Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 5 VARIANCE 83-5 07-18-83FROI,(: SUBJECT: July 18, 1983 PUBLIC HEARING No. 5 7-18-83 Inter-Corn Honorable Mayor & City Council Members Community Development Department Appeal of Variance 83-5 DISCUSSION The Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 13, 1983 by a vote of 5-0, denied Variance 83-5, a request by Steelcase, Inc. to permit an additional 295-square-foot illuminated wall sign facing Red Hill Avenue. Specifically, the Commission denied the request since the proposed sign is not allowed pursuant to the Tustin Sign Ordinance and the Commission was not presented evidence that the Steelcase property was ~eprived of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and identical zone. Subsequent to the Commission's denial, the applicant's representative, Heath Sign Company, filed the attached appeal to the City Coucil for reconsideration of this application. Also, attached to this transmittal are copies of the appealed sign plan, the staff report to the Commission and resolution of denial, correspondence from the Irvine Company objecting to signs facing Red Hill Avenue, the applicant's letter of appeal, and minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of June 13, 1983. Staff and the applicant will be prepared at the Council meeting to respond to Council's questions. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DDL:Jh Attachment: Planning Staff Report, June 13, 1983 Resolution of Denial Sign Plans Irvine Company Letter, March 23, 1983 Appeal Letter from Heath Sign Company, June 16, 1983 Planning Commissto~ Minutes, June 13, 1983 DATE: FROM: S UBJ ECT: June 13, 1983 Inter-Corn Honorable Chairman & Planning Commission Members Ed Knight, Associate Planner Variance 83-5 Applicant: Location: Zoning: Request: Klaus Sarrach on behalf of Steelcase, Inc. 1123 Warner Avenue Planned Community Industrial Authorization to permit a 259 square foot illuminated wall sign on the eastern elevation (facing Red Hill Avenue) on a seventy-eight-foot tall structure BACKGROUND This sign request was originally a part of a previous Variance, No. 80-4. In that Variance, Steelcase was requesting two 445 square foot signs; one facing Bell Avenue and the other facing Red Hill Avenue. Both were illuminated wall signs, located on the seventy-eight-foot tall structures. Variance No. 80-4 was approved for the wall sign facing Bell Avenue only. This sign was further reduced to 259 square feet. The sign facing Re--~-F[ill Avenue was denied, based on the finding that neither the City nor the Irvine Company allow wall signs that do not face a street frontage. DISCUSSION 1. Tustin's Sign Code (Ordinance No. 684), under Section 11, No. 2(b), allows a business identification wall sign, one per street frontage with a total of sixty-four (64) square feet. 2. The !rvine Company's Planned Community District regulations for the City of Tustin allow for one single-face or double-face sign per street frontage. There is a formula for the sign size, but no sign can exceed a total of 200 square feet. The Irvine Company's standards are given as reference only, the Tustin Sign Ordinance takes precedence over the company's regulations. It is clear though that both sets of regulations allow signs only along a street frontage. Steelcase currently has four business identification signs; one monument along the Warner Avenue frontage, a monument and existing non-conforming wall sign along the freeway frontage, and 259 square foot wall sign along the Bell Avenue frontage. This complex is for manufacturing only, and no retail sales take place. Chairman & Commission Members June 13, 1983 Page 2 Enclosed is a letter from The Irvine Company dated March 24, 1980 stating their position regarding a wall sign on the east elevation. The City's representative from The 1trine Company was contacted to confirm this position. He stated that the Company would not encourage approval for a sign not facing a street frontage due to the precedence of the action, but would accept any decision the City will make. The City has no precedence for a sign variance request of this type, with no requests either applied for or granted in this area. In granting a variance, a finding must be made: that because of exceptional circumstances applicable to the subject property, the strict application of the Ordinance is found to deprive subject property of priviledges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under similar circumstances (Article VII, Section 2(a), Sign Code Ordinance No. 684). FI#DINGS It is staff's contention that no hardships exist to grant the variance as Steelcase currently has more signage than allowed under code;' they have a business identification sign on each street frontage; and they have the highest and most visable structure in the area. 2. This proposed sign request was previously denied under Variance 80-4. 3. There is no precedence that has allowed this type of sign variance request. 4. The Irvine Company regulations.do not allow a wall sign unless adjacent to a street frontage. 5. The Irvine ComPany is not encouraging approval of the sign due to precedence. R£CI~ND£D ACTION Staff is recommending denial of Variance No. 83-5. EMK:jh Attachments: 8-1/2"x11" reduction of sign proposal Letter from Irvine Company dated March 24, 1980 IRVINE Q3MPANY 550 Newport Center Orive, PO Box Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 March 24, 1980 Mr. Klaus Sarrach Steelcase Inc., l123'Warner Avenue Tusti~, CA.. 92680 RE: Sign for Bell Avenue Dear Klaus: Drawing No. 2775 depicting the sign "Steelcase" upon the Bell Avenue elevation was received by The Irvine Company on March 19, 1980. As previously agreed upon, The 1trine Company will approve this sign request even though the gross square footage of the sign exceeds the maximum allowed sign area (200 s.f.) by 59 square feet. However, The Irvine Company will not permit any other signs upon the subject parcel to exceed the 'maximum allowed area, Furthermore, we will not permit, any .signs to be placed or installed Open the east elevations (facing Redhill Avenue) of the existing buildings. Final approval of any sign application will be contingent upon the City of Tustin's apprgval of such a request. Since~ly, ~ ~, Architectural Design Administrator Commercial/Industrial Division 'DRC/lp 5 6 7 8 9 10 1,1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 RESOLUTION NO. 2[00 ~ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AUTHORITY TO VARY WITH REQUIREMENTS OF SIGN ORDINANCE NO. 684, ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 11, CLASS 2, FOR A BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION SIGN EXCEEDING 64 SQUARE FEET AND NOT FACING A STREET FRONTAGE The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California does hereby resolve as follows: 1. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: a. That a proper application (Variance No. 83-$), was filed by Klaus Sarrach on behalf of Steelcase, Inc. to request authorization to vary with the requirements of the Sign Ordinance No. 684 to allow a 25g square foot business identification wall sign not adjacent to a street frontage. b. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application. c. That said application should not be granted for the following reasons: 1. No evidence of hardship was presented that would deprive the subject property' of priviledges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. 2. The propOsed sign request was previously denied under Variance 80-4. 3. There is no precedence that has allowed a business identification that is not adjacent to a street frontage. II. The Planning Commission hereby denies Variance Application 83-5, as applied for, requesting authorization to vary with the Sign Ordinance No. 684 to allow a 259 square foot business identification wall sign not adjacent to a street frontage. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission, held on the /~y~ day ofx~k~ j , 1983. 23 9.5 Janet H~ste)' Recordtng Secretary 26 James B. Sharp, Chairman STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANG£ CITY OF TUSTIN I, JANET HESTER, the undersigned, hereby.certify that ! am the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. -2/'~¢~ was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning_ Commission, held on the~__~ day of,,~,y~.,~ , 19~ . Tusti n Pl anntng Commi ssi on !HEATH June 17, 1983 City of Tustin Planning Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 RE: Variance 83-5 Dear Sirs: We have been instructed by our Client, Mr. Klaus Sarrach of Steelcase, Inc. to request that S~eelcase be allowed to appeal the decision, with regard to the referenced variance that the Planning Commission made during their 6-13-83 meeting. Enclosed is the required $50.00 filing fee. If you can no=ify us as to when the appeal will be heard we would be appreciative. Sincerely, Mark R. Zweber Sales ~_RZ: dl ENC. CC: Klaus Sarrach - Steelcase. He~th and Company 741 N. Coney Avenue Azusa, C~lifomia 91702 (213) 969-4391 A Flsohbech Company Architeotural 81gn DMsion Planntng Co~/~tsston Mtnutes June ~3, 1983 Page 2 After p~esentatlofl of ~e s~ff ~eport by Don Lamm, Community D~elo~nt Dl~r, Chat~n $ha~ ~ened ~e Publtc Heartng at 8:09 p.m. ~ foil~ pe~ons spoke ~-~ Je~ 0endK, ~ St~C A~ht~ts, Int~ucad Bt~ Ca~a~, 8t]~ Ca~a~ ~spon~ ~ C~tsston ~esCtons ~a~tng ~e t~ tn ~estlon had ~ ~n Mln~ned p~per]y. ~ p~oposed ~ ~ t~ and ~p]ace ~t wt~ a 7Z-~nch box t~ and a ~-~nch box ~. Cha~n Sh~ clo~ ~e Publlc Hee~ng at 8:15 p.m. ~ by ~h~, sKond~ by PuckerS. ~p~val of Use Pe~tC 83-8 ~y adoptl~ of Resolution ~o. zog~, wt~ ~ condttt~ ~at ~ f~cus ~ ~ ~ ~ved ~ ~placed w~ a 7Z-tnch ~x ~ and a box t~.. ~tton ca.ed, Z. Y~]~C~ 83-5 ~p]tcanC: Hea~ Sign Co. on behalf of S~lcase, 1nc. Location: 1123 ~a~e~ Avenue Re~esC: Au~ortzaC~on ~ va~ w~ the Sign Code 0rdtnance 684 ~ a11~ ~ 259 squa~ foot sign In 11eu of ~ all~d 64 s~a~ f~ for a ~a~hou~ butldtng Af~ p~sen~C~ of ~e s~ff ~o~ by Ed KntghC, Ass~tate Planne~, Charon Sha~ ~en~ ~e publlc ~artng at 8:Z1 p.m. ~e ~11~ng pe~ons spoke on ~ ~ Z~be~, Hea~ Co. explatn~ ~e ~asons fo~ ~ ~quested va~aKe and ~sponded ~ C~ss~on ~esttons. Ch~t~n Sha~ closed ~ publlc ~artng at 8:30 p.m. and a discussion pe~ foll~d. ~ved by PuckeCt. s~onded by Sha~, den~al of Va~tance 83-5. ~e C~tss~ ~ogn~z~ Klaus Sa~ach, ~p~sentettve of Steelcasa, [nc. ~s~d S~lcase's Mst~ ~ va~ wt~ ~e Stgn 0rdtnance. ~otton ~ de~ ca~t~ 5-0. 3. YAR]~CE 83-6 Applicant: ~nd Salmt Location: 333 E1C~flo Real R~uest: Au~o~za~ton ~ va~ ~ ~e ~rk~ng ~qu~re~n~s ~e C-Z Dts~whlle ~fu~ls~ng ~ butldtng loca~d ~ 333 E1Camtno ~eal ~ ~ professional butld~ng At ~e ~est of ~ applicant, ~e Co~tss~on. vo~ed unan~us]~ continue ~e publlc heartng ~0 ~e nex~ ~gular~ scheduled ~e~ng on ~une ~7, LgS] ~t 7:30 p.m. 4. ZONING O~]NANC~ ~ND~ENT Applicant: CtW of Tusttn Planning Co~ss~on Request: To ~nd ~e Zoning Ordinance (~57, as ~nded) ~qu~ a conditional use pe~t fo~ a~s~en~ a~ade and p~tvate ~atton' facilities ~tch house ~ than f~ve (5~ vtd~ games, vending machines and o~he~ such contrivances ~tch a~ Incidental ~ p~nctp~e business.