The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutEXCEPTION 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