HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 2 VARIANCE 82-3 03-01-82OATE:
March 1, 1982
PUBLIC HEARING NO. 2
Inter-Corn
TO:
FROH:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Chairman And Planning Agency Members
Community Development Department
Variance 82-3
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
U-Haul Company of Orange County
1431Laguna Road (formerly Lyon's Moving & Storage)
To retain an existing non-conforming 288 sq. ft. roof
sign in variance with Tustin Sign Ordinance 684
BACKGROUND
An application has been filed by the U-Haul Company of Orange County
requesting a variance to Sign Ordinance 684. Specifically, the request is
to enable U-Haul to maintain an existing non-conforming, 288 sq. ft. roof
sign on the building located at 1431Laguna Road.
The roof sign in'question was constructed for Lyon's Moving & Storage prior
to Sign Ordinance 684 which provides that no sign shall exceed the roof of
the structure being served (Article I Section 1, C). Since the sign was
erected before the ordinance, it was granted an existing non-conforming
status and allowed to remain subject to the following conditions: after
Jaunuary 1, 1980, when there is a change in either proprietorship or .
identity (name), non-conforming signs for said establishment which exceed
the height, area or lighting intensity criteria of this code by twenty-five
percent (25%), and non-conforming signing due to animation and other terms
of this code shall conform to the requirements of Ordinance 684 (Article
VI, Section 4, D).
The application for variance was submitted January 28, 1982 following
staff's preliminary review of the proposal. In a letter from the Community
Development Department dated January 11, 1982, U-Haul was made aware of all
review comments including those pertaining to signs. The applicant was at
that time informed that the roof sign would have to be removed and was also
given the total sign square footage allowed for the use.
It should be noted that the elevations submitted with the variance
application show wall signs far exceeding the square footage limitations
provided in ordinance 684. These wall signs cannot be considered as a
portion of Variance 82-3 and cannot be approved as submitted. It should
also be mentioned that the alteration of the sign from "Lyon's Moving &
Storage" to "U-Haul" was done without a permit and would not have been
authorized.
Chairman And Planning Agency
Variance 82-3
Page 2
DISCUSSION
The variance request before the Agency involves several issues that should
be addressed prior to any action being taken.
First it must be pointed out that pursuant to various sections of the Code,
staff cannot support granting approval of a variance for a roof sign. It
is staff's interpretation that the granting of the subject roof sign would
constitute special privilege not afforded to others in the area. Further,
it can be argued that since U-Haul was aware of the code requirements prior
to moving into the building, that any hardship is self-imposed.
At the same time, staff has difficulty in making a firm recommendation of
denial. The problem arises from the various alternatives that may be
employed by the Agency and/or applicant.
While the proposed rental and storage use is not specifically classified as
the type that would be allowed, a pole sign in excess of height
requirements (by use permit subject to Article VIII, Section 2, F), the
nature of the U-Haul operations may in fact justify the need for freeway
identification.
The result of such a justification would allow a pole sign (by use permit)
that could conceivably be higher than the existing roof sign. To make the
issue even more complex, assuming that U-Haul did not qualify as a use
entitled to pole sign exceeding height limits, staff feels that an
application for a variance allowing a higher than permitted pole sign may
have sufficient grounds for approval due to the existence of similar signs
in the immediate area.
In essence, the end result of each of the above-mentioned possibilities is
that there would be a sign exceeding the height of the roof of the
structure being served. What the Agency needs to determine is which
alternative is the most acceptable.
If the Agency approves Variance 82-3, staff recommends that as a condition
of approval the variance will only apply to the existing sign. In no event
should a new sign be constructed on the roof. Additionally, the Building
Department requires that a structural analysis of the sign be submitted for
review. Further, if the sign is determined to be unsafe and is required to
be removed, no new sign will be permitted on the roof. The rationale
behind these conditions is that the variance requested is to allow an
existing non-conforming sign to remain intact. If another sign is
constructed {even as a replacement), it must be considered as a new sign.
Should the variance be granted without this condition, and in the future
the sign replaced, other businesses in the area (i.e. United Rent All
directly across the street from the subject property) would have
Chairman And Planning Agency
Variance 82-3
Page 3
justifiable grounds to request and receive a variance for a roof sign on
their buildings. Another condition that should be imposed is that the
variance is granted for the rental and storage use only.
RECO~qEND£D ACTION
Pursuant to pertinent sections of the Zoning Code and Sign Ordinance 684,
staff is compelled to recommend that Variance 82-3 be denied, since there
are at least three other options available to the applicant that are either
within the constraints of the sign code, or are more justifiable in terms
of granting a variance. Those options are:
e
Conform to all provisions of the sign code including (subject to a use
permit), a pole sign 24 feet high with 32 square feet of sign area.
If by formal finding the Agency determines that the U-Haul operations
qual'ify for freeway identification, by use permit, applicant may
submit a request for a pole sign with height and area requirements,
subject to conditions of approval.
Should the roof sign be denied and it is determined that U-Haul does
not qualify for freeway identification, the applicant may apply for a
variance requesting a pole sign for higher than 24 feet. Such a
request may have justifiable grounds for approval due to similar signs
in the area.
If the Agency determines that the Variance should be granted, Staff will
draft a resolution including the conditions recommended in this report.
JSD:jh
2-24-82