HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 32941 RESOLUTION NO. 3294
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I ·
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, DENYING SIGN CODE EXCEPTION 94-003
REQUESTING AN EXCEPTION FROM TUSTIN CITY CODE
SECTION 9403HD REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL SIGNAGE TO BE
SUBORDINATE TO BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION, AND TO
ALLOW SUPPLEMENTAL SIGNAGE TO EXCEED 25 PERCENT OF
THE ALLOWABLE SIGN AREA FOR A COPY CHANGE TO THE
EXISTING NON-CONFORMING ROOF SIGN LOCATED AT 1542
EL CAMINO REAL.
The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A·
That a proper application for Sign Code Exception
94-003 was filed by William Taylor requesting a
sign code exception from Section 9403hd of the
Tustin City Code for a copy change to the existing
non-conforming roof sign on the building located at
1542 E1 Camino Real.
Be
Pursuant to City of Tustin Sign Code Section 9405c,
denial of the request to authorize an exception to
the Sign Code to allow a sign to display only
supplemental signage, thus exceeding the 25% of the
allowable sign area cannot be supported by the
following findings:
·
The intent and purpose of the sign requl~tions
of the land use zone in which the siqn is to
be located are not followed as closely as
possible. The purpose of the Sign Code is to
promote community identity and effective
business identification through the regulation
and design of signs. One intention of the Sign
Code is to maintain and enhance the quality of
the City's appearance by avoiding sign clutter
and to regulate the number of signs according
to standards consistent with the type of
establishment in each zoning district which
are appropriate to the type of activity of
which they pertain or to the business which
they identify. Therefore, adequate
identification of product, trade and service
information is already provided in the
multiple supplemental signs existing at the
location including "Open 24 hours", "arcade"
"coffee shop" "open" "restaurant" and "family
dinning" [sic]. Further supplemental signage
would increase sign clutter and would
contradict the intent of the Sign Code.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution 3294
Page 2
·
There are no special circumstances unique to
the property to justify the exception. The
property has been affected by the freeway
expansion and according to the applicant this
freeway widening has cost him 40% of his
sales. However, the new sign copy was
installed without the benefit of any permits
as required by the Sign Code. If an
application had been submitted for review
prior to the installation, appropriate sign
copy could have been designed and approved,
avoiding any additional expense, therefore, no
special circumstances justify the sign code
exception request.
·
Granting the exception will have a neqative
.i~pact on surroundinq properties. Granting
the exception would have a negative impact on
the amount of sign clutter at the location as
it would increase the amount of supplemental
signage. Granting the exception would also
allow the business owner special privileges
not permitted to other surrounding businesses.
Other businesses in the area must comply with
Section 9403hd requiring signs to contain only
the information that is necessary to identify
the business and that supplemental signage be
subordinate to business identification.~
·
The siqn application does not promote the
public health, safety, welfare and aesthetics
of the community and the grantinq of the
exception meets the findings and intent of
this chapter. As the purpose of the Sign Code
is to promote community identity and effective
business identification through the regulation
and design of signs, this request to deviate
from the sign code is inconsistent with the
aesthetics of the community because it would
promote sign clutter.
II. The Planning Commission hereby denies Sign Code Exception
94-003 requesting a Sign Code Exception from Section
9403hd of the Tustin City Code for a copy change on the
existing non-conforming roof sign located at 1542 E1
Camino Real and authorizes Community Development
Department staff to pursue code enforcement action.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution 3294
Page 3
Recording Secretary
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 8th day of August, 1994.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, BARBARA REYES, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am
the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City
of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3294 was duly
passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning
Commission, held on the 8th day of August, 1994.
Recording Secretary