Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 3 APPEAL VAR 89-10 10-16-89 CHICAGO OFFICE SEARS TOWER, SUITE 5600 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 tEIEl~HOnE (31P-) 876-7700 FAX (3I~) 993-9767 IOS ANGELES OFFICE 555 SOUTH FLOWER STREET ANGELES, CALIFORNIA TEletHON E (213) FAX (P-13) 61.4,-6763 NEW YORK OFFICE 53~D At THIRD,SUITE IO00 685 THIRD AVENUE NEW YORK, NEW YORK TEIEI~HONE (:~1:~) FAX (P-I~') LATYIAM & WATKINS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 650 TOWN CENTER DRIVE TWENTIETH FLOOR COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626-1918 TELEPHONE (714) 540-123S FAX (714) 755-8290 TJX 590777 ELN 62793272 October 11, 1989 PAUL R. WATKINS (t899-1973} DANA LATHAM (1898-1974) SAN DIEGO OFFICE 701 "S" STREET, SUite SAN DIEGO, CAlIFORNia 9P-~01-6197 TEiE!=HONE (619) 236-123~ FAX (619) WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE lO01 I=ENNSYt-VANIA AVE., N.W., SUITE 1300 WASHINGTON, D.C. TELEI~HON E (20~) FAX (P.O:=') 637-2201 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92680 Re: Appeal of Manchester Development Corporation (Tustin Retail Limited/Gerald Misurek) Re Variance 89-~0, Re Mimi's Plaza at 13911-51 Carroll Way & 17th Street, Tustin The purpose of this letter is to request the Council to modify the decision of the City's Planning Commission granting in part and denying in part variance request 89-10 submitted by Manchester Development Corporation ("Manchester"). While the Staff Report generally constituted a thorougM analysis of the variance request, the staff made certain legal errors which resulted in an erroneous decision by the Commission. Specifically, the staff and the Commission applied the wrong legal standard for a variance request, inappropriately characterized the Request as a "use variance," and erroneously categorized signs as "off-premise" instead of "on-premise". We therefore request that the Council modify the Commission's decision as indicated below. BACKGROUND The property in question is a shopping center (the "Center") located on the corner of 17th Street and Carroll Way, adjacent to the 55 Freeway. Immediately across Carroll Way is a competing shopping center, in addition to commercial development to the south of the Center on 17th Street. Closest to 17th are two buildings which predated the remainder of the Center -- Mimi's Restaurant on the west corner and a service station on the right corner. The Center proper consists of three buildings in a "U" shape facing Carroll Way. Building 1 is in the back, with its rear abutting the 55 Freeway. Buildings 2 and 3 are perpendicular 0C59/man/manch/mimi/c i~yl~r. 001 City of Tustin October 11, 1989 Page 2 to Carroll and face each other and the parking lot, with Building 2 closer to 17th Street. Manchester is requesting a variance to the Sign Ordinance which would allow: (1) three 75 square-foot signs on the back of Building 1 facing the Freeway for the Center's major tenants (five smaller signs for minor tenants were approved by the Commission and thus are not at issue here); (2) a monument sign set back two feet from 17th Street and identifying the tenants in the Center -- the Commission approved a monument sign set back seven feet, but allowed identification only of the Center and not of the tenants. THE COMMISSION APPLIED ERRONEOUS LEGAL STANDARDS Under section 9471 of the City's Sign Code, only two requirements need to be met for a variance: - (1) That because of exceptional circumstances applicable to the subject property, the strict application of this Chatkter 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 subject property is located. (Id. § 9471.) There is no requirement that the granting of the variance not be "detrimental" to other properties, or contrary to the General Plan. (Cf. Commission Resolution 2669 at 2.)1-/ Instead, the focus of the section is on · In any event, there is no evidence that the variance is contrary to the General Plan, notwithstandin~ the circular argument that the General Plan requires properties to be consistent with the Sign Ordinance -- if taken literally, this requirement would prohibit all variances. Nor would the variance be detrimental to any surrounding properties, except in the sense that an 0C59/man/manCh/mimi/¢ityltr. 001 LA. TttAI~ & WATKII~'S City of Tustin October 11, 1989 Page 3 · whether the landowner is denied privileges granted other nearby landowners, and in that context, whether there is a practical and fair basis for allowing the requested variance. Using the applicable standard, it is clear that denying the variance will put Mimi's Plaza at a competitive disadvantage to neighboring commercial properties. The simple fact is that the tenant signs at the adjacent shopping center are clearly visible from 17th Street, and that this is a significant economic advantage over Mimi's Plaza. Because of the existence of Mimi's Restaurant and the gas station on the site, it was not possible to situate the Center in such a way as to allow the same visibility present on neighboring properties. It is this exceptional circumstance which requires providing tenant identification on the monument sign on 17th Street. Similarly, although the additional five-foot set back of the monument sign ordered by the Commission may seem minimal, it is significant in terms of visibility. When one places oneself in the position of a driver on 17th Street trying to read the sign while movihg and deciding whether or not to turn into the Center, the additional visibility of the closer sign becomes clear. Granting the variance as to the monument sign would not provide the Center with any unique privilege. Instead, it would simply equalize its position vis-&-vis neighboring commercial properties. By the same token, allowing signs for the Center's three major tenants to be visible from the 55 Freeway would only equalize the Center's position with its competitors. For example, there is a large sign advertising a real estate company competing with a Center tenant immediately across the Freeway from the Center. Limiting Center tenants to 5x5 signs severely restricts their ability to compete. The conclusion that the variance request is justified is supported by the findings of the Planning Commission in Resolution 2669. The Commission recognizes that "other shopping centers along Seventeenth Street have been allowed to establish monument signs within the setback area," and that the monument sign "will not constitute a visual hazard and is not in an area of future widening." economically vital Center would "harm" its competitors. 0C§ 9/man/manch/mimi/c ityltr. 0 01 L~,T]~i~I 8: W'ATKINS City of Tustin October 11, 1989 Page 4 (Id. at 1) Curiously, however, the Commission then denies the closer monument sign without finding that it would be a visual hazard or a special privilege, except to note two unsupported and contradicted statements -- "that all other property owners must compl~ with requirements of the Zoning and Sign Codes," and that approval would "set a precedence for other commercial shopping centers on Seventeenth Street."2-/ (Id. at 2.) As other centers have been allowed the same privilege sought here, there is no basis for the conclusions that "all the property owners must comply" or that a dangerous precedent would be set. Moreover, it is never explained how allowing tenant identification on the monument sign would in any way have any greater impacts than a sign merely identifying the Center. The Commission also finds that residential properties to the north of the Center would somehow be harmed by being "subjected to larger signs." This is simply fanciful, as the signs'would be on the rear wall of Building 1, facing the Freeway. It is true that there will be less traffic impacts if no one knows oft. the existenceS, of the businesses in the Center. But the decision to allow the Center itself was made long ago-and is not at issue here. Accordingly, there is no justification for the denial of the variance on this basis. The Commission concludes without discussion that allowing signs for Center tenants would somehow be a "use variance" for those tenants not physically located in Building 1. The argument appears to be that a use variance would be required because the wall signs would be "off- premise," a "use" which is prohibited by the City's code. Thus, if the signs are not "off-premise" then it follows that their placement behind Building 1 is not a prohibited use. Initially, it must be noted that this appears to be an extraordinarily narrow interpretation of "use." Normally, a use variance refers to allowing a general land use normally prohibited or allowed only in another zone or area. For example, a use variance would be'required to permit a · Whether or not the monument sign would be in an "area of future widening" is irrelevant, as the City required as a condition of approval that Manchester must assume all costs of relocating the monument sign if the City deems it necessary to widen 17th Street to its ultimate width. 0C5 9/man/manch/mimi/c ityltr. 0 01 LATHAM & WATKINS City of Tustin October 11, 1989 Page 5 commercial use in a residential district. (See 3 R. Anderson, American Law of Zoninq, § 20.06 (3d ed. 1986).) This power is prohibited of general law cities in California. (Govt. Code § 65906.) The rationale is that use variances could allow unelected planning commissions to'usurp the legislative power of city councils. (See 3. R. Anderson, § 20.08.) Such a danger surely is not present here. In any event, it is hard to see how a sign at the rear of one building in a shopping center can be defined as "off-premise". The only definition of "off-premise" appears in Section 9444 of the Sign Code: "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, is prohibited .... " (Id.) It would be a strange construction indeed to define "premise" as encompassing only the four walls of an individual business within the Center. For one thing, this definition would'prohibit any tenant identification on monument signs -- a "use" not prohibited by the Code. (See § 9494(g) (h).) The common sense definition of "P~emise" is that where there is one shopping c~nter, on one parcel of land, with the relevant land all owned by one entity or individUal, the "premises" are the entire area of the shopping center. To define it otherwise would be to require grossly inequitable treatment among tenants on the same property. Accordingly, neither of these definitional bugaboos provide any basis for denying the variance. We respectfully submit that the Commission erred in denying portions of the variance, and request the Council to reverse the Commission as to those portions. Sincerely, .I/f I ,,.' / M~rk-A. Ni~ikman % cc: Gerald S. Misurek '. 0C5 9/man/manch/mimi lc ityltr. 0 01 eq~ o~ X~ee,4~ S~-~S eq~ pu~ %eeJ~S q~uee~ue^eS sso,43g pug q~nos eq~ o~ ~ueuJdoLe^ep L~.Loa~umo~ '~s~e eq~ o~ ~ LLoda~3 sso~ ~e~ue~ 5u.Lddoqs L~tO~auuJo~ ~ 'q~ou a4~ o~ ~u~doLe^ep Le.~uep~sea XL.t~e~ eL~u~s Xq pe~epaoq S.L X~aedo~d ~oe.~qns pau.tL~no se (~e~aad:~ aq~ o~ LeLLeaed pe%eOOL T 6u.~pL.tn8 ~o eoe:~ ~sa~) su§Ls aq~ puc u~s ~uaunuom lead,S U~T aq~ o~ 5u[~eLaa uo[ss.tm~o3 5u.tuUeLd eql :~o uo~s.toap aq:~ peLeadde seq ~ueO.~Ldde eql '(¥ :~uamqoe:~:~¥) ae~ueo Le.toaetutuoo e 'eZeLd do:~ medSoad u~Ls pesododd e ao~ :~sanbad eoueLde^ eq~ :~o s~oedse daq~o LLe 5u.~uap pue u~.ts ~uamnuom uo.~eo.t:~L~uap.t aa:~ueo e ~u.t^oadde ~LLeUO[1Lpuoo $99g 'oN uo.t~nLosa~ pe~dope uo.~ss.tmmo3 ~u~uueLd eq~ 686T '8~ %sn~n¥ ~o §u.t:~eam deLn~aa d.teql ~¥ 'Z9[-6~ uo.~:~nLosaa :~o uo.~dope ~q su§.ts LLet4 uo.t~e3~:~.t~uep~ ~ueua~ pue uS.ts :~uemnuom pesodoad aq~ :~o ez.~s pug uo.t~e3OL aq:~ ~uep o~ uo~3e uo~ss.tmtuoo OuLuueLd eq:~ PLOqdn LLouno3 ~.t3 aq~ :~eq3 pepuautuo3aa s~ ~! NOZ2VaN3~alo~3~ 01-68 33N¥I~¥A 'NOISI:)3Q NOISSIRNO~ 5NINNYqd 30 '1~3dd¥ .I. N3W. LI:IYd3Q .LN31PIdOq3A30 A.LZNflNNO:) 1139VNVW kJ.Z~) ' NO. LSflH 'V WVIllIJq :£03PBNS :~0~ :01 City Council Report Appeal of Variance 89-10 October 16, 1989 Page two The subject shopping center includes three buildings (Buildings 1, 2 and 3 as shown on Attachment A) designed in a "U" shape pattern on the site. Building number 1 is located along the rear property line facing Carroll Way and parallel to the freeway and buildings 2 and 3 are located parallel to the side lot lines and face inward onto a parking lot. To the south is the Mimi's Restaurant building and a Chevron gas station. As part of the design review approval for the shopping center, a reciprocal parking and access agreement with the restaurant was provided. One of staff's original concerns with the design of the project was the way the buildings were oriented inward toward parking on the shopping center site with the project's design having the rear elevations of buildings facing Seventeenth Street. The applicant now believes that they should be granted variances from the City's Sign Code in order to provide additional identification from the SR-55 freeway and Seventeenth Street. A public hearing notice identifying the time, date, and location of the public hearing on this matter was published_in the Tustin News. Property owners within 300 feet of the site were also noticed by mail.' ~he applicant and property owner were forwarded copies of the staff report. STAFF ANALYSIS The Sign Code regulations and State law require the City Council to make the following findings in' order to approve a Variance from the Sign Code regulations' 1. That there are unusual or exceptional circumstances 'applicable to the subject property; and 2. That the subject property is-being denied a privilege enjoyed by others, due to these special circumstances; and 3. That the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to surrounding properties; and 4. That granting the variance is not contrary to the goals and policies of the General P1 an. There are no special circumstances for this parcel. 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 exceed the size limitations will set a precedence and other properties will request similar variances. Community Development Department · City Council Report Appeal of Variance 89-10 October 16, 1989 Page three The proposed off-premise wall signs on the rear of Building 1 are 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. Businesses may have such signs on the front, rear and one side (if applicable) of the building within which they are located. In addition, the regulations are based upon a percentage of wall area for each tenant space. Therefore, wall 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. Si nce th'e Zoning Code establ i shes a setback from the ri ght-o f-way for structures, the monument sign on Seventeenth Street is required to be 15 feet behind the front property line. The site plan shows a'. two foot setback. Although Seventeenth Street is presently lO0"feet wide, both the City and County Master Plan for Arterial Highways .'designate Seventeenth Street as a Major Arterial, which requires a 120 foot right-of-way. The sign is proposed to be located within the ultimate right-of-way for Seventeenth Street. Due to the constraints of the existing parking at Mimi's Restaurant (which were established prior to the present Sign Code) staff can support a reduction of the required 15 foot structural set'back from right-of-way line. However, in order to minimize impacts on surrounding properties and to reduce the cluttered appearance along Seventeenth Street, staff recommends that the sign be relocated in front of the restaurant within the landscaped area and maintain a minimium seven foot setback. In addition, when and if Seventeenth Street is widened, the sign would be required to be relocated. ' The City's Traffic Engineer has identified a concern with the sign location from a traffic safety standpoint and concurs with the staff recommended alternate location (Attachment D). Community Development Department City Council Report October 16, 1989 Appeal of Variance 89-10 Page four CONCLUSION Based upon the above analysis, and a review of the existing conditions on the site, staff have determined that although there are no special circumstances to grant a variance to exceed the size limitations, there are special physical conditions to support a reduction of the front setback for the monument sign. The Planning Commission granted a variance for the monument sign to be 7' from the front property line, in a different location. In light of concerns of the City Traffic Engineer and the State law restrictions prohibiting use variances, it is recommended that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission decision denying the applicant's proposed location and size of the proposed monument sign and tenant identification wall sign. Sara Pashalides' Associate Planner SP:pef Attachments: Attachment A, B, C, and D Resolution No. 89-157 Christine Shlngleton /x~/ Director of Community~i~evelopment Community Development Department 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 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 PLA)JNING 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 follcws' I. The City Council finds and determines as follows- A. That a proper application Variance 89-10 has been filed on behalf of Tustln Retail Liraited, requesting approval to install a tenant identification monument sign within the front setback and requesting approval of Signs exceeding tr, e size limitations at 12911 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 portiorLoof Variance 89-10. 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 h~s 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: le 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. 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 89-157 Page two 3. The gra.ntlng 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 slgn located adjacent to the driveway will constitute a vlsual trafftc hazard, wi11 reduce the visual stght distance and ts wlthtn 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 t, 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 followiQg reasons' 1. There are no unusual or exceptional circumstances applicable to the shape, size, topography, location or intended use of the subject property which do n. ot 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. 2. 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 co~ply with the requirements of ~the Zoning and Sign Codes when developing or altering their sites. 3. The granting of this Variance may. be materially detr. imental 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. 6 7 8 9 10 1'1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 23 24 ~5 26 27 28 Resolution No. 89-157 Page three 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 Way. 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 day of , 1989. URSULA E.' KEIqNEb~ Mayor City Clerk 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pt. nning Commission o olutt'on RESOLUTION NO. 2669 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CiTY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PORTION OF VARIANCE 89-10, AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION OF A' 35 SQUARE FOOT CENTER IDENTIFICAT~Oh MONUMENT SIGN TO BE LOCATED SEVEN (7) FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE (WHEN THE ZONING CODE REQUIRES A MINIMUM 15 FOOT SETBACK), SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, AND DENYING ALL OTHER ASPECTS OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST AT 13911 CARROLL WAY The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as fol 1 ows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ao 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 he~ring was duly called, noticed and held for said application on August 28, 1989. C. That t~e Planning Commission has reviewed' t~e request for a 35 square foot monument sign to be located two (2) feet from the front property line and Ooes not feel it is appropriate. However, the Planning Commission believes that a variance from the minimum front setback to allow a center identification monument sign to be located seven (7) feet from the front property line can be supported by t~e following findings: · le There are unusual or exceptional circumstances applicable to the size, shape, topography, location or intended use of the subject property which do not necessarily apply to other properties in she same zoning district in that t~e subject shopping center was designed to incorporate the existing Mimi's Restaurant to improve on-site circulation, parking and to visually appear as one project. · Granting of the Variance to reduce the front setback for the monument sign would not convey a special privilege to the property owner which is not enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity because other shopping centers along Seventeenth Street have been allowed to establish monument signs within the setback area. · The granting of a Variance would not be materially detrimental to adjacent and surrounding properties, in that a seven (7) foot setback will not constitute a visual hazard and is not in an area of future widening. ATTACHMENTA 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .17 18 i9 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2669 Page two . The granting of this Variance would no: be contrary to the goals and policies of the General Plan. D. That the Planning Com~nisslon has reviewed the request to permit two tenant identification signs on the monument sign on SeventeenTh Street and to exceed the size limitations for the signs located on ti~.e west side of building 1, the east side of buildings 2 and 3 and the south side of building 3 and has determined Shat a Variance from the standards cannot be supported for the following reasons: . There are no unusual or exceptional circumstances applicable to the shape, size, topograpr, y, loca:ion or intended use of the subject property which do not necessarily apply to other properties in the same zoning district in :hat the subject property could be developed with signs that meet the size limitations of the Tustin Sign Code and provide for adequate -- visibility. 2. Granting the reques.ted Variance would convey a special privilege to the pr6perty owner which is no: enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoninu district in that all other property owners must co;,;.~ly with the requirements of the Zoning and -Sign CoQes when developing or altering their sites. . The granting of this Variance may L~e materially detrimental to adjacent and surrounding [,eoperties, in that the increased size of signs oa the subject property may result in a visual and aesthetic nuisance to traffic and neighboring properties, including residential properties to the north of the subject proper~y that would be subjected to larger signs as a result of this Variance. In addition, ap;>roval of ~he Variance will set a precedence for ether commercial shopping centers on Seventeenth Street. o The granting of this Variance would be cc:;trary to ~he General Plan in that the Scenic Highways Element of General Plan requires ~hat signs oriented towaro the freeway system shall be in compliance wi:n ~he City of Tustin Sign Ordinance. E. That :he request incluUes a Use Variance :o permit the off-premises signs on the rear of building i and to permit a sign on the south side of building 1, which is not permitted by State Planning Law. Resolution No. 2669 Page shree 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 Penni Foley Secretary /7 18 19 20 2] 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 II. The Planning Commission hereby approves a portion of Variance 89-10 aul;horizing the ins~alla%ion of a 35 square foo~ censer i den %i fi ca si on monumen: sign ~o be locased wiShin She front setback, subjec~ :o the condi%ions contained in Exhibi: A and at~ached hereto and denies all o'cher Variance requests. PASSED AND ADOPTED a% a regular Planning Commission meel;ing on 1;he 281;h day of Augusl;, 1989. Leslie A. Pon~.ious Chairman EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 2669 Conditions of Approval Variance 89-10 (Portion) GENERAL The proposed project shall substantially conform to submitted plans date stamped August 28, 1989 on file with the Community Development Department as herein modified or as modified by the Director of Community Development. · Unless otherwise specified, conditions in this exhibit shall be complied with prior to issuance of any building permits for the project, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. · 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. · Approval of Variance 89-10 is contingent upon the applicant signing and returning an "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form as established by the Director of Community Development. 5. At building plan check submittal-and prior to issuance of sign permits: a · The applicant shall provide two copies of plans including site plan, fully dimensioned and detailed elevations, attachment methods and electrical details for approval of the Building Official. All components shall be U.L. listed. b· The sign plans shall be modified to relocate the sign to the West, perpendicular to the street, in front of the existing building, a minimum of seven (7) feet from the front property line. Ce Provide payment of all required fees as applicable including plan check and permit fees to Community Development Department. 6. The sign program shall be modified to conform to all other provisions of the Tustin Sign Code, with the exception of the minimum setback for the center identification monument sign located on Seventeenth Street· Said sign program shall incorporate the following: a. be Monument Sign - The monument sign along Seventeenth Street shall be, relocated to west, perpendicular to the street, in front of the existing building, and shall maintain a'minimum seven (7) foot setback from the front property line. Said sign shall be redesigned to eliminate all tenant identification· Final location is subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development· Freeway Signs - A maximum of eight (8) tenants located within building I may have signage on the rear (west) elevation of the building, facing the freeway· All such signs shall be a maximum of 5% of the wall area or no. more than 25 square feet in size. Upon final completion of the building or future alterations of the tenant space, all provisions of the Tustin Sign Code shall apply. Exhibit A Resol uti on No. 2669 Page two c. Major Tenant Signs - A maximum of three major tenant signs may be located on the upper facia of building 1, as indicated in the sign program. d. Minor Tenant Signs - Minor tenants within building 1, shall locate. signage on the lower front facia on east elevation. No minor tenant signs shall be permitted on the upper front facia. e. Building 3 South Elevations - Tenants.of building 3 shall be permitted to place signs on the south elevation, the maximum size shall be 5% of the wall area or not to exceed 25 square feet subject to the Tustin Sign Code f. ge Buildings 2 and 3, East Elevation - The corner tenant of buildings 2 and 3 facing Carroll Way, may have one sign on the east elevation, the maximum size shall be 5% of the wall area or not to exceed 25 square feet, subject to provisions of the Tustin Sign Code. -- The applicant/property owner shall assume all costs of relocating the monument sign on Seventeenth Street at such time that the City of Tustin deems necessary to widen Seventeenth Stree't to its-ultimate major arterial right-of-way width of 120 feet, as designated on the City and County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. 'SP:pef · August 28, 1989 P[anl ' ,g Commission Smith, representing the architect, noted that the encroachment lnto ,d not been approved yet, but they .were-waiting for Caltrans to site w' n the next two weeks, and would notify staff as soon as they 1 ocatl on si gn. Commissioner eune asked if the applicant had given any con -. Mr. Smt th repli ed Commissioner Shaheen as ~e owners dl d not wish to lower lgn. the sign was two'sided. .., Mr. Smith affirmed. _ Commissioner Le Jeun~e asked about an~ if it ~ould remain; also how Freeway. ; Mr. Smith replied that the copy for copy o The public hearing was closed at 7 p.m. Commissioner Shaheen noted ~om~ ~'tme, it ~houl~ not Commissioner Shaheen adopt Item I. C :¸2 a, se- Dye the the exact · Ltion to lowering · · ,. sign stating "Turn off next ramp ned to southbound traffic on the 55 : , . . traffic stated "Banquet Rooms." since the Revere H has been in Tustln fop quite ~nalized by the wi den, ng 'freeway. · , Lb Jeune seconded to approve ;e Permit 89-26 by the th the owing revisions: should re-a-d: -"'The "sign relocation site sba ltrans and the Tustln Public Works Department." Exh' A, Item 1.5 should read: "Caltrans approval of the si s 1 be submitted to the Community Development Departmen ssuance of building permits." subject to the ocation riot to M, on carrted. 4-0. VARIANCE 89-10 )LICANT: PROP'ERTY OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL ..... STATUS: REQUEST: LATHAM & WATKINS/BOB BREAK 650 'TOWN CENTER DRIVE COSTA ME.SA,..CALIF~3RNIA 92.626 TUSTIN RETAIL LIMITED/GERALD MISUREK 2100 SE MAIN STREET; SUITE 400 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 13911, 13931 AND 13951 CARROLL WAY SEVENTEENTH STREET (MIMI 'S SITE) RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-l) . ..~. CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT APPROVAL OF A SIGN PROGPJJ~I THAT VARIES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF · THE TUSTIN SIGN CODE REGARDING SIZE AND LOCATIONS OF VARIOUS SIGNS : A TTA CHMENT A Page four Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Variance 89Llb' for th~'monument sign only by adopting Reso'lution No. 2669, as submitted or re vi seal. Presentation: Sara Pashalldes, Associate Planner Commissioner Shaheen stated :ha: he felt :hat there should be no signs pos:ed on the freeWay' ~ide'of the buildings. Staff noted that tenants within Building I would be permitted to have signage along the rear of the building; the applicant is also requesting that the tenants of Buildings 2 and 3, .which face the parking lot, have signage along the freeway; the Code only allows for rear building signage for tenants of that building... The public hearing .opened at 7:20 p.m. Gerald Misurek, applicant, commented that until his development began, this site had been a dustbowl, and a gathering place for rubble; they are trying to create a unique u-shaped "homey" center; if they had fronted this center to 17th Street, it would have been fronted to ...the. backside, of.--the service station; it was at staff's suggestion that they" return to the Commission after design review and receipt of building permits. This center is extremely unique, with numerous constraints; such as being an in-fill parcel of 2.4 acres, the site is bounded on the north by a residential area; and that the site required noise polution, adequate landscape buffer, and the rear side design features for the buildings to reduce impacts which could affect~ the residences. They are bounded on the west s~de by the freeway, and on the southside they have limited access by Mfmi's Cafe and a lack of access, on.the back. side of the. service station; they 'also had to li'ne u-p 'driveways from their center to the driveways of the Tustin French Quarter. Regarding the various requests, they are asking for: Two (2) monument signs--one on' 17th Street and one on Carroll Way which could be seen from either direction. The location proposed by Staff for the 17th Street sign would be more toward the restaurant than initially proposed, it would be of very little use to people since it would be seen as they are passing the center and would require them to turn around. They have asked for signage along the freeway that is consistent with the signs in the area. A potential tenant, First Team Real Estate, whose lease is contingent on adequate signage, will be competing with a three-foot high sign for Tarbell Realtors across the freeway. They are requesting major signage for the three (3) tenants of Building I and minor signage for up to five (5) minor tenants in Building 3. He has outlined his maximum tenancy for the building on his presentation, but would probably only have four (4) tenants requesting slgnage on the rear of the building. He has also tried to restrict the type of signage on the rear of tile building, calling for a two (2) foot letter size to-keep consistency to the signs. He felt that the ordinances possibly did not consider centers that ilave frontage on the freeway, but this should be addressed at this time. Because they are located away from 17th Street, they should be allowed to provide adequate competitive signage. He noted that none of the slgnage would affect the residential properties; that there are various types of signage along the freewaY ,(Revere House, for example);.and that it should not be detrimental to Mimi's Cafe, the service station, or Tustin French Quarter. "ommlss.ioner Sha..hee~n asked how many total signs would be in the center. _Mr. Mlsurek replied that there were quite a few, but noted thal~ they were tucked away from traffic. Plannlng Commission Minutes August 28, [989 Page flve Commissioner. Kasparia.n asked for a clarification of the original sign concept. The Director replied that the sign plan submitted complied with the code': on a rear building facing the.-.freeway or~'ark-lng lO'c, signs were limited to'business identifi- cation not to exceed 25 square feet, or 56 of the wall area per business. The direc- tory monument location at the Carroll Way entrance; and the front elevations of the buildings were limited to 64 square feet per business. Co.m. mtssto~ner Kasparian asked for a clarification of the variance being requested. The Director replied that they are asking for proposed s.igns__on the rear elevation of 'Building [ (building parallel to the free'way) to have 75 square foot signs for major tenants and 20 square foot signs for minor tenants which are located in Buildings 2 and 3. The code only permits a maximum of 25 square feet per tenant and would only allow building identification for tenants in Building 1. They are also requesting that the east sides of Buildings 2 and 3 have signs of 30 square feet, with the code only permitting 25 square feet per tenant; for the rear elevation of Building 3 they are requesting 30 square feet, with a maximum of 25 square feet permitted. They also want an additional monument sign along 17th Street even though the Code would only permit one (1) monument identification sign for a shopping center. Mr. Misurek commented that they went i~rom 25 to 30 square feet due to the setback; he ~ontends"that the Code did not consider that stores would have a front and a back requiring adequate signage; other centers developed along the freeway have their usual logo and signage; it is difficult to kdow the tenants' needs prior to leasing; 75 square foot request is for maximum use; they intend to keep order to the si gnage with two-foot letters, while presenting the tenants as best they can. · Bob Break, Latham and Watkins~ passed out a rebuttal to the staff report to the Co~nmis~ioners outlining' his feeling that the requirements set by the staff are more restrictive than the Code intended. He noted that the Code states "the privileges enjoyed by other properties in. the vicinity and under 'similar circumstances to this particular project" and hoped the Commission would understand that the question was whether there was a practical and fair basis for allowing the requested variance. The circumstances presented are that they- are a relatively unique center; are fronted on the freeway; are confronted 'on the other side of the freeway with signs approved by Santa Aha; have tenants demanding the right to install signs on the rear of Buildi. ng 1; are across from Tustin. French.. Quarter whose sig-n-s~.~re-well beyond the city's Code allowances; they are asking for the same advantage as the French Quarter' and be able to compete fairly. They are asking for a maximum of 75 square feet for the rear of Building 1, as a convenient check point; they invite the City to impose 'a two-foot limit as a condition to the Variance. Regarding the request to put signs for Buildings 2 ~nd 3 on the rear of Building 1, he was unable to find a definition in the Sign Code for off-premise slgnage that suggested that their request was for off-premise signage, since the buildings are all part of one center. He noted that the request for 30 square foot signs for Building 3 was well within the standards set by the Tustin French Quarter project. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the Tarbell Realty building was under the jurisdic- tioh' of the Santa Aha Sign Code, and has nothing to do with Tustin. ... Mr. Break replied that since it was a competitor in their vicinity, it should be a YactOr to be taken into account. , . Planning Commission Mi August 28, [:989 Page six is Commissioner KasParlan asked If the photograph examples presented by Mr. Break were /o~F 30 square foot sig~s; and asked staff for their oplnlon of the size of the Tustin French Quarter signs. Mr. Break replled that they were much larger. The 'Director replted that 'the project was approved pursuant to the Sign Code and that staff would have to check each sign to understand how they determined the individual copy area. In many cases, they are separately mounted .and may have been calculated based on the hlghest 'letter helght. There ls no helght limit. The area Is boxed around the htghest and lowest letters for calcula.tlon purposes. Staff would also look at the issue of the rear of the building In relatl.on to a tenant not In that bulldlng havlng an off-premise sign. There was not a determination that this would be an off-premise slgn, stnce the premise is the development property. The applica- tion was previously discussed wlth the City Attorney's office and it was clear based upon interpretation and advice that business Identification ls located either on a monument sign or above the tenancy on the building. 'Staff could provlde legal advice tn a separate memo. _Commissioner Shaheen asked tf the signs. In question at the French Quarter were the tenant signs. '~ Ir. Break replled afflrmatlvely; and noted that-'the Miller's Outpost sign exceeds the 7~ foot limits. He' noted that the recognlze.d front of the project Is well set back from iTth Street due to the gas statlon; the visibility is not.valuable without a slgn; th'at the center needs to be a successful project, and should not be artific- Ially condemned to a medl'ocre status. -' ' ' . The public hearing was closed at 7:50 p.m. _Commissioner Le Jeune asked if staff kne~ if the French Quarter had been issued variances, ~r not. The Director replied that she was not aware of any variances for the French Quarter signs; and that their situation was different in that the buildings face a front elevation and are permitted up to 64 square feet. The public hearing was reopened at 7:5! p.m. _Jack Briton, representing the manufacturer of Tustln French Quarter, noted that there was no variance involved. They are all within the allowed footage of the particular time that they were installed. Miller's Outpost is 4 foot by 35 foot sign which is 140 square feet. At the time, the Code read that due to the volume of square footage and frontage, this size was allowed. The public hearing was closed at 7:52 p.m. _ _mmissioner Shaheen noted that since the project is right across, from. the French quarter, it lo6k-s' a~ though it is part of the same center. He noted that signs flat against the building along the freeway are dangerous, since they require motorists to look directly at the building to read the signs; that the City has approved some double-sided signs; that promotion should be for the entire center, and should not. put signs all o'ver the center; that the signs as indicated on the drawings were not in conformance with the Sign Code. Plannlng Commlsslon Mi ;s August 28, 1989 Page seven Commissioner Le Jeune asked for a clarification of the proposed location of the monument sig~' on 17th Street; and even if placed in the proposed location, if it requires a variance. Staff replied 1:hat they propose to relocate it in front of Mimi's Cafe in a much larger landscaped area which would make it more visible. Commissioner Pontious asked if the Director was suggesting a continuance. 'She also noted that ~he'~l'p~llcant had indicated that. in moving the monument sign on 17th Street it would lack visibility, but she felt that a perpendicular sign would be more visible. . The Director replied that the applicant's representative noted that the French' Quarter permits were in compliance with the Sign Code, resolving the issue. .Commmisslon.er Sh.a.heen suggested that the staff look at the project further. Commissioner Kasparian felt that the proposed relocation of the sign would make it so 'that it Was seen as the customers were passing the center, and should possibly be moved closer to the entrance. - The Director noted that the entire length was reView,ed with the Public Works Depart- ment and the Engineering Manager. Since this-'is at a freeway off-rampj and there is other sign clutter for the service station and other obstructions, it would create a potential problem. · Commissioner Kasparian asked if any'sign was better than no sign, regardless of where It is located. The Director replied that there is a tremendous volume generated east and west along 17th Street, not counting the freeway ramp, that would provide some advantage. Commissioner pontious asked for a clarification of the off-premise signs. The Director replied that the interpretation of the sign ordinance was that a direc- tory for businesses can be located in the monument, however, the actual tenant identification is limited to the location of that tenant. Com~..issloner Shaheen asked if they could have a directory on a monument sign; and if all tenants are to be on one monument, sign. .. The Director replied that it could be in a monument or pole sign; and that it was up to the applicant to determine what they want on a directory. They have the ability to have a directory of all tenants pursuant to the"classification of the icode and whether that is described as a multl-t~nant shopping center. t_ommissioner Pon~ious asked if they would be allowed to apply for 'a pole sign. The Director replied that since they are within 500 feet of a freeway, they would be allowed to apply for a conditional use. permit for a freeway orientation sign. ..Commissioner Shaheen asked if this would be a two-faced.sign. Planning Commission Mi August 28, 1989 Page ei §hr The Director noted that freeway pole signs are only permitted for auto-related businesses such as gas stations and restaurants. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Kasparian seconded t.o approve Variance 89-10 for the monument sign only by the adoption of Resolution-No 2669. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Pontious noted that the applicant could appeal the decision to the City C'ouncil wit'hin seven (7) days. ~L I~ Amendment to Final Tract Map 12870 Street Vacation Request Design Review 8'8-67 ' ' · AP : OWNER' LOCATION' ZONING- ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS' REQUEST: THE IRVINE COMPANY P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 THE IRVINE COMPANY SECTOR 8 OF TUSTIN RANCH, TRACT 12870 PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL: ID MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC - LOW D REVIEW 88-67 HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CAT CALLY EXEMPT (CLA 3) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SE( 15303 OF THE CALIFO A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITy ACT. THE AME TO FINAL TRACT MAP IS MINISTERIALLY EXEMPT THE PROPOS STREET VACATION HAS BEEN DETEI TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION i (B.3) OF CALIFORNIA ENVI QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZATION (1) AMEND FINAL MAP 12870 TO ACCOMMODATE PRIVATE ENTRY 'ROVEMENTS AND; (2) ACATE FAIRGATE DRIVE AND A PORTION OF RAWLINI WAY, TO BECOME STREETS AND; (3) CONSTRUCT PRIVATE ENTRIES AN IHANCED STRE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF TUi RANCH D iAND FAIRGATE DRIVE AND FAIRGATE DRIVE AND RAWLINGS WAY. Recommendation. It is reco~nended that qanning Commission. 1) Determine that the vacation of Fairgate {"Township"} a port'ion of Rawlings Way for private street purposes, is consistent with City' .~neral Plan, by adopting Resolution No. 2662, as submitted or revise !} Recommen( )proval of an amendment to Fina-1 Tract Map 12870 to the City Cou by adopting ~tion No. 2665, as .submitted or revised; and 3) Approve Des Review 88-67 by ng Resolution No 2664 as submitted or revised. ' ' ' Presentation' steVe ~ Associate Planner Staff made revisi to the staff report, as moved. Commissioner rian asked if there was to be a public telepho entry only )d not one at the main gate. t the secondary Jtaff ied that there would only be a call box with a key pad at ent .e for security purposes. e secondary public hearing was opened at 8:21 p.m. Manchester Developme. Corporation GERALD S. MISUREK Senior Vice President Real Estate Development September 26, 1989 Ms. Sara Pashalides City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92680 Re: Appeal of' Resoluti0n-~F2669 .... Approving a Portion of Variance 89-10 Dear Ms. Pashalides: With respect to ou~ appeal of the above noted Planning Commission resolution, it is our intent to request reconsideration of elements of the resolution as relating to: .... ... 1. The monument sign on Seventeenth Street. The sign and location as allowed serves -no purpose in an out-of-the-way . location, visible only after passing the center entrance. We therefor request signage as shown in the attached sheets 1 and 5. Monumentation on C~rroll Way will~ only be for center identification, thus only one monument sign will have tenant identification. 2. The signage which was requested on the West face of Building #1 is resubmitted for consideration. , a) Major tenant signage (75 square feet) for three occupants of Building #1. b) Minor tenant signage (25 square feet) for any four (4) tenants of the center. The attached exhibits consisting of Sheets 1 through 5 denote both the signage as allowed by the resolution and also the signage which is the subject of this appeal. .. .. Sincerely, Senior Vice President Real Estate Development c:\jerry\tustin.lt5 *RECEIVED COIt4,~IUIViTy D£V£LoP~II£NT A TTA CHMENT B 2100 SOUTH EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 400 * IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 * TELEPHONE (714) 852-9770 (800) 421-8111 Proposed Sign Prog,'a m A 7TA CHMENT C :t'! jl Inter- Corn TO: Sara Pashalides FROM: Jerry Crabill SUBJECT: Placement of Monument Sign - Mimi's Plaza Pursuant to your recent request, I have completed my evaluation of the proposed location of the monument sign at Mimi's Plaza. Please be aware that the intersection of 17th Street and Mimi's driveway is one of the busiest and ranks as one of the higher accident locations in the city. There is high traffic volume activity on 17th as well as the freeway on/off ramp locations and Mimi's driveway. Although the intersection is signalized, the monument sign as proposed would become a factor in future accidents. The sign will be a solid 6' x 10~ "wall" that by itself will reduce the sight distance of both entering and exiting traffic. If it were constructed, the city could expect additional accidents related to it- particularly at or near the driveway. ,o My recommendation is to deny the proposal. A better location would be away from the driveway and near the south side of Mimi's Restaurant. Jerry ~abil~/ Consulting Traffic Engineer JC: mv A ITA CHMENT D