Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 2 VARIANCE 91-13 09-03-91,NJ r) A �►` FAM Al _�-= SEPTEMBER 3, 1991 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: APPEAL OF VARIANCE 91-13 RECOMMENDATION Pleasure of the City Council. BACKGROUND PUBLIC HEARING N0. 2 9-3-91 On August 12, 1991, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing and received testimony concerning Variance 91-13, a request to authorize the installation of a monument sign along street frontage of 110 feet where 150 feet is required and permit such sign to. encroach nine feet into the required 10 -foot front yard setback on the property located at 240 East First Street. The Planning Commission denied this request by adopting Resolution No. 2931. Copies of the August 12, 1991 minutes and Resolution No. 2931 are included in Attachments A and B for the Council's reference. On August 16, 1991, the Community Development Department received a request (copy attached) to appeal the Planning Commission's denial action from the applicant, Mr. Henry Kumagai. The subject site is located in Sub Area 2 of the First Street Specific Plan and is bounded by First Street on the north, an existing parking lot area and offices on the south, a U.S. Post Office branch on the east and an existing medical/professional office building on the west. On October 16, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 89-139 which authorized the construction of a car wash business at the subject site. Pursuant to Section 9294 et seq of the Tustin City Code, a public hearing notice identifying the time, date and location of the public hearing on this project was published in the Tustin News. Property owners within 300 feet of the site were notified of hearing by mail and notices were posted on the site, at City and the Police Department. The applicant was informed of availability of the agenda and staff report on this project. the Hall the City Council Report Variance 91-13 September 3, 1991 Page 2 DISCUSSION Project Description Submitted plans propose the installation of a six -foot -high, double -face monument sign to be located approximately ten feet east of the driveway along First Street, immediately adjacent to the proposed pedestrian bench. The actual copy area for the business identification, including the pricing for gasoline as required by State law, is proposed to be approximately 29 -square feet. The materials for the sign will utilize the colors, wood accents and stucco finish comparable with those approved for the car wash project. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to incorporate the wood trellis element utilized throughout the project in the form of a wood cap on top of the sign cabinet area. Section -9493(a) of the Tustin City Code, related to signs for Single Tenant Commercial Uses, allows monument -type business identification signs on lots with a minimum 150 -foot street frontage. The subject property maintains a 110 -foot street frontage along First Street, which is 40 feet or 27 percent less than the required street frontage necessary for a monument sign. Section III. D. (1) (d) of the First Street Specif is Plan, related to yard setbacks, requires a minimum ten -foot front -yard setback for structures. The purpose of this standard is to ensure an aesthetically pleasing street scape by prohibiting structures from being too close to the right-of-way. The proposed location of the monument sign will result in a nine -foot encroachment into the required ten -foot front -yard setback, or result in occupying 90 percent of the setback space adjacent to the right-of-way. Variance Requirements Tustin City Code Section 9292(a) requires that the following findings be made in order to grant a variance from Zoning Code regulations. Below is an analysis prepared by staff demonstrating the reasons that the Council could consider either approval or denial of the subject request: 1. The adjustment authorized shall not constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated. City Council Report Variance 91-13 September 3, 1991 Page 3 Approval - There are other properties in the immediate vicinity that maintain various forms of monument signs and lack the required minimum street frontage. Also, many signs are located within the required setback area. However, the majority of these signs were existing prior to adoption of the First Street Specific Plan and would be considered legal non -conforming situations and, therefore, by right are permitted to be maintained. Additionally, there are at least two other properties in the immediate vicinity which maintain street frontages of 150 feet or more and are therefore able to obtain approval of monument signs without review by the Commission for a deficiency in street frontage. Denial - There are three additional types of business identification signage, including window signs, wall signs and projecting signs, that the applicant would be entitled to apply for and would most likely qualify for. Additionally, to date, a variance has not been granted along First Street for signage within a required setback or for deficiency in street frontage. However, the Planning Commission has granted these deviations on at least one project in the form of granting development bonuses. Consequently, with these circumstances, the Council may want to consider whether setting a precedent along First Street is desirable. 2. special circumstances are applicable to the subject property including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, and strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. Approval - The site is located in such a way that it is not afforded adequate visibility to customers attempting to access the site who are required to be travelling eastbound along First Street. Visibility onto the site is somewhat diminished in that the adjacent parcel on the west maintains an office building setback only five feet from the sidewalk portion of the right-of- way. Therefore, a customer would have to be almost parallel to the site to read a wall -mounted sign and might actually pass the driveway access. Denial - Many properties in the immediate vicinity maintain wall signs for business identification purposes. These signs are parallel to First Street and it has not been observed that a customer attempting to read these signs has resulted in difficulty identifying a business. Once a business is established and its City Council Report Variance 91-13 September 3, 1991 Page 4 location is known, the necessity to read a business identification sign becomes less important. Therefore, by utilizing the perimeter wall of the project for wall signage location, familiarity with the business and its location would be attained and preservation of the desired street scape would be maintained by keeping the front setback area clear of any obstructions. Additionally, it may be desirable to consider the effects on the pedestrian environment. The monument sign location is proposed one foot away from the sidewalk and although the proposed height of six feet is permitted by Code, this structure mass, which is designed to accommodate the eyes of the driver, may not contribute to the enjoyment of the pedestrian. Conditions of Approval In the event that the Council considers approving this variance request, it would be appropriate to consider one additional item not previously discussed. The evening of September 3rd, the City Council is scheduled to hear an appeal of the Planning Commission's previous action of denial on a potential lot consolidation project that proposes to combine the properties located at 240 East First Street (carwash site) and 135 South Prospect Avenue (tire service business). Should the Council's action approve the tire service business and the lot consolidation, a concern arises regarding signage specifically related to a monument sign. Staff and the co -applicants of the proposed lot consolidation have had discussions regarding a combined monument sign for both sites as neither site maintains the minimum 150 -foot street frontage as required by the Tustin City Code. Therefore, a condition of approval has been included for the resolution approving this variance stating that the approval is contingent upon the property remaining as a single development site. However, in the event that the monument sign is installed and a lot consolidation is approved in the future or concurrently, the condition requires that the copy area on the monument sign be modified to reflect the businesses of the consolidated development. City Council Report Variance 91-13 September 3, 1991 Page 5 CONCLUSION Based upon the above analysis, there are two actions available to the Council which include: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 91-116-A, upholding the Planning Commission's denial of Variance 91-13; or 2. Adopt Resolution No. 91-116-B, approving Variance 91-13 authorizing the installation of a monument sign along street frontage of 110 feet where 150 feet is required and permit such sign to encroach nine feet into the required 10 -foot front -yard setback E. Bonner Associate Planner --e - . 1_� !� %% Christine A. Shinglet Assistant City Manage Community Development Attachments: Conceptual Plans A - Planning Commission Minutes 8-12-91 B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2931 Resolution Nos. 91-116-A and 91-116-B PL _ i 08926 d3 MISM *IS 1S81� iSd3 Ott lr HS 1 = a L ysa o L I � 1 cO L M I N U T E S TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 12, 1991 CALL TO ORDER: 7:02 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: LeJeune, Baker, Kasparian, Kasalek, Weil PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda.) At this time members of the public may address the Commission regarding any items not on the agenda and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission (NO action can be taken off -agenda items unless authorized by law). IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY MATTER, PLEASE FILL OUT ONE OF THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE SO THAT YOUR REMARKS ON THE TAPE RECORDING OF THE MEETING CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO YOU. WHEN YOU START TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE STATE YOUR FULL. NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO.$E DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1. Minutes of the July 22. 1991 Planning Commission meeting. 2. Recommendation of Denial of Design Review 91-07 As requested by the Planning Commission at the regularly scheduled meeting -of July 22, 1991, staff has prepared Resolution No. 2927-D, a resolution of the Planning Commission recommending denial to the Redevelopment Agency of Design Review 91-07 for the properties located at 135 South Prospect Avenue and 240 East First Street. Commissioner Baker moved. KasAlek seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Weil abstained. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3. Variance 91-13 OWNER/ APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: HENRY KUMAGAI 19021 CANYON DRIVE VILLA PARK, CA 92667 240 EAST FIRST STREET FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PRIMARY USE PLAN - COMMERCIAL AS A ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) PURSUANT TO SECTION Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1991 Page 2 15311 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO INSTALL A MONUMENT SIGN ALONG STREET FRONTAGE OF 110 FEET WHERE 150 FEET IS REQUIRED AND PERMIT SUCH SIGN TO ENCROACH NINE FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 10 -FOOT FRONT -YARD SETBACK Recommendation - Pleasure of the Commission. Presentation: Anne E. Bonner,, Assistant Planner The Public Hearing was opened at 7:05 p.m. HenryKumagai, owner, has been working with staff for three (3) months; that he is requesting a variance so that the sign may be placed within the ten (10) foot setback, as are all of the pole and monument signs along First Street; that he needs a monument sign because the building next door would block site of a building mounted sign; requiring people passing his carwash to make two u - turns to return; that a monument sign would therefore be safer; that three other car washes in the City have eighteen (18) foot pole signs and he is only asking for a six (6) foot monument sign that can be easily seen. Bill Henningsman, Superior Electrical Advertising, stated that they have redesigned the sign many times; that the last proposal is the best design for the building; and that they are not deviating from the building and staying within the codes; and that they have worked extensively with staff. Commissioner Weil, asked if the applicant had been informed of the First Street Specific Plan when he received his original approval. Mr. Kumagai replied that when the car wash was approved, staff informed him that the First Street Specific Plan was a separate issue; and that the City Council wanted a big sign so people would not pass his building and make two u -turns to return. Commissioner Weil asked if he was informed that the ten (10) foot setback was not a place for the sign. Mr. Kumagai replied that he originally wanted to move his wall five (5) feet from the street to match up with the Post Office and the office building, but was informed by staff that since he was getting his carwash, he should not move the wall. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:11 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there would be a wall on the west side of the car wash and if it would extend out as much as the other wall; and if there would be a consolidation of the signage with the adjacent building. Staff affirmed and noted that the applicant is posting a bond pending the outcome of the other item regarding the lot consolidation; and that the consolidation of the copy area on the sign is also pending appeal of the tire service center. Commissioner Le Jeune asked when that action would be before the City Council. Staff replied that it was agendized for September 3. The Director stated that staff presented an alternative of a temporary use permit for a large temporary sign until the City Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1991 Page 3 Council makes a decision; that a variance would not then be needed, but the applicant rejected the proposal. Commissioner Le Jeune asked what the start-up date was. Staff replied that it would be approximately the end of August. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of the difference between the request for this Sign and the Plaza on First; if there was a bonus involved in this issue. Staff replied that the project referred to was a lot consolidation that received a development bonus allowing a sign to be in the setback area; that there is no bonus involved in this proposal, it is only a variance request. Commissioner Weil asked if approval of this sign would set a precedent regarding the First Street Specific Plan, since they have less than 150 feet frontage. Staff replied that this is a City-wide criteria; but that since this would be the first variance along First Street,a precedent would be set; that most of the signs presented by the applicant were existing non -conforming signs. Commissioner Baker noted that they are referring to uses that did not conform in the first place. Commissioner Le Jeune suggested that they postpone the item until the City Council makes a decision. Staff replied that if the lot consolidation occurs, the bonus program for signage is not being heard by the Council at the September 3 meeting. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the decision would determine the type of sign that could be placed. Staff responded that the Commission could confirm the location and size of the sign by approving the variance in the event that the lot consolidation is approved. Commissioner Le Jeune stated that they are not sure, though, of the best place for the sign in case of consolidation. Staff affirmed. Commissioner Baker noted that they will be open within two weeks and that the State requires certain signage; and that continuing this would put him at a disadvantage. Staff replied that gas pricing which could be provided temporarily. Commissioner Kasparian noted that staff indicated three possibilities for placement of signage; that he feels that in time people will know where the car wash is; and that he will not need a 6 x 7 foot sign that encroaches only one (1) foot from the sidewalk; and he opted for denial of the appeal for the sign at this time. Commissioner Kasparian moved. Weil seconded to deny Variance 91-13 by adopting Resolution No. 2931-D. Motion carried 4-1 (Baker opposed). 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 li 1s 10 20 21 22 23 24 25 2e 27 2P RESOLUTION NO. 2931-D A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA DENYING VARIANCE 91-13, A REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE THE INSTALLATION OF A MONUMENT SIGN ALONG STREET FRONTAGE OF 110 FEET WHERE 150 FEET IS REQUIRED AND PERMIT,SUCH SIGN TO ENCROACH NINE FEET INTO THE REQUIRED TEN -FOOT FRONT -YARD SETBACK ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 240 EAST FIRST STREET The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I . The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application, Variance No. 91-13, has been filed on behalf of Henry Kumagai to request authorization for the installation of a monument sign along street frontage of 110 feet where 150 feet is required and permit such sign to encroach nine feet into the required ten -foot front -yard setback on the property located at 240 East First Street. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application on August 12, 1991. C. That the adjustment authorized shall constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated as evidenced by the following: 1. There are at least three additional types of business identification signage, including window signs, wall signs and projecting signs, that the applicant would be entitled to apply for and would likely qualify for. 2. The Commission has not previously granted a variance for a business along First Street for signage within a required setback or for a deficiency in street frontage. D. That special circumstances are not applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, and strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is not found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification, evidenced by the following findings: t 1' 2! 3 4', 1 5' 61 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2931-D Page 2 1. Many of the properties in the immediate vicinity maintain wall signs for their primary business identification signage along First Street. 2. By utilizing the project's perimeter wall for the location of signage, the applicant would enjoy the same proximity to the street for signage as surrounding businesses. 3. The monument sign would be located one foot away from the sidewalk portion of the public right-of-way and a structure of this mass is not considered a contribution or enhancement to the pedestrian environment, a stated objective of the First Street Specific Plan. II. The Planning Commission hereby denies Variance 91-13 a request to authorize the installation of a monument sign along street frontage of 110 feet where 150 feet is required and permit such sign to encroach nine feet into the required ten -foot front -yard setback on the property located at 240 East First Street. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 12th day of August, 1991. eza�& 017 KATHLEEN CLANCY Recording Secretary DONALD LE�J Chairman 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 151 1 16, 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2931-D Page 3 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. 2931-D was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 12th day of August, 1991. KATHLEEN CLANCY Recording Secretary AEB:nm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 is 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 91-116-A A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF VARIANCE 91-13, A REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE THE INSTALLATION OF A MONUMENT SIGN ALONG STREET FRONTAGE OF 110 FEET WHERE 150 FEET IS REQUIRED AND PERMIT SUCH SIGN TO ENCROACH NINE FEET INTO THE REQUIRED TEN -FOOT FRONT -YARD SETBACK ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 240 EAST FIRST STREET 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 No. 91-13, hash been filed on behalf of Henry Kumagai to request) authorization for the installation of a monument sign along street frontage of 110 feet where 150 feet is required and permit such sign to encroach nine feet into the required ten -foot front -yard setback on the property located at 240 East First Street. B. That a public hearing was duly noticed, called and held on said application on August 12, 1991, by the Planning Commission. That an appeal was filed by the applicant on August 161 1991. That an appeal hearing was duly noticed, called and held on September 3, 1991 by the City Council. C. That the adjustment authorized shall constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated as evidenced by the following: 1. There are at least three additional types of business identification signage, including window signs, wall signs and projecting signs, that the applicant would be entitled to apply for and would likely qualify for. 2. Other properties have not previously been granted a variance for a business along First Street for signage within a required setback or for a deficiency in street frontage. D. That special circumstances are not applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, and strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is not found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 151 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 91-116-A Page 2 by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification, evidenced by the following findings: 1. Many of the properties in the immediate vicinity maintain wall signs for their primary business identification signage along First Street. 2. By utilizing the project's perimeter wall for the location of signage, the applicant would enjoy the same proximity to the street for signage as surrounding businesses. 3. The monument sign would be located one foot away from the sidewalk portion of the public right-of-way and a structure of this mass is not considered a contribution or enhancement to the pedestrian environment, a stated objective of the First Street Specific Plan. II. The City Council hereby upholds the Planning Commission' s denial of Variance 91-13, a request to authorize the installation of a monument sign along street frontage of 110 feet where 150 feet is required and permit such sign) to encroach nine feet into the required ten -foot front yard setback on the property located at 240 East First Street. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City'' Council held on the 3rd day of September, 1991. Charles E. Puckett, Mayor Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk AEB:nm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9� 101 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 91-116-B A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA APPROVING VARIANCE 91-13 AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION OF A MONUMENT SIGN ALONG STREET FRONTAGE OF 110 FEET WHERE 150 FEET IS REQUIRED AND PERMIT SUCH SIGN TO ENCROACH NINE FEET INTO THE REQUIRED TEN -FOOT FRONT -YARD SETBACK ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 240 EAST FIRST STREET 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 No. 91-13, has been filed on behalf of Henry Kumagai to request authorization for the installation of a monument sign along street frontage of 110 feet where 150 feet is required and permit such sign to encroach nine feet into the required ten -foot front -yard setback on the property located at 240 East First Street. B. That a public hearing was duly noticed, called and held on said application on August 12, 1991, by the Planning Commission. That an appeal was filed by the applicant on August 16, 1991. That an appeal hearing was duly noticed, called and held on September 3, 1991, by the City Council. C. That the adjustment authorized shall not constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated as evidenced by the following: 1. There are other properties in the immediate vicinity that maintain various forms of monument signs and lack the required minimum street frontage. 2. There are other properties in the immediate vicinity that maintain monument signs located within required structural setback areas. 3. There are at least two other properties in the immediate vicinity that maintain street frontages of 150 feet or more and can enjoy the privilege of applying for a monument sign without review by the Commission or Council for a deficiency in street frontage. 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. 91-116-B Page 2 D. That special circumstances are applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, and strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification as evidenced by the following findings: 1. The site is located in such a way that it is not afforded adequate visibility to customers attempting to access the site who are required to be travelling eastbound along First Street. 2. Visibility onto the site is somewhat diminished in that the adjacent parcel on the west maintains an office building setback only five feet from the sidewalk portion of the right-of-way. 3. Customers would have to be almost parallel to the site to read a wall -mounted sign and might actually pass the driveway access. E. This project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt (Class 11) pursuant to Section 15311 of the California Environmental Quality Act II. The City Council hereby approves Variance 91-13, authorizing the installation of a monument sign along street frontage of 110 feet where 150 feet is required and permit such sign to encroach nine feet into the required ten -foot front -yard setback on the property located at 240 East First Street, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on the 3rd day of September, 1991. Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk AEB:nm Charles E. Puckett, Mayor EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 91-116-B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VARIANCE 91-13 GENERAL (1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform to the submitted plans date stamped September 3, 1991 on file with the Community Development Department as herein modified or as modified by the Director of Community Development. (1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, all conditions in this exhibit shall be complied with prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. (1) 1.3 Variance approval shall become null and void unless sign permits and all construction is completed within twelve (12) months of the date of this exhibit. (1) 1.4 Approval of Variance 91-13 is contingent upon the applicant signing and returning an "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form, as established by the Director of Community Development. *** 1.5 Approval of Variance 91-13 is contingent upon the property located at 240 East First Street remaining a single development site. In the event that this site is combined with an adjacent site, via lot consolidation in the future, the copy area of the monument sign shall be modified to reflect the businesses of the consolidated development. The revised copy area shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. PLAN SUBMITTAL (1) 2.1 At building plan check and prior to the issuance of sign (3) permits, the applicant shall submit two copies of plans, including site plan, fully dimensioned and detailed elevations, attached methods and electrical details for illumination, structural calculations for footings for approval by the Building Official. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (7) PC/CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW *** EXCEPTION Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Resolution No. 91-116-B Variance 91-13 Page 2 SITE CONDITIONS (4) 3.1 The pedestrian bench shall be relocated easterly in order *** to provide for a minimum ten foot landscape separation from the monument sign to the bench. FEES (1) 4.1 Payment of all Building plan check and permit fees shall be made prior to the issuance of any building permits in accordance with the Tustin City Code.