HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 1 DENIAL VAR 88-7 11-21-88PUBLIC HEARING
TO:
FROM'
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT'
OWNER:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
WILLIN~ A. HUSTON, CITY HANAGER
COHHIJNITY DEVELOPHENT DEPARTMENT
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMHISSTON DENIAL OF VARIANCE NO. 88-7
DAVID E. SOSIN, H.D.
HEADACHE TREATMENT CENTER OF ORANGE COUNTY
14111 NEWPORT AVENUE
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680
DAVID E. SOSIN, M.D.
14111 NEIIPORT AVENUE
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680
14111 NEWPORT AVENUE AT THE NORTIfldEST CORNER OF NEWPORT AND
#ITCHELL AVENUES
TO PER)lIT A BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN
RECOIIIENDATION
That the City.Council deny Variance 88-7 by adoption of Resolution No. 88-119.
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission at their regular meeting on October 26, 1988 denied
Variance 88-7, a request by Dr. Sosin for authorization to install a 24 square
foot double faced business identtfi'cation pole sign approximately 12 feet in
height for the Headache Treatment Center, located at the northwest corner of
Newport and Mitchell Avenues. The applicant subsequently appealed the Planning
Commission's decision on October 31, 1988 (see attached appeal request).
Attached is a copy of the staff report to the Planning Commission and
corresponding resoluti on.
DISCUSSION
ii ii
The enclosed report identifies the following findings'
1. That the proposed Variance for the business identification pole sign does
not mee.~--the 'required conditions which are required for the granting of a
Variance.
City Councll Report
Appeal of Variance No. 88-7
November 21, 1988
Page two
2. That granting of this Variance could result in some adverse effects in the
immediate vicinity.
Section 65906 of the California Planning, Zoning, and Development Laws states:
"Variances from the terms of the zoning ordinances shall be granted only
when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property,
including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict
application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning
classification.
Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure
that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of
special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties
in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated."
The subject property is a 8,525 square foot corner lot with good visibility
possessing no unusual site conditions with regards to size, shape, topography,
location or surroundings.
The Tustin Sign Code states that signs shall be related to the standards
applicable to the authorized use and development of the property. (For example,
a professional office building constructed in the Commercial District shall be
limited to the signing authorized for the Professional District.) Pole signs
are not an authorized sign type in the Professional District and none of the
office buildings in the vicinity of the Headache Treatment Center have pole
signs. Therefore, the Headache Treatment Center is not deprived of privileges
that other properties (i.e., professional uses) enjoy in the vicinity and
district under similar circumstances. As such, the granting of the Variance
would constitute a granting of a special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations on adjacent properties in the area.
There are numerous commercial uses in the vicinity of the Headache Treatment
Center (ARCO, Taco Bell, Alta Dena,' etc.) which do have pole signs. However,
the utilization of pole signs for commercial uses is authorized by the Tustin
Sign Code.
If the subject Variance is granted, it could establish precedent and a basis for
granting future variances of the same type. Therefore, the Planning Commission
has recommended denial of the variance application.
Community DeveloPment Department
City Council Report
Appeal of Variance No. 88-7
November 21, 1988
Page three
CONCLUSZOll
Based upon the above analysis and the fact that the site's existing sign
provides adequate signage and visibility for this location, the Community
Development Department staff recommends that the City Council uphold the
Planning Commission's dental of Variance No. 88-7, by adopting Resolution No.
88-119.
Ron~eese ~'
Associate Planner
Director of'Community De~eelopment
RR:CAS'ts
Attachments' Letter from applicant
Resolution No. 88-119
Planning Commission Staff RePort (10-26-88)
Corn munity Development Department
HErE TREATMENT CENTER t ~ ' ,.'~':' OF ORANGE COUNTY
·
October 31, 1988
City of Tustln
Community Development Dept.
300 Centennial Drlve
Tustln, Ca 92680
Attn: Ron Reese
Dear Mr. Reese:
I am applying for an appeal to the denial of variance No. 88-7.
Enclosed is a check for $150.00 as required. The reason for
appeal ls my feeling that I did not receive a ~a~r hearing and
that the con~iss~o~ was biased and uninformea about the real,ties
of a medical practice. I plan to demonstrate ~n more aetall the
justlficatlon for having a larger sign, and hope that t~e City
Council will show a more objective unoerstand~ng o~ my situation
and will grant my request and approve the variance.
David E. Sosin, M.D.
D~rector, Headache Treatment
Center of Orange County
cc: Christine Shingleton
DES/abm
,'ITEM MO. 3 f
Planning Commission
DATE: OCTOBER 26, 1988
SUB,)ECT: VARIANCE 88-7
APPLICANT'.
.DAVID E. SOSIN, M.D.
HEAOACItE TREATiIENT CENTER OF ORANGE COUNTY
14111 NEWPORT AVENUE
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680
OWNER:
DAVID E. SOSIN, M.D.
14111 NEdPORT AVENUE
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680
LOCATION. '
ZONING:
ENV I ROM4ENTXI.
STATUS:
14111 NEWPORT AVENUE AT TIlE NORTHWEST CORNER OF. NEWPORT AND
MITCHELL AVENUES
PLANNED COMMUNITY-COMMERCIAL (PC-C) DISTRICT
CATEGORICALLY EXEHPT (CLASS 11)
REQUEST:
TO PER)lIT A BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN
.. REC0144ENDATION
i
That the Planning Commission deny Variance 88-7 by adoption of Resolution No.
2538.
BACKGROUND
_
Applicant is requesting authorization to install a 24 square foot double faced
business identification pole sign over six (6) feet in height (approximately
12') for the Headache Treatment Center of Orange County located at the northwest
corner of Newport and Mitchell Avenues. The medical office use is located in
the Planned Community-Commercial (PC-C) District. The site currently has an
existing approved sign which meets all of the criteria with regards to size (12
square feet) and height (6 feet or under) for professional ' office
identification. This sign replaced an existing unauthorized business
identification pole sign which is the subject of this variance request.
Community Development Depar~men~
P1 anntng Commt sst on Report
Variance 88-7
October' 26, i'988
Page. t~o ,
Staff has worked with Dr. Sosln since A. prtl, 1987 in order to abate his
unauthorized business identification pole sign. All a.ttempts in this effort
through written correspondence had failed until just recently, when Dr. Sosin
was contacted by the City Attorney's office. The subject sign has since been
removed and replaced with the aforementioned sign which meets the authorized
criteria for a professional office use and which has permits. At no time during
this process was it indicated to Dr. Sosin that no action would be taken by the
City in order to bring his sign into complla~ with the City's Sign Code.
There have been some misunderstandings in this case, but it has, as always, been
the Community Development's policy to pursue matters of this nature to a
· satisfactory conclusion.
DISCUSSION
·
The Tusttn Sign Code states that signs shall be related to the standards
applicable to the authorized use and development of the property. (For example,
a professiqnal office 'building constructed in the Commercial District shall be
limited to the signing authorized-for the Professional District,) Pole signs
are not an authorized sign type in the Professional District; therefore, the
requested s(gn requires a variance.
According to the Sign Code, a Variance may be granted subject to the following
condt ti ons:
That because of exceptional circumstances applicable to the subject
property, the strict application of this Chapter (Chapter 4, Signs, Tustin
Municipal Code) is found to deprive the subject property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity 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.
AIL~LYSZS
In reviewing the proposed Variance request, staff have determined the following-
1. The proposed Variance for the business identification pole sign does not
'~c-t the requtred conditions whlch are required for the granting of a
Variance.
There are currently only three (3) office buildings, plus a chiropractic
Corn rnuni~y Development Department ~/
Planning Commission Report
Vartance 88-7
October 26, 1988
.. Page three
off!ce in the vicinity of the Headache Treatment Center. TheSe are located
from just south of the :[-5 Freeway to Sycamore Avenue or in an area which
encompasses approximately three quarters of a mile. tlone of these office
buildings or medlcal offlce uses have pole signs.
There are numerous commercial uses ~n the. vlclnlty of the Headache
Treatment Center (ARCO, Taco Bell, Alta Dena, etc.) whlch do have pole
slgns. But the utilization of pole slgns for commercial uses is authorized
by the Tustln Sign Code.
The Headache Treatment Center is, .therefore, not deprived of privileges
that other properties (1.e. professional uses) enjoy in the vicinity and
district under similar circumstances. As such, the granting of this
varlance would constitute a granting of special privileges inconsistent
with the limitations on adjacent properties in the area.
2. The granting of this Variance could result In some adverse effects In the
l~medlate vl clnlty.
Staff is concerned with the possible effects which could result from the
approval of this Variance. If the subject variance ls granted, it could
establfsh precedent and a basis for granting future variances of :he same
type. Furthermore, staff has t~een contacted by other medical professionals
In the area voicing their objections to the proposed pole sign, which had
been all'splayed on the site prior to the Varlance application being flled,
but has slnce been removed and replaced by the existing approved sign.
C0NCLUS[0#
Based upon the above analysis and the fact that the existing sign provides
adequate stgnage and visibility for this location, especially when combined with
the accent colors on the walls and building, the Community Development
Department staff recommends that the application for Variance No. 88-7 be
denied.
Associate Planner
RR: CAS: ts
Christine A' Shing)eto~n~,/. -
0irector of Community Development
Attachment: Sign plan
Letter from applicant
Resolution No. 2538
,
Comrnuni:y Developmen~ Depar~men[
NIII NEV~)RT AVE., TUSTII,,. ,.~ALIF. ~ '/14
Citv of Tustin
Community Development Dept.
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, Ca 92680
Attn: Christine Shingleton
Dear Ms. Shingleton:
DAVID i:..,,JSIN. M.D. -- DIRECTOR
D~PLO~U~,TE AN1ER~CAN BO.ad-lO OF
PSYCHIATRY .z~J~ O NEUROLOGY
July 07,1988
Today I have filed for a variance to permit my existing sign to
remain on my property. I believe that I have shown good faith
and a desire to cooperate with the city in every reasonable way.
I also expect that the city will, as your letters have promise~,
work with me to reach a' solution which is fair to all of us.
In 1982, I bought a run-down, weed-covered, roach infested
property in an unattractive commercial zone and turned it into a
tasteful medical clinic. For my expense and efforts, the city of
Tustin gave me thanks and a beautification award.
Subsequent complaints from my patients that they could not find
my office until they were at or past it led me to see that my
Sign was being obscured by Alta Dena's wall and trucks and by
signs of the other establishments on the three remaining corners
of. Newport and Mitchell. I-enlarged my sign so that it could be
seen. It remained tasteful and in no way does it resemble the
size, height, glaring colors or general aggressiveness of any
signs in =he area. The sign has remalned for several years
without a problem. Certainly, none of my neighbors has
complained.
In attempting to work with the city and gaZn an understanding of
what was being required, I was frustrated by differing, often
contradictory, .answers from various city representatives.
Finally, I was told by Mr. Slavic that the city's final decision
was that I would be permitted to leave my sign as it is, since
the area is slated for redevelopment2 Based on th~s
conversation, I went ahead and spent over $900.00 to change the
color (not the size or the locatlon) of the s~gn to matc~ my
repainted clinic.
Imagine my surprise when I received new lettecs from ~]~fferen=
people ordering me to bring the sign into conformance. When I
objected to this change ia posture, I was told that Mr. Slav~t no
longer worked for the city. Well, perhaps ~%e doesn't, buu he did
wBen he advised me and I ~%ad no reason to doumu n~s authority.
I still wish to work with the city in a reasonable way and
believe that my application shows my good faith, I believe that
my situation, particularly in relation to Alta Dena~s overhanging
weeds, six foot high fence and walt of obstructive trucks and the
protruding signs of Circle K (see attached pnouos), all of wn~cn
obscure o~-~ property, meets the definitions of exceptional
circumstances found in sections 9470 and 9471 of the city sign
H~HE TREA1 ,~T CENTER l k.,/9~ OF C qGE COUNTY )
714 I~I2-~.X~ .. ~ ~.~- D~PLUMAT£ AMERICAN I. iOAf~U OF
· ~..~, , PSYCI.IIA[ .RY AND NEUROLOGY
code. Strict application of the s~gn code deprives us of
privileges (especially visibility) enjoyed b'y other properties in
our vicinity. .Our sign presents no health or safety violation.
It certainly does not detract from ti%is neighborhood, whose .
future remains, ambiguous in any 'case. Finalty, it enhances chis
office, Which prov. ides the prilaary source, of income for our
family. .
I hope. that the city will grant th~s variance, so that I can
return in peace to doing what gives me the most .satisfaction,
which is the practice of medicine to enhance the quality of life
for my patients.
Sinc~erely,
David [. Sosin, M.D.
Director
Headache Treatmen~ Center
of Orange County
The Honorable Ronald Hoesterey, Mayor
·
DES/abm'
1
$
$
9
10
11
12
13
1.4
15
16
17
18
19:
20
21
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2538
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNI. NG..COMMISSION OF THE..i
CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING VARIANCE NO. 88-7 FOR
THE HEADACHE TREATMENT CENTER OF ORANGE COUNTY
(DAVID E. SOSIN, M.D.) AT NEWPORT AND MITCHELL
AVENUES.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tusttn does hereby resolve as
follows:
1. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A. That a proper application, (Variance No. 88-7) , was filed by
the Headache Treatment Center of Orange County (David E. Sosin,
M.D.) requesting authorization to vary from the requirements of
the City of Tustin Sign Code for the installation of a 24 square
foot, double faced business identification pole sign
(approximately 12' ).
B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said
application on Wednesday, October 26, 1988.
C. That because of special circumstances applicable 'to the subject
property, relattve to size, shape, topography, locatton or
surroundings, a strict application of the Zoning Ordinance does
not deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by ot-h~F
p--~pe r ti es i n the vi ci ni ty and under i denti ca 1 zone
classification, evidenced by the following findings:
1. The subject property owner is not being denied a property
right possessed by other property owners of office
buildings in the commercial district in that, the only
existing business identification pole signs in the vicinity
are for commercial uses, which are authorized by the Tustin
Si gn Code.
2. The subject property Is a standard corner lot wi th good
visibility possessing nO unusual site conditions with
regards to size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings.
3. The allowable signs for building identification in the
Professional District are: a. wall signs or b. monument
signs. One sign (type a or b) shall be authorized for each
street frontage for a corner lot, or one double face
monument sign. The maximum size of each face shall not
exceed 12 square feet. The. maximum height of the sign
Shall not exceed 6 feet.
1
2
3
4
$
$
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1.4'
1,5
16
17
18
19
20
21
27
28
Resolution No. 2538
Page ~o
D. That the granttng of a vartance as herein provtded will
constitute a grant of spectal privilege Inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district
In which the subject property is situated in that signs shall be
related to the standards applicable to the authorized use and
·
development of the property. As stated, a professional office
building constructed in the Commercial District shall be limited
to the signing authorized for the Professional District as set
forth in the Tusttn Sign Code. Pole signs are not an authorized
type sign in the Professional District and none of the office
uses in the vicinity of the subject site have pole signs.
E. That this project is categorically exempt from the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 11).
F. That the granting of the variance as herein provided could
establish precedent and a basis for granting future variances of
the same type.
G. That the granting of the variance as herein provided will be
contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the public
safety, health and welfare, and said variance should not be
granted.
II. The Planning Commission hereby denies Variance No. 88-7.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regul~ m~eti~ng of the Tustin Pl~anning Commission,
held on the ~ day of (x(..~j/-~-~Ly , 198.~...
PENNI FOLEY,- ~/'
Recording Secretary
/'/? .~ '7 ,,..' / /
,, / ... // .-/ /~,,'
//.:" ..,,. ,.~
C~..~. -~BAKER'~
Chairman
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNT~ OF ORANGE )
C :ITY' OF TUST! N )
I, PENNI FOLEY, the undersigned, hereby certify that ! am the Recording
Secretary of the Plann'_.Jng Commission of the City of Tusttn, California; that
Resolution No, ~xT'-~ was duly passed and adopted at a.eegular meeting of
the T~sttn Plannt~lg Commission, held on the ~~day of ~::.~..~.~,..,/' ,
198 ,
PENNI FOLEY'
Recording Sect',eta~
5
6
7
$
9
10
13
15
~7
~9
~0
~5
26
~7
RESOLUTION NO. 88-119'
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, DENYING THE APPEAL FOR VARIANCE NO. 88-7
FOR THE HEADACHE TREATMENT CENTER OF ORANGE
COUNTy (DAVID E. SOSIN, M.D.) AT NEWPORT AND
MITCHELL AVENUES.
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. 88-7), was filed by the
Headache Treatment Center of Orange County (David E. Sosin,
M.D.) requesting authorization to vary from the requirements of
the City of Tustin Sign Code for the installation of a 24 square
foot, double faced business identification pole sign
(approximately 12' ).
B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said
application on Monday, November 21, 1988.
C. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject
property, relative to size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings, a strict application of the Zoning Ordinance does
not deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by ot-~'~F
Properties in the vicinity and under identical zone
classification, evidenced by the following findings:
1. The subject property owner is not being denied a property
right possessed by other pr'~perty owners of office
buildings in the commercial district in that, the only
existing business identification pole signs in the vicinity
are for commercial uses, which are authorized by the Tustin
Si gn Code.
2. The' subject property is a standard corner lot with good
visibility possessing no unusual site conditions with
regards to size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings.
3. The allowable signs for building identification in the
Professional District are: a) wall signs or b) monument
signs. One sign (type a or b) shall be authorized for each
street frontage for a corner lot, or one double face
monument sign. The maximum size of each face. shall not
exceed 12 square feet. The maximum height of the sign
shall not exceed 6 feet.
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. 88-119
Page two
O.
E®
F.
Ge
That the granting of a variance as herein provtded will
constitute a grant of special privileges Inconsistent wtth the
ltmttatlons upon other properties In the vicinity and dtstrlct
In which the subject property ts situated in that slgns shall be
related to the standards applicable to the authorized use and
development of the property. As stated, a professional offlce
butldtng constructed tn the Commercial Dtstrtct shall be ltmtted
to the slgnlng authorized for the Professional Distrlct as set
forth tn the Tusttn Sign Code. Pole signs are not an authorized
type sign In the Professional District and none of the office
uses in the vtcinity of the subject site have pole stgns.
That this project is categorically exempt from the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act (Class ll).
That the granting of the variance as heretn provtded could
establish precedent and a basis for' granttng future variances of
the same type.
That the granttng of the variance as herein provided will be
contrary to the tntent of the Zontng Ordinance and the public
safety, health and welfare, and said variance should not be
granted.
II. The Ctty Council hereby denies Variance No. 88-7.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meetlng of the Tusttn Ctty Counctl, held on
the. day of , 198.._.
RON HOESTEREY,
Mayor
MARY" WYN~i,
Secretary