Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout18 - Blockbuster Video Sign - Modification 4879� SEW PpRr o 0 C,�IfOP;��r 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 Hearing Date: Agenda Item No.: Staff Person: REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL PROJECT: Blockbuster Video Sign (Mark. Frank, contact person) 3007 East Coast Highway August 9, 1999 18 Genia Garcia (949)- 644 -3208 PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: Request to permit the installation of a roof sign on a new parapet wall where the Code limits roof signs to business locations that preclude the effective use of a pole sign, ground sign or projecting sign. SUGGESTED ACTION: Sustain the action of the Planning Commission and uphold, or modify the action of the Commission, or deny: • Modification No. 4879 Backaround The City Council called this item up for review after it received approval from the Planning Commission at its meeting of July 22, 1999. Discussion The Planning Commission first considered this item on April 22, 1999. During that hearing the Commission expressed reservations about the size of the sign proposed, the use of the "tom ticket" logo on the roof of the structure, and the quality of the sign proposed. At the conclusion of the discussion, a motion to approve the Modification was made, but failed on a tie vote (3 Ayes, 3 Noes). After the motion failed, the Commission voted to continue the item. The public hearing was re- opened on July 22, 1999, at which time the applicant and staff presented alternate sign designs. The Planning Commission then voted to approve the modification, with a limitation on the logo sign to a size of 4 feet by 8 feet. Submitted by: Prepared by: SHARON Z. WOOD PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Assistant City Manager Planning Director Pkl O k Z Attachments: Exof Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Dated July22,1999 Staff report to the Planning Commission dated April 22, 1999 Excerpt of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Dated April 22, 1999 Approved Exhibits 0 Modification No.4879 Page 2 4 City of Newport Beach DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 INDEX SUBJECT: Blockbuster Video Sign (Mark Frank, contact person) Item No. 1 3007 East Coast Highway Modification Permit No. (Continued from April 22nd, May Oh, May 2(yh , 4879 June 101h and July 81h) • Modification Permit No. 4879 Request to permit the installation of a roof sign on a new parapet wall where Approved the Code limits roof signs to the location of a business that is precluded by the effective use of a pole sign, ground sign or projecting sign. Chairperson Selich stated that at the last meeting, this item was continued for a vote only because of a potential deadlock on the Commission. Associate Planner Eugenia Garcia stated that the applicant has submitted colored photos that have been distributed. There is an additional alternative being suggested by the applicant located on page "'; which is a combination Letter Sign and Logo Sign which may be considered this evening. Public comment was opened. Mark Frank, 701 Lakme Avenue, Wilmington clarified with Commission that the alternative was a recommendation made by one of the staff members. Originally the sign was proposed to be a 5 x 10 foot torn ticket with channeled letters. However, comments were that it was too big so we reduced it to a 4 x 8 -foot logo with 9 -inch lettering. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to authorize the torn ticket, illuminated 4 by 8 -foot sign subject to the findings and conditions contained in Exhibit A. Commissioner Ashley noted a change to Condition 3 to accommodate the 4 x 8 foot sign that, the torn ticket logo sign is limited to 50 32 square feet. Commissioner Gifford concurred with this change. Ayes: Fuller, Ashley, Gifford, Kranzley and Hoglund Noes: Selich, Tucker Absent: None Abstain: None 7 4 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Modification Permit No. 4879 Findings: au'H, ion 1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Retail and Service Commercial" use. Retail and office uses with associated signs are a permitted use in this designation. 2. The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 3. The modification to the Zoning Code as proposed would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and is a logical use of the property that would be precluded by strict application of the zoning requirements for this District for the following reasons: • The subject building has a low roof (approximately 10 -11 feet) and the wall space on the front face of the building is below the eave extensions of the roof, which makes the wall area less effective for business identification purposes. • The parapet band that extends around the perimeter of the building is 32 inches, which limits the size and type of sign to block style letters or a logo sign less than 32 inches in height. This size may limit the visibilityof a sign installed on the parapet. • The parapet band is located partially above the roof and placing a sign on that band would require the approval of a roof sign. • The site has two existing pole and ground signs, which precludes an additional pole sign. • A projecting sign is difficultto achieve due to the low roof eave. 4. That the proposed roof sign will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimentalor injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code for the following reasons: The proposed sign is the some area that is permitted by code for wall signs. The luminescence of the proposed logo sign will meet the requirementsof the Uniform Building Code and the Sign Code. INDEX 0 cl 0 City of Newport Beach a DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1999 • The height of the sign parapet is less than permitted for structures in this district. Conditions: 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. The sign luminance shall meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and Section 20.67.025 of the Municipal Code. 3. The torn ticket logo sign is limited to 50 32 -sq. ft. 4. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Modification Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Modification Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Modification, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 5. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.93.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. `•, SUBJECT: BeNingen Residence (Bill Edwards, Architect) 2215 Pacific Drive (Continued from May 6, and May 20, 1999) • Variance No. 1228 Modification No. 4908 Request to approve-ci variance to permit alterations and additions to an existing non- conforming`siq le family dwelling (due -to height and parking) that will exceed the height linaLt in the 24/28 foot Height Limitation Zone by approximately 18 feet and exceed.:tre maximum allowable Floor area limit on property located in the R -1 Distn� The application also includes a modification to the Zoning Code to alOW,�a second floor bay window to encroach into the required side yard setbaZ*,prea and the roof eaves to encroach within 1 foot of the side property lines. *'"a,,, Commissioner Kranzley recused himself due to campaign donytributions made by a neighborin the vicinityof the applicant. `�a Commissioner Fuller recused himself due to his inability to review the td`peS of the previous meetings. °+� INDEX Item No. 2 Variance No. 1228 Modification Permit No. 4908 Approved 1< �E'x'POR� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: ApriIJ2, 1999 COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Agenda Item No.: 3 r'n PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: Eugenia Garcia NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3208 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 Appe al Period: 14 da s REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Blockbuster Video Sign (Mark Frank, contact person) 3007 East Coast Highway PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: Request to permit the installation of a roof sign on a new parapet wall where the Code limits roof signs to business locations that preclude the effective use of a pole sign, ground sign or projecting sign. ACTION: Approve, modify or deny: • Modification No. 4879 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1,2,3,4,6,8 and 10, Block 436, Corona del Mar Tract ZONE: RSC (Retail Service Commercial) OWNER: E. Morris Smith, Newport Beach Points and Authority • Environmental Compliance (California Environmental Quality Act) It has been determined that the project is categorically exempt under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). • Conformance with the General Plan and Zoning The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Retail and Service Commercial" uses. The subject sign is a peratitted use within this designation because it is ancillary to retail and service uses. • Modification procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 20.93 of the Municipal Code. 11 L 0 9 VICINITY MAP l >A z�. 0 l � a r s Modification No. 4879 Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses Current Development: The subject property is currently developed with a one story, multi - tenant retail center, which includes a restaurant, a take -out restaurant, a cleaners, a bank, and Albertson's supermarket To the north: Across East Coast Highway are commercial uses To the east: Along East Coast Highway are commercial uses To the south: Across First Avenue are residential uses To the west: Across Iris Avenue are commercial uses and residential uses Modification No. 4879 April 22. 1999 Page 2 1 Background Chapter 20.67.050 of the Municipal Code states that "The Modifications Committee may grant a modification permit for the height, number and area of signs not requiring an exception permit, or limited by Planned Community District regulations and to approve roof signs and off -site signs." Further, the Code states "In the event that the Modifications Committee determines that an application should properly be heard by the Planning Commission, it may refer the matter to the Planning Commission for hearing and original determination on the merits." At its meeting of March 23, 1999, the Modifications Committee held a public hearing on the subject request. As a result of the public hearing, the Committee was of the opinion that findings could be made for both approval and denial of the proposed sign and referred the request to the Planning Commission for a decision. Analysis The subject tenant space is part of a single story multi - tenant commercial building that was constructed in 1956. A building permit was issued on February 9, 1999 for a conversion of the existing tenant space from a previous food establishment to a retail video store. In addition to the interior changes, exterior changes were approved that included a new front entry, exterior fascia improvements, and the demolition of an existing 4 foot high corrugated metal parapet wall located above the roof on three sides of the building. The parapet wall was replaced with a 32 inch parapet wall and an 8 foot by 16 foot "marquee" type parapet over the entry. The marquee parapet was built for the purpose of installing a logo sign. The proposed sign is a 50 sq. ft. tom ticket logo and is internally illuminated with channel letters. Chapter 20.67.020 defines a roof sign as "a sign erected upon or above a roof or a building or structure." Since the parapet is not part of a wall of the building, it does not meet the Uniform Building Code definition of a parapet wall, and therefore the sign cannot meet the definition of a wall sign. Although the Code is not totally clear in this case, staff has determined that the proposal more closely meets the definition of a roof sign, since the sign is higher than the roof eave. Therefore, the sign requires the approval of a Modification Permit. Dimensions The as -built sign parapet is approximately 8 feet x 16 feet or 128 square feet. The proposed sign is a 5 foot x 10 foot, or 50 square foot logo sign. For the Planning Commission's consideration, the applicant has included a smaller logo sign that is 4 feet x 8 feet, or 32 square feet as an alternative to the larger sign. The Sign Ordinance permits the area of wall signs for multi -tenant buildings up to a maximum of 1.5 square feet for each lineal foot of the tenant's building frontage, up to a maximum of 50 square feet. Because the building frontage is 60 feet, a 50 square foot sign would be permitted by Code if the sign were a wall sign. Modification No. 4879 April 22. 1999 Page 3 0 Height The 32 -inch parapet spans the width of the building at the top of the roof and the sign parapet extends 5 feet 2 inches above the 32 -inch parapet. The overall height to the top of the sign parapet, as measured from grade, is 17 feet 8 inches, where the Code permits a height limit of 26 feet for commercial buildings in this District. Illumination The proposed sign will be internally illuminated channel letters and border mounted on a blue opaque background. Staff has included a condition that the lighting shall meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and Section 20.67.025 of the Municipal Code for sign luminescence. Temporary Block Letter Sign On April 1, 1999, a building permit was issued for an internally illuminated, 18 sq. ft. block letter sign for the subject business on a temporary basis. Although the block letter sign is temporary, staff believes that the sign is adequate for the purpose of business identification, and recommends to the Commission that this sign be considered as an additional alternative to the subject request. Required Findings The Sign Code chapter states the purpose: "to safeguard life, health, property and the public welfare, and to provide the means for adequate identification and advertisement of business by regulating and controlling the design, location and maintenance of all signs and sign structures in the City." Section 20.67.030C(2) permits roof signs through the approval of a modification permit only in instances where the location of a business precludes the effective use of a pole sign, ground sign, or projecting sign. The site in which the business is located has two pole and ground signs, a legal non - conforming pole sign for the bank building and a non- confornting ground sign for an on -site food establishment. The Code allows only one ground or pole sign per site, and the addition of a third one would require the approval of an exception permit. A projecting sign would require that the sign project from under the roof eave and since the roof is low, it would not be as visible from Coast Highway. Additionally, a projecting sign hung below the roof eave may not have the clearance required by the Uniform Building Code. Staff is of the opinion that findings can be made in support of a roof sign because the effective use of an additional pole sign, ground sign or projecting sign is difficult to accomplish, and the sign meets the size and height limitations established for roof signs. Modification No. 4879 ApA122,1999 Page 4 0 Conversely, the proposed sign, if approved, could set a precedent for other "marquee" type signs in the business communities throughout the city. Staff has concerns that approval of this type of sign may result in the future alteration of a commercial building for the purpose of constructing a sign of this type, and therefore, would be inconsistent with the stated purposes of the Sign Ordinance and would adversely affect the overall aesthetics of the business districts and the City generally. The concern regarding the roof sign could be ameliorated by limiting size and style of the sign permitted on the marquee. Within the three alternatives presented in this report, two are standard logo signs of the business, either 50 or 40 square feet in area. The third is an 18 square foot block letter sign, which has been installed on a temporary basis. In terms of these alternatives, staff would comment that the existing sign on the marquee is quite visible from Coast Highway, and the horizontal design is compatible with the fagade and new parapet of the building. If the City limited the roof sign that which is existing, it could then be augmented with a smaller logo sign, which could be installed on, the wall of the building near the door. Section 20.93.040 of the Zoning Code sets forth the findings which must be made in order for the Planning Commission to grant relief to an applicant through a modification permit, as follows: "...the granting of such permit shall not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of this code. " Facts in support of the approval of a modification • The subject building has a low roof (approximately 10 -11 feet) and the wall space on the front face of the building is below the eave extension of the roof, which makes the wall area less effective for business identification purposes. • The parapet band that extends around the perimeter of the building is 32 inches, which limits the size and type of sign to block style letters or a logo sign less than 32 inches in height. The size may limit the visibility from Coast Highway. Additionally, the parapet band is located partially above the roof and placing a sign on that band would require the approval of a roof sign. • The proposed sign is the same area that is permitted by code for wall signs. • The site has two existing pole and ground signs, which precludes an additional pole sign. • A projecting sign is difficult to achieve due to the low roof eave. Facts that do not support the approval of a modification • The proposed sign, if approved, could set a precedent for other marquee style signs in the business community. • The building has adequate wall area in which to place a sign. • The proposed sign could be considered inconsistent with the stated purpose of the Sign Code since the marquee style parapet was built for the purpose of installing a sign above the roof. Modification No. 4879 April 22. 1999 Page 5 /6 0 0 • This property occupies a highly visible location on East Coast Highway which has frontage on both the Highway and Iris Avenue and a roof sign is not necessary to provide adequate signage. Action Should the Planning Commission wish to approve Modification No. 4879, the findings and conditions of approval set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" are suggested. Should the Commission desire to deny this request, the findings set forth in the attached Exhibit `B" are suggested. Should the Planning Commission wish to limit the approval to the sign existing on the marquee, condition 3 in exhibit "A" should be revised to read: "The roof sign is limited to an 18 square foot, block letter sign. " Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Photo of existing sign Site Plan and Elevations Prepared by: EUGENIA GARCIA Associate Planner F: \USERS\PLN\SHARED \I PLANCOM\I 999\04- 22\m4879tpt Modification No. 4879 April 22, 1999 Page 6 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Modification Permit No. 4879 is Findings: 1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Retail and Service Commercial' use. Retail and office uses with associated signs are a pemutted use in this designation. 2. The project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 3. The modification to the Zoning Code as proposed would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and is a logical use of the property that would be precluded by strict application of the zoning requirements for this District for the following reasons: • The subject building has a low roof (approximately 10 -11 feet) and the wall space on the front face of the building is below the eave extensions of the roof, which makes the wall area less effective for business identification purposes. • The parapet band that extends around the perimeter of the building is 32 inches, which limits the size and type of sign to block style letters or a logo sign less than 32 inches in height. This size may limit the visibility of a sign installed on the parapet. • The parapet band is located partially above the roof and placing a sign on that band would require the approval of a roof sign. • The site has two existing pole and ground signs, which precludes an additional pole sign. • A projecting sign is difficult to achieve due to the low roof eave. 4. That the proposed roof sign will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code for the following reasons: • The proposed sign is the same area that is permitted by code for wall signs. • The luminescence of the proposed logo sign will meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and the Sign Code. • The height of the sign parapet is less than permitted for structures in this district. Modification No. 4879 April 22,1999 Page 7 112 0 0 11 Conditions: 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. The sign luminance shall meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and Section 20.67.025 of the Municipal Code. 3. The torn ticket logo sign is limited to 50 sq. ft. 4. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Modification Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Modification Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Modification, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 5. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.93.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Modification No. 4879 April 22.1999 Page 8 13 EXHIBIT `B" FINDINGS FOR DENIAL FOR Modification Permit No. 4879 FINDINGS: 1. The Modifications Committee determined that in this case, the proposal would be detrimental to persons, property and improvements in the neighborhood, and that the applicant's request would not be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for the following reasons: • The proposed sign, if approved, could set a precedent for the approval of other similar requests which could be detrimental to the neighborhood. • There is no justification for allowing a roof sign since the building has adequate wall area in which to place a sign. • The proposed sign could be considered inconsistent with the stated purpose of the Sign Code since the marquee style parapet was built for the purpose of installing a sign above the roof. • This property occupies a highly visible location on East Coast Highway which has frontage on both the Highway and Iris Avenue and a roof sign is not necessary to provide adequate signage. Modification No. 4879 April 22, 1999 Page 9 �y 0 ll 1'J City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1999 INDEX ' . "4safety,, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 10. This Use Permit shall eltpire.urlless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in "Sectioq 20 730.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. -- Item No. 3 SUBJECT: Blockbuster Video Sign (Mark Frank, contact person) 3007 East Coast Highway • Modification No. 4879 Modification No. 4879 Request to permit the installation of a roof sign on a new parapet wall where Continued to May 6th the Code limits roof signs to business locations that preclude the effective use of a pole sign, ground sign or projecting sign. Ms. Temple noted that this is a referral to the Planning Commission from the Modifications Committee. The business wanted to install a sign that was on a location that could be considered a roof sign and would therefore require an approval of a modification. In addition to the two potential signs that the applicant had submitted for consideration, staff discussed the possibility for a third sign option for the Planning Commission which is described in the report. Should the Commission elect that third alternative, it would revise condition three in Exhibit A. Commissioner Kranzley noted that the building permit was issued that included a demolition of an existing 4 -foot high corrugated metal parapet wall located above the roof. In that plan, did they have the addition of the new marquee? Ms. Temple answered yes, the applicant knew at the time of plan submittal, that should they install a sign on that marquee parapet that it would require subsequent discretionary action. Absent the sign, the parapet wall is permitted with no discretion. At commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted staffs concern on the potential to set a precedent. Other property owners may come in and construct similar parapets. They could then come in after the fact and ask for signs to be put on them thinking the parapets would be: considered as the face of the wall of the building. Public comment was opened. Mark Frank representingSan Pedro Sign Company of Wilmington stated that at the beginning of the project submittal, there was a four -foot high corrugated metal background. Originally it was going to be painted blue with a 30" tall channel lettered logo. It was deemed to be too massive and did not fit the neighborhood. Therefore, he wanted to develop a pop up on the facia that the city is calling the roof sign. The 32" high band that was there went away as it was not tall enough to place their logo on. Referencing the exhibit he noted 10 1'J City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1999 INDEX that Blockbuster would like to have a smaller logo with 9 1/2 " letters that are more recognizable. Continuing he noted • Focal point over the entrance • Comparisonsof signage in immediate vicinity • Support of Chamberof Commerce letter • Explained that this was simply a misunderstanding. Gary Taylor, Blockbuster, 5500 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim Hills - stated that he did not intend to "back door' this by putting up a fapade and then come in later and asking for a sign. The original presentations brought before the city showed the signs that were blue corrugated panels with the facade. we did realize we should have been here in February for the sign. It is a very expensive facade that was put up and it will be expensive to remove. However, we feel it is in characterwith the building and the community. At Commission inquiry, he stated that when he was in with the Building Department, he should have discussed the sign with the Planning Department. He explained that he was not aware of the process that should have taken place before hand. He explained that the Blockbuster signs are different and some show just the lettering and some with the torn ticket design. There are a variety of reasons for the different signs, and that is to accommodate the particular city sign codes and space. He noted that the City has given him permission for the temporarysign that is in place now which is allowed for ninety days. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Kranzley noted the following: • The sign ordinance is vague and a number of people ignore it. • The problem with this application is that the Commission could set a precedent if this was approved. • Suggested an extension of the use of the temporary sign while the process of an updated sign ordinance is going on. • Signs are a hot topic around town. • This is an attractive sign but it may set precedence for other roof signs. Commissioner Gifford noted the following: • The new sign ordinance that is in the process of being drafted will preclude an onslaught of people attempting to take advantage by building a parapet to put a sign on. • The sign being proposed is so much better than the alternative; it is good for the community. This is an enhancement. • Is in favor of permitting this sign. • Many signs around Newport are on structures or parapets. it 0 I(0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1999 Ms. Temple noted that the current sign revisions are only for the Balboa Peninsula and would not be effective in Corona del Mar. It might be years before citywide sign ordinance changes. The draft is still in staff review. Commissioner Tucker noted that the square footage of this sign is fine, it has been massed instead of spreading out. A neighboring establishment has what appears to be 12" or 15' high lettered sign right next to the street. We need some uniformity, and it will take generations to work through what is already there to move it out. At what point do you start denying a retailer's right to have what every other retailer in the area seems to have? Commissioner Ashley clarified that the applicant originally requested a 5 -foot x10- footsign but now a 4 -foot x 8 -foot sign will be satisfactorywith 9 1 /2" letters. Commissioner Hoglund stated that it seems the City's ordinance is at fault. If it is not clear about what is and what is not a roof sign then how can we do this on a case by case basis. I am inclined to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt. ChairpersonSelich stated that the Planning Commission would like to see better signs. We have an applicant before us with a special situation. He is asking for an exception to the code rather than provide a pole sign, a monument sign or wall sign. If we are looking to have better signs, I would not feel uncomfortable approving the current sign on a permanent basis with the approach that any other sign that comes in would have to follow the same review process. I think the Blockbuster lettering works fine and the torn ticket does not need to be there. People recognize the name. This is not like Autobistro where we decided the sign was architecturally in conformance with the building. We gave them the sign because we felt the business needed it. The Blockbuster is not a business that needs to have the torn ticket. The one at Bison Street with lettering does just fine. The visibility of the building is fine with the newly cut trees in the area. If they need to have a torn ticket, let them do a small one on the wall or something else as staff has suggested. Commissioner Gifford agreeing with the overall philosophy, stated she finds the torn ticket a more interesting sign. The letters and the yellow outline on the ticket are illuminated at night. The torn ticket is a more interesting sign and adds more. Commissioner Hoglund agreed with Commissioner Gifford. Commissioner Kra nzley agreed with Commissioner Gifford. CommissionerAshley supports the Blockbustersign without the torn ticket sign. CommissionerTucker agreed with the Chairman's analysis. The sign that is there 0 12 INDEX I7 IF City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1999 INDEX is of a sufficient size. They may be able to come up with some other integration of letters and torn ticket, but prefers the Blockbuster lettering. Chairperson Selich recommended that with the obvious deadlock that this item be continued to May 6}h for a full Commission vote. Mr. Frank stated that he might not be back in town. Ms. Temple noted this could be continued to May 6th and at that time, if Mr. Frank was not available, it could be continued to May 2Urh. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to continue Modification No. 4879to the next meeting on May &h. Ayes: Tucker, Ashley, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Hoglund Noes: None Absent: Fuller Abstain: None SUBJECT: Discussion of the Land Use and Circulation Elements of Item No. 4 \ the Newport Beach General Plan Chairperson Selich noted that this item was requested for the benefit of the Discussion Planning CoTmission by its involvement with the City's General Planning program as outlined in the joint meeting with the City Council. Also, part of the discussion will'be the City's Land Use and Circulation Elements, what they are and how they inttr relate with each other as well, as the differences from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and the Fair Share Ordinance. During the discussion tonight, it is app7Qpriate to discuss the existing TPO and how it relates. In terms of the propaskd TPO, that will be the subject of a public hearing and we should not discu3 that at all. Our questions should only be on the existing TPO. Ms. Temple presented the staff report noting %the following: • Summarized what the city has done to actually implement the policies contained within those elements. Implementation of the Land Use Element is done primarily through the Zoning Ordinance and related portions of the Munipipal Code. ➢ Implementation of the Circulation Element is throug�ti4De City's capital improvement program and the Fair Share Ordinance *6 d the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. • Update of the General Plan to look at the City's larger comh%ercial districts, such as the Newport Center proposal and the idea to ha"N Airport Area Specific Plan. ** • Considerations relating to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 13 IF • 0 b S m a a ] n ] N m m' m C m N S ;C v O O YI A 4 a` w m a• m e 3 5' N w 4 O Z �I A w r O 0 w d Z m w e N d 3 D. O • u ti b ] n y a l� son "°"'�'" L�=7 ockbuster GLUMMKAO w. $'ON COMPANY ' Coaist H /ghway NEWPORT(COrone Del MerA Catllom/a m�..... a A Ar ' 9 -15-98 pvie, JJ 0l MU wmolxr w..aow a . or A..aOMna. wawanaeaa a 98- 942048.9X1 ( # \ ) \ } � \ ) � � f � { � � ■ E E _| - � | |� | !| h% | | � ,\ is $ 1 1") k � $, � }� | || |t| \ §kk ¢| %! ne E\ .a_E2 #% . � MtwP, ; «I�i§IS '� ■! #m§ — | a % � ; J g E _m -- Blockbuster - _7 East c. Highway Newport (Corona Del __. �_ % SIGN __-: '__ —� _ - - ji _®mCalifornia 2012 kit r q! 9­4248 ■+ : ) ,rill / it |' �!i| _m -- Blockbuster - _7 East c. Highway Newport (Corona Del __. �_ SIGN __-: '__ —� _ - - ji _®mCalifornia 2012 r 9­4248 ■+ : 9 1] 0 0"Em -Art ZQ== *-.;U- :a - ILOCKBUSTER UoAffk � N ,I L � LLA uj � 7 :2 - 7 �a m �a G X y C N d C O � N Z J N t0 G tG0 c U a� O O O O 4 J It d d J d C G R1 t U a m w m c E Ta m o� c y W yr <. -- a+ �,o-e � ��. n� � � ¢` ...'. r '. �'��v'.`:.9:�: f iu fi. " WIX g 1116111" .� _ , __ _,,.410 a Rite Aid L 'Q%TC Ph.,x �i CwPopT 12::EAcN coo C_oasT 3TA *j D/ae.Z> -S IL GOURMET FAST VIII 0 0 Y l l Ro _4 f i l F , . .... ....... ir p VA fir. -7.