HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 2 VARIANCE 86-3 05-19-86TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE ~YOR AND Pr:JIIBERS OF THE CTTY COUNCTL
COHHUNITY DI~:YELOPHENT DEPARTRENT
APPEAL OF VARIANC[ NO. 86-3, TUST'rN PLAZA S*rGNTNG
,/
APPF. LLANT:
ORIGINAL
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
CIT~ COUNCIL
CARVER DEVELOPHENT CO.
1100 NEMPORT CENTER DRIVE
NEWPORT BEACH, CA.'
TUSTIN PLAZA RETAIL SITE BOUNDED BY HAIN STREET, NEWPORT AYENUE,
AND SIXTH
RECOI~4ENDED ACTXON:
Pleasure of the Council. Carver Development however, requests the appeal
hearing be continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting.on June 2, 1986.
SUN4&qY:
On April [4,
approval the
1986 the Planning Commission approved Variance No. 86-3. With this
following sign package was authorized.
Six (6) driveway entry center identification signs (approval
recommended by staff). Current code permits only three.
Business wall signs for specific units equalling 15~ of storefront
area even if such a ratio exceeds maximum sign area of 76 square
feet (approval recommended by staff).
The use of two (2) free-standing tenant identification signs
providing signage for a maximum of six tenants (three tenants per
sign). The sign code only permits these directory type signs
tn-lieu of all other free-standing signs on-site (denial
recommended by staff).
City Conc11 Report
Hay [9, [986
Page two
As evidenced by findings of the Commission listed in Resolution No. 2323
(Section [., O.) tt was determined that the sign package submitted met the
tntent of the sign ordinance and- would not constitute a grant of special
prtvJleges.
On April 2[, [986, City Council appealed the Commission's decision on Variance
86-3, and a public hearing was thereby scheduled.
A detailed analysis of the overal~ sign proposal and staff recommendation is
contained in the attached "Report to the Planning Commission" dated April [4,
[986.
Associate Planner
Director of Community Development
JSO:pef
Attachments:
Report to the Planning Commtston of April [4, [986
Resolution No. 2323
Carver Development Co. Letter dated May [3, [986
Community Development Department
Report to the
Planning Commission
ITEM # 11
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
REQUEST:
APRIL 14,' 1986
VARIANCE NO. 86-3
CARVER DEVELOPMENT
1100 NEMPORT CENTER DRIVE
NEIIPORT BEACH, CA
THSTIN' PLAZA RETAIL SITE BOUNDED BY* #AIN STREET, BE#PORT AVENUE
AND SIXTH STREET
PLANNED COII~NITY COII~RCIAL
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CLASS 3)
VARIANCE APPLICATION NUMBER 86-3 REQUESTS AUTHORIZATION FOR THE
FOLLONIN6 VARIANCES FROM TH[ SIGN COD[:
1. THE INSTALLATION OF SIX (6) FREE-STANDING CENTER
IDENTIFICATION SIGNS. CODE PERHITS ONLY THREE' (3').
2. THE ZNSTALLATION OF TMO (2} FREE-STANDING HULTI:TENANT
SIGNS. CODE PERHITS ONLY ONE (1) DIRECTORY TYPE SIGN, AND THEN
ONLY ZN LIEU OF ALL OTHER FREE STANOZNG SIGNS ON SITE.
3. THE INSTALLATION OF FOUR (4) TENANT IDENTIFICATION HALL SIGNS
EACH IN EXCESS OF THE 75 SQUARE FOOT IqAXIHOM PERIqITTED BY CODE.
RECOI~IENDED ACTION:
It ts recommended that the Commission
Application No. 86-3:
[.
2.
3.
take the following actions on Variance
Approve free-standing center identification signs as requested.
Deny the proposed free-standing tenant identification.
Approve tenant identification wall signs for units 23 through 26 consisting
of sign area of 154 of storefront area.
Community Development Depariment
P1 anni ng Commt ss1 on Report
Tustt n Plaza-
page two
S~Y:
Thts report analyzes and makes recommendations concerning a comprehensive sign
package submitted by Carver Development for the Tusttn Plaza project. As
submitted, the package requests three separate variances with the Municipal
Code. In reviewing each request individually, staff is recommending that a
portion of the package be authorized, with one section being denied and the
third significantly altered.
In short, staff's recommendations and reasons supporting such action are as
follows:
1. Approval of center identification signs based upon hardship created by
structure locations and a required bike trail. Additionally, the aggregate
sign area requested is less than otherwise permitted by code.
2. Denial of free-standing' tenant identification signs in that no hardship
under the sign code exists for such stgnage.
3. Approval of tenant wall signs in excess of maximum square footage allowed
provided that such area not exceed 15~ of storefront area of each
individual unit. Justification is based upon distance from Newport,
obstruction of view' by free-standing structures and that the 15~
requirement will keep these signs in proportion to other signs in the
center.
BACKGROU#D:
After extensive review, several publtc hearings and considerable alteration of
architectural design of the project, Tusttn Plaza was approved by the Commission
and City Council. The lengthy review process stemmed from Commission, Council
and community concern over development of one of the last major sites in the
downtown area. Additionally, as a ."gateway" into the E1 Camlno Real business
district, aesthetic qualtty of the project was a major consideration.
Presently, Tustln Plaza is under construction (with the exception of two free-
standing structures) and Carver Development is marketing the project in search
of major tenants which will act as a draw supporting the remainder of the
center. It is Carver's contention that in order to secure these major tenants,
signing in excess of that permitted by code is required.
OISCUSSZON:
As submitted, Carver's sign package requests several deviations from the sign
code. Each variance will be reviewed individually in the analysis section of
this report. However, it should first be noted that prior to granting any
variance the Commission must make both of the following findings:
Communily Developmcnl Department
Planning Commission Report
Tusttn Plaza
page three
[. That because of exceptional circumstances applicable to the subject
property, the strict application of the sign code is found to deprive
subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity
and under, similar circumstances.
2. That the variance shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that
the adjustments thereby authorized will not constitute a grant of special
privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the
vicinity and district in which the subject property is located.
AXALYSI$:
For purposes of clarity, Variance Application 86-3 will be divided into three
separate areas of discussion: Project monument signs; free-standing tenant
identification signs; and tenant identification wall type signs in excess of
square footage permitted by code.
1. Project Monument St~ns - As indicated on Exhibit "A", six {6) separate
project identification signs {two situated at each major-entrance; one on
the corner of Sixth Street at Newport and one "feature"sign on the corner
of Main Street at Newport) are proposed. Each of these signs would be
placed upon design features to be constructed as a part of the approved
project. Surface. area supporting each sign is approximately 39 square
feet, yet the actual sign, consisting of individual die-cast letters, will
cover approximately ten (10) square feet. To be visible at night, each
letter will be back-lit with neon creating a "halo" effect which would be
con~pattble with overall center design concepts.
Pursuant to Tusttn Sign regulations, this site is permitted three, 75
square foot, double face monument signs. Therefore, the number of signs
requested is in excess of the number permitted. However, ~the signs
are to be mounted on structure~ady approved and since the actual sign
area for each two signs is le~s than would be allowed on one double face
monument, granting approval of. signs requested should not constitute a
grant of special privilege. Additionally, the configuration of the bike
trail parallelling Newport and the positioning of structures on the site
create circumstances that preclude effective use of a standard double face
sign. Therefore, a claim that the project is deprived privileges enjoyed
by other properties can be supported.
With both criteria necessary to grant approval of a variance present, it is
recommended that the six center identification signs as proposed be
approved.
2. Free-standtn~ Tenant Identification Stuns - Exhibit "D" attached shows
locations of two proposed tenant identification signs. Each of these signs
would be a single face, 35 square foot structures, with sign area for two
"major" tenants. Each tenant would be given 7.5 square feet of sign area.
Corn munity Development Department
Planning Commission Report
Tusttn Plaza
page four
Pursuant to Sign Ordinance 684, the Center is permitted only one (1) tenant
directory type sign, and then it is to. be in lieu of all other
free-standing signs on site.
Further, each tenant is limited to a maximum of six (6) feet of sign area.
Given the fact that the applicant desires center identification signs, and
that undoubtedly buildtng number Z will want a monument permitted by code,
free-standing tenant identification signs, proposed should not be approved.
There is not present any unusual circumstances in. that the developer has
opted for center identification signs, and if approved, these signs could
be considered a grant of special privileges.
As a side note it should be mentioned that the applicant has cited the
Miller's Outpost monument sign (17261 17th Street) as a reason for
approving free-standing.signs in Tusttn Plaza. However, the Commission
will recall that the Miller's sign was approved because it was a
substantial and voluntery reduction of an existing non-conforming pylon
sign.
Since this portion of Variance Application 86-3 does not meet either
criteria required for approval of a variance, it is recommended that
free-standing tenant identification be denied for the subject project.
Tenant Identification Wall Signs in Excess of Area Permitted by Code - In
an effort to attract "major tenants to the center, Carver is requesting
wall signs for spaces 23, 24, 25, and 26 which would be over i~ice the area
permitted by code. If approved as submitted, this portion of the sign
package would authorize 600 square feet of sign area. Under code, each
tenant is only allowed a sign equal to 15% of their storefront area, not
exceeding 75 square feet. In this intance, signs for each tenant would be
calculated and limited as follow, s:
;Unit Storefront Area 15% of Storefront
Area A11o~-d
23 704 sq. ft. 105 sq. ft. 75 sq.
24 594 sq. ft. 89 sq. ft. 75 sq. ft.
25 440 sq. ft. . 66 sq. ft. 66 sq. ft.
26 352 sq. ft. 52 sq. ft. 52 sq. ft.
The applicant contends that because these structures are setback over 350
feet from Newport Avenue, and because of free-stendtng buildings encouraged
by the Redevelopment Agency, visibility of units in questton is
restricted. It is as a result of these restrictions that Carver argues
that special circumstances exist upon the property that warrant signs in
excess of that permitted. Further, the applicant cites approvals of
variances for other centers as grounds that a grant of special privilege
would not be granted if this package were approved.
~_ Community Developmen~ Depar~mem /
P1 ann1 ng Commi sston Report
Tusttn Plaza
page ftve
In staff's opinion, while these may be sufficient grounds to grant a
variance in this tnstace, 600 square feet of sign area is not justifiable.
Approval for Miller's Outpost and Orug Emporium authorized sign area equal
to approx!mately 105 of storefront. In contrast, the Carver package asks
for almost 30~. Therefore, as an alternative to the proposed package,
staff is recommending that each untt be restricted to I5S of storefront
even tf that figure exceeds 75 square feet. However, tt is further
recommended that if by re-configuration .of unit floor plans, storefronts
are Increased, that a maximum of 150 square feet be imposed. In this
fashion, a tenant would have to have a front area of at least gO lineal
feet to get maximum slgnage. Also, thts method w~11 keep these signs in a
proportional relationship to other stgns in the center.'
CONCLUSIONS:
As demonstrated tn the body Of thts report, ~here are certain conditions upon
the subject site that justtfy some deviation from the strtct application of the
stgn code. At the same time it has also been noted that these circumstances do
not warrant disregard of the intent and purpose of these regulations.
Accordingly, staff has made recommendations on the subject application that are
considered to be consistent wtth community goals, and recommends that the
Commission approve the stgn package as detailed in thts report. A formal
resolution reflecting the Commission's dectston wtll be available at the next
regularly scheduled meettng.
OSO:em
Attachments
Corn munity Development Department
!!!':::2
. ~
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 2323
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COHHISSTON OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 86-3 FOR
THE RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER KNOWN AS TUSTIN PLAZA
AT 1368! - !$791 NEWPORT AVENUE
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hererby resolve as
follows:
The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
That a proper application (Variance No. 86-3) was filed by
Carver Oevelopmont r~questtng to vary from requirements of
the City of Tusttn Sign Code by authorizing the following:
1. Stx (6) center fdenttftcatton signs;
2. Two (2) free-standing tenant identification signs; and
3. Four (4) tenant identification, wall type signs, 150
square feet each.
Be
That a publlc hearfng was duly called, noticed and he.ld on
said application.
Ce
That through the course of public testimony and Commission
dtscusston,.conslderatton of the application submitted was
11mtted to center identification stgns, as requested;
free-standing tenant signs, as requested: and tenant wall
signs not to exceed !$~ of storefront areas.
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 deprives subject property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under
identical zone classification, evidenced by the following
findings:
Aggregate sign area of center identification signs is
less than would otherwise be permitted by the Sign
Code.
The location and configuration of a bike-trail
paralleling Newport Avenue and positioning of
structures on the site impairs- the use of standard
double face center identification sign.
Structural setbacks in excess of 350 feet from Newport
Avenue and the large size of building frontages are
such that exceptional circumstances exist on the
property that justify additional sign area.
That structural setbacks in excess of 3SO feet from
Newport Avenue and obstructed visibility resulting
from other free-standing buildings on the site,
a hardship exits justifying limtted use
of free-standing tenant tdentfffcatton.
Resolution No 2323
Page two
3
4 E.
5
6
7
8 6.
9
10
11
12 1.
~3
14 2.
15
16
17 3.
18
19
20
21
23
24
28
That the granting of a variance as herein provided will not
constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district
in which the subject property is situated.
F. That this project is categorically exempt from the requirements
of the California Environmental (Class 11.)
That the granting of the variance as herein provided will
not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance or
the public safety, health and welfare, and said vartancei
should be granted.
II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Variance No. 86-3 subject tc
the following conditions:
Lettering on center identification design features at complex
entrance points shall be, individual, back-lit, letters not to
exceed 12 inches in height.
Wall signs for tenants occupying suites numbered 23, 24, 25 and26 as
shown on the attached site plan (Exhibit "A") shall belimtted to
of each suite's storefront area. In no case shall sign area exceed
150 square feet.
Two (2) free-standing tenant identification signs, final
locations to be determined by the Director of Community
Development shall be permitted. Each sign structure be a maximum of
35 square feet and above grade. These signs shall be allowed to be
double faced signs, situated perpendicular to Newport Avenue, with
three tenants maximum on each side of the sign.
4. All signs shall conform to letter types, styles and colors
established in the approved master sign plan for the center.
TustJn Planning Commission, hel,
PASSED ANDADO?TED at meeting of th~ 198~.
on the ~x~l'ay of '
KATHY WEIL,~
Chairman
STATE OF CALZFORNTA)
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CTTY OF TUSTIN )
Z, PENN:Z FOLEY, the undersigned, hereby certtfy that ! am the
Recording Secretary of the Planntng C_ommt sst on of the Ctty of Tust.tn,
California; that. Resolut.ton No. ~ was duly passed and adopt.ed at.
a regular.Jm~et.tng o~f the Tus~t/n Fl~l~g Conntsston, he~d on the.-~._.~
day of /~~.~___, 19 ~_.
COUMUNIT'! DEVELOPMEN'[ DEVELOPMENT
May 13, 1986
Hand Delivered
Mr. Jeff Davis, Associate Planner
CITY OF TUSTIN
300 Centennial Way
Tustim, CA 92680
Subject: Tustin Plaza
Request for Sign Variance - #86-3
Dear Jeff:
With this letter, we are requesting that you postpone our hearing, with
the City Council~ on the above referenced matter, from May 19, 1986 to
June 2, 1986.
Please advise us at your earliest convenience.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Sean G. Scholey,
Project Manager
SGS/clc
H00 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 644-9040