HomeMy WebLinkAbout15 SIGN CODE EXCEP 01-20-04AGENDA REPORT
Agenda Item 1 5
Reviewed: ~.~
City Manager
Finance Director N/A
MEETING DATE: JANUARY 20, 2004
TO:
WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT:
APPEAL OF SIGN CODE EXCEPTION 03-001
SUMMARY
On December 8, 2003, the Planning Commission denied a request to modify a non-
conforming pole sign at 13872 Red Hill Avenue. On December 10, 2003, the applicant
appealed the Planning Commission's decision. (APPLICANT: MARK FINK, DONCO &
SONS, INC AND PROPERTY OWNER:ELIZABETH S. PANKEY)
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 04-13, upholding the Planning Commission's
action and denying the appeal.
BACKGROUND:
In 1962, the County of Orange issued a Certificate of Use and Occupancy to Mobil Oil
Company for a service station at the northeast corner of Red Hill Avenue and El Camino
Real (Attachment A - Location Map). In 1967, the County of Orange issued a building
permit to Mobil Oil Company to install a pole sign that is seventy-two (72) feet in height
and 216 square feet in sign area at the service station. The applicant is requesting
approval to update the appearance of the sign and reduce the sign area to 133 square feet
by installing a new sign cabinet and sign face displaying "Mobil" in place of five (5) modular
cabinets of individual letters that spell "Mobil" on an existing pole (Attachment B - Photo of
Existing Pole Sign and Submitted Plans). As shown on the site plan, the existing pole sign
is located along the eastern property line at a Mobil service station, approximately fifty (50)
feet from the driveway on El Camino Real along the eastern property line. As shown on
the elevations, the existing cabinet frame is twenty-eight (28) feet wide and eight (8) feet
tall and the new cabinet would be nineteen (19) feet wide and seven (7) feet tall. The new
sign would feature a white background, blue letters for the "M" "b" "l" and "1," a red letter for
"o," and a metal cabinet.
City Council Report
Appeal of SCE 03-001
Page 2 of 5
The Tustin Sign Code currently provides for two types of pole signs:
Pole signs for centers of more than 100,000 square feet or five (5) acres in size,
which are a maximum of twenty (20) feet in height and fifty (50) square feet in sign
area.
Freeway pole signs for businesses offering food, lodging, or automobile services
that are located directly adjacent to the freeway right-of-way, which are a maximum
of twenty-four (24) feet in height and fifty (50) square feet in sign area.
Since the existing Mobil service station does not meet the criteria for either type of pole
sign, the existing pole sign is considered non-conforming. Section 9405e of the Tustin
Sign Code states that a legally established, non-conforming sign may remain and be
maintained, subject to the criteria below. If the following criteria are not met, the Director
of Community of Development has the authority to require the sign to be made to conform
to current sign provisions.
· A non-conforming sign shall not be changed to another non-conforming sign.
A non-conforming sign shall not be structurally altered as to extend its useful life. A
sign shall be considered to be structurally altered if the construction materials are
physically replaced with new materials. The replacement of face copy in an
existing cabinet is not a structural alteration.
A non-conforming sign shall not be expanded or altered so as to change the size,
shape, position, location, or method of illumination of the sign.
A non-conforming sign shall not be re-established after discontinuance of the use
for ninety (90) days or more.
A non-conforming sign shall not be re-established after damage or destruction of
more than fifty (50) percent of its replacement value.
Since the Tustin Sign Code prohibits the alteration of non-conforming signs, the applicant
is seeking approval of a Sign Code Exception. Exceptions to the requirements of the
Tustin Sign Code may be considered by the Planning Commission pursuant to Tustin City
Code Section 9405c. The Planning Commission denied the exception on December 8,
2003, and the applicant appealed the decision on December 10, 2003 (Attachments B, C,
and D).
City Council Report
Appeal of SCE 03-001
Page 3 of 5
In accordance with Tustin City Code Section 9405c, this is not a public hearing item;
therefore, official noticing was not required; however, a courtesy notice was published in
the Tustin News on January 8, 2004. The applicant was informed of the availability of the
agenda and staff report for this item.
DISCUSSION
In accordance with Tustin Sign Code Section 9405c, specific findings must be met to
approve a Sign Code Exception. The findings that support the denial of the request are
outlined below. Attachment C of the Planning Commission report (Attachment B) contains
the applicant's reasons to support the request.
Sign size and placement restrictions of the sign code shall be as closely followed as
practicable.
The Tustin Sign Code does not permit freeway pole signs for service stations that
are not located immediately adjacent to the freeway right-of-way. In addition,
businesses that are eligible for freeway pole signs would be limited to a maximum
height of twenty-four (24) feet and sign area of fifty (50) square feet. The proposed
sign would be seventy-one (71) feet in height with a 133 square foot sign area and
far exceed the parameters of other permitted pole signs.
In addition, the Tustin Sign Code provides clear direction that non-conforming signs
may only be maintained and not altered. As expressly prohibited, the proposed
sign would 1) modify a non-conforming sign to another non-conforming sign since a
pole sign is not permitted at the project site; 2) result in structural alterations that
would create an updated appearance consistent with Mobil Oil Company's current
image that would extend the useful life of the sign; and, 3) alter the size and shape
of the sign by reducing the overall dimensions of the sign cabinet by thirty-eight (38)
percent and eliminating the individual letter cabinets and replacing them with a
single cabinet and sign face. While reducing the overall size of a non-conforming
sign may seem desirable, the height of the sign will remain approximately the same
(i.e., one foot reduction) and the Tustin Sign Code does not authorize any change
in size or design of a non-conforming sign even if it would decrease its
nonconformity.
The intent and purpose of the sign regulations of the land use zone in which the
sign is to be located shall be followed as closely as practicable.
The proposed sign is not permitted at the project site and deviates significantly
from the non-conforming provisions of the Tustin Sign Code as described above.
City Council Report
Appeal of SCE 03-001
Page 4 of 5
The restrictions on permitted freeway pole signs are intended to provide for
reasonable signage for freeway-oriented businesses offering food, lodging, or
automobile services but to prevent the proliferation of signs on all properties with
freeway visibility. In addition, the intent of the Tustin Sign Code is to allow the
existing pole sign to be maintained in good repair to continue to provide business
identification for the service station, not to allow the pole sign to be significantly
altered, improved, or updated to extend its useful life and preclude replacement
with conforming signs over time. As such, the proposed sign does not follow the
intent and purpose of the sign regulations for freeway-oriented pole signs or non-
conforming signs.
3. There are special circumstances unique to the property to justify the exception.
The property is similar to other single-tenant commercial properties that are visible
from the freeway and provide automobile-oriented services, and there are no
special circumstances unique to the property which preclude compliance with the
Tustin City Sign Code or justify an exception.
Granting the exception will not have a negative impact on the surrounding
properties.
Granting an exception to provisions that explicitly prohibit modifications to non-
confirming signs will set a negative precedent for the treatment of other pole signs
within the community. There are a number of non-conforming pole signs along
Red Hill Avenue, Newport Avenue, and First Street that could be the subject of
similar requests for replacement, and if approved, could further perpetuate the
continued existence of pole signs throughout the community.
The sign application promotes the public, health, safety, welfare, and aesthetics of
the community and that the granting of the exception meets findings and the intent
of the sign code.
For the reasons outlined above, the proposed sign application does not promote a
community benefit. Any potential benefits of allowing a smaller sign would not
outweigh the disadvantages outlined above and would erode the intent of the
Tustin Sign Code.
Planning Commission Action
At its December 8, 2003, meeting, the Planning Commission considered the staff report
and attachments, a slide presentation and verbal staff report, and testimony from a
City Council Report
Appeal of SCE 03-001
Page 5 of 5
representative of Donco & Sons, Inc., the sign company proposing to install the new sign
(Attachment C - Planning Commission Minutes).
Based on the above findings, testimony, and discussion among the Commissioners, the
Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3903 (Attachment D) denying Sign Code
Exception 03-001.
The applicant submitted an appeal letter on December 10, 2003 (Attachment E) that
indicated the approval of the proposal would be a benefit to both the City and the property
owner. Staff believes approving the exception, however, would set a negative precedent
for other non-conforming pole signs in the City and would be a detriment to the integrity of
the Sign Code.
Based on all the reasons outlined above, staff recommends the City Council uphold the
Planning Commission's decision to deny Sign Code Exception 03-001 by approving
Resolution No. 04-13 (Attachment F).
Elizabeth A. BinSack
Community Development Director
Matt West
Associate Planner
Attachments:
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Location Map
Planning Commission Staff Report dated December 8, 2003
Planning Commission Minutes dated December 8, 2003
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3903
Appeal Letter From Applicant
City Council Resolution No. 04-13
S:\Cdd\CC REPO R'r~sce03-O01 appeal2.doc
ATTACHMENT A
Location Map
APPEAL OF
SCE 03-001
LOCATION:
i3872 Red Hill Avenue
REQUEST:
An appeal of the Planning Commission's
decision to deny the request for Sign Code
Exception 03-001 on December 8, 2003.
The request is to modify an existing non-
conforming pole sign. A proposed 133
square foot sign cabinet would replace the
existing 2t6 square foot sign cabinet.
(Applicant: Donco & Sons, Inc.)
ATTACHMENT B
Planning Commission Staff Report dated December 8, 2003
Report to the
Planning Cc
ITEM#3
mmission
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DECEMBER 8, 2003
SION CODE EXCEPTION 03-001
APPLICANT:
MARK FINK
DONCO & SONS, INC
1410 N. DALY STREET
ANAHEIM, CA 92806
PROPERTY
OWNER:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
ELIZABETH S. PANKEY
c/o PRICE, CROOKE, GARY
10 CORPORATE PARK, SUITE:
IRVlNE, CA 92606
,00
13872 RED HILL AVENUE
CENTRAL COMMERCIAL (C-2) ZONING DISTRICT
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
REQUEST:
THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11)
PURSUANT TO SECTION 15311 OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
TO MODIFY AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING POLE SIGN
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3903 denying Sign Code Exception
03-001.
BACKGROUND
In 1962, the County of Orange issued a Certificate of Use and Occupancy to Mobil Oil
Company for a service station at the northeast corner of Red Hill Avenue and El Camino
Real (Attachment A - Location Map). In 1967, the County of Orange issued a building
permit to Mobil Oil Company to install a pole sign that is seventy-two (72) feet in height
and 216 square feet in sign area at the service station. The applicant is requesting
approval to update the appearance of the sign and reduce the sign area to 133 square
feet.
The Tustin Sign Code currently provides for two types of pole signs:
Planning Commission Report
SCE 03-001
December 8, 2003
Page 2
Pole signs for centers of more than 100,000 square feet or five (5) acres in size,
which are a maximum of twenty (20) feet in height and fifty (50) square feet in. sign
area.
Freeway pole signs for businesses offedng food, lodging, or automobile services
that are located directly adjacent to the freeway right-of-way, which are a maximum
of twenty-four (24) feet in height and fifty (50) square feet in sign area.
Since the existing Mobil service station does not meet the criteda for either type of pole
sign, the existing pole sign is considered non-conforming. Section 9405e of the Tustin
Sign Code states that a legallY established, non.conforming sign may remain and be
maintained, subject to the criteria below. If the following criteria are not met, the Director
of Community of Development has the authority to require the sign to be made to conform
to current sign provisions.
· A non-conforming sign shall not be changed to another non-conforming sign.
A non-conforming sign shall not be structurally altered as to extend its useful life. A
sign shall be considered to be structurally altered if the construction materials are
physically replaced with new materials. The replacement of face copy in an
existing cabinet is not a structural alteration.
A non-conforming sign shall not be expanded or altered so as to change the size,
shape, position, location or method of illumination of the sign.
A non-conforming sign shall not be re-established after discontinuance of the use
for ninety (90) days or more.
A non-conforming sign shall not be re-established after damage or destruction of
more than fifty (50) percent of its replacement value.
Since the Tustin Sign Code prohibits the alteration of non-conforming signs, the applicant
is seeking approval of a Sign Code Exception. Exceptions to the requirements of the
Tustin Sign Code may be considered by the Planning Commission pursuant to Tustin City
Code Section 9405c.
This is not a public headng item; therefore, official noticing was not required. The
applicant was informed of the availability of the agenda and staff report for this item.
Planning Commission Report
SCE 03-001
December 8, 2003
Page 3
DISCUSSION
The applicant is proposing to install a new sign cabinet and sign face displaying "Mobil" in
place of five (5) modular cabinets of individual letters that spell "Mobil" on an existing pole
(Attachment B - Photo of Existing Pole Sign and Submitted Plans), As shown on the site
plan, the existing pole sign is located along the eastern property line at a Mobil service
station, approximately fifty (50) feet from the ddveway on El Camino Real along the
eastern property line. As shown on the elevations, the existing cabinet frame is twenty-
eight (28) feet wide and eight (8) feet tall and the new cabinet would be nineteen (19) feet
wide and seven (7) feet tall. The new sign would feature a white background, blue letters
for the "M" "b" "1" and "r' and a red letter for "o" and a metal cabinet.
In accordance with Tustin Sign Code Section 9405c, specific findings must be met to
approve a Sign Code Exception. These findings, and the rationale to deny the request,
are outlined below. Attachment C contains the applicant's reasons to support the request.
Sign size and placement restrictions of the sign code shall be as closely
followed as practicable.
The Tustin Sign Code does not permit freeway pole signs for service stations that
are not located immediately adjacent to the freeway right-of-way. In addition,
businesses that are eligible for freeway pole signs would be limited to a maximum
height of twenty-four (24) feet and sign area of fifty (50) square feet. The proposed
sign would be seventy-one (71) feet in height with a 133 square foot sign area and
far exceed the parameters of other permitted pole signs.
In addition, the Tustin Sign Code provides clear direction that non-conforming signs
may only be maintained and not altered. As expressly prohibited, the proposed
sign would 1) modify a non-conforming sign to another non-conforming .sign since a
pole sign is not permitted at the project site; 2) result in structural alterations that
would create an updated appearance consistent with Mobil Oil Company's current
image that would extend the useful life of the sign; and, 3) alter the size and shape
of the sign by reducing the overall dimensions of the sign cabinet by thirty-eight (38)
pement and eliminating the individual letter cabinets and replacing them with a
single cabinet and sign face. While reducing the overall size of a non-conforming
sign may seem desirable, the height of the sign will remain approximately the same
(i.e., one foot reduction) and the Tustin Sign Code does not authorize any change
in size or design of a non-conforming sign even if it would decrease its
nonconformity.
Planning Commission Report
SCE 03-001
December 8, 2003
Page 4
t
=
The intent and purpose of the sign regulations of the land use zone in which
the sign is to be located shall be followed as closely as practicable.
The proposed sign is not permitted at the project site and deviates significantly
from the non-conforming provisions of the Tustin Sign Code as described above.
The restrictions on permitted freeway pole signs are intended to provide for
reasonable signage for freeway-oriented businesses offering food, lodging, or
automobile services but to prevent the proliferation of signs on all properties with
freeway visibility. In addition, the intent of the Tustin Sign Code is to allow the
existing pole sign to be maintained in good repair to continue to provide business
identification for the service station, not to allow the pole sign to be significantly
altered, improved, or updated to extend its useful life and preclude replacement
with conforming signs over time. As such, the proposed sign does not follow the
intent and purpose of the sign regulations for freeway-oriented pole signs or non-
conforming signs.
There are special circumstances unique to the property to justify the
exception.
The property is similar to other single-tenant commercial properties that are visible
from the freeway and provide automobile-oriented services, and there are no
special circumstances unique to the property which preclude compliance with the
Tustin City Sign Code or justify an exception.
Granting the exception will not have a negative impact on the surrounding
properties.
Granting an exception to provisions that explicitly prohibit modifications to non-
confirming signs will set a negative precedent for the treatment of other pole signs
within the community. There are a number of non-conforming pole signs along
Red Hill Avenue, Newport Avenue, and First Street that could be the subject of
similar requests for replacement, and if approved, could further perpetuate the
continued existence of pole signs throughout the community.
The sign application promotes the public, health, safety, welfare, and
aesthetics of the community and that the granting of the exception meets
findings and the intent of the sign code.
For the reasons outlined above, the proposed sign application does not promote a
community benefit and granting the exception would erode the intent of the Tustin
Sign Code.
Planning Commission Report
SCE 03-001
December 8, 2003
Page 5
Matt West
Associate Planner
Karen Peterson
Senior Planner
Attachments:
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Location Map
Photograph of Existing Pole Sign and Submitted
Plans and Elevations
Supplemental Application
Resolution No. 3903
s:cdd\pcreport~sceO3-001 .doc
ATTACHMENT A
Location Map
;...gCATIC~N
PROJECT NO.
ADDRESS
SCE 03-001
LOCATION:
13872 Red Hill Avenue
REQUEST:
To modify an existing non-conforming
pole sign. A proposed 133 square foot
sign cabinet would replace the existing
216 square foot sign cabinet on the
property located at 13872 Red Hill
Avenue. (Applicant: Donco & Sons, Inc.)
ATTACHMENT B
Photograph of Existing Pole Sign and Submitted
Plans and Elevations
t
~_~ EL CAMINO REAL
m
ITl
Donco & Son~, Inc,
SIGN PLAN
SIGN PLAN
ATTACHMENT C
Supplemental Application
NIg'Y
IlPPLEMENTAL APPLIOATION
l:xe ti0n
Tu~tin CPy Code Section ~40~C requires the Ci~ to m~ke ~ve
pomi~e ~ndingm to mpprove ~ ~ign Code ~ce~on. Plemme ~n~wer
the Followin~ que~tion~ to provide evidenc~ in ~upport o~ the
is Yne sign size and plocement re~riction~ of the Sign Code Followed os closely
proc~ic~ble?
SEE ATTACHED
the intent ~nd purpose of the si_qn recjulafion5 for the I~nd use zone in which the ~ign is
be located Followed c~ closely ~s pr~c~icol?
SEE ATTACEED
_~. /N-e there ~peciol circum~t~nce~ unique ~o ~ne properffy to justly ~he exce~ion?
SEE ATTACHED
How would the grantln~ of the exceFfion nc~ h~ve a negcrfive impac~ on ~urroundin~
propertie~7
SEE ATTA~
5. How does the eXCel~ion promote the public heol~h. ~ofe~/, welfare ond ~e~the~ics of the
communN'y ~nd the intent o~ the Sign Code?
SEE ATTACHED
I hereby ~cknowled_qe ~-h~ oll c~ ~he informc~on cor~r~ined in ~is suppleme~ol opplic~on is, to ~e ~s~ ~ my
kn~ledge ~nd beli~ ~ue ~nd corre~ represented. I hereby gr~n~ ~e C~ ~e ~or~ ~s ~l~ce ~ public
he~rin~ n~ice on ~e prope~ for which ~e siDn code ~ce~ion is requested. ~ required.
Lond Owner'~ ~ign~*ure ~*e Applic~*'~ ~ign~*ure (i~ di~eren*) D~*e
~00 Cerrt, ennic~l ~/oy, Tu~tin, C~liFornio ~27~0 (,-4~) 573-~C' F~X (7'~) 5T~-DT'.~
1)
2)
3)
4)
The request before the planning commission is not for installation of a new
freeway sign, but rather is for the structural alteration of an existing legal non-
conforming freeway sign. Consequently, the size and placement restrictions,
which were applied at time of the installation of this sign pre-date the size
restrictions currently enforced. However, insofar as the current sign regulations
allow for replacement of the faces in a non-conforming sign, and the proposal is
for replacement of the entire sign with a new, much smaller sign, not only are the
current restrictions being followed as closely as is practical but the intent of those
restrictions is being considered and adhered to much closer than might be
reasonably expected.
The intent and purpose of the sign regulations for the land use zone in which this
facility is located are followed as closely as is practical with this proposal. As per
Section 9401, Chapter 4 of the Tustin City Code; the purpose of the established
sign regulations is to "promote community identity and effective business
identification through the regulation and design of signs and sign structures within
the City of Tustin." As freeway oriented identification signs have been, and are
currently allowed for this type of facility, the City of Tustin is cognizant of the
need and importance of this type of sign. In Section 9401, Chapter 4, the city
establishes and spells out six objectives, which must be met relative to the design
and installation of signs in Tustin. The proposal submitted meets each of these
objectives. In Section 9405, subsection e, the sign code addresses non-
conforming signs. As the city has not established an abatement program for non-
conforming signs, the intent of this section is obviously to ensure that this type of
sign not be altered in such a way as to increase its degree of non-conformity. Not
only does this proposal meet that intent, but the recommendation of planning staff
to change faces in the eXisting sign is in fact contrary to the intent of the section,
as such a change would maintain the existing degree of non-conformity, whereas
the proposal submitted would actually reduce the degree on non-conformity by
38%.
There are in fact special circumstances unique to this property and submittal,
which justify the granting of this exception. This submittal requests approval to
dramatically reduce the size, and to a lesser degree, the height of a legally existing
sign. As the established city codes address non-conforming signs the intent is
ostensibly to prohibit the expansion of this type of sign, while this request, rare
though it may be, is for a substantial decrease. This unique fact alone warrants
serious consideration of this proposal.
The granting of this excepti°n would not have a negative impact on surrounding
properties. This sign has existed for many years without detrimental impact on
surrounding properties. If the proposal before the planning commission were to
somehow expand or increase this sign it is recognized that approval of such a
request would have a negative impact on surrounding properties. However, by
5)
virtue of the fact that this request is for a smaller, more attractive sign, it is
reasonable to surmise that approval of such request would indeed have a positive
impact on surrounding properties as well as the City of Tustin in general.
The granting of this exception would promote the public health, safety, welfare,
and aesthetics of the COmlXlunity as well as the intent of the sign code. The
aesthetic benefits are achieved as a result of the removal of a large sign of a
visible dated design and replacing it with a newly designed smaller sign. The
public health, safety, and welfare benefits as a result of maintaining an effective
advertising display, which allows for motorists wishing to exit the freeway to do
so in a safe and orderly fashion. The intent of the sign code is promoted most
obviously by the dramatic reduction in the size of the sign, thereby converting a
very large, outdated legal non-conforming sign to a new, much smaller legal non-
conforming sign.
ATTACHMENT D
Resolution No. 3903
RESOLUTION NO. 3903
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING SIGN CODE
EXCEPTION 03-001, A REQUEST TO MODIFY AN
EXISTING NON-CONFORMING POLE SIGN BY
REPLACING THE EXISTING 216 SQUARE FOOT SIGN
CABINET WITH A 133 SQUARE FOOT CABINET SIGN
,AT 13872 RED HILL AVENUE.
The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines as follows:
That a proper application, Sign Code Exception 03-001, was filed
by Donco & Sons, Inc., requesting authorization to modify an
existing non-conforming pole sign by replacing the existing 216
square foot sign cabinet with a 133 square foot cabinet sign at
13872 Red Hill Avenue.
That the proposed project would require approval of a sign code
exception by the Planning Commission pursuant to Tustin City Code
Section 9405c prior to implementation.
That the Planning Commission considered this item on December 8,
2003.
That this project is Categorically Exempt (Class 11) pursuant to
Section 15311 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
That pursuant to the criteria set forth in Sign Code Section 9405c, the
following findings support denial of the request for a sign code
exception:
Sign size and placement restrictions of the sign code shall be
as closely followed as practicable.
The Tustin Sign Code does not permit freeway pole signs for
service stations that are not located immediately adjacent to
the freeway right-of-way. In addition, businesses that are
eligible for frccway pole signs would be limited to a maximum
height of twenty-four (24) feet and sign area of fifty (50) square
feet. The proposed sign would be seventy-one (71) feet in
height with a 133 square foot sign area and far exceed the
parameters of other permitted pole signs.
In addition, the Tustin Sign Code provides clear direction that
non-conforming signs may only be maintained and not altered.
As expressly prohibited, the proposed sign would 1) modify a
non-conforming sign to another non-conforming sign since a
pole sign is not permitted at the project site; 2) result in
structural alterations that would create an updated appearance
Resolution No. 3903
SCE 03-001
Page 2
consistent with Mobil Oil Company's current image that would
extend the useful life of the sign; and, 3) alter the size and
shape of the sign by reducing the overall dimensions of the
sign cabinet by thirty-eight (38) percent and eliminating the
individual letter cabinets and replacing them with a single
cabinet and sign face. While reducing the overall size of a
non-conforming sign may seem desirable, the height of the
sign will remain approximately the same (i.e., one foot
reduction) and the Tustin Sign Code does not authorize any
change in size or design of a non-conforming sign even if it
would decrease its nonconformity.
The intent and purpose of the sign regulations of the land use
zone in which the sign is to be located shall be followed as
closely as practicable.
The proposed sign is not permitted at the project site and
deviates significantly from the non-conforming provisions of
the Tustin Sign Code as described above. The restrictions on
permitted freeway pole signs are intended to provide for
reasonable signage for freeway-oriented businesses offedng
food, lodging, or automobile services but to prevent the
proliferation of signs on all properties with freeway visibility. In
addition, the intent of the Tustin Sign Code is to allow the
existing pole sign to be maintained in good repair to continue
to provide business identification for the service station, not to
allow the pole sign to be significantly altered, improved, or
updated to extend its useful life and preclude replacement with
conforming signs over time. As such, the proposed sign does
not follow the intent and purpose of the sign regulations for
freeway-oriented pole signs or non-conforming signs.
There are special circumstances unique to the prOperty to
justify the exception.
The property is similar to other single-tenant commercial
properties that are visible from the freeway and provide
automobile-oriented services, and there are no special
circumstances unique to the property which preclude
compliance with the Tustin City Sign Code or justify an
exception.
Granting the exception will not have a negative impact on the
surrounding properties.
Granting an exception to provisions that explicitly prohibit
modifications to non-confirming signs will set a negative
precedent for the treatment of other pole signs within the
community. There are a number of non-conforming pole
Resolution No. 3903
SCE 03-001
Page 3
signs along Red Hill Avenue, Newport Avenue, and First
Street that could be the subject of similar requests for
replacement, and if approved, could further perpetuate the
continued existence of pole signs throughout the community.
The sign application promotes the public, health, safety,
welfare, and aesthetics of the community and that the granting
of the exception meets findings and the intent of the sign code.
For the reasons outlined under items 1 through 4 above, the
proposed sign application does not promote a community
benefit and granting the exception would erode the intent of
the Tustin Sign Code.
II.
The Planning Commission hereby denies Sign Code Exception 03-001, a
request to modify an existing non-conforming pole sign by replacing the
existing 216 square foot sign cabinet with a 133 square foot cabinet sign
at 13872 Red Hill Avenue.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 8th day of December, 2003.
Linda C. Jennings
Chairperson
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the
Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that
Resolution No. 3903 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of
the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 8th day of December, 2003.
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
ATTACHMENT C
Planning Commission Minutes dated December 8, 2003
7;00 p.m.
Given
Nielsen absent
Staff present
None
Approved
Adopted Resolution
No. 3887
7:01 p.m.
Holland
Menard
Holland
Menard
MINUTES
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -- 7:00 P.M.
DECEMBER 8, 2003
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Doug Holland, Assistant City Attomey
Karen Peterson, Senior Planner
Matt West, Associate Planner
Eloise Harris, Recording SecretanJ
PUBLIC CONCERNS
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 10, 2003,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
It was moved by Pontious, second by Amante, to approve the
consent Calendar. Motion carded 4-0
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 03-021 AND DESIGN
REVIEW 03-022 REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO
REMOVE AN EXISTING 599 SQUARE FOOT 3~VO-CAR
GARAGE AND REPLACE IT WITH A 1,405 SQUARE
FOOT ACCESSORY BUILDING WITH A 620 SQUARE
FOOT TWO-CAR GARAGE CONTAINING TWO (2)
VEHICLE PARKING SPACES, A 225 SQUARE FOOT
LAUNDRY ROOM AND BATHROOM ON THE FIRST
FLOOR AND A 560 SQUARE FOOT SECOND STORY
INCLUDING TWO (2) GUEST ROOMS, A READING
ROOM, AND A BATHROOM. THIS PROJECT IS
LOCATED AT 455 SOUTH PACIFIC STREET IN THE
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-l) ZONING
DISTRICT.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use
Permit 02-021 and Design Review 03-022 by adopting
Resolution No. 3887.
The Public Hearing opened.
Stated it was his understanding that one of the members of the
Planning Commission may have a potential issue and might wish
to step down; this would be the appropriate time for the
Commissioner to indicate why there is a conflict and to step
down from the dais.
Indicated that his residence is within 500 feet of the site.
Stated that, in order to avoid any appearance of a potential
conflict, it was his understanding that Commissioner Menard
wished to recuse himself and step down from the dais.
Stated that was correct and left the dais.
Minutes - Planning Commission December 8, 2003 - Page 1
West
Pontious
Peterson
Jennings
Peterson
Amante
West
Jennings
Mary Susan
McCance, 455
Pacific Street
Pontious
7:10 p.m.
Jennings
Menard
Adopted Resolution
No. 3903
West
Jennings
Holland
Greg Graver,
1410 N. Daly St.,
Anaheim, Donco &
Sons (for Mobil)
Presented the staff report.
Expressed concern that adding a second story next to a single
story might infringe upon the privacy of the neighbors; and,
asked if it would be possible to restrict or eliminate the windows
on the north elevation.
Stated it was within the Commission's latitude to recommend
changes to the aesthetics, but one or more of the windows might
be required for light and ventilation under the Uniform Building
Code; and, suggested a condition could be added to require
elimination of windows, if feasible.
Asked how far back the windows would be compared to the
single story house next door.
Suggested the applicant might be better able to answer that
question.
Asked what the setback from the property would be for the north
elevation.
Stated the setback would be five feet.
Invited the applicant to the lectern.
Noted the house next door is a two story structure set forward on
the lot; and, added that she had confirmed with those neighbors
that they are comfortable with the windows and this addition to
her home.
Withdrew her concerns.
The Public Hearing closed.
Stated that this project looks as though it will fit well into Old
Town.
It was moved by Pontious, seconded by Amante, to adopt
Resolution No. 3902. Motion carried 3-0.
Returned to the dais,
REGULAR BUSINESS
3.
SIGN CODE EXCEPTION 03-001 REQUESTING A
MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING
POLE SIGN AT 13872 RED HILL AVENUE IN THE
CENTRAL COMMERCIAL (C-2) ZONING DISTRICT.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No, 3903
denying Sign Code Exception 03-001.
Presented the staff report.
Stated that the findings support the denial of this application.
Suggested the Commission should receive any testimony the
property owner or tenant may wish to provide,
Stated that special cimumstances exist since the property right
allows for the legally existing nonconforming sign; the sign has a
legal right to remain even though it does not conform with current
sign standards; staff's findings are primarily based on the
Minutes- Planning Commission December 8, 2003 - Page 2
Menard
West
Pontious
West
Peterson reported
Menard
Holland
Jennings
Holland
Amante
Holland
nonconforming aspects of this sign; these findings fail to recognize
the special cimumstance involved which is the basis of the
exception request; allowing the replacement of this sign will not
extend the service life of this nonconforming sign; Mobil will
maintain whatever sign is there for as long as the legal right exists;
if the exception were allowed, Mobil would also maintain that sign
for a long as the legal right exists; the exception would not alter the
service life but will be equivalent; the existing sign will remain; the
option is to have it remain at its current size or, by approving the
sign code exception, at a significantly smaller size.
Asked what the appropriate size would be if the site were allowed
to have a freeway sign.
Responded that such a sign could be 24 feet high and 50 square
feet in sign area.
Stated that she had been involved in going through the Sign Code
many times over the years and pole signs have always been
something that both the Planning Commission and City Council felt
strongly should be eliminated at every possibility; the precedent-
setting of this application, regardless of any other considerations,
would not be a good idea; indicated she would not be comfortable
with future requests if this one were granted; asked that the
Commission stand firm in its direction; and, stated that she would
vote to deny this request.
It was moved by Pontious, seconded by Menard to adopt
Resolution No. 3903, denying Sign Code Exception 03-001.
Noted that the applicant had been informed regarding the seven-
day appeal period.
STAFFCONCERNS
REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN AT THE NOVEMBER 17
AND DECEMBER1,2003, CITY COUNCILMEETINGS.
The City Council approved the updated grading ordinance and the
water quality ordinance.
The City Council approved the Tustin Block development; the
Mayor asked that staff bring forward a parking ordinance to
address the Planning Commission's concerns.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Asked if it would be possible to put in place a signage ordinance,
similar to what the City of Anaheim adopted for the area around
Disneyland, eliminating Tustin's nonconforming freeway signs.
Answered in the affirmative; and, stated an amortization ordinance
requires that nonconforming uses are amortized over a period of
time.
Asked if such an ordinance would cover all nonconforming signs,
Indicated an ordinance could apply to any nonconforming use or
be limited to a specific class.
Asked about the issue of due process.
Stated a rational basis could be established to identify a particular
group.
Minutes- Planning Comrn~sion December 8, 2003- Page 3
Amante
Noted the risk of allowing a nonconforming sign to be replaced by
a less nonconforming use would open the floodgates for future
agenda items regarding signs; and, requested that this issue be
explored in the upcoming workshops on the Zoning Code,
Peterson
Indicated that she recalled the City of Anaheim participated
financially in the sign remodel, and staff could request information
regarding their ordinance from Anaheim for the Planning
Commission's reference.
Menard
Stated there is graffiti on the Do Not Enter sign at the Chevron
station on Irvine Boulevard and on the apartment complex behind
the Petco shopping center on El Camino Real.
Noted the tree lighting ceremony was very nice.
Amante
Offered his condolences to Commissioner Pontious in the loss of
her mother.
Congratulated Mayor Wodey Hagen on the completion of her
fourth year as mayor; and, offered further congratulations to Mayor
Tony Kawashima and Mayor Pm Tern Leu Bone.
Wished everyone a Merry Christmas.
Pontious
Stated the LA Fitness on Newport Avenue has a tent-like structure
on which banner signs have been hanging; and, asked staff to
check to see if those signs are approved.
Noted she also enjoyed the tree lighting ceremony.
Peterson
Asked if a Planning Commission meeting will take place December
22"~.
Answered in the affirmative.
Jennings
Explained that she missed the tree lighting ceremony because she
was out of town.
Indicated she enjoyed the Planning Officials' Forum.
Stated that Golden State Insurance at 520 West First Street still
has a broken sign,
Requested that the meeting be adjourned in memory of Eileen
Pontious, Commissioner Pontious' mother.
7:28 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is
scheduled for Monday, December 22, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way.
Elizabeth A. Binsack
Planning Commission Secretary
Minutes- Planning Comm~Sion December 8, 2003- Page 4
ATTACHMENT D
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3903
RESOLUTION NO. 3903
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING SIGN CODE
EXCEPTION 03-001, A REQUEST TO MODIFY AN
EXISTING NON-CONFORMING POLE SIGN BY
REPLACING THE EXISTING 216 SQUARE FOOT SIGN
CABINET WITH A 133 SQUARE FOOT CABINET SIGN
AT 13872 RED HILL AVENUE.
I. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines as follows:
That a proper application, Sign Code Exception 03-001, was filed
by Donco & Sons, Inc., requesting authorization to modify an
existing non-conforming pole sign by replacing the existing 216
square foot sign cabinet with a 133 square foot cabinet sign at
13872 Red Hill Avenue.
That the proposed project would require approval of a sign code
exception by the Planning Commission pursuant to Tustin City Code
Section 9405c pdor to implementation.
C. That the Planning Commission considered this item on December 8,
2003.
D. That this project is Categorically Exempt (Class 11) pursuant to
Section 15311 of the California Environmental Quality ACt.
That pursuant to the criteria set forth in Sign Code Section 9405c, the
following findings support denial of the request for a sign code
exception:
Sign size and placement restrictions of the sign code shall be
as closely followed as practicable.
The Tustin Sign Code does not permit freeway pole signs for
service stations that are not located immediately adjacent to
the freeway right-of-way. In addition, businesses that are
eligible for freeway pole signs would be limited to a maximum
height of twenty-four (24) feet and sign area of fifty (50) square
feet. The proposed sign would be seventy-one (71) feet in
height with a 133 square foot sign area and far exceed the
parameters of other permitted pole signs.
In addition, the Tustin Sign Code provides clear direction that
non-conforming signs may only be maintained and not altered.
As expressly prohibited, the proposed sign would 1) modify a
non-conforming sign to another non-conforming sign since a
pole sign is not permitted at the project site; 2) result in
structural alterations that would create an updated appearance
consistent with Mobil Oil Company's current image that would
extend the useful life of the sign; and, 3) alter the size and
shape of the sign by reducing the overall dimensions of the
sign cabinet by thirty-eight (38) percent and eliminating the
individual letter cabinets and replacing them with a single
cabinet and sign face. While reducing the overall size of a
non-conforming sign may seem desirable, the height of the
sign will remain approximately the same (i.e., one foot
reduction) and the Tustin Sign Code does not authorize any
change in size or design of a non-conforming sign even if it
would decrease its nonconformity.
The intent and purpose of the sign regulations of the land use
zone in which the sign is to be located shall be followed as
closely as practicable.
Resolution No. 3903
SeE 03-001
Page 2
The proposed sign is not permitted at the project site and
deviates significantly from the non. conforming provisions of
the Tustin Sign Code as described above. The restrictions on
permitted freeway pole signs are intended to provide for
reasonable signage for freeway-oriented businesses offedng
food, lodging, or automobile services but to prevent the
proliferation of signs on all properties with freeway visibility. In
addition, the intent of the Tustin Sign Code is to allow the
existing pole sign to be maintained in good repair to continue
to provide business identification for the service station, not to
allow the pole sign to be significantly altered, improved, or
updated to extend its useful life and preclude replacement with
conforming signs over time. As such, the proposed sign does
not follow the intent and purpose of the sign regulations for
freeway-oriented pole signs or non-conforming signs.
3. There are special cimumstances unique to the property to
justify the exception.
The property is similar to other single-tenant commercial
properties that are visible from the freeway and provide
automobile-oriented services, and there are no special
circumstances unique to the property which preclude
compliance with the Tustin City Sign Code or justify an
exception.
Granting the exception will not have a negative impact on the
surrounding properties.
Granting an exception to provisions that explicitly prohibit
modifications to non-confirming signs will set a negative
precedent for the ffeatment of other pole signs within the
community. There are a number of non-conforming pole
signs along Red Hill Avenue, Newport Avenue, and First
Street that could be the subject of similar requests for
replacement, and if approved, could further perpetuate the
continued existence of pole signs throughout the community.
The sign application promotes the public, health, safety,
welfare, and aesthetics of the community and that the granting
of the exception meets findings and the intent of the sign code.
For the reasons outlined under items 1 through 4 above, the
proposed sign application does not promote a community
benefit and granting the exception would erode the intent of
the Tustin Sign Code.
The Planning Commission hereby denies Sign Code Exception 03-001, a
request to modify an existing non-conforming pole sign by replacing the
existing 216 square feet sign cabinet with a 133 square foot cabinet sign
at 13872 Red Hill Avenue.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 8th day of December, 2003.
~ Li~. d.a C. Jennin~/
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
IResolution No. 3903
SCE 03-001
Page 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the
Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that
Resolution No. 3903 was duly passed and adoJ~ted at a regular meeting of
the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 8"' day of December, 2003.
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
ATTACHMENT E
Appeal Letter from Applicant
(714) 254-0099
(714) 254-0199 Fax
Donco & Sons, Inc.
Signs · Lighting · Electrical
1410 N. Daly St.
Anaheim, CA 92806-1502
December 10, 2003
City of Tustin
Community Development Department
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Re: Sign Code Exception 03-001
Please accept this letter and filing fee to request an appeal on the decision of the Planning
Commission of the December 8, 2003 meeting. Planning Commission denied the
proposal to reduce the size and height of a legal non-conforming freeway oriented sign.
As the applicant we feel the approval of this proposal will benefit both the city and the
property owner of the service station. Please advise on the date this item will be
scheduled for presentation before City Council.
Please contact me if you have any questions or need further information.
UFS,
Eddie Vidales
Donco & Sons Inc.
Ph: 714-254-0099
Fx: 714-254-0199
RECEIVED
DEC 1 0 El03
CByOMMU#ITY OEVELOPMENT
CA. LICENSE C 10-C45-C61 # 435616 · ,&Z.. LICENSE L2,8 ~397661 L11 #098214 · AZ. dba D & S Signage. Inc.
ATTACHMENT F
City Council Resolution No. 04-13
RESOLUTION NO. 04-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY SIGN CODE
EXCEPTION 03-001, A REQUEST TO MODIFY AN
EXISTING NON-CONFORMING POLE SIGN BY
REPLACING THE EXISTING 216 SQUARE FOOT SIGN
CABINET WITH A 133 SQUARE FOOT CABINET SIGN
AT 13872 RED HILL AVENUE.
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
That a proper application, Sign Code Exception 03-001, was filed
by Donco & Sons, Inc., to appeal the Planning Commission's denial
of a request to modify an existing non-conforming pole sign by
replacing the existing 216 square foot sign cabinet with a 133
square foot cabinet sign at 13872 Red Hill Avenue.
That the Planning Commission denied this item on December 8,
2003.
C. That the City Council considered this item on ,January 20, 2004.
That this project is Categorically Exempt (Class 11) pursuant to
Section 15311 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
That pursuant to the criteria set forth in Sign Code Section 9405c, the
following findings support denial of the request for a sign code
exception:
Sign size and placement restrictions of the sign code shall be
as closely followed as practicable.
The Tustin Sign Code does not permit freeway pole signs for
service stations that are not located immediately adjacent to
the freeway right-of-way. In addition, businesses that are
eligible for freeway pole signs would be limited to a maximum
height of twenty-four (24) feet and sign area of fifty (50) square
feet. The proposed sign would be seventy-one (71) feet in
height with a 133 square foot sign area and far exceed the
parameters of other permitted pole signs.
In addition, the Tustin Sign Code provides clear direction that
non-conforming signs may only be maintained and not altered.
As expressly prohibited, the proposed sign would 1) modify a
non-conforming sign to another non-conforming sign since a
pole sign is not permitted at the project site; 2) result in
Resolution No. 04-13
Appeal of SCE 03-001
Page 2
structural alterations that would create an updated appearance
consistent with Mobil Oil Company's current image that would
extend the useful life of the sign; and, 3) alter the size and
shape of the sign by reducing the overall dimensions of the
sign cabinet by thirty-eight (38) percent and eliminating the
individual letter cabinets and replacing them with a single
cabinet and sign face. While reducing the overall size of a
non-conforming sign may seem desirable, the height of the
sign will remain approximately the same (i.e., one foot
reduction) and the Tustin Sign Code does not authorize any
change in size or design of a non-conforming sign even if it
would decrease its nonconformity.
The intent and purpose of the sign regulations of the land use
zone in which the sign is to be located shall be followed as
closely as practicable.
The proposed sign is not permitted at the project site and
deviates significantly from the non-conforming provisions of
the Tustin Sign Code as described above. 'rhe restrictions on
permitted freeway pole signs are intended to provide for
reasonable signage for freeway-oriented businesses offering
food, lodging, or automobile services but to prevent the
proliferation of signs on all properties with freeway visibility. In
addition, the intent of the Tustin Sign Code is to allow the
existing pole sign to be maintained in good repair to continue
to provide business identification for the service station, not to
allow the pole sign to be significantly altered, improved, or
updated to extend its useful life and preclude replacement with
conforming signs over time. As such, the proposed sign does
not follow the intent and purpose of the sign regulations for
freeway-oriented pole signs or non-conforming signs.
There are special circumstances unique to the property to
justify the exception.'
The property is similar to other single-tenant commercial
properties that are visible from the freeway and provide
automobile-oriented services, and there are no special
circumstances unique to the property which preclude
compliance with the Tustin City Sign Code or justify an
exception.
Granting the exception will not have a negative impact on the
surrounding properties.
Granting an exception to provisions that explicitly prohibit
modifications to non-confirming signs will set a negative
precedent for the treatment of other pole signs within the
Resolution No. 04-13
Appeal of SCE 03-001
Page 3
community. There are a number of non-conforming pole
signs along Red Hill Avenue, Newport Avenue, and First
Street that could be the subject of similar requests for
replacement, and if approved, could further perpetuate the
continued existence of pole signs throughout the community.
The sign application promotes the public, health, safety,
welfare, and aesthetics of the community and that the granting
of the exception meets findings and the intent of the sign code.
For the reasons outlined under items 1 through 4 above, the
proposed sign application does not promote a community
benefit and granting the exception would erode the intent of
the Tustin Sign Code.
II.
The City Council hereby upholds the Planning Commission's decision to
deny Sign Code Exception 03-001, a request to modify an existing non-
conforming pole sign by replacing the existing 216 square foot sign
cabinet with a 133 square foot cabinet sign at 13872 Red Hill Avenue.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on
the 20th day of January 2004.
TONY KAWASHIMA
MAYOR
PAMELA STOKER
CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 04-13
Appeal of SCE 03-001
Page 4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
SS
I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of
Tustin, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the
City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution
No. 04-13 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City
Council, held on the 20th day of January, 2004 by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
PAMELA STOKER
CITY CLERK