HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/9/1993AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Flamenbaum, and Chair/Meyer. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Li. CONTINUED CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PUBLIC HEARING: MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:04 No. 93-2 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21565 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Flamenbaum. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Grothe, Flamenbaum, Vice Chairman Plunk, and Chairman Meyer. C/Li arrived at 7:15 p.m. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox, and Planning Department Secretary Marilyn Ortiz. CONSENT CALENDAR: VC/Plunk indicated that she will not vote on the minutes because she was not present during the Minutes of subject meeting. July 26, 1993 Chair/Meyer requested that the minutes be corrected on page 9 to delete "Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing closed." Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of July 26, 1993, as amended. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Flamenbaum, and Chair/Meyer. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Li. CONTINUED AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the PUBLIC HEARING: request, by the applicant Donco Signs representing Mobil Oil, for approval to reorient and relocate an Variance existing 24 ft. twin pole sign located at the Mobil No. 93-2 Service Station on the northwest corner of Diamond Bar Blvd. and Golden Springs Drive. This application is the result of a code enforcement action on behalf of the City. The applicant applied for and received an approval, on September 9, 1992, to replace the sign face of the twin pole sign in addition to other wall signs at the service station. Subsequent to this approval, the applicant returned to the City and-, requested revisions to the sign plan. Those revisions were approved for alterations to the wall signs only, which -were altered on the plans, initialed by the planner, and submitted to the Building Department. At no time were notes on the plans revised to show August 9, 1993 a relocation of the twin pole sign. During subsequent plan check by the Building Department, the applicant submitted a plan with a revised location of the freestanding sign that had not been reviewed by the Planning Department. During field inspections, the inspector noticed that there was'a detail sheet attached to the set of plans which exhibited a footing detail showing the relocation of the twin pole footing. Investigation of the Planning Department approval and the Buildi g Department approval, identified that the applicant had shown a relocation of the footings of the sign without approval, and had not submitted a formal request for relocation to the City. The pole sign had been altered without permits. Because the sign had been legal non -conforming and illegally relocated, the sign status immediately transformed into non conforming. The applicant was informed that staff was bound by the code to require the removal of the non -conforming sign but the decision could be appealed to the Planning Commission. The applicant has indicated that they feel the permit was issued in error, and that the reorientation of the pole sign had been requested as a part of this application. The applicant also feels that the sign is still in conformance with City standards and will not create any new or additional impacts to the surrounding area. The applicant requests the re -orientation of the sign to better attract attention from traffic in a safer manner. Staff has reviewed the application and finds no supportable evidence submitted by the applicant which compels staff to support the request, as indicated in the Findings of Fact presented in the staff report. It is recommended that the Commission adopt the resolution for denial of the application. AP/Searcy, in response to VC/Plunk, stated that,,to his knowledge, the Building Department Engineer would have to do a.detailed footing inspection, and calculation review, to determine the safety of the footings that were moved. Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing opened.' Mark Fink, with Donco Signs Inc. representing Mobil oil, explained that plans were submitted in' the early part of September of 1991, requesting ,the face change in the wall signs. Subsequent to that submittal, Mobil Oils marketing people decided that the pole sign would be more effective if it addressed Diamond Bar Boulevard. When staff cabled to advise that the plans were ready for permit issuance, proposed revisions, which included 11i August 9, 1993 3 changing one of the wall signs from "Mobil Mart" to "Snack Shop", as well as the re -orientation of the pole sign, were submitted. Those plans, reflecting both proposed changes, were discussed, in detail, with a representative from the Planning Department and from the Building and Safety Department. It was advised that the proposed changes were acceptable, and a Building Department official initialed and dated the plans approving the revised location. Had it been known that the reorientation would not be acceptable, only the sign face changes would have been made. The change, reviewed and approved by the City, and carried out by Mobil Oil, is minor in nature and does not create any new or additional impacts. It seems unfair to require the removal of -the signs due to a mistake made on the part of the City staff. Mr. Fink stated that he has structural calculations from a licensed structural engineer indicating that the footing, which was approved by the Building Department, is more than adequate for the City's requirements. C/Li inquired why the applicant did not attach the structural calculations to the application. Mark Fink explained that the applicant did give the revisions to the City's plan check Building Department Engineer, Mr. Joe Bizone, who .then approved and signed the plan, indicating that it would be attached to the City's paperwork. The applicant is very much aware of the need for inspections on the structural integrity of the footings; and would not attempt to deceive the City in any way. AP/Searcy stated that the Planning Department reviewed and approved revisions made to the wall signs only, which was initialed and dated by the staff planner. At no time did the Planning Department note or date any revision to the footing of the free standing monument sign. Mary Jean McMillan, an employee of Donco Signs who pulled the permits, stated that, on September 28, 1992, she informed staff that Mobil Oil requested two changes to be made to the permit ready to be issued, which included the reorientation of the pole sign and changes to the sign face. Two City officials reviewed the changes made to the plot F plan, initialed and approved those changes, and took a copy of the engineering calculations. The 4.. x-: fees were then paid and the permit was issued. Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing closed. I August 9, 1993 4 AP/Searcy, in response to C/Flamenbaum, explained that any alteration of the sign would constitute,a a change in the legal non -conforming use of that sign, thus changing the status to non -conforming. Changes to the contents of the existing box or sign face is allowed. Chair/Flamenbaum inquired if the Building Department Engineer recalls initialing and approving the plans with the revisions. CDD/DeStefano explained that the employee acknowledges his initial at the site on the drawings that shows the relocated sign. However, no permits were issued, no plan check fees were paid to indicate that the Building Department ever took in any drawings related to that footnote on the plans to support approval of the reorientation. C/Flamenbaum questioned if a City employee's initial with the word "approval" on the plan would constitute some sort of approval by the City. An applicant could presume that the employees at the counter are authorized to act on the City's behalf. AP/Searcy pointed out that it is a common " procedure, known by Mr. Fink, that permits must be Lj issued by both the Building Department and the Planning Department for work being done. VC/Plunk suggested that, as a compromise to this situation, the applicant be allowed a monument sign at a height not to exceed the 1176" Service Station sign in the same vicinity. C/Grothe pointed out that non -conforming signs need to be abated within 10 to 15 years. The Mobil Oil monument sign should be replaced with a sign 6 feet in height to improve it's visibility, or it should be removed altogether. However, if there has been an error made with this application, perhaps permission can be granted to put the sign back as it was originally located. C/Li stated that since the revision was not approved, he would concur with staff's recommendation to deny the application. The plans seem to have been initialed acknowledging receipt of the document, not authorizing that the calculations submitted were reviewed and approved. ;"a Chair/Meyer inquired if the reorientation of a single pole sign would require only Building Department approval. August 9, 1993 5 AP/Searcy stated that changes to the interior face of the sign require only Building. Department approval. Reorientation of a sign would definitely be subject to Planning Department review. Chair/Meyer expressed his concern that the Sign Code is so severe that a reorientation of a sign affects a non conforming status. Most nonconforming Ordinances allow minor modification in the scope and scale of a non conformity, if that nonconformity is not increased. A variance is not the proper tool for this situation since the findings for a variance would be difficult to make on this particular provision. CDD/DeStefano explained that the Sign Ordinance adopted in 1991 was intentionally drafted straight forward and simple with the intent of capturing these freestanding signs that exceed 6 feet in height. The major rehabilitation of this gas station is a nice addition to the City of Diamond Bar. However, there is differing representation on what has occurred, making it difficult to resolve the situation. The Building Department official was asked to attend the meeting to assist in understanding the circumstances. If the commission would prefer to hear testimony from the Building Department official or the Planning Department plan checker, then perhaps the matter should be continued to the next available Planning Commission meeting. VC/Plunk pointed out that the plan is initialed by the Building Department official indicating his acknowledgment of the revised location. It does not say "approved". Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting to allow the Commission an opportunity to review the plans. Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting and declared the public hearing opened. Mark Fink, in response to Chair/Meyer, stated that the current market value for a similar sign would be approximately $14,000 dollars. The scope of the cost for it's reorientation was approximately $1,500 dollars. Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing closed. Chair/Meyer stated that staff has recommended that the variance be denied because there is no supportable evidence submitted by the applicant demonstrating that they are being denied a August 9, 1993 substantial property right afforded their neighbors in the same vicinity and zone. a,:;;, 01!' Motion was made by C/Grothe and seconded by VC/Plunk to accept staff fs recommendation to deny the application for Variance No. 93-2. C/Flamenbaum pointed out that the reorientation of the sign is not a substantial change from the way the sign was originally. since there is no basis for a variance, he stated that he would recommend that the request for the variance be denied but that the Planning staff be directed to approve the sign as it presently exists, assuming it meets all appropriate building requirements. It seems that there was a miscommunication to the applicant ion the proper procedure that should have been followed. C/Li concurred. C/Grothe stated that the sign should be brought into conformance with the current Sign Code since it has been modified by changing it's orientation. DCA/Fox concurred that there are no grounds for a variance. This situation is susceptible to' a contemporaneous administrative interpretation by the Community Development Director. The Sign Code does permit a degree of discretion on the partiof�;�; staff, which becomes a matter of policy. The fact that an employee in the Building Department may have indicated approval does not bind the City legally. CDD/DeStefano stated that, based upon the comments made by the Commission, perhaps it would be more appropriate to continue the matter to the niext meeting so that alternatives could be developed, and additional facts could be brought forth to help the Commission draw a conclusion at that meeting. C/Grothe stated that he would amend his motion to deny the application without prejudice. CDD/DeStefano, in response to Chair/Meyer, stated that if the Commission decides to adopt the resolution of denial, without prejudice, a new application can be filed immediately if desired. In response to VC/Plunk, he stated that the applicant will have a 15 day appeal period giving the applicant an opportunity to appeal the decision of the Commission to the City Council. If there is. no appeal, and the Commission's, decision caused removal of the sign, staff would provide a reasonable amount of time for the applicant to do SO. August 9, 1993 7 i The Commission then voted upon the Motion made by C/Grothe and seconded by VC/Plunk to accept staff's recommendation to deny the application for Variance No. 93-2, without prejudice. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Li, VC/Plunk, and Chair/Meyer. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. The Motion CARRIED 4-1. C/Grothe stated that the sign should be removed and brought into total conformance with the Sign Ordinance: C/Plunk concurred, however, she would be willing to consider a modification to the sign to be similar to the height of the "75" service station sign. C/Flamenbaum, C/Li, and Chair/Meyer concurred that it does not seem appropriate for the sign to lose it's nonconforming entitlement for the kind of minor modification made. It is the consensus of the Commission that there should be no substantive change to the existing sign.li Staff is directed to'approve the sign. Chair/lMeyer indicated that it would be appropriate for an effort to be made by the applicant to bring the sign into compliance with the current Sign Code as best as possible. INFORMATIONAL C/Flamenbaum reported that the subcommittee on the ITEMS: Planning Commission Policies and Procedures did not have an opportunity to meet as planned. ANNOUNCEMENTS: CDD/DeStefano reported on the following items: the Planning Commission's discussion regarding exploration of a bond issue for acquisition of open space was directed to the City Manager for distribution appropriately; the City Council adopted the 1993 General Plan last week; and, as Administrative Development Director, he approved a remodeling of an existing Chevron station on Golden Springs and Brea Canyon Road, a two story addition to an existing home on Armitos Place, and a two story addition to an existing home on Milky Way Ird Place. C/Flamenbaum stated that he will not be in attendance at the August 23, 1993 meeting. He reported that he received an update, from the City August 9, 1993 8 N,;ts of Brea, on the processing of the Olinda Heights{f;, Specific Plan. uiu C/Grothe stated that he too will not be in attendance at the August 23, 1993 meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/Li and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at p.m. Respectively, o � J s DeStefano Secretary Attest: DMe3� r � Chairman I 07, 'LEDGE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 91 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: commissioner Flamenbaum. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Grothe, Flamenbaum, Vice Chairman Plunk, and Chairman Meyer. C/Li arrived at 7:15 p.m. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox, and Planning Department Secretary Marilyn Ortiz. CONSENT CALENDAR: VC/Plunk indicated that she will not vote on the minutes because she was not present during the Minutes of subject meeting. July 26, 1993 Chair/Meyer requested that the minutes be corrected on page, 9 to delete "Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing closed." Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of July 26, 1993, as amended. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Flamenbaum, and Chair/Meyer. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Li CONTINUED AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the PUBLIC HEARING: request, by the applicant Donco Signs representing Mobil Oil, for approval to reorient and relocate an Variance existing 24 ft. twin pole sign located at the Mobil No. 93-2 Service Station on the northwest corner of Diamond Bar Blvd. and Golden Springs Drive. This application is the result of a code enforcement action on behalf of the City. The applicant applied for and received an approval, on September 9, 1992, to replace the sign face of the twin pole sign in addition to other wall signs at the service station. Subsequent to this approval, the applicant returned to the City and4 requested Ir -1 revisions to the sign plan. Those revisions were approved for alterations to the wall signs only, which -were altered on the plans, initialed by the planner, and submitted to the Building Department. At no time were notes on the plans revised to show August 9, 1993 2 a reloc'ation of the twin pole sign. During subsequent plan check by the Building Department, the applicant submitted a plan with a revised location of the freestanding sign that had not been reviewed by the Planning Department. During field inspections, the inspector noticed that there was a detail sheet attached to the set of plans which exhibited a footing detail showing the relocation of the twin pole footing. Investigation of --e Planning Department approval and the Buildl—? Department approval, identified that the applica had shown a relocation of the footings of the sign without approval-, and had not submitted a formal request for relocation to the City. The pole sign had been altered without permits. Because the sign had been legal non -conforming and illegally relocated, the sign status immediately transformed into non -cont orming. The applicant was inf ormed that stat f was bound by the code to require the removal of the n6n-cont orming sign but the decision could be appealed to the Planning commission. The applicant has indicated that they f eel the permit was issued in error, and that the reorientation of the pole sign had been requested as a part of this application. The applicant also f eels that the sign is still in conformance with City standards and will not create any new or additional impacts to the surrounding area. The applicant requests the re -orientation of the sign to better attract attention f rom traf f is in a saf er manner. Staff has reviewed the application and finds no supportable evidence submitted by the applicant which compels staff to support the request, as indicated in the Findings of Fact presented in the staff report. It is recommended that the Commission adopt the resolution for denial of the application. AP/Searcy, in response to VC/Plunk, stated that, to his knowledge, the Building Department Engineer would have to do a,detailed footing inspection, and calculation review, to determine the safety of the footings that were moved. Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing opened. Mark Fink, with Donco signs Inc. representing Mobil oil, explained that plans were submitted in'the early part of September of 1991, requesting the face change in the wall signs. Subsequent to that submittal, Mobil Oils marketing people decided that the pole sign would be more effective if it addressed Diamond Bar Boulevard. When staff called to advise that the plans were ready for permit issuance, proposed revisions, which included August 9, 1993 3 changing one of the wall signs from "Mobil Mart" to "Snack Shop", as well as the re -orientation of the pole sign, were submitted. Those plans, reflecting both proposed changes, were discussed, in detail, with a representative from the Planning Department and from the Building and Safety Department. it was advised that the proposed changes were acceptable, and a Building Department official initialed and dated the plans approving the revised location. Had it been known that the reorientation would not be acceptable, only the sign face changes would have been made. The change, reviewed and approved by the City, and carried out by Mobil Oil, is minor in nature and does not create any new or additional impacts. It seems unfair to require the removal of - the signs due to a mistaie made on the part of the City staff. Mr. Fink stated that he has structural calculations from a licensed structural engineer indicating that the footing, which was approved by the Building Department, is more than adequate for the City's requirements. C/Li inquired why the applicant did not attach the structural calculations to the application. Mark Fink explained that the applicant did give the revisions to the City's plan check Building Department Engineer, Mr. Joe Bizone, who then approved and signed the plan, indicating that it would be attached to the City's paperwork. The applicant is very much aware of the need for inspections on the structural integrity of the footingst and would not attempt to deceive the City in any way. AP/Searcy stated that the Planning Department reviewed and approved revisions made to the wall signs only, which was initialed and dated by the staff planner. At no time did the Planning Department note or date any revision to the footing of the free standing -monument sign. Mary Jean McMillan, an employee of Donco Signs who pulled the permits, stated that, on September 28, 1992, she informed staff that Mobil Oil requested two changes to be made to the permit ready to be issued, which included the reorientation of the pole sign and changes to the sign face. Two City officials reviewed the changes made to the plot plan, initialed and approved those changes, and took a copy of the engineering calculations. The fees were then paid and the permit was issued. Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing closed. August 9, 1993 4 initial with the word "approval" on the plan would AP/Searcy, in response to C/Flamenbaum, explained that any alteration of the sign would constitute a change in the legal non' -conforming use of that Sign, thus changing the status to non -conforming. Changes to the contents of the existing box or sign face is allowed. onstitute some sort of approval by the City. An Chair/Flamenbaum inquired if the Building Department Engineer recalls initialing and approving the plans with the revisions. CDD/DeStefano explained that the employee acknowledges his initial at the site on the drawings that shows the relocated sign. However, no permits were issued, no plan check fees were paid to indicate that the Building Department ever took in any drawings related to that footnote —on the plans to support approval of the reorientation. pplicant could presume that the employees at the C/Flamenbaum questioned if a City employee's ounter are authorized to act on the City's behalf. C/Grothe pointed out that non -conforming signs need to be abated within 10 to 15 years. The Mobil Oil monument sign should be replaced with a sign 6 feet in height to improve it's visibility, or it should be removed altogether. However, if there has been an error made with this application, perhaps permission can be granted to put the sign back as it was originally located. C/Li stated that since the revision was not approved, he would concur with staffs recommendation to deny the application. The plans seem to have been initialed acknowledging receipt of the document, not authorizing that the calculations submitted were reviewed and approved. Chair/Meyer inquired if the reorientation of a single pole sign would require only Building Department approval. P/Searcy pointed out that it is a common rocedure, known by Mr. Pink, that permits must e ssued b both the Building Department and the Iitannin Department for work beingdone. C/Plunk suggested that, as a compromise to this tuation, the applicant be allowed a monument sign t a height not to exceed the 117611 Service Station n in the same vicinity. C/Grothe pointed out that non -conforming signs need to be abated within 10 to 15 years. The Mobil Oil monument sign should be replaced with a sign 6 feet in height to improve it's visibility, or it should be removed altogether. However, if there has been an error made with this application, perhaps permission can be granted to put the sign back as it was originally located. C/Li stated that since the revision was not approved, he would concur with staffs recommendation to deny the application. The plans seem to have been initialed acknowledging receipt of the document, not authorizing that the calculations submitted were reviewed and approved. Chair/Meyer inquired if the reorientation of a single pole sign would require only Building Department approval. August 9, 1993 5 AP/Searcy stated that changes to the interior face of the -sign require only Building. Department approval. Reorientation of a sign would definitely be subject to Planning Department review. Chair/Meyer expressed his concern that the Sign Code is so severe that a reorientation of a sign affects a non conforming status. Most nonconforming Ordinances allow minor modification in the scope and scale of a non cont ormity, if that nonconformity is not increased. A variance is not the proper tool for this situation since the findings for a variance would be difficult to make on this particular provision. CDD/DeStefano explained that the Sign Ordinance adopted in 1991 was intentionally drafted straight f orward and simple with the 'intent of capturing these freestanding signs that exceed 6 feet in height. The major rehabilitation of this gas station is a nice addition to the City of Diamond Bar. However, there is differing representation on what has occurred, making it difficult to resolve the situation. The Building Department official was asked to attend the meeting to assist in understanding the circumstances. If the Commission would pref er to hear testimony from the Building Department official or the Planning Department plan checker, then perhaps the matter should be continued to the next available Planning Commission meeting. VC/Plunk pointed out that the plan is initialed by the Building Department official indicating his acknowledgment of the revised location. It does not say "approved". Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting to allow the Commission an opportunity to review the plans. Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting and declared the public hearing opened. Mark Fink, in response to Chair/Meyer, stated that the current market value for a similar sign would be approximately $14, 000 dollars. The scope of the cost for it's reorientation was approximately $1,500 dollars. Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing closed. Chair/Meyer stated that staff has recommended that the variance be denied because there is no supportable evidence submitted by the applicant demonstrating that they are being denied a August 9, 1993 6 substantial property right afforded their neighbors in the same vicinity and zone. Motion was made by C/Grothe and seconded by VC/Plunk to - accept stat f I s recommendation to deny the application for Variance No. 93-2. C/Flamenbaum. pointed out that the reorientation of the sign is not a substantial change from the way the sign was originally. since there is no basis f or, a variance, he stated that he would recommend that the request f or the variance be denied but that the Planning staff be directed to approve the sign as it presently exists, assuming it meets all appropriate building requirements. It seems that there was a miscommunication to the applicant on the proper procedure that should have been followed. C/Li concurred. C/Grothe stated that the sign should be brought into conformance with the current Sign Code since it has been modified by changing it's orientation. DCA/ Fox concurred that there are no grounds f or a variance. This situation is susceptible to a contemporaneous administrative interpretation by the Community Development Director. The Sign Code does permit a degree of discretion on the partlof staff, which becomes a matter of policy. The fact that an employee in the Building Department may have indicated approval does not bind the City legally. CDD/DeStefano stated that, based upon the comments made by the Commission, perhaps it would be more appropriate to continue the matter to the next meeting so that alternatives could be developed, and additional f acts could be brought forth to help the commission draw a conclusion at that meeting. C/Grothe stated that he would amend his motion to deny the application without prejudice. CDD/DeStefano, in response to Chair/Meyer, stated that if the commission decides to adopt the resolution of denial, without prejudice, a new application can be filed immediately if desired. In response to VC/Plunk, he stated that the applicant will have a 15 day appeal period giving the applicant an opportunity to appeal the decision of the Commission to the City Council. If there is, no appeal, and the Commission's- decision caused removal of the sign, staff would provide a reasonable amount of time for the applicant to do SO. August 9, 1993 The Commission then voted upon the Motion made by C/Grothe and seconded by VC/Plunk to accept staff Is recommendation to deny the application f or variance No. 93-2, without prejudice. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Li, VC/Plunk, and Chair/Meyer. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. The Motion CARRIED 4-1 C/Grothe stated that the sign should be removed and brought into total conformance with the Sign Ordinance.- C/Plunk concurred, however, she would be willing to consider a modification to the sign to be similar to the height of the 117611 service station sign. C/Flamenbaum, C/Li, and Chair/Meyer concurred that it does not seem appropriate for the sign to lose it's nonconforming entitlement for the kind of minor modification made. it is consensus of the Commission that there ou14 the s h be no substantive change to the existing sign. Staff is directed to -'approve the sign. Chair/Meyer indicated that it would be appropriate for a-- effort to be made by the applicant to bring the sign into compliance with the current Sign Code as best as possible. INFORMATIONAL C/Flamenbaum reported that the subcommittee on the ITEMS: Planning Commission Policies and Procedures did not have an opportunity to meet as planned. ANNOUNCEMENTS: CDD/DeStef ano reported on the following items: the Planning Commission's discussion regarding exploration of a bond issue for acquisition of open space was directed to the City Manager for distribution appropriately; the City Council adopted the 1993 General Plan last week; and, as Administrative Development Director, he approved a remodeling of an existing Chevron station on Golden Springs and Brea Canyon Road, a two story addition to an existing home on Armitos Placef and a two story addition to an existing home on Milky Way Place. C/Flamenbaum stated that he will not be in attendance at the August 23, 1993 meeting. He reported that he received an update, from the City August 9, 1993 of Brea, on the processing of the Olinda Heights Specific Plan. C/Grothe stated that he too will not be in attendance at the August 23, 1993 meeting. Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/Li and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to ADJOURNMENT: adjourn the meeting at p.m. Respectively, A- Attest: D e)T,rC airman In 7- 7 is(j s DeStefano Secretary