Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-21-1996 PC MinutesJ 125M. $..':{.3_ MINUTES Planning Commission City 01 Orange October 21,1996 Monday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: Commissioner Carlton STAFF PRESENT: Vem Jones, Manager 01 Current Planning - Commission Secretary;Stan Soo- Hoo, Assistant City Attorney,Bob VonSchimmelmann, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary IN RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE MEETING OF 10/7/96 Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to approve the Minutes 01 10/ 7/96 as recorded.AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Carlton MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 2. ADDENDUM TO EIR 631 (LOMA STREET EXTENSION) - CITY OF ORANGE Proposed completion 01 structural paving and installation of median landscaping lor erosion control purposes on Loma Street Irom Via Escola to Mesa Drive.Chairman Bosch excused himself from the meeting due to a potential economic conflict of interest. Vice-Chairman Pruett chaired the hearing.The public hearing was opened.Bob Mickelson, 121 West Rose, consultant for the project, spoke on behalf 01 Tracy and South ridge Development, the original developer. Although Edison is no longer in ownership on any 01 this land that includes the street, they still own the sub-station. This is an Addendum prepared lor the original EIR to permit the paving 01 the center lanes and landscaping 01 the median. The original alignment lor this streel was approved with the previous EIR, and the action the City took on that several years ago was to have two lanes 01 travel -- one in each direction -- until such time as a need was determined lor the other two lanes. And at such time they would do the appropriate environmental analysis. Since then, the tract has been approved and it is under construction by two different developers -- one on each side 01 Loma.With the approval 01 that tract, a bond has been posted for the ultimate completion 01 the street. There is a bit 01 a "catch 22" here. They would like to complete the street for aesthetic and erosion control because the City incurs an annual expense to maintain sandbagging and repairs. They accept stall's recommendation #5.Commissioner Pruett stated il the recommendation 01 putting in the berms vs. what Anaheim had done on the other side 01 the hill with just striping the lanes, he was looking at it Irom the standpoint that if it is eventually going to be 4 lanes, he recognized it was going to require an EIR and they didn~ want to get into making a major change in terms 01 the original EIR, but there is an issue 01 investment in terms 01 the cost 01 doing that kind 01 work vs. striping. Why were the berms a better investment?1 T Planning Commission Minutes October 21,1996 Mr. Mickelson explained when they first began talking about this to the neighbors they were concerned about the City slipping by them and opening up the street. Their response to the neighbors was that the City had the obligation to build the street, but they need to get rid of the maintenance problem lor the City. II it was a problem for the neighbors (to think the City would open the street for traffic), the City would leave some sort of barrier (I.e., berms or pile ons). Frankly, they would prefer to pave it and stripe it because that would be the better solution. They think they can work out the problem with the neighbors. If it is not a problem to the staff and the Commission, perhaps it could be left as an option: If staff still feels, because of the concerns 01 the neillhbors in the Maybury Ranch Homeowner's Association, that they should have the berms, they will do It. They should have the delineators. If it turns out it is acceptable to all parties. Ihen they will stripe it out and do it that way. There will be some additional cost to remove those barriers in the future. The idea is to do the paving and put the berms on top so then the berms could be pulled off at the appropriate time. Commissioner Pruett asked if this is what the Maybury Ranch people are anticipating? Mr. Mickelson responded the neighbors are anticipating recommendation #5, which staff is recommending. Commissioner Pruett thought if that were the case, then they should lollow through on that. The public hearing was dosed. Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to recommend to the CityCounciltoapprovetheAddendumtoEIR631 (Loma Street Extension), accepting option #5 as listed in the document, "Loma Extension Center Lane Pavement and Median Landscaping" dated July 31,1996. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioners Bosch, Carlton MOTION CARRIED Chairman Bosch returned to the meeting. 3. APPEAL NO. 434 - DONCO & SONS, INC. FOR JOE MOUSSALLI, SHELL SERVICE STATION An appeal 01 the decision 01 the Zoning Administrator to approve Variance 2022-96 allowing a new sign restricted by Code to a maximum height 0115 feet) to be construc!ed at a maximum height of 24 feet. The applicant had proposed to construc! a new sign that would be 28 feet high. The site is located at 1914 East Chapman Avenue, between Tustin Streel and the Costa Mesa Freeway. NOTE:This project is categorically exempt Irom the provisions 01 the Calilornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15311. There was no opposition; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived. The publiC hearing was opened. Aoolicant Greg Grover, 725 North Cypress Street, said the existing sign is not effective because it is not visible to motorists. That was the reason for liling and requesting a variance to begin with. They have proposed to increase the height and move the sign closer to the street. The Zoning Administrator has agreed that a variance lor the overall sign height is justilied in this case. However, by limitin~ the height increase to 24 leet rather than the requested 28 feet, creates an undue hardship for the bUSiness. Shell Oil Companyhastrademarkstheyrequiretheirdealerslbusinessoperatorstoadhereto. They have a "Iamlly 01 signs"which come in various sizes. The size they felt was appropriate lor this station was the "8 footlamily of signs". The three units comprise the family 01 signs. It is 146 square feet, which is under what the code permits, which is up to 150 square leet. One 01 the critical dimensions Is the 8 feet of ground clearance. This is required by the City and it is also a salety consideration that must be taken into account. In order to use the sign and retain the 8 leet 01 ground clearance, it adds up to be 28 leet in overall height. They 2 Planning Commission Minutes Oc!ober 21, 1996 did not request 28 feet, hoping to !;let 24 feet or request anything in excess 01 what was required. The variance applies only to the sign height and not the area. They are complying with the code requirements in regards to area. By not approving the variance is depriving the business 01 competing fairly with other businesses under similar circumstances. The allowable area is up to 150 square feet. They are requesting to use an area that's within that parameter, but at a height where they could use the sign. The minimum l1eightthey can use is 28 feel. He knows variances have been granted for signs as hi~l1 as 35 leet. They feel in this case the 28 feet is justified and needed. There is also the issue of the point of sale" advertising signs, which appear on the light standards. There are two of them. It is an important issue that the business owner wants to bring up. One 01 the conditions the Zoning Administrator hsted in granting approval to increase the height to 24 feet, he ruled that the "point of advertising signs" must be removed. They are not allowed under the current Sign Code; however, when driving around and doing a windshield survey of the gas stations in town, 80% of the stations use them. Planning staff is aware of them, but they said Code Enforcement has not enforced that part of the code. This puts the business owner at a competitive disadvantage. The other stations get the benefit of the continued use of them and this station cannot. The reason this was added as part of the variance request was because the business owner wants to operate with good relations in fhe City and wants to comply with the codes. Maybe a compromise could be reached with these types 01 signs so that they could continue to use them. Commissioner Smith looked at the Minutes from the Zoninll Administrator's meeting. It spoke a little differently than what Mr. Grover said about Mr. Moussalh's intent. It stated Mr. Moussalli saw no problem with the removal of the other signs if the full height requested for the existing sign is approved and he was allowed to retain one advertising sign for promotion. Mr. Grover was now asking for something different. Mr. Grover said there were other signs, as well. Initially, Mr. Moussalli did say he would take down those POS signs, but when they lormally filed for the appeal, he wanted to get permission to have those signs reviewed so that they could remain. Chairman Bosch said it was indicated there were other businesses in the area that have signage under similar circumstances. Variances have very strict guidelines with regard to lindings 01 hardship and not setting a precedent with regard to others or allowing something to occur on the positive side from the viewp'oint of the applicant, that allows him the same privileges enjoyed by others in the immediate vicinity. The Mobil station immediately across the street, and the Mobil station east of the freeway have shorter sign age than what is being proposed. He didn't see the freeway location as the identilying factor. What other businesses in the area have signage under similar circumstances where if you were denied, it would be a hardship impac!ing the business? Mr. Grover said the Mo!>i1 station was located in the same general area, but it didn~ have the same situation. The location 01 the Shell station was mid-block, it didn~ have a comer and it was affec!ed by the car dealership next door, and to a lesser degree, the Midas business on the other side. The car dealership with the parking bay is one of the most unique and main problems for Shell. They have advertising on their light standards and when vehicles are parked in the bay, they block and reduce the visibility to where the sign can be placed. Additionally, this site has another somewhat unique feature in that there is only a narrow planter area between the drive entrances. Sometimes that area can be utilized lor signage. In this case, it is narrower - about a foot and a half - and it doesn~ lend itself to having signal; le. The other businesses can operate within parameters closer to what the City allows and still be effecllve. Commissioner Romero asked about the square lootage 01 the existing sign?Mr. Grover said the existing sign was about 60 square leet.Commissioner Romero asked if there was a picture 01 the 90 square foot sign?Mr. Grover did not have a picture; however, the signs were all the same, all proportional. It was 8 x 8 and then 6 x 6, and 5 x 5. They were modular and proportional. The appearance was the same. The signs were scaled down to meet the size requirements.Commissioner Romero saw the 4 loot total height dillerence as a happy medium. He didn't see the 24 leet to be such a disadvantage.3 r Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1996 Mr. Grover said in terms 01 area -- 96 square feet vs. 146 square feel. It's almost a 50% reduc!ion in area.Commissioner Romero stated the painting of the station and sign gives it it's first look or attraction. Such as the Mobil station with the colors 01 blue and white, and Shelf with yellow. That in itself is an attraction.It' s not just the sign, but it's the overall appearance 01 the station that attracts people.Mr. Grover said in today's economy almost everything is price driven. Customers shop price.prominently those price signs can be displayed, the better it is for the business.Commissioner Pruett asked how long had the station been in business?Mr. Grover responded the station has been in business since 1966 - approximately 30 years.The public hearing was dosed.Commissioner Pruett stated the Commission had to meet certain required findings to grant a variance.One of them is special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape and topography 01 thelocationandsurroundings. ThiS property is located In mid-block. He didn't consider that necessarily to be a special circumstance. This location is choosing to compete with the prime spot corner locations and would like to have the advantage 01 signage to be able to draw in the competition. He didn' t consider that to be a hardship issue. It's more 01 a competitive issue. For the Commission to grant a variance to assist in that marketing strategy is granting a special privilege and he could not support that.The more Commissioner Romero was not one to look lor larger and bigger signage. He believed the 24 foot height limitation would be sullicient lor advertising.Commissioner Smith was inclined to stick with the Zoning Administrator's decision and rely on the applicant' s creativity to get as much square footage as was allowed at 24 feet.Chairman Bosch echoed the other Commissioner's leelings. The Zoning Administrator carefully considered, based upon the Minutes and the stall report, information belore him with regard to the action involved. He thought the Z.A. was overly generous in the heillht 01 the sign allowed. Mid-block was not a hardship. The marketing ellort is obviously critical; it's an Important business that has been here lor 30 years. With regard to the point 01 sale signs, he sees a nexus or linkage between a requestforspecialprivilegeandgranting01avariance. The marketing of the station would be vastly improved by reducing the sign clutter on the site. There is an ordinance in ellect and because of a grantinll 01 specialprivilegewithheighl, that privilege, by rights of the City and enlorcement of ordinance provisions, has a right to expect there will be some trade 011 to assure the business conlorms with the Sign Ordinance. ThaI is, the elimination 01 the signs that are currently illegal on the site. There are provisions for temporary signage, for banners, lor special sales, within the ordinance. They are well thought out and are more liberal than the current ordinance. He could not support the appeal because he could notlind the special circumstances required by law nor hardship imposed by the ordinance as it is written. Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to deny Appeal No. 434. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Carlton MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to adjourn the meeting at 7:35 p.m. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None Commissioner Carlton MOTION CARRIED Isld 4