HomeMy WebLinkAboutEXCEPTION PERMIT 14EXCEPTION PERMIT APPLICATION
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT No. CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION ApplicatioD,Rec`'Y <,
3300 Newport Boulevard
Fee:
S G
Newport Bear'h, CA 92663
(714) 640-22.18 or 640-2219
Phone Rt �-
Applicant (print) CA
Mailing Address y7(ALA C era taw C -
/� Phone -7/S- 9EJP"- rat'
Property Owner /�c Lz PQs) RG� -
Mailing Address -' q-31 6t!:* 72 14 �'JT)'-6
6 DE, m
Address of Property Involve
Purpose of Application (describe fully)_ Pl-gMt5 rory
Zone (' 1 Present Use
Legal Description. of Property Involved (if too long, attach separate sheet)
tram to e purpose of the Si n Ordinance7S"wri
Why will proposal not be contrary the w, t; p<0.�
C7%cl kM' ecu- dn� -
Sevt�
(�
�
Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances involved.
-f.
Why is an exception permit necessary to protect a substantial) property �riighhtt?.
y tr-A , p'
t 11 K n Ir
?S4�
Why will proposal not
` be d (etri men{taall S o' the nei ghborhood._��_ r 1 Q
1 r T_ w _ I 1 C a� a— CLS 4, "� ` �S I �'ce � 0. �iLs 35�
vtk I., (A c�{ 1
CIK�'�
OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT
(J depose and say that (I -am)
(I) (We)
(we are) the owner s o*te proper ty ies invvolvedinstais appsicationswers�hereinf contain
certify, -under penalty of perjury, that thelforegoing
and the ��nformation herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of .
(my) (our) knowledge and belief.
Signature (s) ''
NOTE: An agent may sign for the owner if written �Gthorization from the record owner is
filed with the application. ��
r
COMMISSIONERS
icy'' 1984 MIMIlTES
�,....
It
Beach.
a, 3..5 •�. w .: «
CALLiac
Requests for.Continuances
Staff reported that the following agenda items are being
recommended for continuance:
em No. 3 (Resubdivision No. 765 and Use Permit
No. 76) is recommended for continuance to the
Plannin 'ommission meeting of June 7,.1984.
Item No. 4 (Use rmit No. 1581) (Amended) is recom-
mended for continua ee to the Planning. Commission
meeting of May 24, 198�i.
3095 3
Item No. 6 (Use. Permit No. . is recommended
for continuance to the Planning Co ssion meeting
of May 24, 1984.
`
Motion x Motion was made to continue Agenda Item No. 3 to t e,`
All Ayes Planning Commission meeting of June 7, 1984, and to con
tinue Agenda Items Nos. 4 and 6 to the Planning Commiss
meeting of May 24, 1984, which MOTION CARRIED.
-Exception Permit No. 14 (Discussion) Item #1
- Request to permit the installation of a roof -mounted pole Exception'...
sign on an existing commercial building located in the Permit 14
C-1 District. The proposed sign will also project 3 feet
over the public right-of-way. Denied
LOCATION: A portion of Lot 5, Block M, Tract No. 323,
located at 2756 East Coast Highway, on the
northeasterly side of East Coast Highway,
between Goldenrod Avenue and Heliotrope
Avenue, in Corona del Mara
i
ZONE: C-1
CQMMiSSiOP� may' ,` 1984' '.
a `s
b m
cr
bf
(�.
I�
Commissioner Winburn stated that although she was not
1-9,
i
present at the Planning Commission meeting of April
discussed,
1984 when Exception Permit .No..14'was previously
she has read the minutes of that meeting.
Robert Forstrom, Applicant, appeared before the Planning
Commission and discussed the background of this request.
Mr. Forstrom advised that he has"revised his signage plans
and is now proposing to erect'a four -foot -high parapet
6' by
wall along the roof of the, structure and to attach a
4''sign thereto. Mr. Forstrom added that he is requesting -
an exception of 12" from the estab,iyshed projection limit
to enable him to, install a 6' by 4' sign. During the
course of his presentation, Mr-Forstrom commented that a
3' b -5' sign would be inadequate to meet his needs'par-
y
at w it competi-
titularly in light of the signa ge associated
tive ice cream stores in the area, and the obstructions
that exist which would limit the visibility of a sign at
the subject location.
Chairman King relayed his position that the Applicant
a 5' by 4' sign, which would not require
should conform to
an exception permit.
Motion was made to deny Exception Permit No. 14, subject
Motion
x
to the Findings contained in Exhibit "A", which MOTION
All Ayes
CARRIED.
Findings:
1. That the location of the business does not preclude
the effective use of permitted signs.
2. That a five-foot projecting sign, as permitted by the
Sign Code, is adequate to identify the business to
passing vehicular traffic.
3.That the granting of such an exception permit is not
necessary to protect a substantial property right,
20.06 of
will be contrary to the purpose of Chapter
Municipal Code, and will be materially detrimental,
the
to the health, safety, comfort or general welfare of
persons residing in the neighborhood, and detrimental
or injurious to property or improvements in the
neighborhood, and to the general welfare of the City.
-3-
i s i S r
i
'o
OF
�
r. �.. Planning : Cdimisston' Me®Ting M&S►; 10 `, • 1984
t' ..i �.�.• ;k
Agenda 'Item` No. a,
x CITY OF'=NEWPORT ,BEACH
TOs' .Planning Commission
FROM: Planning,D60artmen't'
SUBJECT:'.:t - r Exception` Permit `No. 14 ' (Continued' Discussion)
Request to permit°the installation of .a roof mounted
pole sign on an existing commercial. buildin4`1•06ated in
the C-1 District. The prcpos d.�.sign Vill also project
3 feet over the public right-of-way.
LOCATION: A portion of Lot 5,Block M, Tract No. A23; `::located at
2756 East ,Coast .Highway, on they northeasterly` side of
East Coast Highway, between Goldenrod Avenue and
Heliotrope Avenue„ in Corona:de'l Mar.'
ZONE: C-1
APPLICANT: Robert Forstrom, La Canada
'OWNER': -Alex-Pourgol,.Huntington Beach
Background
The Planning: Commission reviewed this application 'at its ` meeting of
April 19, -1984. During the hearing, the Commission expressed a
reluctance to approve the proposed roof sign.°.''This:'item was=Gontinued
for three weeks so as to allow time for the applicant to work with
staff and the Commissioners in an �ttempt to arrive ••ate'- °`smaller sign,
and at the same time, accomplish the applicant's goals for adequate
identification. A copy of the April 19, 1984, Staff Report -'.and an
excerpt of the Draft Planning Commission Minutes for April 19, 19841,
are_aftached:.for Commissionareview.
Analpsis
The applicant now proposes to install a projecting sign on the
building, instead of a roof sign. An Exception Permit.'Ji still
required inasmuch as the proposed sign encroaches further over the
f
(4)
AwN,u 6
1
Planning_Commission_Meeting�-Apti .1984
Agenda,'Item
:CITY' OF'� NEWPORT•. BEACH
TO:
Planning Commission .
FROM:
Planning Department
SLWECT..:
Exception .Permit+No `�14,7 (Discussion):
Request 'to permit the -':installation 'of,!A roof ,mdunted
pole si.gri ;on `an -, existing t'commercial building 'located', -in
'
the' C-1-: Distri Ct: The,::proposed °sign .will also project
3 . feet"'over the pudic right-of-way,::,
of;Lot 5 Block M,,,-TrictNo.'323,locatdaLOCATION: A _iortion `
`t
on thertheaterly2756 East Coast Highway; side'of"
East Coast Highway, between Goldenrod Avenue and
Heliotrope Avenue, in Corona del Mar.
ZONE: C-1
APPLICANT: Robert' Forstrom',` La Canada
OWNER: Alex Pourgol, Huntington Beach
Application
This application is a request to permit cons truction' of a'roof ,mounted
pole sign on an existing commercial building'. ,The proposed sign will
also project 3 feet over the public right-of-way. Section 20.06.070
of the Newport Beach=Municipal Code provides that roof 'signs may be
allowed through an exception permit by the "Plann`ing'Commission. Sign
exception procedures are set forth in Section 20.06.090 of the
Municipal Code. -
Environmental'Significance
This project has been ."reviewed','� and it-has'been determined that it is
categorically exempt under Class 11 (Accessbry''Structures) 'from the
requirements of 'the:California Environmental Quality Act
Conformance with'the General Plan•
The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for
"Retail and Service Commercial" uses. ` The recently 'established ice
creamshop' on the property is permitted' within these- land use
designations upon securing a use permit.
�sz
Analysis ;
The applicant is proposing to erect a roof mounted double faced pole
sign on the existing building. The information: below compares•. the
or roof signs in
roof sign with the standards established f
proposed Code._,.;
Section 20.06.070,E of the Zoning:
code.:,;
;.:Code.Requirement: No taller ;than the building is tall,.
not to;-,exceed:l5:,feet,,abope.main portion of:,roof:
,
.,Proposed Sign: Building height ,is 14 feetj>height,of sign
is 8,feet above flat roof
Proje_� n
Code Requirement: No sign shall project, more,than;5 feet•,over
not project to'within 2 feet of the
public property and may ter, the
' ct..to ;all ,limitations.:in;:this-�Chap-
curb•.line. .Subje public
property or ,beyond
distance.,any,: sign; may: Project over, p
the building lineJs goyerned.by=the.following,tab e:
8'to 10'to ,- 12'to 141to 161and
: 10'
Distance Above Sidewalk or 12'...-.141. 16' Up
Grade Immediately Below Sign
Maximum Projection Over Property
4' 5'
Line or,.Building Line:,
1' 21 31
Proposed Sign:
Height of Sign 18'
Above Sidewalk:
Projection Over Property 3'
Line:
TO
P'1 nq Commission
,noted '
a of.gn.;meets `or;:exaeeiis `'a11TOV1dese that aroof signs
The propose ._ro ..
above. However, Sectlon' 20 Q6 070,8 also p, lacatiah ' of 'a{business
ir' instances' where the t pro acting
'allowed on"ly si round; sign ar gates`" with
shall be `of a' potle gn g
` ermined only on building _ ht
precludes°`Ythe"effectiees qe not exceed a hag
d"and'PQ ns are P
sign: .Group + said signs may , act'
property
c 50 -foots frontage. . , The subjr
a minimum liway;`go a"9xound oz
feet, andy'�not`�''exceed =200' sq rEastCoastaHig
e °n h there' -:does `not"appear .
maintains 'Spy feet' 'of frontag althoug { . sructu"res
kcostld be '`installed" on site, at'this
. `
pole sign sign
ate 'room %due' to,;,the location of '`the existing
adequ erntit the usej of a pro j acting
to,: be from the' store
Coc?ei would also P ;
The coning hcation'were`5to`xemove the'ae lendicular to the
locations _I f ;ttie aPP r , mount a"'sign p+ rP roof .`"'f ' the
v,rould;' be possible to .
:at :: n could ' `extend above the ht-of WaY
4 front. Th1s `'sag public,, rig
building face. ro ect over the P .„ QC`ton of
porting building, and could p 7 for,'the-prof
supP criterla;,outlned;.previ'ously
subject to the .'seine .
roof signs.
` Su rt
Statement of_
Vlicant's Newport Beach' Municipal
B of the Newp, Commission
Exception Permit, the Planning protect a
In accordance` witoh Soan2 Excep i r ' s necessary
Code, in order t grant ranting. of such permit 1 se of
will not be contrary to the puxl?O.
must fend that the g right, Will not' be materially
substantial property forth, and welfare of
this` Chapter as herein set .fort' or general.
safety, comfort, urious to
detrimental to the health, hborhood or'detrimental or ,injurious
general
in the neig -the neighborhoodor to the
persons "'residing
improvements in
property;., or``
welfare of the City.
findings, the applicant has submitted the
above application:
In response to the support of'this ape
following statements in se of the Sign
to the u
r� osal not be contra engineered and designed to
Wh will rofessionally
ordi_ n?
sign will be `P of Lexan, a non -breakable' material.
ensure safety. It will be made the same manner as the store is an
It will be an asset to the area in
asset. in -
circumstances involved? versuseelevation
1 with` the' City vs,size
ExcQ tional or'extraor Ina ire'd`
the elevation' required''to comp Y
requirement,
structural support mounted°on the roof is raga
rmit necessa to' rotect a substantial rO ea
Wh is:an
exce tion a tree on one side -`and balsa
ri ht7,.= Store front 'is blocked ` by' The ''pr�uct sold `is' an imp
--'�"— le and wires on the other. sign in order, to . initiate that
telephone Po
item and the
customers need to see .a
impulse.. sign will
sal not be detrimental to t ve ne i �w111 be of the same
Wh will ro attracts design
be in very good taste and signed by a professional graphics
design Ca.) and constructed by a
quality as the store,. of Montrose,
company (Total Graphic signs
of Glendale).
professional sign builder (Empire Sig
17,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DAMES D. HEWICKER, Director
By_v�sl
Sheri Vander Dussen
Associate Planner
svD:kln
Attachments: Excerpt from Planning Commission Minutes dated
November 10, 1983
vicinity Map
Plot Plan, Elevations, Structural Plan
ing c7a.-
) i. d
t •r ' x G s EXHIBIT "gn
N
FINDINGS i.AND .CONDITION$ OF. APPROVATi
EXCEPTION PERMIT NO' 14
i<AvkJ" Jal..illY�Vt +?7�
� ")- .`'S•n, t a.i (UGC b'�fS M . {
Sc j •.
Y{ :'bri•t rye x., 5 c
a Findings:
{ 4.
1. That the location of the business precludes, the'
effective used,;of a:-groundV° signs _poke 'sign;: or
4 i
4 2. That the -proposed roof sign will be no taller han
the,:;allowable.height of a pole sign,"which would
rperctbe ;:permitted �om'''the subjety:° withoutr
Planning Commission approval:`'
3 .. That the °'granting `of such ' an `exception .permit is
necessary to protect' a-7'substantial : property right,
will not, be. ,:.contrary ..;:to.....the purpose . off- ;this
_
Chapter as herein set forth, and-, will , not; be ..,
materially detrimental' to, the health', safety,
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.
Conditions:
I. _ That development, shall;:.be in substantial;:
conformance with the approved plot plan 'and
elevations.-;,,.
-- - 2,. ,That,albuilding;permit be obtained for,' the awning. s
The awning must comply with Section 4506, df tte
1979 Uniform Building Code.
3,. ;,That a :: building ° `permit ' be' obtained for' 'the
installation of the roof sign. `.
4. That an encroachment permit be obtained from the
California Department of Transportation prior to
issuance' of'building`permits'for the yawning or the
roof' sign'.`
r
November 10115,83 �rw
o a„1pto
Crty of ; I�le�npor_
p M
INDE r_
t.
i. .
CO IONS:
' z be in substantial
1. t elopmnt,,: • shall .
conformance th..the;:appioved plot plan. floor
plans and el ons, except as may 'be noted
r'
• below. �• •
all,,.1 of Resubdivision
That,;; conditions _>of app
`
No..,754 be fugfilled
a each
3. That;,.,two garage spaces shall, be provide
dwelling unit.
�u es.t' to establisYi a" take-out ice cream shop on
Item #16
property located in the C-1, District, and to waive all
of the required off-street parking spaces.
:LOCATION: Lot S; Block M, Tract No.`323, located
at - 2756 'East ''Coast Highway, on the
northeasterly'` side' of East Coast
USE PERMIT.,
Highway, between Goldenrod Avenue and
NO. 3070
?.Fernleaf.Avenue, in•Corona del Mar,
ZONE
.;APPLICANT: Robert W !Forstromj' La Canada
OWNER: Alex Pourgal, Huntington Beach
The`,public hearing opened in.connection with this item
and Mr. Robert Forstrom, the. applicant, appeared before
the Comi:ssion and requested approval of this item.
Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 3070,
subject to the following findings and conditions, which
MOTION CARRIED:
-62-
APPROVED
CONDI-
TIONALLY
t
�• t.,
�
�n
�•
�� �,�..txr::�< d��y. A � � � �t � =� � � � INDEX
�
�IrLi. �" A�L�'
s •,*'zas�ii;�
l'%•
,ifs
1;+
x;S.Vj .nYY r,.av 0 vNu ,: ,-• ,•
FINDINGS ri t
Y
1. That. the proposed development is consistent with
the Land Use Element of the General;% Plar1 and the
x
adopted aLocal-.i Coastal -Program •_'Land [use Plan, and
is compatible with surrounding l�;rad uses.;.
t
2 .,The project. wi11•,not have `ariy significant
4
X:
environmental impact. s i
3... , .That ,.the.. waiver .>of :;the °developnierit ,standards as
they pertain to parking, parking lot illumination,
r
circulation,.:walls;,.; landscaping and utilities,
4
t. L
;will„.be;;,,of,::;no,'sfurther;� detriment to ;adjacent
$
%
properties inasmuch as,s,the site hasrbeen developed
3
and the structure has been in existence ;for many
years..
5�
4. ,♦flat the,,, proposed ; .,use,..does not represent an
intensification, of use :,that will. result. ,in an
;
increased parking demand, the area:
{
5 The approval,, of: Use Permit No.3070 will not,
,
under the circumstances of ,this ;case, be
detrimental to the health, safety,;peace.' morals,
comfort, and :.general , welfare of ;persons 'residing
an&•working;,in theeneighborhood, or;be detrimental
or, injurious to property .and improvements in the
neighborhood or -the general welfare of the City.?
CONDITT NIS:
s
s
1. ..-That development.' shall be in substantial
conformance.;,with.the'approved plot `plan and floor
plan, and elevations.
2. That,. the, development; standards related ;to a
all of the required toff -street; parking, spaces,
parking lot illumination, building `. setbacks,
circulation,,,;.walls ,- landscaping,` and ;utility
requirements,;are'waived.
3. ..That no on -sale or off -sale alcoholic beverages be
Bald on the premises unless 'the
.or,;'consumed:
Planning Commission approves an amendment to this
use permit.
-53-
i
..
�� ..
r [�I/^1Ai(i ;. 'k3✓`':,i4a"r v .�#�i; a s
J3RJ��ILn MINUTE` `''
( M , ,
F •~' '. ll F�� *�O/ -.♦ :. 1 ': �Sk�+s}} 'Y1 �t2itlk R4b'iM ;Yl wt S
November 10 1983
ems. :• t �, > j■Tr �. � � t
ityl_
F;; ..n:..m>n. ,,,. new, s.r.. a„h,. y t'"++ 1"•+...4..'4.k+ _v.'!s.'',3 srfa.'u^.+'' ecia?;Y3'31..,t,fE"s;, .::', .
ROIL CAI
i ?
r
c
4. That the hours of open-iion'shall be restricted to
the hours` between 11:00 a.m. to 12}00 midnight,
daily.. as
5. ;That there sha114 lie =ra 'seating on the' premises
y
j
6 That `all signs shall conform with; the'requizeaenta
of Chapter 20'.06:''of the` Newport Beach Municipal
Code. rs s
r,, 7. That,a trash°compactor shall be installed.
„.g. That all trash, including" compacted trash bags and
z
reayclab'.e`containers, shall be atored,aithinj the
building until 'they `are ` fo be picked up -
9. That no cooking, or* any 'food preparation= other
than ice cream or related products,; shill be
permitted'' in'``the take=out restaurant facility
unless an amended use permit is approved by�the
City, 'at .a later date: Said ,amendment could
require the addition of kitchen exhaustifans,
washout aieas'`for'trash containers, and 'grease
interceptors.
10. That the'. sidewalk on
=fast Coast Highway sh'sll be
kept clean =and zegularly maintained: Said
sidewalk shall ,be, swept-, vacuumed or washed in
such :.a manner that`a any:' debris or waste ;water does
s
not enter the storm drain system.; �.
i 11. That trash receptacles shall be provided; in
1 convenient=locations inside and? outaide' of the
subject building:'
12. That all mechanical equiprent shall: be :,screened
from East;Coast Highway,` the adjoining ,alley,"and
properties.
13. That the Planning Conuission may add and/or modify
Conditions of, Approval `to this use; permit upon a
determination that the operation,. which° is the
subject of this use "permit, causes injury ;or is
detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of
the community.
77f
DISTRICTING =.•MAP
NEWPORT BEACH = 'CALIFORNIA
-• AMIOYLYUPAL 09549 YTI/L YITI►Lt Nsim"TYa ..
-� &so=FAYlT/ffDdfTILL
-2 OY/«i NUEN)" l - C-f GRMi11Al COYYIIIWI
Gp1/Ntfi/ PfTAKT _ YMGIAtfM�fD _ '?,./fG-f/.tfb YAI�. N0.
xc.e��cr--qn Permit No.: !4
GE LATD--*r- LA 5 -5 1 C.Ql 7
ICE- C.-AEAM S70.'2C
STOZIF
zi
AGE
3 i
f F
i
r16 u
SIDEWALK_
C.O A_'5.T u\*.Ly
100 FT
PLar ¢Lam
sCALE I" : I o'
Sfr
4
C
rl
GEL,ATO CLASSIC-0
-1 G E C.WA M S'rO (Z
('J.. PO Z5xMQ _l
47MV LA CA#AA-OA-.':GMM__-
Z13-M-11M om zll=-mo-9ry"
' 7 ,.
;
�
�
S �.'�o
�
� � � 7,fiyt,V, .y t � �� •^' �r � di�.Au�►i� i F � r F f a .:
e r. a wr f
1.
T.
Ai
LU
3
1 1
C t {
�
,S o;S • pi
r
`
Exception'Permit'No. l4 (Discussion)
Item
`to' `the installation' of a` roof -mounted, pole
L►Stceptir ;r'
Request` p"ermz C°
bsilding`locted in the C=1
T'ermit N.
17,
'..
-'sign on'`an existing commercial
-:District: Ttie prop`oseUsign,'will also project 3.:feet 'over
14
,.
i;. I 1
the public right -of --way.' "
Continue,`
'
�'.
LOCATION,: �' A Portion of dot 5,' Block M,k,:Tract 4Na 323,
to Ma lt� `
Y_
•
..
t
located' -at 2756 Sist' Coast Highway; on „the
1984
>
nortHeasfierlq snide of East Cba.staHighway,
s
between .Goldenrod avenue and" Hgl iotirape!, r
Avenue, `ii: Corona del Mar. '
ZONE . i C T' '•
`
, • orstrom, La Canada, '
APPLICANT: ttobert F
r
OWNER.''' Aiex PourgoI' Huntington Beach
The public hearing was opened in'connection'.;witt this item
and Robert Forstrom, Applicant, appeared beforethe :Plan-
ning'Commission� Mr Forstrom reviewed`the'.alternatives;.
he''has investigated in an attempt'=to seek aviatle solution
to his signage problem.' Mr ; �' Forstrom advised that the,
store, presently .has a small; `neon" window sign : that is yisi-
bid from approximately 25 feet from ttie southerly direction
,,
?..
;and approximately50 feeC from the northerly: direction.
as
Mr Forstrom-,,fble 'that' -a larger 'sign is, needed inasmuch
he is at'a significant" onomic`disadvantage in ;light of
'
the visibility associated with competitive ice cream'
ed t hat he a s: r o,
. F or st ro m a d d P
stores in;ahe area. Mr. -
posing a 4''by 6'. sign.
Commissioner King questioned whether Mr. Forstrom had con-
sidered'the store's visibility situation prior' to opening
the business. Mr: Forstrom responded that tie 'did not
understand the City's sign ordinance at that time and
the.. .
added that he was not aware that a sign erected ,on
face of the building would be viewed as a roof sign-
front
Current Planning Administrator Laycock clarified that a
sign situated on the front portion of,the'.building'.would,
not be considered a roof sign , unless it were placed'atiove
the roof.. Mr. Laycock added that if the sign were situa=
ted below the roof, it would 'be considered.a projecting
sign, which does not require an Exception `.Permit'.
41
Yam;
C .
7[ Gl s
�
{
Exce Lion Permit No. 14 (Discussion) Itett 12
nstallation of`'a roof -mounted pole
Request to permit the iExcssft�on`
located in the'C-1. Permit No..
'
sign. on an'existing commercial building
`The sign will also project 3 feet over 14
District. proposed
the public right-of-way. Continued'
Trace No. '323, `to � 10, ,
LOCATION: A portion of ,Lot 5, Block M, 1984
located at 2756 East Coast Highway, on.the
northeasterly side of'East .Coast Highway,
between.Goldenrod Avenue and Heliotrope`
Avenue, in.Corona Mar.
ZONE: C-1
APPLICANT: - Robert Forstrom, La Canada
OWNER:: Alex Pourgol, Huntington Beach
1fie public hearing was opened in connection with this item
and Robert Forstrom, Applicant, appeared before the Plan-
a
ning Commission. Mr. Forstromrev i e d the alternatives
`in a viable solution
he has investigated an attempt to seek
that the
to his signag6 problem. Mr. Forstrom advised .
presently has a small, neon window sign that is visi-
store
ble'from approximately 25 feet from the southerly direction
and approximately 50 feet from Che,northerly direction.
Mr. Forstrom felt that a larger, sign is needed inasmuch as
in light of
he is at a significant economic disadvantage
the visibility associated with competitive ice cream
stores in the area. Mr. Forstrom added that he is pro-
fir
posing; a ' by 6' sign.
Commissioner King questioned whether Mr. Forstrom had con-
sidered the store's visibility situation prior to opening ,
the business. Mr. Forstrom responded that he did not
understand the City's sign ordinance at that time and.
added that he was not aware that a sign erected on the
the building would be viewed as a roof sign..
front face of
Current Planning Administrator Laycock clarified that a
would
sign situated on the front portion of the building
it above
not be considered a roof sign, unless were placed
the roof. Mr. Laycock added that if the sign were situa-
ted below the roof, it would be considered a projecting
sign, which does not require an Exception Permit.
-72-
•
t:rl
F=ems
In view of: the height of the building, Mr. Forstrom voiced`.
concern that a 'sign situated on the front face of the
structure would be limited to approximately 3'.`by .2', which
hQ`felt,wduld be unrecognizable from.'more,than 25 or`30
feet away:,
Commissioner King noted the close intensification of busi
nesses in the area and voiced concern with the setting of
a. precedent which would result in a proliferation of.com
petitive signs.
CurrentPlanning Administrator"Laycock pointed.out that
the;Sign Code: would allow a projecting sign that is 14'
`above the sidewalk to encroach 4' over the property line.
During the course of discussion, the Plaaning Coemission
noted various signage options, including the possibility
of parapet walls and awning identifications
Mr. Forstrom pointed out that Gelato Classico Italian Ice
Cream is a franchised business and pointed out that the
name must be advertised in a specific tradewQrk fashion.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission �.,.At there
are signage options available to the: Applicant; therefore,
motion was made to continue this item to the Planning Com-
x x mission meeting of May 10, 1984, so as to allow time for
the Applicant to work with`st.aff and the Commissioners in
an attempt to `arrive at a teller sign Lind at the same time
accomplish the Applicant's goals for adequate signage of
his business, which MOTION CARRIED.
k -- -
PLANNING.DEPARTMENT
PLAN REVIEW,
REQUEST r.
Date .Apri'1.2; 1984
ADVANCE'PLANNING DIVISION•
1.;?,• U$KS..`LIC WORDEPARTMENT;: '.,
X PLANS ATTACHED';(PLEASE RETURN)
RAFFIC'ENGINEER .'
`FIRE DEPARTMENT
PLANS ON FILE IN PLANNING DEPT.`
tPLAN REVIEW DIVISION
"—PARKS 0 RECREATION
POLICE DEPARTMENT
MARINE:SAFETY
".."'GRADING
APPLICATION OF Robert Forstrom''
FOR Exception Permit No. 14
Request to permit the installation of a.roof mounted pole sign on:an, existing
commercial building located in the C-1-;District. The proposed sign will also,
ra ect.3 feet over -the public right-of-way.
IOCATED AT: 2756 East Coast Highway; Lot 5, Block M, Tract 323.
REPORT REQUESTED BY: April 6, 1984
COMMISSION REVIEW: April'. 19, '1984
COMMENTS: ��r�>r7%.+/C7�Y% r�;�. / /T/(7i✓.
j !% f;'�.Gtf. %r'� t�s( �.
% ?iC%iGT' .Qicl ..��,r/Cyr��J (''..sl�'�%""/t�T
� 1'�i�f � ;7"" ✓ )..,"-'. !.'�/C`�i`J .,y....^',G'
/`".l,�i�'7.�1 ���-'i�ryL//'�'.Gi(.A//�IJ.GC �iC�/'��,:
,/�--,.;r/ .a'— �' � � �•,4,t/1%`�,t��'�� :—:;ca•.;,/
~_
.,�Y REGFrVFp 2
ul
AP AEA: 3
6 Nwpokr °FyAll*
Signature 7
Date
CITY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PLAN REVIEW REQUEST
Date
April 2 1984
ANC :ADVE PLANNING DIVISION
_
UBLIC..WORKS.DEPARTMENT X:PLANS ATTACHED'(PLEASE RETURN)
ENGINEER
,7TRAFFIC
"FIRE DEPARTMENT PLANS ON FILE IN PLANNING'DEPT. '
_....
:kPLAN REVIEW bIVTSIt7N.'
SPARKS &.RECREATION
POLICE DEPARTMENT
�MARINE.SAFETY'
GRADING
APPLICATION OF Robert Forstrom
FOR Exception Permit No. ld
Request to;permit the installation of a roof mounted pole
sign ot1 an existing
commercial building located in the C-1 District., The
proposed sign will also
project 3 feet over the public right-of-way.
LOCATED AT: 2756 East Coast Highway; Lot 5, Block M,.Tract`323.
REPORT REQUESTED BY:: April 6, 1984
COMMISSION REVIEW: April 19, 1984
COMMENTS: P _ ( 1 if
C14,46 PG-p l-f i r"
_ A-1 4aeFt.� 1 T7�Ac�rt.�ln� .4%Jt, ?:r"i •/ti 7^�v�aG
A& RQX2: f l'2 =•
j r / �� CCr) �-A n I i.� r Tr r -1
114 E ? e! r I r` i FkJ Q &4
CI• S Ca Y ie-nA_y
kX wtr/lx► wcA -ACV
C7 Q L'
RECEIVED sv
,r.v
nEPT. 8
Z�
Nf:VJPOr,-OF 9
CALIF
Signature—
Date-�3
Notice is,hereby given that the Planning';Comtnission of the City a Np�vport Beach will hold A`
public. hearing on ''::.he :;..application ` of " ;Robert W. ",`: Forstrom "for E��oPtion Permit.' No 14 :on
property: located at 2756.,E. ,Coast "Highway
41
Request to permit•- the ..installation of.a roof.mounted`pole:sign;an an"existing 'commercial
building located:in,the"C-1 District..:;:The:proposed,sign.will-also.'proejct 3 feet over.the
;public right-of=way:
This project has been reviewed, and it;;has been determined that it 3.s categorically exompt'
under the requirements of the Calif orniii:Environmental Qualities Act..
Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the ' 19th day 6jf
April 1984, at the hour of,'7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the. Newport Beach City hj;,i:j
3300 Newport Boulevard,Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and" a.1.1
persons interested may appear and be,heard thereon.
James Person,, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a`
public hearing on: the application of Robert W. Forstrom for Exception Permit No. 14'on
property located at 2756 E. Coast Highway.
Request to permit the installation of a roof mounted pole sign on an existing commercial
building located in the C-1 District. The proposed sign will also proejct 3 feet over the
public right-of-way.
This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt
under the requirements of the California Environmental Qualities Act.
Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be held on the 19th day of
April 1984, at the hosr of 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall,
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all
persons interested may appear and be heard thereon.
James.Person, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Bea,:h
i
��
,.,
,���
;
,,;
�A Ga�J�A L.A
t
_. _ PmEITING DATE