The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPH 1 VARIANCE 81-7 11-16-81DATE: November 16, 1981 7: 30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING No. 1 11-16-81 Inter-Corn FROM: SUBJECT: William Huston, City Manager Community Development Department Appeal of Planning Agency decision denying Variance 81-7 Applicant: Location: Request: Mr. Kam Yee 17440 - 17th, Suite D, Enderle Center To vary with Tustin Sign Ordinance 684 Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Agency denial of Variance 81-7 by the adoption of Resolution No. 81-123. Background On October 5, 1981, the Planning Agency denied Mr. Kam Yee's request to construct and maintain a 20.65 square foot monument sign for a liquor/deli establishment in Enderle Center. At that meeting, a detailed history of variance requests (monument signs) for Enderle Center was presented, a summary of which is as foillows: February, 1978 March, 1978 July, 1979 January, 1981 Silver Streak Travel Cavalcade Escrow Salty Sam's Wuv's - Variance granted - Variance granted - Variance granted Variance granted As was indicated in the October 5th, staff report to the Agency, in all instances special circumstances and hardships were determined to be present, thereby justifying the variance requests. Following the public hearing, the Agency denied the subject request based on the following findings: 1. That the requested sign did not conform with the provisions of Section 9494 of the Tustin City Code. That the request offered no justifiable reason, as provided in Section 9471 of the Tustin City Code to make it an exception to the Sign Ordinance. Appeal of Planning Agency decision denying Variance 81-7 Page 2 3. That the granting of a variance would have constituted a grant of special privilege, 4, That the granting of a variance would have been contrary to the - intent of the Zoning Ordinance or the public safety, health, and welfare. Discussion In a letter dated October 9, 1981, Mr. Yee filed a formal appeal of the Agency denial of his variance request, and thus the matter is now presented to the Council. The applicant has proposed that the Council approve the same sign that the Planning Agency rejected. There has been no attempt by the applicant to either reduce the square footage of the sign, or opt for a wall sign as was suggested by members of the Agency. Since the October 5th meeting, staff has received correspondence concerning the subject matter. In response to the notice of public hearing, Mr. Robert W. Mattel submitted a note supporting the Agency denial of Variance 81-7, and stating that all signs should conform with Tustin Sign Ordinance 684. Additionally, staff received a letter from Mr. Jim Shimozono, Managing General Partner of Enderle Center. In reference to Mr. Shimozono's comments, staff feels that it is important to point out that the subject being considered here is not the total number of signs in Enderle Center, nor if other tenants can or cannot afford monument signs, nor if the liquor/deli itself is detrimental to the community. The issue at hand is whether or not Mr. Yee has a justifiable hardship that will support the gr~nting o~ a variance. Conclusions 1. e Staff concludes that the applicant does not qualify for a variance pursuant to various sections of the Tustin City Code, and that as indicated in the October 5, 1981 staff report, location in and of itself should not be grounds for hardship. No other retail tenant of Enderle Center has, or is allowed, a monument sign and, therefore, no competition disadvantage can be claimed. That if the variance is approved, Enderle Center should forfeit on~ center identification sign as Mr. Shimozono has proposed. JSD/mi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION 81-123 A RESOLUTION OF THE CIl~f COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN UPHOLDING THE FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE PLANNING AGENCY DENYING VARIANCE 81-7 The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: Ao That a proper application, Variance 81-7, was filed on behalf of Mr. Kam Yee to request authorization to va~ with Tustin Sign Ordinance 684 to permit a 20.65 square foot monument sign at 17440 East Seventeenth Street, Suite D, Enderle Center. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application and that the Planning Agency denied Variance 81-7 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2001. C. That Mr. Kam Yee did file an appeal of the Planning Agency's decision to the City Council. D. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said appeal. That the City Council determines that the findings and determinations contained in Planning Agency Resolution No. 2001 are valid and. should be upheld. II. The City Council hereby upholds the findings and decision of the Planning Agency as contained in Resolution No. 2001. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the day of , 1981. ATTEST: James B. Sharp Mayor Mary E. Wynn City Clerk SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LCCAilON: ksm Yee SiEn Variance n% 61-7 ksm Yee A~A Ender'le Liq:aor,/DeY[ ,',est side of Eude['Ye Center Dr~ve cut s~l %;ere r ........ ~.n~,~ - -' ~ . DiS~JSiDN in ssii ~/p=_~t=on ~lt not, Jnder the circ c~se, se ietri:zeatel Lo the health, s~[ety, ~.or'~ks, o~ corn[oPt oi .[;ersons ~e~:!.flln~ o~' ~or~la~ %:1 '~ a~l~ c: od ncr iaj~rioas or aetr imeatel to the p~'operty sad improvements on [[tn ~tz'ce% cetweea ,~e,~po['t Ave. end %~stla Ave. enjoyed zy~t:.e~ .~r~,'-~'~i~:~ ~_ ia tr, e vicinity ZOne C[8S~if ~,,~ ~ r. :?l of the ::t~-it's ~'eyor't 's ic,~c~'Jr~te. E. There wss sbsolutely ~ h~rdshlp for this locstlon for s liquor stcre oeceuse the previous owner hes informed me that his fsilure wrs due to lsc~ of s free stendlnE sign. F. This Center is gndersY~ned ~y code beceuse onlyj,,~ of the etlowed sifn sp~ce is Zeln~ uzed. (50 sq. ft. out of the 225 sq. ft. ~llowed) ' exlstin~ si~rl ioc~t~on on west s~de of ~nderle ~nere is only I~ ~ ~ Center Drive. CC. NCLJSiON It is no do,iht, in my mind thst :2onCment si6n will not detrimentsl to the neiEncor'hood; in~tesd the liq.~or/'deli store will pr'ovlae convenience. ~kerefore v~rience ol-~ shoald oe ~rsnted. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TUSTIN CIl~f COUNCIL Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, will hold a public hearing on November 16, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California, to consider the following: APPEAL An application filed by Mr. Kam Yee appealing the October 5, 1981 ~on of the Tustin Planning Agency denying Variance 81-7. The original request was to allow a 20.65 square foot monument sign at 17440 E. 17th Street, Enderle Center. Such sign would not be in conformance with Tustin Sign Ordinance 684. This project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Enfironmental Quality Act. Information relative to this project is on file in the Community Development Department and is available for public inspection at City Hall. Anyone interested in the above hearing may appear and be heard at the time and place noted above. Mary £. Wynn City Clerk Publish Tustin News October 29, 1981 zo- 3f-EF I October 28, 1981 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Subject: Appeal to Sign Variance No. 81-7 Applicant: Location: Background: Enderle Liquor/Deli, AKA Kam Yee West side Enderle Center Drive A hearing was held on October 5, 1981 regarding the above variance application. The application was denied due to the following con- cerns. The undersigned intends to answer all these concerns in this letter. Questions and Answers: 1. Will the sign space for Enderle Center be increased if the variance is granted? NO. THE'SIGN SFA~E GRANIED FOR THE CENTER IDENTIFICATION SIGN IS 75 SQUARE FEET. THE SIGN APPLIED FOR IS ONLY 20.50 SQUARE FEET. THE UNDERSIGNED WILL SACRIFICE THE CENTER IDENTIFICATION SIGN IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED. 2. Will the number of signs increase if this variance is granted? NO, BECAUSE THE CENTER SIGN WILL BE DELETED. 3. How would you handle the other tenants if they request for a sign? WE HAVE OTHER UNUSED CENTER SIGNS TO MEET THEIR NEEDS. BEING A GENERAL PARTNER AND THE ARCHITECT FOR 'THIS CENTER, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT EXCESSIVE MONUMENT SIGNS AS MUCH AS THE CITY. AS YOU KNOW, TO INSTALL A MONUMENT SIGN ES VERY EXPENSIVE COSTING THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. NOT MANY TENANTS CAN JUSTIFY OR HANDLE SUCH AN EXPENDITURE. The City has granted w~riances to the restaurant operations. Is the Liquor/Deli operation similar to that of restaurants? YES. IN TERMS OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND EMPLOYMENT, BOTH OPERATIONS ARE INVOLV ED IN FOOD SALES AND ES DEPENDENT ON A HIGH VOLUME OF BUSINESS IN ORDER TO MEET-- THEIR EXPENDITURES~ 5. Is the Liquor/Deli store detrimental to the community? NO. THE LOCAL PEOPLE IN THE AREA NEED A LIQUOR/DELI FOR THEIR CONVENIENCE. THERE IS NO LIQUOR/DELI STORE ON 17TH STREET BETWEEN NEWPORT FREEWAY AND NEWPORT AVENUE. City of Tustin October 28, 1981 Page 2 6. Is there a hardship for this location to operate a Liquor/Deli store? YES. FOR THE PAST FOUR YEARS, A NUMBER OF OPERATORS FAILED IN THIS LOCATION. I DON'T BELIEVE ALL OF THEM WERE POOR MANAGERS. I hope this letter will clarify some of your concerns and move you to reconsider and act favorably on my tenant's Appeal to Sign Variance No. 81-7. Sincerely, f' ~m E. Shimozono, Managing General Partner SHIMOZONO AIA & ASSOCIATES