Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEXCEPTION PERMIT 10EXCEPTION PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT No. CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION Application Rec'd 3300 Newport Boulevard Fee: 5 Newport Reach, CA 92663 (714) 640-2218 or 640-2219 Applicant (print)INDEPZ..I MALT &JTPDDR, A1>VE2TJ5JN&- Phone 213.251-2200 Mailing Address 717 LA 23REA_ Lb5 , W&F-LE51 CA. '76038 Property Owner MARy JV ozziSoP4 Phone 6I4" ST3374-7 Mailing Address 14KW4 6T. ATH F_t3 DRID Address of Property Involved 15Z(o f ACE-911A M. Purpose of Application (describe fully) —INSTAI-LATION bF- AXERT(Smj& SI&Iq, 0 5TAINLE,55 5 j5E C6N57'U nA/— sl6g F&P_ ASU ES 6x 12 i .50PPbRTE> A 51N(rLE` 9' PoLE . Zone U Present Use Mirju-m Kw& mAR.10ET T Legal Description of Property Involved (if too long, attach separate sheet) NF-WFc)&T- M a s A TRAC:Ls L(J '?[!o, PriRtm-L 1 Why will proposal not be contrary to the purpose of the Sign Ordinance? T'HF �tG 16 SMALL; umolaliz sNs 4 of Mot>wzN DF-516,14. IT5 ATrRACT1yE APPEAR_ AAA 4 "L W FROFil.E" FULFILLS TKE SICra ORA►N, gw IMF-aurloCA7w MAWbAm. Exceptional or extraordi nary circumstances involved? THE 9_X15TIA! '0M1NUTF { IA16•" WAU SIGN WILL SooN BE 685-rRUCT9t? W 7'H6 A49181 AIERlT�E %9k EXP,4N51bA1. THE RQaPoSED 51&p1 WILL (OMPEAiSATE Falb 1kAT Lb55. Why is an exception permit necessary to protect a substantial property right? 516W _w!J_L_PRW)P A--MRAMV& 15QAL_- ` ER_Y..OP P&4PO("L .50LP /Al .77- NI�RK�Ty -1u5 Sr1MU4AJW(rr stN_Ess NJ�F_4SA F. 74F_ brQurr� s! Why will proposal not be detrimental to the neighborhood? "bra Nat& 50RHQ01> /S` PizvAAK(Ly CoMMEi eiAL. COM4'AT1RLF_ I&M 6oMMEKCIAL 51&A1A6,E. OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT (I) (We) MARY AACARR l 50 depose and say that (I am) (we are) the owners of the property ies involved in this application. (I) (We) further certify, under penalty of --perjury, that the foregoing statements -and answers - herei ri contained --,-- and the information herewith submitted are in all respects Prue and correct to the best.of. (my) (our) knowledge and belief. Signature (s) �zk NOTE: An agent may sign for the owner if writ filed with the application. authorization from the record DO NOT COMPLETE APPLICATION BELOW THIS LINE - Date Filed (0 Fee Pd. % 75 Receipt No. Hearing Date_, 11>4 Q Publication Date Posting Date Mail Date �- -�Z P.C. Action Date Appeal C.C.Hearing C.C.Action Date owner :s II.:isi - �3t3 2 c�b!ili.'$: 27� D� -TUT:. F77777777 ' CO►NNUSa'iC�►�1ER5 8, ,... July :1982 C) G Cr to x Cit of New ort Beach INDEX ROIL CALL. Request to install a 6' foot x 12 foot, double-faced ItCll� �I advertising sign on a 9 foot high pole on a site in the currently Unclassified District where one pole sign Code permits only one pole sign per exists. The Zoning site. EXCEPTION PERMIff— A portion of the First Addition to the N.. 10 LOCATION: Newport Mesa Tract, located at 1526 Placentia Avenue, on the easterly side of Placentia Avenue between 15th Street rnd Production Places in the West Newport Triangle. DENIED ZONE: Unclassified APPLICANT: Independent Outdoor Advertising, Los Angeles OWNER: Mary Morrison, Athens, Ohio The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Chris Norby, representing Independent Outdoor Advertising, appeared before the Commission. He distributed packets to the Commission which contained photographs of the outdoor signs whichhiscompany sivehas produced. He stated that his company 1 to environmental needs by developing small attractive outdoor advertising signs. Mr. Norby stated that they would be willing to install the proposed sign on a one year probationary period- eriod- fie stated that if there should be any opposition to the sign from the community during such time, they would take the sign down. He stated that they would like the opportunity to demonstrate to the community that this type of sign is very unobtrusive and attractive. -2- 41 � co�slONE July 8, 1982 c it New cart Beath ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Norby stated that the granting of the exception permit is necessary to protect a substantial property right. He stated that the existing wall, sign identifying the "Minute King" market will be obstructed by the proposed expansion of the Heritage Bank on the adjacent property. He ,stated that the proposed sign would restrict adver�..i,sing, to only those products sold in the market. He stated that they would also be willing to mount the sign on the current pole, thereby combining the two signs. Fie stated that this would still come within the.200 square foot sign restriction currently on the property. Motion X All Ayes X X iid Mrs. . Louise Greeley, representing the Board of Directors of Newport CrestHomeowners Association, appeared before the Commission and submitted a letter of opposition. She stated that the proposed signs at 1526 Placentia Avenue and 332 North Newport Boulevard, would require a variance from the present Zoning Code and that they would add to the already existing visual pollution. She then urged denial of the proposed signs in Exception Permit No. 10 and Exception Permit No. 11. Mr. William Laycock, Current Planning Administrator, stated that if the applicant were to place the signs on one pole sign which would not exceed 200 square feet in area, an exception permit would not be necessary. Fie stated that the exception permit is being requested to allow the second pole sign on the property. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Laycock stated that a painted or illuminated sign on a building constitutes a sign and is calculated in the square footage of the sign requirements. Motion was made for denial of Exception Permit No. 10, subject to the following Findings, which MOTION CARRIED: FINDINGS: 1. That the granting of this exception permit is not necessary to protect a substantial property right inasmuch as adequate signage could be provided on the site in conformance with the Sign Ordinance. N 1 1 1 MINUTES connnt SSIONERS. �`e . 'July 1982 s : _, c Cr 7 a x o �. CD city Qf Nev�port Beach 1 -. INDEX ROLL, CALF g, The proposed sign is contrary to the purpose of in that the existing'pole'sign, the Sign Ordinance be h in enlarged within the, limits set fort could the Code enlarovide for additional advertising or to P identification. 3. That the proposed advertisement pole �moralse detrimental to the health,;safety, peace, residing comfort. and general welfare of persons or be detrimental . and working in the neighborhood injurious to property and improvements in the or neighborhood or the general welfare of the City for inasmuch as a precedent would be established similar signs elsewhere in the City. Request to install a 6 foot x 12 foot, double-faced off -site advertising sign mounted on an 8 foot high pole on property located in the C-1-•H District. I,OCAT ION I,ot 9, Tract No. 1136, located at 332 North Newport HouleVard, on the easterly side of North Newport Boulevard between Beacon Street and Catalina Specific in nPthe Old Newport Boulevard Sp lan Area. ZONE: \ C-1-H APPLICANT: Independent Outdoor Advertising, os Angeles OWNER: Fran s Mears, Newport Beach The public hearing opene�in connection with this item and tor. Chris Norby, repre. nting Independent Outdoor Advertisir_y, appeared before�e Commission. Mr. Norby stated that the proposed signs do not require a Code. H ;tated that both of variance from the Zoning cent Sign the proposed signs are permitted unetheofurexception .Ordinance but require the appro permits. -4- Item #2 EXCEPTION PERMIT N0. 11 I `DENIED Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 9266;i Honorable Commissioners, We strongly support Staff's recommendation to deny approval of the re- quest for a double-faced advertising sign on a nine foot pole at 1526 Placentia Avenue and a six foot by twelve foot double -faced sign mounted on a -fight foot high pole at 332 North Newport Boulevard. Since tnt;;,. signs would require a variance from the present zoning code, and sins.:: they :would add to already existing visual pollution, we urge your denial of these requests. With appreciation for your service to our community. Cordially, BOARD OF DIRECTORS /L r r (Mrs.) Louise S. Greeley, Sec'y LSG/ j h �j W. williant Ward Senio Planner WWW:kln Attachments: Original Staff Report with Attachments for Exception Permit 10 dated June 24, 1982. t a ni m a s a•� MINUTES June ,24, 1982 It o� N rt each RILL.CANINQEX " 5. That the Police Department has indicated that they do not contemplate any problems. 6. The approval of Use Permit 198y, (Amended) 11 not under the circumstances of the par cular case, be detrimental to the healt safety,' peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neig hood of such proposed use .and be detrimental r injurious to property and improvements 2 the neighborhood and the general welfare o he City. CONDITION: 1. That all previous applicab conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 1 3 shall apply to this approval except tha only two on -site parking spaces shall be r wired for �.rmaining the existing restaurant use. All on -site parking spaces shall be used fdr` the other existing residential and commercial uses on the property. - aced Item'#8 Request to install a 6 foot x 12 foot, double-faced advertising sign on a 9 foot high pole on a site in the Unclassified District where one pole sing currently exists. The Zoning Code permits only one pole sign per EXCEPTION site. PERMIT N6. LOCATION: A portion of the First Addition to the 10 Newport Mesa Tract, located at 1526 Placentia Avenue, on the easterly side of Placentia Avenue between 15th StreetContinued and Production Place, in the West t0 JU1 Newport Triangle. g� 1982 ZOiVE: Unclassified -35- Mot on x All �Ayes X X X X X X LOCATION: Lot 9, Tract No. 1136, located at 332 North Newport Boulevard, on the easterly side of North Newport Boulevard between Beacon Street and Catalina Drive, in the \ Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan Area. ZONE: \ C-1-H APPLICANT:\ofthe nt Outdoor Advertising, es OWNER: ears, Newport Beach At the requlicant, due to the lateness of the hour, Motion was maZ to continue this item to the Planning Commission Meeting of July 8, 1982, which MOTION CARRIED. -36- \ EXCEPTION' PERMIT NO. Continued tom 8, 1982 TO: Planning.Commission The, proposed"advertising pole sign, may not be consistent with the; purpose of the `Sign Ordinance as set forth in Section 20.06.020 of :the Code Specifically, the purpose of the Sign, Ordinanc.,means for' e is 'co ". provid Sta f, does not adequate identification and advertisement of, businesses. agree with the applicants contention that the loss of. wall ,,sign'adentifying the business should be compensated by ,permitting an .additional."advertising pole sign identifying a product or products which may, be ;four., :sale :in the establishment. As previously indicated the existing.pole sign iddiscretianary market -could be enlarged Lo<a maximum"of 200 sq.ft. without any eate ,action. Expansion of the existing pole �� n coml ensa ate,, for the-loss:o,f lthe to traffic on Placentia Avenue and more P existing wall sign. Specific Findings and Recommendations Section'2C.06.090 of then Municipal''Code provides that�the Commission must find that the granting of an exception is necessary to protect a substantial property right, will not be contrary to the purpose of this Chapter as herein to the health, safety, set forth, and will not be materially detrimental comfort, or general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood, or detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the City, Staff is of the opinion that the granting of this exception permit is not necessary to protect a substantial property right. The proposed advertising Ordinance inasmuch as adequate sign is contrary to the purpose of the Sign signage exists on the subject property to identify or advertise the existing market without an additional _pole sign advertising the the products sold established Generale the Plan facility. It should also be noted that one g reserve and Policies relative to community design is to, among other things, p enhance the visual character and image of the community through the development of suitable sign controls. It is staffs opinion that the establishment of multiple pole signs which do not advertise or identify.a specific business within the City, serveonlyto increase visual clutter and thereby degrade the visual character and image of the City. It is staff's request may establish a precedent further opinion that the approval of this r for similar signs elsewhere in the City and would therefore be detrimental to the neighborhood and the City. Staff recommends the denial of this request subject to the Findings for Denial set forth in Exhibit "A". However, if it is the desireof the Planning Commission to approve this request, the Findings and Conditions of Approval set, forth in Exhibit "B" are provided. a t: ..R;1 •J :•+ant • �. .'1.: t - ��1_ 1Iy � •d•'ti ' �4 . � 1 � •'titb� J i :f.� -'- �_- - '• ..ter - ... :`PLAN REVIEW.:,REQUEST Date Jug©, 1982 Sri PLA ING,DIVISION _ADVANCE PUBLIC WORKS.';DEPARTMENT X PLANS ATTACIIED' ,(PLEASE RETURN `I,I TRAFFIC "ENGINEER FIRE`DEPART!-IENT _PLANS ON FILE IN PLANNING DEPT; PLAN REVIEW DIVISION PARX.S` &, RECREATION POLICE` DEPARTMENT• MARINE :,SAFETY GRADING APPLICATION OF Independent.Outdoor Advertising: FOR Exception Permit No. 10 Request to', install a 6' x ;12' 'advertising sign on a 9' pole on a'' site in the Unclassified District,.where.one pole` sign currently exists. The Zoning' Code permits only one pole sign per.site. ON PROPERTY LOCATED-AT:-1526 Placentia Ave.. REPORT REQUESTED BY: June 10,`1982 COMMISSION REVIEW: June 24, 1982 COMMENTS: A/0 v DATE �'� /�`" . ca � SIGNATURE c�Yl'L . 71, J-H SIDEWALK.