HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 3 VARIANCE 91-14AGENDA
�' PUBLIC HEARING NO
10-7-91
IT<
DATE. OCTOBER 7, 1991 nter-ComsT
TO- WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER ADOPTED RESOLUnONNo.
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 91— la a
SUBJECT VARIANCE 91-14
It is recommended that the City Council uphold the Planning
Commission's denial of Variance 91-14 by adopting Resolution No
91-128
On September 9, 1991, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No 2946 (attachment E) denying Variance 91-14, a request to
authorize an off -premise sign for the restaurant located at 13951
Carroll Way to be located on a structure at 13931 Carroll Way The
applicant has appealed the Planning Commission's decision to deny
Variance 91-14 (Attachment F)
The proposed off -premise sign is located on a structure in Mimi's
Plaza facing the SR -55 (Newport Freeway) The applicant's business
is located in a nearby structure within the shopping center which
does not face the freeway Other uses in the shopping center are
retail uses Retail uses exist to the east, across Carroll Way;
and to the south,across Seventeenth Street Single family dwelling
are to the north of the subject property, and the SR -55 (Newport)
Freeway is to the west
Please refer to the attached Planning Commission report for further
detail
A hearing notice identifying the time, date, and location of the
public hearing for the proposal was published in the Tustin News
Property owners within 300 feet of the site were notified by mail
of the hearing and notices were posted on the site and at the
Tustin Police Department The applicant was informed of the
availability of the agenda and staff report for this item and
meeting agenda
3
• 0
City Council Report
Page 2
October 7, 1991
The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 9444(f) of the
Tustin City Code, which states that no off -premise signs are
permitted in the city A variance from the Sign Code may be
granted when the following conditions are found to apply
1 That because of exceptional circumstances applicable to the
subject property, the strict application of the Sign Code is
found to deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by
other properties in the vicinity and under similar
circumstances
2 That the variance shall be subject to such conditions as will
assure that the adjustments thereby authorized will not
constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district
in which the property is located
The Planning Commission felt that there were no exceptional
circumstances for the subject property The site is flat, has a
regular shape and is of adequate size to provide signage that meets
the Code requirements Other properties with similar zoning have
signage that meets the Code requirements This property is not
being denied any privileges that other property owners enjoy
Granting a Variance to allow an off -premise sign will set a
precedence and other properties will request similar variances from
the Tustin City Code
On October 16, 1989 the City Council heard an appeal to overturn
the Planning Commission's decision to deny a request to allow off-
site signage at the same location as part of the master sign
program for Mimi's Plaza The City Council upheld the Planning
Commission decision (Attachment A) The Tustin City Council
determined in their 1989 decision that there are no exceptional
circumstances related to the property and that the property owner
is not being deprived any privileges afforded to other property
owners for this property in regard to off -premise signs
The proposed off -premise wall sign on the rear of Building 1 is not
permitted by Code Section 9444(f) of the Tustin Sign Code defines
off -premise signs as "any sign installed for the purpose of
advertising a product, person or subject not related to the
premises upon which said sign is located " The Webster Dictionary
definition of premise is "the place of business of an enterprise or
institution " The Tustin Sign Code establishes size, height and
location restrictions for business identification wall signs
(Section 9494b) The purpose of such signs is to identify the
location of the business within the building Therefore, wall
•
City Council Report
Page 3
October 7, 1991
signs identifying businesses located in a separate building are
considered off -premise signs and prohibited Section 65906 of the
State Planning Law prohibits the granting of a variance for a use
that is not otherwise permitted by the City's Zoning Code This
would be considered a use variance The Community Development
Department and the City Attorney's office have discussed this issue
and concur with this interpretation of off -premise signs
The proposed new Sign Code as presented to the City Council will
continue to prohibit off -premise signs
The applicant's appeal letter (Attachment F) discusses financial
hardship incurred by the business owner who has been required by
the City to remove the sign In the attached Planning Commission
Minutes (Attachment G) from the September 9, 1991, Commission
meeting the applicant is recorded as stating that the
developer/ property manager informed the applicant that their lease
allowed them to place a sign on the building facing the freeway
However, according to an Agreement to Conditions Imposed signed by
the developer, the developer was aware that the City Council denied
the request to permit off -premise signs Therefore, it is clear
that the owner gave incorrect information regarding the off -premise
sign
Based upon the above analysis, staff has determined that there are
no special circumstances that would allow the City Council to grant
a variance for the subject off -premise sign In addition, approval
of such a variance would constitute a "use variance" which is
prohibited by state law Staff recommends that the City Council
deny an appeal of Variance 91-14 by adopting Resolution No 91-128
Becky Stone
Assistant Planner
BCS kd\var91-14 ccr
Attachments Resolution No 91-128
Christine A ShirAigleton
Assistant City Manager
Community Development
ITEM #5
Report to the �$
Planning Commission
DATE SEPTEMBER 9, 1991
SUBJECT VARIANCE 91-14
APPLICANT TOKYO LOBBY RESTAURANT
13951 CARROLL WAY
TUSTIN, CA 92680
OWNER TUSTIN RETAIL LTD
C/o WILLIAM P FOLLEY III
2100 S E MAIN STREET, #400
IRVINE, CA 92714
LOCATION
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS
REQUEST
13951 CARROLL WAY
TUSTIN, CA 92680
RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-1)
THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15311 OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
AUTHORIZATION TO ALLOW AN OFF -PREMISE SIGN FOR THE
RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 13951 CARROLL WAY TO BE
LOCATED ON A STRUCTURE AT 13931 CARROLL WAY
It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny Variance 91-14
by adopting Resolution No 2946
BACKGROUND
The applicant, Tokyo Lobby Restaurant, is requesting authorization
to retain an off -premise sign The restaurant is located at 13951
Carroll Way in Mimi's Plaza, and the applicant is requesting an
off -premise sign to be located on a structure facing the SR -55
(Newport) Freeway at 13931 Carroll Way, in the same shopping
center Other uses in the shopping center are retail uses Retail
uses exist to the east, across Carroll Way; and to the south,
Planning Commission Report
Variance 91-14
September 9, 1991
Page 2
across Seventeenth Street Single family dwellings are to the
north of the subject property, and the SR -55 (Newport) Freeway is
to the west
Off -premise signs are prohibited by the Tustin Sign Code Section
9444(f) defines an off -premise sign as any sign installed for the
purpose of advertising a product, event, person or subject not
related to the premises upon which said sign is located, except
directional signs
On August 28, 1989, the Planning Commission denied a variance
request to allow off-site signage at the subject location as part
of the master sign program for Mimi's Plaza The City Council
subsequently upheld the Planning Commission's denial by adopting
Resolution No 89-157 (Attachment A)
On March 20, 1991, the applicant submitted plans to erect a freeway
oriented sign at 13931 Carroll Way Plans called for a 24 -square
foot wall sign made of 18 -inch high, red, channel letters with
bronze returns to be placed below the eave of the structure,
aligned with existing tenant identification wall signs (Attachment
B) Submitted plans did not represent that the restaurant was not
also located at 13931 Carroll Way. The plans were approved
accordingly
After conversations with the City Attorney's Office, on June 6,
1991, the City of Tustin Code Enforcement Officer sent a letter
revoking the sign permit and informing the applicant that the off -
premise sign was not permitted, and that incorrect information had
been submitted for the sign permit exhibits Instead of complying
with this request to remove the sign, the applicant applied for a
variance to allow the off -premise sign on August 18, 1991, after
the sign had been in place for approximately four (4) months.
The applicant currently has two wall signs located on the
restaurant premises which are the maximum size allowed by the
Mini's Plaza Sign Program (Attachment C). The first sign is
approximately 30 -square feet and is located on the north elevation
(building 3 of Sign Program site plan) over the entrance to the
restaurant The second sign is located on the south elevation of
the restaurant and has an area of approximately 25 square feet The
subject restaurant also has space on the Mimi's Plaza monument sign
facing Carroll Way, which is also allowed by the Mimi's Plaza Sign
Program.
A public hearing notice identifying the time, date and location of
Planning Commission Report
Variance 91-14
September 9, 1991
Page 3
the public hearing on this project was published in the Tustin
News. Property owners within 300 feet of the site were notified of
the hearing by mail The applicant and property owner were
informed of the availability of the staff report on this project
DISCUSSION
The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 9444(f) of the
Tustin City Code, which states that no off -premise signs are
permitted in the City A variance from the Sign Code may be
granted by the Planning Commission when the following conditions
are found to apply -
1 That because of exceptional circumstances applicable to the
subject property, the strict application of the Sign Code is
found to deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by
other properties in the vicinity and under similar
circumstances
2 That the variance shall be subject to such conditions as will
assure that the adjustments thereby authorized will not
constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district
in which the property is located
There are no exceptional circumstances for the subject property
The site is flat, has a regular shape and is of adequate size to
provide signage that meets the Code requirements. Other properties
of similar zoning have signage that meets the Code requirements
This property is not being denied any privileges that other
property owners enjoy Granting a Variance to allow an off -premise
sign will set a precedence and other properties will require
similar variances.
A copy of the applicant's letter has been attached as Attachment B
In it, the applicant explains that the leasing agreement granted
the right for Tokyo Lobby Restaurant to place an off -premise sign
on one of the buildings in Mimi's Plaza that -Is oriented toward the
Newport Freeway This leasing agreement was probably not changed
after the variance request was denied by the Planning Commission
and City Council to correctly reflect the Mimi's Plaza Sign Program
requirements
The applicant also states in the attached letter that the applicant
never falsified any of the documents submitted to the City,
however, the plans that the permit was issued under did not
identify the business address
Planning Commission Report
Variance 91-14
September 9, 1991
Page 4
The definition of an off -premise sign, as stated earlier, is any
sign installed for the purpose of advertising a product, event,
person or subject not related to the premises upon which said sign
is located, therefore the applicants' statement that the sign is
located on the same parcel as the business location and is
therefore not an off -premise sign is invalid
Likewise, Tokyo Lobby does have business identification on the
monument sign facing Carroll Way, which is a busy thoroughfare
utilized by persons who reside in the residential areas to the
north of Seventeenth Street Since the applicant has three
permitted signs providing business identification for the
restaurant the argument that the public would believe that the
business has closed is equally invalid
The proposed off -premises wall sign is prohibited by the current
Sign Code, and will not be permitted by the new Sign Code Section
65906 of the State Planning Law prohibits the granting of a
variance for a use that is not otherwise permitted by the City's
Zoning Code This would be considered a "use variance" and would
be in conflict with State Planning Law
Based upon the above analysis, staff has determined that there are
no special circumstances that would allow the Planning Commission
to grant a variance for the subject off -premise sign In addition,
approval of such a variance would constitute a "use variance",
which is prohibited by State law Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission deny Variance/91-1144 \f by adopting Resolution No
2946
Becky Stone g
Assistant Planner Assistant City Manager
Community Development
BCS nm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO 89-157
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY A PORTION OF VARIANCE
89-10, A REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE A) TENANT
IDENTIFICATION MONUMENT SIGN TWO FEET FROM FRONT
PROPERTY LINE, B) OFF -PREMISE WALL SIGNS, AND C)
REAR WALL SIGNS TO BE 75 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE,
LOCATED AT 13911 CARROLL WAY
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows
I The City Council finds and determines as follows
A That a proper application Variance 89-10 has been filed on
behalf of Tustin Retail Limited, requesting approval to
install a tenant identification monument sign within the
front setback and requesting approval of signs exceeding the
size limitations at 13911 Carroll Way
B That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held for
said application on August 28, 1989, by the Planning
Commission, at which time the Commission adopted Resolution
No. 2669 denying a portion of Variance 89-16
C That an appeal of the Planning Commission's action has been
filed by Tustin Retail Limited
D That a public hearing to consider the appeal of said action
was duly called, noticed and held on October 16, 1989
E That the City Council has reviewed the request for a 35
square foot monument sign to be located two (2) feet from
the front property line and has determined that the Variance
from the standards cannot be supported by the following
findings
1 There are no exceptional circumstances applicable to
the subject property which deprive this property of
privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity and under
similar circumstances in that the site is of a regular
shape, topography and size similar to others in the
vicinity and no other property along 17th Street has a
tenant identification monument sign of this size which
is parallel to or located within 2 feet from the front
property line
2 There are no conditions that could be applied to this
sign that will assure that a two (2) foot setback will
not constitute a grant of special privileges
inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in
the vicinity in that the size, height and location of
the sign close to the access drive, sidewalk, street
and freeway interchange create a cluttered streetscape
and potential traffic hazard.
Atta&merd A
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18i
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
28
•
Resolution No 89-157
Page two
•
The granting of a Variance to permit the monument sign
to be two feet from the front property line would be
materially detrimental to adjacent and surrounding
properties, in that a two (2) foot setback for the
monument sign located adjacent to the driveway will
constitute a visual traffic hazard, will reduce the
visual sight distance and is within an area of future
street widening
4 The granting of this Variance would be contrary to the
goals and policies of the General Plan in that the
goals of the Circulation Element are to coordinate the
circulation system with planned land uses and to
promote the safe and effective movement of traffic.
F That the City Council has reviewed the request to permit
off -premise business identification wall signs on the west
side of Building 1, and to exceed the size limitations for
the signs located on the west side of Building 1, and has
determined that a Variance from the standards cannot be
supported for the followirtg reasons
There are no unusual or exceptional circumstances
applicable to the shape, size, topography, location or
intended use of the subject property which do not
necessarily apply to other properties in the same
zoning district in that the subject property could be
developed with signs that meet the size limitations of
the Tustin Sign Code and provide for adequate
visibility
Granting the requested Variance would convey a special
privilege to the property owner which is not enjoyed by
other property owners in the same zoning district in
that all other property owners must comply with the
requirements of the Zoning and Sign Codes when
developing or altering their sites.
The granting of this Variance may be materially
detrimental to adjacent and surrounding properties, in
that the increased size of signs on the subject
property may result in a visual and aesthetic nuisance
to traffic and neighboring properties In addition,
approval of the Variance will set a precedence for
other commercial shopping centers on Seventeenth
Street.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
is
Resolution No 89-157
Page three
rIj
4 The granting of this Variance would be contrary to the
General Plan in that the Scenic Highways Element of the
General Plan requires that signs oriented toward the
freeway system shall be in compliance with the City of
Tustin Sign Ordinance
G That the request includes a Use Variance to permit the
off -premises signs on the rear of Building 1 which is not
permitted by State Planning Law
II The City Council hereby upholds the Planning Commission action to
deny a portion of Variance 89-10 a request to authorize a)
tenant identification monument sign two feet from front property
line; b) off -premise wall signs, and c) rear wall signs to be
75 square feet in size, located at 13911 Carroll Nay All
conditions of approval contained in Planning Commission
Resolution No 2669 shall remain in effect.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular City Council meeting held on the 16th
day of October , 1989
rMAKY-A ,
M
F1ARY
City C1 k
Mayor
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF TUSTIN )
MARY E WYNN, 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 89-157 was duly and regularly introduced, passed
and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 16th day of
October, 1989, by the following vote
AYES
COUNCILPERSONS;
NOES
COUNCILPERSONS
ABSTAINED
COUNCILPERSONS
ABSENT
COUNCILPERSONS
Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy
Kelly, Prescott
None
None
" u1 —
MARYl-Er\ W7, Cit Clerk
O
e
IN
R:
M
I L_
Attachment 6
p
0
50
e
IN
R:
M
I L_
Attachment 6
p
0
MOHS
1p,
SWONIN
pROGRpM
SIGN
p,ttaclhMe
,Nttachme
ve
Mimi's Plaza
13911, 13931 and 13951 Carroll Way
Tustin, California
This criteria has been established for the purpose of assuring an
aesthetically pleasing and successful shopping center The intent
of the following sign criteria is to offer the Tenant as much
flexibility as possible The specified signs will offer both
identity and maximum aesthetic quality which will benefit the
Tenant and the Shopping Center Conformance will be strictly
enforced, and any installed non -conforming or unapproved signs must
be brought into conformance at the expense of the Tenant
A GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Prior to applying to the City of Tustin's Community
Development Department for approval and permits, each
Tenant shall submit to the Landlord for approval before
fabrication, at least two copies of detailed drawings
indicating the location, size, layout, design, and color
of the proposed signs, including all lettering and/or
graphics
All signs shall be reviewed by the Landlord for
conformance to this criteria and overall design quality
Approval or disapproval of sign submittals based on
aesthetics of design shall remain the sole right of the
Landlord No sign shall be installed until such
approvals shall have been granted in writing by Landlord
All permits for signs and installation thereof shall be
obtained by the Sign Contractor who shall also be
responsible for compliance with applicable codes and with
this criteria The expense of fabrication and
installation of all signs, including permits, shall be
the responsibility of the Tenant
B GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS
1 No projections beyond the signs area will be permitted
The sign area is to be within the limits as indicated by
Landlord and this criteria
Except as provided herein, no advertising placards,
banners, pennants, names, insignias, trademarks or other
descriptive material shall be placed or maintained upon
the glass panes and supports of the show windows and
doors or upon the exterior walls of buildings or store
fronts
All signs and their installation shall comply with all
local building and electrical codes
Community Development Department
Mimi's Plaza
13911, 13931 & 13951 Carroll Way
Tustin, California
4 All electrical signs will be fabricated by a UL approved
sign company, according to UL approved specifications and
will have a permanent UL approval label affixed to side
in a clearly visible manner
5 Tenant will be responsible to supply Landlord with a copy
of sign permit prior to sign installation
6 Sign fabricator shall supply Landlord with UL sticker
number prior to Landlord approval
C RESTRICTIONS AND PROHIBITIONS
1 Tenant shall be responsible for the manufacture, complete
installation and maintenance of all signs
2 All signs are to be installed under the direction of the
project developers representative
3 Tenant shall be fully responsible for the operations of
Tenant's Sign Contractor
4 All penetrations of the building structure required for
sign installation shall be sealed in a water -tight
condition and shall be patched to match adjacent finish
5 No exposed lamps or tubing will be permitted
6 No animated, flashing or audible signs will be permitted
7 Each Tenant who has a non -customer door for receiving
merchandise will have uniformly applied on said door in
a location directed by Landlord and his agent, in two
inch high black Helvetica Medium letters, the Tenant's
store name and address Lettering will be centered on
the door width and two feet down from the top of the non -
customer door
8 Tenant will be permitted to place in window panel
opposite the hinged side of the door to the entrance of
its demised premises, not more than 144 square inches of
white Helvetica Medium Vinyl graphics or equal, not to
exceed two inches in height, indicating hours of
business, telephone number, etc See enclosed drawings
for elevation
Community Development Department
Mimi's Plaza
13911, 13931 & 13951 Carroll Way
Tustin, California
9 Tenant may install on the store front, if required by the
U S Post Office, the number only for the street address
Numbers will be two inch high white Helvetica Medium
letters See enclosed drawings for elevation
10 All signs are not specifically addressed in this criteria
are prohibited unless approved by the Landlord and his
agent
D PROPERTY SIGNS
Address letters to be
Marshal's code Letters
foam, not to exceed 8" in
E MONUMENT SIGNS
affixed to building as per Fire
to be constructed of high density
height
Two (2) monument signs may be installed to identify this
project One may be located on Seventeenth Street,
perpendicular to the street and in front of the existing
restaurant Said sign shall be located a minimum of seven (7)
feet from the front property line The sign shall be a center
identification monument sign and there shall be no
identification of any individual tenants
A second monument sign may be located on Carroll Way and shall
be installed per the attached elevation and plot plan
Major tenants will have first option to be listed on the
Carroll Way monument sign Drawings must be submitted to
±andlord nrior to fabrication
F FREEWAY SIGNS" v v - tN��,+�.�lr
A maximum of eight (8) tenants located withi� - ina #1 may
have signage on the rear (west) elevation of the building,
y facing the freeway All such signs shall be a maximum of 5%
of the wall area on which the sign is located, not to exceed
25 square feet in size Said signs shall not exceed 24" in
G
height and shall be constructed per the details and
specification for tenant signs
All major tenants are defined as tenants occupying more than
4,000 square feet
Community Development Department
Mimi's Plaza
13911, 13931 & 13951 Carroll Way
Tustin, California
All signs for major tenants will be negotiated on a case by
case basis concerning color, size and return color, etc
Details of such signs shall be per section titled "Tenant
Signs" below and elevations included as part of this sign
program A maximum of three major tenant signs may be located
on the upper fascia of Building 1, as indicated on the plans
All major tenants located within Buildings #2 and #3 shall be
limited to the same sign restrictions as minor tenants See
sign plans
H TENANT SIGNAGE
1 SIGN TYPE CHANNEL LETTERS
Signs shall be composed of individual lettering Sign
cabinets, boxes and cans will not be permitted Logos
will be prohibited
COLORS (FACES)
Red Rohm & Haas #2157
Green Rohm & Haas #2108
Yellow Rohm & Haas #2037
or as approved by Landlord
RETURNS
Returns and trim caps are to be painted bronze
LETTER STYLES
Avant Garde Helvetica Optima Bold
Clarenden Helvetica Bold
Any tenant with requirements for type styles other than
the aforementioned shall submit examples to the Landlord
for approval
FORMAT
1 Logos shall be prohibited
2 Script to be considered on a case by case basis
3 Copy to be centered on fascia (vertically and
horizontally)
Community Development Department
Mimi's Plaza
13911, 13931 & 13951 Carroll Way
Tustin, California
2 All letters to be internally illuminated from within with
30 MA tube neon No exposed neon will be permitted All
openings will be properly sealed to prevent light leaks
3 Letters to be all metal pan channel construction and use
approved PK housing if neon penetrates the fascia
4 Tenant must obtain written approval and signed shop
drawings prior to manufacture or installation
5 The specific size, location and letter height of each
tenant sign are included on the detail and elevation
plans included as part of this sign program
SJP kbc
Community Development Department
I
I
I I
I I
1
I j
I I
1 I
TIr m
11
El
•
N �- -'
N
N
r-,
E
Ah
0
•
0
HUG --10-13q1 It i2 F Pi FUEPIOPE PRINGLE HOOF TCI* 1" 14E -12052E` F 0--
PETER
2
FETED C ?NCSF$ON
GILEEPT W.
=AV -0 C 3URAEN>J^O
ROQUEMORE PRINGIE H MOORE INC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Z... ...T
LOS kNGELC5. CA 90040-2466
August 30, 1991
The Planning Department of
the City of Tustin
15222 Del Amo
Tustin, CA 92680
Attention Becky Stone
Re Application for Variance by
Address 13951 Carroll Way,
Owner Torao Nishiyama
Dear Ms Stone
TELE-CIGY ` )I•
Tvkyu Lvbby Restaurant
Tustin, CA 92680
Tokyo Lobby Restaurant located at 13951 Carroll Way, is a
Japanese restaurant that opened in the City of Tustin in June of
1990 There are also 2 other very successful Tokyo Lobby
Restaurants in San Gabriel and in Hacienda Heights The Nishiyama
family has been in the restaurant business for generations The
Tustin Tokyo Lobby is very appreciative of the manner in w1iich
Tustin residents have welcomed the restaurant
In the underlying Lease, Tokyo Lobby was granted by the
landlord, the right to install a sign on one of the buildings on
the parcel that is situated alongside the I-55 Newport Freeway
This parcel and project has 3 commercial buildings situated on it
The building known as 13931 Carroll Way is the only building -n
this project with exposure on a main throughway A site plan is
attached as Exhibit "A
In March, 1991, Tokyo Lobby contracted with the Allstate Sign
Company, the sign company used by the landlord for the project, to
install an 18" illuminated channel letters sign on the 13931
Carroll Way building The Application was submitted to the City by
the sign company on March 5, 1991, and approved on or about Mar -h
28, 1991 The Application asked for the business address of the
applicant and the correct address of 13951 Carroll Way was given
The sign was subsequently installed at the beginning of May,
1991, at an expense of approximately $6,500 00 On June 6, 1991,
the City of Tustin gave notice that a field inspection had
discovered that the a sign had been installed at 13931 instead of
the business address of 13951 Tokyo Lobby at all times, was very
candid and open about the fact that the sign was to be on the 139
building. Tokyo Lobby never had any inkling that the location of
the sign on one of the other buildings in the project would be a
Attachment D
HUG-'_,O-1:�q1 it 1-:
FFLk1 RiOnUEHOFE PF.INGLE HOOF
TO®
F Ot
The Planning
Department of
August 30,
1991
the CiLy of
Tustin
Page
Two
problem Luz Lhe City Whenever Tokyo Lobby was asked to give its
business address, it always gave its proper address Tokyo Lobby
never falsified any of the documents submitted to the City The
error was by the CiLy in assuring that the sign was going on the
business address building The sign remains in place pending the
determination of the Planning Commission
The basis of the hardship justification supporting the
Application for Variance by Tokyo Lobby Restaurant are as follows
1 Tokyo Lobby has already expended approximately $6,500 00
for the installation of the sign in question, which has been in
place for over 4 months
2 Tokyo Lobby is not placing its sign on a building on a
different piece of property The sign is louaLed un a companion
building on the same parcel in the same project
3 Tokyo Lobby has no other area for a sign LhaL hunts a
major thoroughfare
4 The taking down of the sign after being up for ov
months would lead the public into believing that the restauran a
closed
5 That any error in approving the permit was due to the
inadvertent assumption by the City that the sign was to be located
at the business address as opposed to the address provided
6 The sign has been up per its previous permit approval for
over 4 months
I would be happy to discuss the above hardships in detail at
your request
with kind regards,
ROQUEMORE, MINGLE & MOORE, INC
05
GMN/jj
. NIS
-I.
RUG-a=i-'1� 1 Ib 13 FF-^ POG!UPIORE• PRINGLE & MOCIP Til® 171453-IoG25 P 34
Tr=
'M V M100011"��'
uirww ri�i1{MiM M
MIA
6 pNiN•a 9viewa owed
leg
F :gL• I pg€�
i C
L a Is
fill 1
�*�w
u
ArJ"Emd owa '
LIM
TCITHL P 04
1
2 RESOLUTION NO 2946
3 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE
4 REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE AN OFF -PREMISE SIGN
LOCATED AT 13931 CARROLL WAY FOR THE
5 RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 13951 CARROLL WAY
6 The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby
resolve as follows
7
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as
g follows -
9 A That a proper application Variance 91-14 has
been filed on behalf of Tustin Retail Limited,
10 requesting authorization to permit an off -
premise sign to be located at 13931 Carroll
11 Way for the restaurant located at 13951
Carroll Way.
12
B That a public hearing was duly called, noticed
13 and held for said application on September 9,
1991
14
C That the Planning Commission has reviewed the
15 request for an off -premise sign and has made
the following findings -
16
1 There are no unusual or exceptional
17 circumstances applicable to the shape,
size, topography, location or intended
1$ use of the subject property which deprive
the property owner business
19 identification which is enjoyed by other
property owners in the vicinity.
20
2. Granting the requested Variance would
21 convey a special privilege to the
property owner which is not enjoyed by
22 other property owners in the same zoning
district in that all other property
23 owners must comply with the requirements
of the Sign Code and are not allowed to
24 display off -premise signs
25 3 The granting of this Variance maybe
materially detrimental to adjacent and
26 surrounding properties, in that the
presence of off-site signs on the subject
27 property may result in a visual and
aesthetic nuisance to traffic and
28 neighboring properties, including
Attachment E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
101
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
RM
•
Resolution No
Page 2
•
2946
residential properties to the north of
the subject property that would be
subjected to more off-site signs as a
result of this Variance In addition,
approval of the Variance will set a
precedence for other commercial shopping
centers on Seventeenth Street and
elsewhere in the community
E That the request constitutes a Use Variance to
permit the off -premises sign which is not
permitted by and in conflict with State
Planning Law
II The Planning Commission hereby denies the request
to authorize an off -premise sign located at 13931
Carroll Way for the restaurant located at 13951
Carroll Way
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of
September, 1991.
A N L B
hairman
_
KATHLEEN CLANCY
Recording Secreta
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, KATHLEEN CLANCY the undersigned, hereby certify that
I am the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission
of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No.
2946 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of
the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 9th day of
September, 1991
KAT�IP Q LANCY
Recording Secretary
City of Tustin
15222 Del Amo Avenue
Tustin, CA 92680
Attention Community Development Department
Re Denial of Variance 91-14
Client Tokyo Lobby Restaurant
Dear Sirs
- RECEIVED -
SEP 16 ft
AREA CODE 213
TELEPHONE 724-3117
Please be advised that Tokyo Lobby Restaurant does hereby
appeal the Denial of Variance 91-14 by the City of Tustin Planning
Commission on September 9, 1991
The basis of the appeal will be as follows
1 The strict application of the Sign Code would deprive
Tokyo Lobby of sign privileges afforded other properties in the
city under similar circumstances
2 The City of Tustin issued a permit for the subject sign
in March 1991
3 Severe financial and public relations hardships will
occur if the sign is brought down after being up for over 4 months
The expense of manufacturing and installing the sign is $6,500 00
Bringing the sign down now will also imply to the public that the
restaurant has closed
4 There is an absence of detriment to adjacent and
surrounding commercial and residential properties
With kind regards,
ROQUEMORE
M
GMN/J7
cc City Council
Tokyo Lobby
& MOORE, INC
MURA
Attachment F
ROQUEMORE PRINGLE F3 MOORE INC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
THOMAS
L ROQUEMORE
60ES EAST WASHINGTON BOULEVARD -SUITE 930
ICHAEL
E MOORE
LOS ANGELES. CA 90040-2466
JOHN P
PRINGLE
DAVID R
HADERBUSH
PETER C
ANDERSON
ROBERT
L BRAINARD
GILBERT
M NISHIMURA
September 13, 1991
DAVID C
BURHENROAD
City of Tustin
15222 Del Amo Avenue
Tustin, CA 92680
Attention Community Development Department
Re Denial of Variance 91-14
Client Tokyo Lobby Restaurant
Dear Sirs
- RECEIVED -
SEP 16 ft
AREA CODE 213
TELEPHONE 724-3117
Please be advised that Tokyo Lobby Restaurant does hereby
appeal the Denial of Variance 91-14 by the City of Tustin Planning
Commission on September 9, 1991
The basis of the appeal will be as follows
1 The strict application of the Sign Code would deprive
Tokyo Lobby of sign privileges afforded other properties in the
city under similar circumstances
2 The City of Tustin issued a permit for the subject sign
in March 1991
3 Severe financial and public relations hardships will
occur if the sign is brought down after being up for over 4 months
The expense of manufacturing and installing the sign is $6,500 00
Bringing the sign down now will also imply to the public that the
restaurant has closed
4 There is an absence of detriment to adjacent and
surrounding commercial and residential properties
With kind regards,
ROQUEMORE
M
GMN/J7
cc City Council
Tokyo Lobby
& MOORE, INC
MURA
Attachment F
Planning Commission Minutes
September 9 1991
Page 5
•
Commissioner Weil stated that she understood the need to make fewer
curb cuts, but that they should make the area more bearable for the
residents
The Director replied that this is an information item from the
Public Works Department that Vandenberg provides relief to 17th
Street, and that they should refer the matter to Public Works
before a decision is made
Commissioner Baker asked if the applicant would consider continuing
the matter for two weeks
Mr. Oka affirmed
Commissioner Le Jeune moved. Weil seconded to continue the item to
the next meeting in order to obtain approval from the City's
traffic engineer to change the curb cut from Vandenberg Lane to
APPLICANT. TOKYO LOBBY RESTAURANT
13951 CARROLL WAY
TUSTIN CA 92680
OWNER. TUSTIN RETAIL LTD
c/o WILLIAM P FOLLEY III
2100 S.E MAIN STREET, $400
IRVINE, CA 92714
LOCATION. 13951 CARROLL WAY
TUSTIN, CA 92680
ZONING RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-1)
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS- THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15311 OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
REQUEST' AUTHORIZATION TO ALLOW AN OFF -PREMISE SIGN FOR THE
RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 13951 CARROLL WAY TO BE
LOCATED ON A STRUCTURE AT 13931 CARROLL WAY
RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission
deny Variance 91-14 by adopting Resolution No 2946
Presentation. Becky Stone, Assistant Planner
Staff made changes to Resolution No 2946, as moved
The Director provided a stamped set of plans with the address of
the business as identified by the applicant, a copy of the building
permit showing another address stated that on the advice of the
City Attorney's office, they revoked the building permit
Commissioner Well asked for a clarification of the application for
a sign permit
Staff described the process for submittal through approval of a
sign permit
The Director clarified that once the plans leave the planner, they
are then issued over the counter, the applicant pays fees and that
is the last they see of it until it is called out for inspection
Attachm nt
G
•
•
Planning Commission Minutes
September 9, 1991
Page 6
Commissioner Weil asked if the application for the sign permit and
the plans do not get together
The Director affirmed, until later in the process
Staff stated that the misleading point was that there was no
information on the plans indicating that the tenant was not in the
building listed on the plans
Commissioner Weil asked if this was normal
The Director replied that the applicant is required to provide the
locational information; and that in this case they applicant did
not supply other than the address
Commissioner Le Jeune asked when their existing building signs were
installed
Staff replied March 1990
The Public Hearing was opened at 7.45 p m
Gilbert Nishimura, spokesperson for Tokyo Lobby Restaurant, stated
that the plans were submitted with the address being 13931; that
the mistake was innocent that their lease grants signage rights on
the building facing the freeway, that there are three (3) buildings
on one (1) parcel, that they carefully indicated the placement of
the signage on the application, that their receipt shows that the
City was aware that the business location was 13951 even though
they were requesting signage on 13931, he questioned the issue of
off-site signage since it is on the same parcel; that there should
be no objection to the signage, that the cost of $6,500 would
create a hardship if the sign is removed and might imply that the
restaurant is out of business; and that the service station's off-
site sign sets a precedent
Commissioner Kasoarian asked when the applicant saw the Mimi's
Plaza sign program; and if he was aware of Item F regarding the
prohibition of freeway signs
Mr. Nishimura affirmed that the sign code was presented upon
signing of the lease; that the lease had an exception to the sign
program allowing freeway signage on the other building, and that
the landlord recommended a sign contractor
Commissioner Le Jeune stated the sign permit was issued March 28
and asked when they installed the sign, and when the enforcement
notice was received
Mr. Nishimura replied that they hung the sign in the beginning of
May and received the notice in June
Staff replied that the first code enforcement was issued June 6
Mr. Nishimura stated that there were ongoing conversations with the
City after the first notice
Commissioner Weil asked if they were a tenant when the sign code
was approved in 1989• if Mimi's Plaza indicated they were exempt
from the sign program, and asked if a copy of the lease was
available
Mr Nishimura replied that they became a tenant in 1990, that there
is an amendment in the lease giving express signage rights on that
�J
Planning Commission Minutes
September 9 1991
Page 7
•
building that he did not have a copy of the lease available, but
that is what was presented, and that they would like to work with
the Commission to accommodate any requirements.
Keiko Moore, representing Tokyo Lobby Restaurant, stated that she
contracted the sign company after the landlord informed them that
the lease allowed a freeway sign, that the same person who approved
the plan wrote their correct address on the permit, and that it is
not their fault and should not be responsible for the cost of the
sign if it is removed.
Commissioner Kasoarian asked which building 13951 was, and if that
was where the restaurant was located, and what address was given
when they applied.
Ms. Moore replied that 13951 was building number three and that was
their location, and that they applied for 13931, but the
applications show 13951 as their address and she noted that a
stamped statement regarding -sign exhibits are examples only, see
Variance 89-10" was not on their copy, and that they feel it was
added after the City found they made a mistake.
Staff responded that the stamp was applied later for clarification
for future reference, but that it was the understanding of the
property owner and the City that they were examples at the time the
sign code was prepared.
Ms. Moore stated that they are the only other major tenant and
would therefore be the only ones allowed signage on the rear of the
building
Commissioner Weil asked if Mimi's Plaza gave a reason why Tokyo
Lobby was given a special privilege for freeway signage.
Ms. Moore replied that Dave Peterson reviewed the lease and
informed them that they were allowed a sign, and the City informed
them of the problem after they paid their fees
Commissioner Weil asked if they have dealt with permits and signs
in the past since they own two (2) other locations, and if they
normally accepted the advice of a property owner rather than check
into the permit policy
Mr. Nishimura replied that it had not been a problem in the past,
that since it was in the lease, they did not think there was a
problem, and felt that the City would alert them if there was a
problem.
Ms. Moore stated that Mr Fox informed them that this should never
have passed if the correct information was given but they were
truthful but made a mistake.
The Public Hearing was closed at 8 02 P.M.
Commissioner Kasalek asked which document was the correct one. the
sign plan for Mimi's Plaza or the lease
The Director replied that the Master Sign Plan was the regulating
control over the property and the Sign Code was clear regarding no
off -premise signs, that Mr Peterson and Manchester Development
were aware that no off -premise signs were allowed for other than
building one, that the question is who is responsible for the
hardship and if the owner should bear some of it.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 9 1991
Page 8
Commissioner Baker asked if it was up to the Commission to make a
decision.
The Director replied that it was a legal issue for the applicant, I�
that the Commissioner should consider the requirements of State law
in terms of what the Code requires and what is applicable.
Commissioner Kasoarian asked if more attention had been paid, this
might have been caught, that since the numbers are so close, it may
have been a human error that the restriction on freeway wall signs
is clear that he votes to deny the variance because he sees
nothing mitigating to require the sign to stand and that this is
beyond the Commission.
I
Commissioner Le Jeune asked when the advice to file for a variance
occurred.
The Director responded that between June 6 and July 26 there was
correspondence, and that the building permit was revoked based on
the City Attorney's advice, then they applied for extensions to
comply and then applied for a variance request.
Staff stated that the variance request was made after the third
extension of time
Commissioner Weil asked Mr Shaw for a legal opinion regarding on
premise and off -premise signs if it was possible that a monument
sign would be off -premise and if these buildings were on the same
lot.
John Shaw, city Attorney, stated that Mr Rourke stated that this
sign is off -premise, and that an on -premise sign is at the business
location site.
The Director replied that the buildings are on the same lot,
excepting the service station and Mimi's Restaurant, and that the
monument sign is allowed in the Sign Code as a tenant directory
monument sign.
Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the sign on the rear of the
restaurant at 13951 was acceptable.
The Director replied that a sign was allowed on two buildings sides
at the applicant's discretion.
Commissioner Le Jeune moved Kasoa ian seconded to deny Variance
91-14 by adopting Resolution No. 2946, as revised.
Part I C.3
Page 1, Line 4 Delete "increased size of signs" and
Add "presence of off-site signs."
Page 2 Line 3 Delete "larger" and
Add "more off-site signs "
Page 2, Line 7 Add "and elsewhere in the community" at
the end.
Motion carried 5-0
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
6 Amendment to Design Review 91-07
APPLICANTS STEPHEN PAQUETTE HENRY KUMAGAI
10542 GREENBRIER ROAD 19021 CANYON DRIVE
SANTA ANA, CA 92705 VILLA PARK, CA 92667