HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 1 VARIANCE 86-3 06-02-86 Inter- Corn
DATE: JUNE 2, 1986
TO:
FROM:
SU BJ ECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CIT~ COUNCIL
CO~UNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTHENT
CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF VARIANCE NO. 86-3
TUSTIN PLAZA SIGNING
APPELLANT:
ORIGINAL
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
CITY COUNCIL
CARVER DEVELOPMENT CO.
1100 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE
NE#PORT BEACH, CA.
TUSTIN PLAZA RETAIL SITE BOUNDED BY HAIN STREET, NEWPORT AVENUE,
AND SIXTII STREET.
RECOI~ENDED ACTION:
Pleasure of the Counctl.
SUFI~RY:
On April 14,
approval the
1.
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 75 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
in-lieu of all other free-standing signs on-site (denial
recommended by staff).
City Concil Report
June 2, 1986
Page two
As evidenced by findings of the Commission listed in Resolution No. 2323
(Section I., D.) it was determined that the sign package submitted met the
intent of the sign ordinance and would not constitute a grant of special
privileges.
On April 21, 1986, City Council appealed the Commission's decision on Variance
86-3, and a public hearing was thereby scheduled for May 19, 1986. At the
request of the applicant, consideration of the subject appeal was continued to
this evenings meeting.
A detailed analysis of the overall sign proposal and staff recommendation is
contained in the attached "Report to the Planning Commission" dated April 14,
1986.
JSD:pef
Attachments:
Report to the Planning Commlsion of April 14, 1986
Resolution No. 2323
Carver Development Co. Letter dated May 13, 1986
Corn munity Development Department
Report to the
Planning Commission
ITEM # 11
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
ENYIROIg4ENTAL
STATUS:
REQUEST: '
APRIL 14," 1986
VARIANCE NO. 86-3
CANYER REYELOP#ENT
1100 NDIPORT CENTER DRIVE
NEMPORT BEACH, CA
TUSTZN' PLAZA RETAIL SITE BOUNDED BY RAIN STREET, I[WPORT AVENUE
AND SIXTH STREET
PLANNEO cmmUNITY cmeERClAL
CATEGORICAJJ.Y EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIRD[NIT OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVTRONI[NTAL QUALITY ACT (CLASS 3)
VARIANCE APPLZCATZON NUMBER 86-3 REQUESTS AUTHORIZATION FOR THE
FOLLOMING VARIANCES FROM THE SZGN COOE:
I. THE INSTALLATION OF SiX (6) FREE-STANDING CENTER
IDENTIFICATION SIGNS. CODE PF. RMITS ONLY THREE' (3).
2. THE INSTALLATION OF TND (2) FREE-STANDING MULTI-TENANT
SIGNS. CODE PERJ4ZTS ONLY ONE (1) DIRECTORY TYPE SIGN, AND THEN
ONLY XN LIEU OF ALL OTHER FREE STANDING SXGNS ON SITE.
3. THE TNSTALLATXON OF FOUR (4) TENANT TDENTIFICATION HALL SXGNS
EACH IN EXCESS OF THE 75 SQUARE FOOT RAXl14U# PERIqXTTED BY CODE.
RECOFg4ENDED ACTION:
It ts recommended that the Commission
Application No. 86-3:
1.
2.
3.
take the following acttons on Vartance
Approve free-standing center Identification signs as requested.
Oeny the proposed free-standing tenant Identification.
Approve tenant Identification wall stgns for untts 23 through 26 consisting
of stgn area of 15~ of storefront area.
Community Development Department
Planning Commission Report
Tustt n Plaza-
page two
SUIlqARY:
Thts report analyzes and makes recommendations concerning a comprehensive stgn
package submitted by Carver Development for the Tustin Plaza project. As
submitted, the package requests three separate 'variances with the Municipal
Code. In reviewing each request individually, staff Js recommending that a
portlon of the package be authorized, with one section being denied and the
third significantly altered.
In short, staff's recommendations and 'reasons supporting such actton are as
follows:
1. Approval of center identification signs based upon ~ardship created by
structure locations and a required bike trail. Additionally, the aggregate
sign area requested is less than othe~tse permitted by code.
2. Dental 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 vtow' by free-standing structures and that the 15%
requirement will keep these signs in proportion to other signs in the
center.
BACKGROUND:
After extensive review, several public 'hearings and considerable alteration of
architectural design of the project, Tustln Plaza was approved by the Commission
and City Council. The lengthy review process stemmed from Commission, Counctl
and community concern over development of one of the last major sttes in the
downtown area. Additionally, as a ."gateway" tn~o the E1 Camtno Real business
district, aesthetic qualtty of the project was a major consideration.
Presently, Tusttn Plaza ts 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.
DISCUSSZON:
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:
Community Development Department
Planntng Commission Report
Tusttn Plaza
page three
That because of exceptional circumstances applicable to the subject
property, the strict application of the stgn code ts found to deprive
subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity
and under, st~llar circumstances.
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.
ANALYSIS:
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~attble 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 less 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 tha~ the six center identification signs as proposed be
approved.
Free-standtn~ Tenant Identification Stuns Exhibit "O" 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.
Community Development Department
Planntng Commission Report
Tustl n Plaza
page four
Pursuant to Sign Ordinance 684, the Center ts permitted on]y one (1) tenant
directory type sign, and then tt Is to be tn lfeu of all other
free-standing signs on site.
Further, each tenant is limited to a maxtmu; of six (6) feet of sign area.
Given the fact that the applicant desires center identification signs, and
that undoubtedly building number Z will want a monument permitted by code,
free-standing tenant identification signs, proposed should not be approved.
There ts not present any unusual circumstances tn. that the developer has
opted for center Identification signs, and if approved, these signs could
be considered a grant of spectal privileges.
As astde note tt should be mentioned that the applicant has ctted the
Mtller's Outpost monument stgn (1726! ~7th Street) as a reason for
approving free-standing, stgns tn Tusttn Plaza. However, the Commission
wt11 recall that the Mtller's stgn was approved because (t was a
substantial and voluntary reduction of an existing non-conforming pylon
stgn.
Stnce this portton of Vartance Application 86-3 does not meet etther
criteria requtred for approval of a variance, It ts recommended that
free-standing tenant Identification be dented 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 tWice 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 tntance, signs for each tenant would be
calculated and limited as roll.s:
'Unit Storefront Area 15% of Storefront
St~ Area Allowed
23 704 sq. ft. 105 sq. ft. 75 sq.
24 594 sq. ft. 89 sq. ft. 75 sq.
25 440 sq. ft. . 66 sq. ft. 66 sq.
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-standing buildings encouraged
by the Redevelopment Agency, visibility of units in question 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 Development Department
P lanntng Comdsston Report
Tustln Plaza
page ftve
Tn staff's optnton, whtle these my be sufficient grounds to gran'c a
vartance tn this tnstace, 600 square feet of stgn area ts not justifiable.
Approval for l~tller's Outpost and Orug Emporium authorized stgn area equal
to approx!mtely 10:t of storefront. In contrast, the Carver package asks~
for al;ost 30:;. Therefore, as an alternative to the proposed package,
staff ls recomendtng that each untt be restricted to 15~ of storefront
even If that ftgure exceeds 75 square feet. However, tt ts further
recommended that tf by re-configuration .of untt floor plans, storefronts
are Increased, that a mxtmum of 150 square feet be laposed. In this
fashion, a tenant would have to have a front area of at least go ltneal
feet to get mxteum stgnage. Also, 'this method will keep these signs tn a
proportional relationship to other slgns fn the center.'
As demonstrated tn the body Of this report, .there are certain conditions upon
the subject site that Justify sone deviation from the strict application of the
stgn code. At the same tier tt has also been noted that these circumstances do
not warrant disregard of the Intent and purpose of these regulations.
Accordingly, staff has mede recommendations on the subject application that are
considered to be consistent with community goals, and recommends that the
Co;mission approve the sign package as detailed tn this report. A formal
resolution reflecting the 'Commission's decision will be available at the next
regularly scheduled meeting.
,1SD: em
Attachments
,, 'Corn munity Development Dcpartmem
I-..
Z
LU
0
LU
17
LLI
18
I
1
2
3
4
The Planning
5 follows:
6 I.
7
8
9
10
1'1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
26
27
28
RESOLUTION 2323
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMHISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING VARIANC£ NO. 86-3 FOR
THE RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER KNOWN AS TUSTIN PLAZA
AT 1368! - 1379! NEWPORT AVENUE
Commission of the City of Tusttn. does hererby resolve as
The Planntng Commission finds and determines as follows:
That a proper application (Variance No. 86-3) was filed by
Carver Development requesting to vary from requirements of
the City of Tusttn Sign Code by authorizing the following:
1. Stx (6) center identification signs;
2. Two (2) free-standing tenant Identification signs; and
3. Four (4) tenant identification, wall type signs, !50
square feet each.
B. That a publtc hearing was duly called, noticed and he~d on
satd application.
Ce
That through the course of public testimony and Commission
dtscusston,.constderatton of the application submitted was
ltmttad to center identification signs, as reauested:
free-standing tenant signs, as requested: and tenant wall
signs not to exceed 155 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.
e
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.
e
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.
e
That structural setbacks in excess of 350 feet from
Newport Avenue and obstructed visibility resulting
from other free-standing buildings on the site,
a hardship exits Justifying limited use
of free-standing tenant identification.
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
2t
2~
28
Resolution No 2323
Page two
That the granting of a variance as herein provtded 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 *~ranting 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 variance
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 compi,:~;
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 off the attached site plan (Exhibit "A") shall beltmtted to
of each suite's stop, front 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
onPASSEDthe .C~Y¥~'~ayAND ADOPTED or--at meeting of th? TustJn198.~. Planning Commission, hel,
- PENNI FOLEY, ~
Recording Secretary
Chairman
b'I'AT~ OF ~,~LTFORM~ZA)
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIM )
Z, PEMN! FOLEY, ~he undersigned, hereby cer'ctfy ~hat ! am
Re¢oPdlng .Secretary of ~he P]ann~_n~g C. qamrlsston of the CtW of Tustln,
California, ~hat Resolu~cton Mo. ~ vas duly p~ssed and adopted
a ~egular/mpe~.lng o~f ~e Tus~/n Fl~i~c: Coamrlsston, held on
~y of _~,~_~, 19 ~...
DEVELOPMENT
May 13, 1986
Hand Delivered
Mr. Jeff Davis, Associate Planner
CIT~ OF TUSTIN
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
Subject: Tustin Plaza
Request for Sisn Variance - t86-3
Dear Jeff:
With this letter, we are requestin$ 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.
S~ncerely,
Scan G. Scholey,
Project M--ager
SGS/clc
HO0 Newport Cemer Drive
Newport Beth, CA 92660 (71~) 644-9040