rather than one as allowed, and does not maintain the required separation from the side property line. As Center Identification, the sign area exceeds allowable sign area for tenants and does not maintain the required separation from the side property line. The proposed sign does not follow the intent and purpose of the sign regulations for commercial properties. There are no special circumstances unique to the property to justify the exception. The property is similar to other properties along First Street, and there are no special circumstances unique to the property which preclude compliance with the Tustin City Sign Code or justify an exception. Although the main 'portion of the building is setback from First Street, thero is a blank wall facing First Street which is only thirty-three feet from the front property line that could provide for ]0 ]4 2O 2! ?-2 24 26 2? Resolution No. 3755 February 12, 2001 Page 3 il. sufficient wall sign that would be visible to east- and west-bound traffic. Granting'the exception will surrounding properties' have a negative impact on the The proposed monument sign will have a negative effect on surrounding properties in that the sign is not compatible with the building and the adjacent properties. The proposed sign appears to · be out of scale with the project and is not compatible with the design features of the building. The .proposed tenant signs also present a variety of information including phone numbers and supplemental information in a variety .of font types that are not integrated into a harmonious design, in addition, granting a sign code exception based on the sign area, number of tenant signs, street frontage, and separation requirements would set a precedent for other properties that do not meet the requirements for a monument sign. el The sign application does not promote the public, health, safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community and granting the exception does not meet the findings and intent of the sign code. The sign .design does not promote the aesthetics of the community since it does not complement the building, appears out of scale with the surrounding area, and presents a variety of information that is not successfully integrated into a harmonious design, in addition, authorization of a monument sign for a property with less than 150 feet or. 200 feet as reqUired by the Sign Code would set a precedent for other commercial properties with less than the required street frontage and could initiate a proliferation of seventeen (17) additional monument signs along First Street. The Planning Commission hereby denies Sign Code Exception 00-001 to reface an existing fifty square foot joint use monument sign previously approved for identification of businesses located at 145 and 155 West First Street for exclusive use of businesses at 145 West First Street. Resolution No. 3755 February 12, 2001 Page 4 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting on the 12th day of February 2001. _ ' ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary ]2 ]4 '//S'I; N V. KOZAK Chairperson STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF OP~NGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) !, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that ! am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3755 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 12th day of February 2001. 17 ~.~~~~~ 18 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK ]~ Planning Commission Secretary 2O 21 :23 24 25 26 29 .... ., MINUTES 7:00 p.m. ~:4....TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION '. '.-,' ",. I :¢~.,.'~.. ' ' "2 " REGULAR MEETING · · . "'... o .. ' FEBRUARY'12, 2001" .... ': ~.. -r · ' '. ~. ..~. · CALL TO ORDER" Given PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE All present ROLL CALL Staff present Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director Doug Holland, Deputy City Attorney Karen Peterson, Senior Planner Minoo Asabi, Associate Planner Patty Adams, Assistant Planner Eioise Harris, Recording Secretary PUBLIC CONCERNS - N~)ne CONSENT CALENDAR Approved 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 22, 2001, REGULAR MEETING it was moved by. Pontious, seconded by Bell, to approve the Minutes of the January 22, 2001, Regular Meeting. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS Adopted Resolution No. 3767 o Continued public hearing for Conditional Use Permit 00-031 a request for authorization to establish a 2,000 square foot smog testing facility in a planned industrial community. The project is located at 621 South B Street, Suite AA, in the Planned Industrial (PM) zoning district. : Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3767 denying Conditional Use Permit 00-031. 7:01 p.m. The Public Hearing opened. Adams Pr,.s..nted the staff report. DISCUSSION Applicant Frank Malik Expressed his desire to withd~w this project. Ga~, Stepp, Unit 621 Stated his opposition to the project. 7:05 p.m. The Public Hearing closed. Minutes- Planning Commission Febuary 12. 2001 - Page 1 PDniious Kozak and Jennings Adopted Resolution No. 3768 7:07 p.m. Ashabi Amie Kimeldoff, applican("s representative Pontious Kozak and Miller Adopted Resoluti2n · No. 3755 · Staled the parking situation disallowed the proposed use; this was an unfortunate silualion' and, expressed her hope that another location for the applicant's projeud can be found within the City. , 'Echoed Pontious' comments. · .. . ., , It was moved by Pontious, seconded by Jennings0 lc) adopt Resolution No. 3767. ,. Motion carried 5-0. , Conditional Use Permit 00-030 a request for authorization to provide massage services in association with a full-service salon within an existing tenant space of an office/retail building. This project is located at 17480 East 17~ Street, Suite 200, in the Planned Community Commercial (PC-COMM) zoning district. Recommendation' That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3768 approving Conditional Use Per:mit 00-030. The Public Hearing opened. Presented the staff report. Stated the establishment has been providing this service for twenty years with no complaints; applicant was not aware that a permit was required; services are provided only for 'regular salon customers; and, no changes in this procedure are planned. Stated her appreciation for Mr. Kimeidod's appearance at the meeting; and, stated her support for staff's recommendation. Echoed Pontious' statements; and, added their suppo,t for staff's recommendation. It was moved by Miller, seconded by Bell, to adopt Resolution No. 3768. IVlotion carried 5-0. REGULAR BUSINESS 4. Sign Code Exception 00-001 a request to allow reface of an existing fifty (50) square foot joint use monument sign originally approved for businesses at 145 and 155 West First Street for use of Suffas Furriers at 145 West First Street. This project is located at 145 West First Street within the First Street Specific Plan (Commercial Primary)zoning district. Recommendation: 1. Den), the request by adopting Resolution 3755; or, · 2. Direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval if the Mznute$- P:anning Commission February 12, 2001 - Page 2 Kozak · . .- .. Arnold Surfas Miller IVir. Surfas David IVlcCombs, representative for Econo Lube 'Iq Tube Pontious Mr. McCombs Kozak Mr. McCombs Jennings Mr. McCombs Chairman Depub' City A~omey Jennings Staff DePuty City Attorney Planning Commission o~,res to approve ,h.. request as an "Individual Business Identification" or "Center Identification" sign. InCited the applicant to come forward even though -'. this item was not a public hearing ..... Stated the history of his ownership of the business and his understanding of the signage arrangement when he purchased the property; and, asked for latitude allowing for the sign to remain. Inquired if the sign had originally been shared with the other business owner and why there is no longer a willingness to share the monument sign. Responded it was his understanding that the former businesses were similar, which is no longer the case. Stated his disappointment with the non-response to his request at the Planning Commission meeting of October 23, 2000, asking that the sign be restored to its former condition; stated the monument sign had been owned and operated by Econo Lube 'N Tune for twenty-four years prior to its dismantiing by Mr. Surfas; and, reiterated his request that the sign be returned to' its former condition--advertising both businesses. Asked what 'impact bringing down the sign would have on the businesses. ,ali..d. Answered that already two businesses have Questioned whether the monument sign originally constructed by Econo Lube 'N Tune. was · Responded affirmatively and added that the sign had served to advertise two businesses. Asked if Econo. Lube 'N TLJne wished to divide the sign to advertise his business and Surfas' Furriers. Answered affirmatively. Asked staff what action would be appropriate, based on the 1977 signage decision. Indicated that the application before the Planning Commission was the only issue to be addressed. Asked if a sign could be placed on the east side of the building. Answered that any' sign must be facing Fi. st Street or the parking lot. Stated that the application for a permit in 1977 was issued to two businesses, Econo Lube 'N Tune and an auto parts store. Minutes- Planning Commission February 12, 2001 - Page 3 l,/ir. Surfas Jennings Pontious Bell Chairman Director Continued Chairman Alex Mann Jennings Miller Jennin~,s Indicated moving the sign 25 feet to the east would be acceptable to him. Stated her belief that this building complements Old Town but more signage is not the answer; and, expressed the hope that the two partes can come to an agreement to share the monument .... Stated' that the. application involves too many exceptions; the tenants should work together; and, if the tenants cannot work together, perhaps they should submit separate applications. Agreed with the foregoing comments by Pontious and Jennings; and, stated her support for staff's recommendation. Stated his non-support for the exceptions and asked the tenants to come to an agreement. Pontious moved, seconded by Bell, to adopt Resolution No. 3755. Motion carried 5-0. Stated the sign should be removed or reverted back to its former appearance before any further applications are submitted. Design Review 01-001 a request for authorization to repaint the building exterior including the fascia, parapet walls and wainscot with peach and orange colors. This project is located at 1091 Old Irvine Boulevard.within the C-1 Retail Commercial zoning district.' Recommendation: Pleasure of the Planning Commission. Invited the applicant to speak. Stated that off-white is difficult to maintain given the bowling alley's clientele; and, indicated he had a.ttempted to match the Spanish-style colors in the area. S,at..d that, if applicant meant terra co~-2 and peach, the result was unsuccessful. ,_xpr..ss..d his support of the color scheme, which is not dissimilar to The Market Place; added that Tustin Lanes has been a Tustin-based business for a long time and therefore retains historic value; and, stated applicant should be allowed to use the ~.oior scheme presented. Indicated the Tustin Lanes architecture is quite different from The Market Place; and, suggested applicant work with staff to find colors that complement, the architecture. Minutes - P:annin.o Commission February 12, 20D1 - Page 4 Bell Chairman .... . ... Ivlr. Ivlann Director Chairman Director Jennings Bell Pontious Miller " Kozak Stated thai the applicant is on the right track bu! colors are too harsh; e×p,...,,s..d an understanding of the maintenance problems; and, suggested that softer colors would be acceptable. · .....:....~..... ,,,.:. Stated the colors are not compatible with the.pole and · .,..',.';:.;-........ ........ :..:.. wall-mounted signs or the style of the building; .:.., .... ., ' : ..... . .. indicated the Planning Commission. is responsible for visual appearances in the City and the proposed colors . are incompatible with the structural design; and, advised applicant to find an alternate color scheme. Asked that the Commission consider the colors at El Torito as a comparison; indicated he has been working with staff to 'no avail; and, asked the Commission to reconsider requiring off-white for the fascia. Suggested the Commission adopt the denial and perhaps a color compromise can be reached at the staff level. Reiterated that the present colors are too garish-and make the building itself .a sign' and, asked staff to suggest appropriate colors. Suggested a two-week continuance during which staff can work, with applicant. It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Jennings, to continue this item to the February 26, 2001, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. COMMISSION CONCERNS Non5 Thanked staff for the informative CDBG workshop. Stated there is a tom awning at Bagel Me on Newport Avenue. Thanked staff for the quick response to trash problems at the Y2K Chinese Buffet Restaurant and stated work on the restaurant is still moving slowly. Thanked Commissioners Bell, Jennings and Pontious for their participation in the CDBG workshop. Stated it is good to see work on the postal parking lot advancing. Asked that staff investigate the blank 4' by 8' sign on Newp::)rt Avenue near Little Gym and Circle K. Stated there is also a raised monument sign with exposed bolts and metal rods in this same area, which is creating a hazard for pedestrians, and suggested this damaged monument be removed. Minutes- Ptannin.~ Commission February 12, 2001 - Page 5 Director 8:28 p.m. Staled there are pallets, open containers, and other debris al 621 South B Street; three large trash bins, a broken-down sofa, and outside storage at 649 South B Street; and, asked staff tc~ investigate, Stated that bins may not be required to.. _b.~ in enclosures at this site, but staff will investigate and address the potential public nuisances at thc, se Iocatic~ns', ." .. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Pontious, seconded by Bell, to adjourn. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Monday, February 26, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Elizabeth A..:3insack Planning Commission Secretary ,/Ste/p~V. Kozak Chairman Minutes- .='lanning C.o,m,'r,,.;ss~un February 12.2001 - Page 6 ATTACHMENT O Resolution No. 01-28 ]0 ]2 ]5 17 18 20 2! ~2 23 24 25 26 2? 2g 29 RESOLUTION NO. 01-28 A RESOLUTION' OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION AND DENYING THE APPEAL OF SIGN CODE EXCEPTION 00-001, A REQUEST FOR REFACING AN EXISTING JOINT USE FIFTY (50)SQUARE FOOT MONUMENT SIGN FOR BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION OF THE BUSINESSES LOCATED AT 145 WEST FIRST STREET (SURFAS FURRIERS) The City Council hereby resolve as follows' The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application, Sign Code Exception 00-001, was filed by Arnold Surfas requesting approval to reface an existing fifty square foot joint use monument sign previously approved for identification of businesses located at 145 and 155 West First Street for exclusive use of businesses at 145 West First Street. B. That the proposed project would require approval of a sign code exception by the Planning Commission pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9405c prior to implementation. Co That the Planning Commission considered this item on October 23, 2000, and continued the matter to January 22, 2001, and February 12, 2001. On February 12, 2001, the Planning Commission denied the request by adopting Resolution No. 3755. D,, That the applicant appealed the Planning February 20, 2001. Commission's decision on i. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held-on said appeal on March 19, 2001, by the City Council. Fo That pursuant to the criteria set forth in Sign Code Section 9405c, the following findings support denial of the request for a sign code exception: . The request is not consistent with the intent of the City Council's approval of the original sign exemption. in 1977, the City Council approved a sign exemption and a sign permit was issued on the basis that the combined street frontage of 145 and 155 West First Street would provide sufficient frontage to meet the requirements of the Sign Code for installation of a l0 12 ]4 l? 20. 2! 22 24 25 ?-6 2? 28 29 Resolution No. 01-28 March 19, 2001 Page 2 2~ , , monument sign. Based on the Council's action, it does not appear a sign exemption would have been approved if shared use of the sign for both properties was not proposed or. provided. The applicant modified the sign, thereby eliminating joint use with the adjacent property. The current sign code exception request would benefit one property which is inconsistent with the intent of the City Council's exemption.. The sign size and placement restrictions of the sign code are not as closely followed as practicable. As Individual Business Identification, the sign exceeds the allowable sign area by eight (8) feet, identifies three tenants rather than one as allowed, provides only 57 percent of the required street frontage, and does not maintain the required separation from the side property line. As Center Identification, the center does not include three (3) valid businesses, the sign area exceeds allowable sign area for tenants, provides only 43 percent of the required street frontage, and 'does not maintain the required separation from the side property line. The sign deviates significantly from the requirements'of the Tustin City Sign Code and does not follow the restrictions as closely as practicable. A wall sign could be located on the building that would be visible to east- and west-bound traffic. The intent and purpose of the sign regulations of the land use zone in which the sign is to be located are not followed as closely as practicable. The purpose and intent of t. he sign regulations for the commercial district., are to prevent proliferation of signs along a commercial corridor while providing for reasonable signage that is compatible with the size of the property. The proposed sign would establish a · sign that would not otherwise be allowed due to the limited street frontage. In addition, as Individual Business Identification, the sign exceeds the allowable sign area by eight (8) feet, identifies three tenants rather than one as allowed, and does not maintain the required separation from the side property line. As Center Identification, the center does not contain three valid businesses, the sign area exceeds allowable sign area for tenants and does not maintain the required separation from the side property line. The proposed sign does not follow the intent and 'purpose of the sign regulations for commercial properties. There are no special circumstances unique to the property to justify the exception. ]0 ]4 ]7 tS 20 2! 22 24 25 26 2? 28 Resolution No. 01-28 March 19, 2001 Page 3 II. The property is similar to other properties along First Street, and there are no special circumstances unique to the property which preclude, compliance with th6 Tustin City Sign Code or justify an exception. Although the main portion of the building is setback from First Street, there is a blank wall facing First Street which is only thirty-three feet from the front property line that could provide for sufficient wall sign that would be visible to east- and west-bound traffic. , Granting the exception surrounding properties. will have a negative impact on the The proposed monument sign will have a negative effect on , surrounding properties in that the sign is not. compatible with the building and the adjacent properties. The proposed sign appears to be .out of scale with the project and is not compatible with the design features of the building. The proposed tenant signs also prosent a variety of information including phone numbers and supplemental information in a variety of font types that are not integrated into a harmonious design. In addition, granting a sign code exception based on the sign area, number of tenant signs,, street frontage, and separation requirements would set a precedent for other properties that do not meet the requirements for a monument sign. , The sign application does not promote the public health, safety, welfare, and aesthetics of the community and granting the exception does not meet the findings and intent of the sign code. The sign design does not promote the aesthetics of the community since it does not complement the building, appears out of scale with the surrounding area, and presents a variety of information that is not successfully integrated into a harmonious design. In addition, authorization of a monument sign for a property with less than 150 feet or 200 feet as required by the Sign Code would set a precedent for other commercial properties with less than the required street frontage and could initiate a proliferation of seventeen (17) additional monument signs along First Street. The City Council hereby upholds the Planning Commission's action and denies the appeal of Sign Code Exception 00-001 to reface an existing fifty square foot joint use monument sign previously approved for identification of businesses located at 145 and 155 West First Street for exclusive use of businesses at 145 West First Street. ]0 14 20 2! 22 23 24 2.5 2(; 2? 29 Resolution No. 01-28 March 19, 2001 Page 4 PASSED AND ADOPTED by City of Tustin City Council, at a regular meeting on the 19~' day of March, 2001. TJ'~c~/Wills Worley Mayor Pamela Stoker City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) SS CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 01-28 o PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 01-28 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 19th day of March, 2001, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNClLMEMBER ABSENT: Pamela Stoker, City Clerk • • RECEIVED NEULAND, NORDBERG & ANDREWS OCT 1 0 2000 A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 22502 AVENIDA EMPRESA ADMINISTRATION RATION RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA,CA 92688 TELEPHONE (949) 766-4700 FACSIMILE(949) 766-4712 October 5, 2000 HAND DELIVERED AND U. S. MAIL City Council City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780-3715 Attn: City Clerk Re: Appeal to City Council from Planning Commission Decision Subject: Narrowing the Scope of the Appeal from Design Review 00-024 Dear Members of the Tustin City Council: At the request of Minoo Ashabi I am narrowing the scope of Tustin Ranch Estates appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission at their September 25, 2000 meeting. Tustin Ranch Estates Maintenance Association appeals from the following conditions of the Planning Commission's decision on Agenda Item #5, Design Review 00-024 (there is no appeal from the Administrative Adjustment 00-001), regarding Request No. 1 and No. 2: 1.) Condition 2.1, as it relates to "open pedestrian access"; 2.) Condition 2.8, as it related to compelling the proposed fence "be relocated"; and 3.) Condition 1.5, unless the decision regarding "open pedestrian access" is removed. Yours very truly, NEULAND, NORDBERG & ANDREWS A'ro?�x,,lnalLa. Corporation RICHARD P. NEULAND RPN:nh cc: Board of Directors Tustin Ranch Estates Maintenance Association Elizabeth Binsack Tustin Ranch Estates\Itr\City Council re Planning Commission Appeal 092600 16-tt 1 copr-40 Edt3 Ico