HomeMy WebLinkAboutLimited Sign Permit LSP1987001 - Notice of action Letter with Findings & Conditions of ApprovalREQUES . )FOR CITY COUNCIL : ACTION
Submitted to:
Submitted by:
Prepared by:
Subject:
Date
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Arm c1-- .
Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator
James W. Palin, Director, Development Services
APPEAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF
SIGN PERMIT NO. 87-1
Consistent with Council Policy? [v Yes [ J New Policy or Exception
Statement of ls5ue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by Heath and Company
to the Planning Commission's denial of Limited Sign Permit No.
87-1. Limited Sign P.:trmit No. 87-1 is a request to permit a sign
face change for a non-conforming freestanding sign and extend the
sign's use for two years.
P.ECOMMENDATION
Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Councilideny
the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission denial of Limited Sign
Permit No. 87-1.
Planning Commission Action on March 17 1987:
ON MOTION BY SCHUYACHER, SECOND BY HIGGINS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION
DENIED LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO. 87-1, BASED ON FINDINGS, BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Schumacher, Higgins, Leipzig, Summerell
NOES: Silva, Pierce, Livengood
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL:
1. Due to a lack of unique circumstances, the 25 foot high, 96
square foot freestanding sign's immediate removal will not
result in a substantial economic hardship for the applicant.
2. The 25 foot high, 96 square foot freestanding s:.gn will
adversely affect other lawfully erected signs in the area.
3. The 25 foot high, 96 square foot freestanding sign will be a
hazardous distraction.
P10 5)85
A sign permit was issued for the subject sign in 1973. According to
the sign code adopted in Aug' st, 1986, Nonconforming Signs, Section
9510.8, the eventual elimination of existing signs which are not in
conformanc- with the provisions of the sign code are as mucl' a
subject of iealth, •.afety and welfare as is the regulation of new
signs. The Sanwa Bank freestanding sign did not conform to the
previrus sign code (adopted in 1976) and it exceeds the existi°
sign code by great proportions. Staff recommends that the City
Council deny the two year extension and require the freestanding
sign be modified to meet the provisions of sign code in effect at
this time.
The sign panel for the Sanwa Bank freestanding sign, which was
changed without a permit, is located in a landscape planter. There
are a total of five freestanding signs along the Warner Avenue
frontage which do not conform to the existing sign code. According
to the provisions of the current sign code, the retail center is
allowed one 15 foot high center identification freestanding sign and
5 separate 7 foot high monument signs.
The following is a matrix which illustrates code requirements for
freestanding signs in commercial districts:
Section Issue Maximum Existir.g Remarks
9610.5(b) Maximum Height 7 feet 25 feet Exceeds Code by
18 feet
Maximum Area 30 sq,ft. 96 sa.ft. Exceeds Code by
56 sq.ft.
The prior sign code permitted a 20 foot high, 100 square foot
freestanding sign. The matrix above indicates that the subject sign
is 5 feet higher than the' permitted height,
Since the sign did not conform to the previous Sign Code , the Sanwa
Bank freestanding sign should be lowered to a 7 foot high, 30 square
foot monument sign now to conform with the existing sign code. The
Sanwa Bank building has effective wall signage which in combination
with a monument sign, will provide ample exposure for their
business . Eventually , the other freestanding signs will be required
to conform to the Sign Code by means of recycle or change of use.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
The proposed project is exempt Class 11(a) Section :!5311. from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.
it'UNDING SOURCE.
Not applicable.
RCA - 4/20/87 -2- (7808d)
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
?s an alternative action, the City Council may consider approving
Limited Sign Permit No . 87-1 based on the following findings and
conditions of approval.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:
1. Due to unique circumstances, the 25 foot high, 96 square foot
freestanding signs immediate removal will result in a
substantial hardship for the applicant.
2. The 25 foot high, 96 square foot freestanding sign will not
adversely affect other lawfully erected signs in the area.
3. The 25 foot high, 96 square foot freestanding sign will not be
detrimental to properties located in the vicinity.
4. The 25 foot high, 96 square foot freestanding sign will be in
keeping with the character of the surrounding area.
5. The 25 foot high, 96 square foot freestanding sign will not
obstruct vehicular oz pedestrian traffic visibility and will
not be e 1 azardous distraction.
CONDITIONS OZ,.PPROVAL:
1. The site plan and elevation dated February 4, 1987, shall be
the approved layout.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall
submit to the Department of Development Services a letter from
the property owner and owner of the sign agreeing with the
conditions of approval.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall file
a cash bond in the amount of $2,000 with the City for the
purpose of indemnifying the City for any and all costs incurred
in the removal of the sign structure. If this sign is not made
to conform with the applicable provisions of the sign ordinance
after two years from the date of approval, the City of
Huntington Beach or its agents or employees may enter on the
property where said signs are located and remove said signs and
the cost of removal shell he deducted from the cash bond and
summarily forfeited and paid over to the City of Huntington
Beach, and the remainder, if any, returnEl to the person
depositing the bond.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Appellant's letter dated March 19, 1987
2. Site plan and elevation dated February 4, 1987
3. Draft Minutes of the March 17, 1987 Planning Commission meeting
4. Planning Commission staff report dated March 17, 1987
JWP:RLF:kla
RCA - 4/20/87 (7808d)
T
H[ATH Signage And Relatsd S• ces Nationwide
and company
G •
March 19, 1987
City of Huntington Beach
City Council
2000 Main Street
Hhmti zgton Beach, CA 92648
Council rasnbers:
On behalf of Sarrwa Bank and Heath & Co., I am appealing action taken on
Limited Sign •pe:cmit No. 87-1, to allow a non-conforming sign to remain
for two more years.
S,1e are grieving actions taken based on the following reasons:
1) imsediate removal of this sign will result in a substantial economic
hardship for applicant. Applicant has already invested thousands of
dollars in the existing sib and replacing i:: would result in spending
thousands -Lmre.
2) the 25' high 96 square foot sign does not adversely affect other lawfuJ.1'
erected signs in the center because there are none.
3) the 25' high 96 square foot sign has not been a hazardous distraction
and has not caused any liabilities thus far that we are aware of.
4) the other non-conforming signs in the center have no definite time
frame to canm into conformance. Allowing this extension would also
provid=- adequate time for city planning and the center's owner (s) /mana-
ger(s) to develop a feasible s gn program in which all tenants wuUd
have to adhere to.
Sincerely,
Kimb°rly P. Barr
Permit coordinator
cc: J. Brancatelli. J. Lloyd
32^--5 LACY STREET - LOS ANGELES. CALIFORN!A 9Q031-1667 • (213i22: -4'4
A FISCHBACH COMPANY
fit..
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO APPROVE
CODE AMENDMENT NO. 87-4, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell,
Livengood
N(-ES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Nune
MOTION PASSED
D. ITEMS NOT FOR PUBLIC HEARING
D-1 LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO. 87-1
APPLICANT: HEATH AND COMPANY
Limited Sign Permit No. 87-1 is a request to permit a face change
and grant a 2-year extension of use for an approximately 25 foot
high, 96 square foot internally illuminated freestanding sign for
Sanwa Bank located at 6881 Warn,:-,,r Avenue.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
The proposed project is exempt Class 11(a) Section 15311 from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Deny Limited Sign Permit No. 87-1 based on the findings.
The applicant requested a continuance until the March 17, 1987
Planning Co:amission meeting.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY HIGGI1S, TO CONTINUE
LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO. 87-1 TO THE MARCH 17, 1987 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell,
Livengood
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
PC Mii.ates - 3/3/87 -21-(7557c
D-2 SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 87-18
D-3 SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 87-19
D-4 T PL . EVIE N0. 87-20
APPLICANT: SEAVIEW HOMES
Site Plan Review No. 87-18, No. 87-19 and No. 87-20 are requests to
permit the construction of single family dwellings on 25 foot wide
lots located on the east side of 15th. Street south of Walnut b-,nue
(112, 114 and 116 15th. Street). The Downtown Specific Plan permits
residential uses in District 2 subject to the Planning Commissicn's
approval of a site plan review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Site Plan Review No. 87-18, No. 87-19 and No. 87-20 based on
the findings and conditions of appro;ral.
Richard Harlow was present to represent the applicant. He expressed
concern over Condition No. lg regarding the front bay window,
Condition No. 3 regarding automatic fire p.rotecti.on system and
Condition No. 9 regarding the coordination of improvements with the
adjacent development. He requested that these conditions-be deleted
or modified.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY HIGGINS, SECOND BY SCHUMACHER, TO APPROVE SITE
PLAN REVIEW NO. 87-18, NO. "7-19 AND NO. 87-20, WITH FINDINGS AND
REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Silva, Schumacher , Higgins , Pierce ., Leipzig, Summerell,
Liven good
NOES: None
ABSENT: Nona
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:
1. The proposal for a single family residence will not have any
detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and
convenienro of persons residing or working in the neighborhood.
2. Th,e proposed single family residence will not adversely affect
the General Plan of Land Use. Single family dwellings are a
permitted use
3. The proposed single family residence is compatible with other
existing uses and proposed uses in the neighborhood.
1
PC Minutes - 3/3/87 --22-(7557d)
D. ITEM NOT FOR PUBLI HEARIN
D-1 LIMITED SIGN PERMIT N 7-1 NT N D FR M MAR H 19E7
PLAN IN MMIS I N MEETIN
APPLICANT: HEATH AND CO.
At the request of the applicant , the Planning Commission continued
Limited Sign Permit No. 87-1 to the March 17, 1987 meeting.
Limited Sign Permit No. 87-1 is a request to permit a face change and
grant a two-year extension of use for an approximately 25 foot high,
96 square foot internally illuminated freestanding sign for Sanwa Bank
located at 6881 Warner Avenue.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Deny Limited Sign Permit No. 87-1 based on the findings.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PIERCE, TO APPROVE LIMITED
SIGN PERMIT NO. 87-1 WITH A TWO-YEAR LIMITATION WITH FINDINGS AND
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Livengood, Silva, Pierce
NOES: Schumacher, Higgins, Leipzig, Summerell
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
M TION FAIL
A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY HIGGINS, TO DENY LIMITED
SIGN PERMIT NO. 87-1; WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Schumacher, Hi: ns, Leipzig, Summerell
NOES: Silva, Pierce, Livengood
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTTCJ PASSED
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL:
1. Due to a lack of unique circumstances, the 25 foot high, 96
square foot freestanding sign's immediate removal will not
result in a substantial econora hardship for the applicant.
2. The 25 foot high, 96 square foot freestanding sign will
adversely affect other lawfully erected signs in the area.
3. The 25 foot high, 96 square foot freestanding sign will be a
hazardous distraction.
PC Minutes - 3/17/87 -14- (7776d)
C-4 CODE AMENDMENT NO, 87-2
APPLICANT: REGINA JONES
Code Amendment No. 87-2 is a request by the applicant to modify
standards in the RA District. The applicant wants to utilize a .33
acre site on Garfield Avenue, east of Goldenwest Street, as a storage
yard for her roofing business. Items that would be stored include
three trucks, two roof kettles (used for hot tar applications), one
metal storage bin leased from Orange County Disposal, some outside
materials such as concrete tile left over from jobs, and employee's
cars or trucks.
ENVIR NMENTAL STAT
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality .ct.
STAFF RE MMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Code Amendment
No. 87-2 (Alternative 1) to allow storage yards subject to use permit
approval by the Board of Zoning Adjustments in the RA District for an
initial. three year period with a maximum of two one-year extensions of
time.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED
The applicant was present but did not wish to speak.
There were no other persons present to speak for or against the
request and the public hearing was closed.
The Planning Commission discussed several concerns with the code
amendment (prohibiting temporary storage yards on any property with a
Civic District suffix, special setback considerations for sites
adjacent to major arterials, and locational ciiteria that would
specify a minimum distance to any residential development and requite
the cessation of the use when developiw,ent occurs within that buffer
zone) and requested that staff review the alternatives.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER, SECOND BY LIVENGOOD, TO CONTINUE CODE
AMENDMENT NO. 87-2 TO THE APRIL 7, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING,
BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Silva, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Summerell,
Livengood
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
PC Minutes - 3/17/87 -13-(7776d)
CITY OF HUNTINGTON B EACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
April 22, 1987
Heath and Company
3225 Lacy Street
Los Angeles, CA 90031-1867
Gentlemen:
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its
regular meeting held Monday, P.pril 20, 1987 approved
your appeal to the Planning Commission's denial of Limited
Sign Permit No. 87-1, with findings and conditions.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please
contact the Development Services Department - 536-5271.
Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clerk
AMW.km
enc.
CC: City Attorney
Development Services Director
C
aV 19,
(Telephone: 714$36 -5227IAi:I J a
r
r 4
STwF huntington beach development services uepartment
EP O R
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
'Manning Commission
Development Services
March 3, 1987
SUBJECT:LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO.87-1
APPLICANT:Heath and Co.DATE ACCEPTED:
3225 Lacy Street
Los Angeles, CA 90031
February 19, 1987
MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE:
PROPERTY Sanwa Bank April 19, 1987
OWNER:1977 Saturn Street
Monterey Park, CA 91754 ZONE: C4 (Highway
REQUEST:To permit a face change
Commercial District)
for a non-conforming GENERAL PLAN: General
freestanding sign and
extend the sign's use
.,or 2 years.
Commercial
EXISTING USE: Bank
LOCr.TION:6881 Warner Avenue
(north side of Warner
Avenue approximately
600 feet west of
Goldenwest Street)
1.0 SUGGESTED ACTION:
Deny Limited Sign Permit No. 87-1 based on the findings outlined in
this report.
2,0 GENERAL INFORMATION:
Limited Sign Permit No. 87-1 is a request to permit a face change
and grant a 2-year extension of use for an approximately 25 foot
high, 96 square foot internally illuminated non-conforming
freestanding sign for Sanwa Bank located at 6881 Warner Avenue.
3.0 SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS:
North, East and West of Sri ect Pro ert :
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial
ZONE: C2 (General Commercial District)
LAND USE: Retail
0 -1
A-FM-235
South of Sub'ecu Pro erty:
G:?NERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial
c"r)NE: C4 (Highway Commercial District)
LAND USE: Retail
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
The proposed project is exempt class 11(a) Section 15311 from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.
5.0 COASTAL STATUS:
Not applicable.
6.0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS:
Not applicable.
7.0 SPECIFIC PLAN:
Not applicable.
8.0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE:
Not applicable.
.0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS:
The following is a matrix which illustrates code requirements for
freestanding signs in commercial districts:
Section Issue
9610.5(b) Maximus: number
of freestanding
signs permitted
along frontage
Maximum Height
Maximum Area
Maximum Existing Remarks
6 5 Complies with
code
7 feet 25 feet Exceeds Code by
18 feet
30 sq.ft.96 sq.ft.Exceeds Code by
66 sq.ft.
The Sanwa Bank freestanding sign is located i^ landscape planter
which is required by the Sign Code. There at,. total of five
freestanding signs along the Warner Avenue frontage which do not
conform to the existing Sign Code (see inventory of existing
freestanding signs in attachments). According to the provisions of
the current Sign Code, the retail center is allowed one 15 foot high
center identification freestanding sign and 5 separate monument
signs.
Staff Report - 3/3/87 -2- (7468d)
Since the sign did not conform to the previous Sign Code, staff has
determined that the Sanwa Bank freestanding sign should be lowered
to a 7 foot high, 30 square foot monument sign now. The Sanwa Bank
building has effective wall signage which in combination with a
monument sign, will provide ample exposure for their business.
Eventually, the other freestanding signs will be required to conform
to the Sign Code by means of recycle or change of use.
According to the Nonconforming Signs, Section 9610.8, the eventual
elimination of existing signs which are not in conformance with the
provisions of the sign code is as much a subject of health, safety
and welfare as is the regulation of new signs. The Sanwa Bank
freestanding sign did not conform to the previous Sign Code and it
exceeds the existing sgn code by great proportions. Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission deny the two year extension
and require the freestanding sign be modified to meet the provisions
of sign code in effect at this time.
10.0 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Limited Sign
Permit No. 87-1 based on the following findings.
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL:
1. Due to a lack of unique circumstances, the 25 foot high, 96
square foot freestanding sign's immediate removal will not
result in a substantial economic hardship for the applicant.
2. The 25 foot high, 9 6 square foot freestanding sign will
adversely affect other lawfully erected signs in the area.
3. The 25 foot high, 96 square foot freestanding r=gn will be a
hazardous distraction.
11.0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Approve Limited Sign Permit No. 87-1 based on findings and
conditions of approval.
ATTACHMENTS
1.Area map
2.Site plan and elevation dated February 4,1987
3.Inventory of existing freestanding signs
JWP:RLF:kla
Staff Report - 3/3/87 -3- (7468d)
RIRIINEUA PEEL reRI RI R RIRo c r c o•uwa rln ¢w uHkraR3RIR3 R3RIRIRIRIBuie wwrtRIIRICF-RRIR3uFfiY PAY%PTJLJ RIRIRIrLp g 1Y01 onRI RI RI RI RI300t_RI _CHe.NE. cs-0R2R3RIR IRI RI jRI GF-RRIIPUq RIQupRI RI RIRIRIRlRICFERI-fGV'JEn:iwNWY,' u RI RIRIRIHIIRI RI RI. I Rn, b n nwpI C4niecR5N31R3R3o+lxVInSC-CF-RNOD( [OYYJMITY N"!'1ocPC0C2WARNERCF-EIrnTSNY&aa p,IN 1CXUalMIRI RI3pMI-MHPRIU r,xRI RI RI 11 RI - CF-CYsiIcITY YAAOw.n.PMIMlAllMIcroon MNUNTINGTON ISEACH PLANNING DIVISION
00
Date:
P.O. BOX 190 CALIFO RNIA 92648
March 18 198J
NOTICE OF ACTION
Applicant:Heath and Co. - 3225 Lacy Street - Los Angeles, CA 90031
Subject: ' LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO. 87-1
Your application was acted upon by the Huntington Beach Planning
Commission on March 17, 1987 and your request was:
Huntington Beach Planning Commission
Withdrawn
Approved
Approved with Conditions (See Attached)
Disapproved XX
Tabled
Continued until
Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code , the action
taken by the Planning Commission is final unless an appeal is filed to
the City Council by you or an interested party. Said appeal must be in
writing and must set forth in detail the actions and grounds by and
upon which the applicant or interested party deems himself aggrieved.
Said appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of c n e hundred and
sixty-five ($165) dollars and a submitted to the City Clerk's office
within ten (10) days of the date of the Commission 's action.
In ypur case, the last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing
fee U s March 27, 1987
Provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code are such that any
application becomes null and void one (1) year after final approval,
unless actual construction has started.
Very truly yours,
James W. Palin, Secretary
A-PC-LT-IA
CITY DF HUNTINGT O N BEACH
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
BUILDING DIVISION (714) 536 -5241 PLANNING DIVISION (714) S36-5271
March 18, 1987
Heath and Company
3226 Lacy Street
Los Angeles, California 90031
SUBJECT: LIMITED SIGN PERMIT NO. 87-1
REQUEST: To permit a face change for a non-conforming freestanding
sign and extend the sign's use for 2 years.
LOCATION: 6881 Warner Avenue
DATE OF
DENIAL: March 17, 1987
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL:
1. Due to a lack of unique circumstances , the 25 foot high, 96
square foot freestanding sign's immediate remc^.-? c.i11 not result
in a substantial economic hardship for the applicant.
2. The 25 foot high, 96 square foot freestanding sign will adversely
affect other lawfully erected signs in the area.
3. The 25 foot high, 96 square foot freestanding sign will be a
hazardous distraction.
I hereby certify that Limited Sign Permit No. 87-1 was denied by the
Planning Commission of the City o_7 Huntington Beach on March 17, 1987,
upon the foregoing findings.
Sincerely,
James W. Palin , Secretary
Planning Commission:
by:
Florence Webb
Senior Planner
JWP:FW:kla
(7617d-10)
11 Huntington Beach Planning Commission
P.O. BOX 190
Date: March JA 1
CALIFORNIA 92648
NOTICE OF ACTION
Applicant: Heath and Co. 3225 Lacy Street, Los Angeles. CA 90031
Subject: LIMITED SIGN PE'?MIT NO. 87-1
Your application was acted upon by the Huntington Peach Planning
Commission on March 3 1987 and your request was:
Withdrawn
Approved
Approved with Conditions
Disapproved
Tabled
(See Aletached)
Continued until XX March 17 1987
Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordin ance Code , the action
taken by the Planning Commission is final unless an appeal is filed to
the City Council by you or an interested party. Said appeal must be ira
writing and must set forth in detail the actions and grounds by and
upon which the applicant or interested party deems himself aggrieved.
Said appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of one hundred and
sixty-five ($165) dollars and be submitted to the City Clerk's office
within ten (10 ) days of the date of the Commission's'action.
In your case, the last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing
fee is
Provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code are such that any
application becomes null and void one (1) year after final approval,
unless actual construction has started.
Very truly-yours,