Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPub Hear-Appeal PC denial SSP 90- 10 & 89-4(R)/PSP 89-3(R S-K �vA CARDINAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Development • Asset Management 375 Bristol Street, Suite 50, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 557-1934 FAX (714) 557-0535._ March 18, 1991 Honorable Council Members City of Huntington Beach Re: Huntington Beach Autoplex: Appeal of (a) Special Sign Permit No. 90-10 (b) Special Sign Permit No. 89-4(R) , and Planned Sign Program No. 89-3(R) I would like to clarify the applicant's request for this evening's appeal: .APPROVAL OF A 12 FOOT HIGH MONUMENT SIGN (not 13' 8" as indicated in your staff report) (Sign has 80 sq ft in area and panels for all tenants) .APPROVAL OF A WALL SIGN FOR EL POLIO LOCO (Sign has 20 sq ft in area) .AMENDMENT OF THE PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM WITH THESE CHANGES "Applicant's Revised Proposal" reflects changes to the original application based on input from staff and the Planning Commission. The requested signs are desperately needed. Without these signs several more business may fail. We have a legitimate hardship based on several key factors: .VERY ATTRACTIVE NEW CENTER "SANDWICHED" BETWEFN NEIGHBORING BUILDINGS DUE TO NEW SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. . .CUSTOMERS BELIEVE EL POLIO LOCO IS CLOSED SINCE THEIR IS NO SIGN ON THE BUILDING FACING BEACH BOULEVARD. .UNUSUALLY SHAPED LOT (442' DEEP BY 2011WIDE) . TENANTS IN CENTER LACK STREET VISIBILITY AND NEED ADEQUATE SIGNAGE TO SURVIVE AND GROW. .CURRENT 7' HIGH MONUMENT SIGN CANNOT BE SEEM DUE TO THE HIGH TRAFFIC SPEEDS AND HEAVY TRAFFIC VOLUME ALONG BEACH BOULEVARD AND VISUAL OBSTRUCTIONS SUCH AS ON-STREET PARTING. .LACK OF VISIBILITY CAUSES A PUBLIC SAFETY HAZARD. AUTOS CANNOT SEE CENTER IN TIME TO MAKE SAFE TURNING MOVEMENTS. . We know that the Council and City Management have the same goal as we do, to insure high quality, successful businesses on Beach Boulevard that will maximize sales for our merchants and sales taxes to the City. We greatly Appeal of Special Sign Permit Page 2 appreciate your consideration of our appeal and approval of the Alternative Action outlined on page 6 of the Staff Report. Specifically, Special Sign Permit 90-10 with the 12 foot high monument sign shown on Attachment 3A; Special Sign Permit(R) E1 Pollo Loco wall sign shown on Attachment 3 and Planned Sign Program 89-3(R) . 6,A�-)'e� Carl M. Middleton President APPLICANT`S REVISED SIGN PROPOSAL or P-d6&yAat0CV-M _v -T p -4- BRAKE JEXPRESS. 4day tire stores — i i EUROPEAN REPAIR ; 19-300 - EUD WtiaRCUT E1.F.�l�Tlol.� 1a•: ��a The proposed new monument sign will overcome the obstacles of visual blockage by parked, moving cars, and the visual clutter of other signs and buildings while significantly upgrading its presence by increasing its height. In addition, the new sign has a panel for each business facing Beach Boulevard so the customers can easily locate them. Our new. sign is also architectually compatible with the building design. 1:+4ackme&) 3-A C R eq ves4ed S i9 I;Ywn+a(yAUNtl.!gTrt: . 1 , 4111f t , r {-llttsr, rr _ � LNAh1"�L.LT7'<F'► � � lt���:tsaf�!nF N vF SUVA-, wHmarA c L � e F921 N T•S. tu A.�•Gt7L4iVF. IIJ(CiZIGY�ILLU�'1f► "GD JL(HFi1J� ' tN Y t v- p1.7r.�iGr GF IN'fC�.� Il.l..l.1r-t1►•1°•T� ���t, LET-TLI� p • 6 � C1fi°-TLp fwUH11JU1r•'1 U►t'i;n�'i'r '� � Ci cu4?nK "LV ATtP X4r'lvtrl V-4 Ot—b-XL,�J - � IAA#pTvt- por"►CATLT� e-PvUL Tic. c � • FIr•1W TO $f. 'lM a-;7 'r I PIWN2X— -LA rDH 11/E-W4.4.'1F-L. weL-PF%11`(f.F•. L.Gnc�(--W {4 TV FX (,L.1 M 1 rAeg*W„p.wP a...yr,a J/iY'8r••crzTP+r,uP• . SFCG p�(j�pr.►7 , dt:(.POwU > '�Z74 W��741 +-rjE w►-) 17"C;" • GOLORwv?Glp 'f1onK r• gF Zj9'� V-CD .4 L4(13`(at-a l , Q► � - C NOTFS: N,^ r•r:. ..- w .w 1N'YFT EQR.Of�i Tt'!lj(�Y .f Ln 1Er11':.::';I x.. •`rr�..•^.rr...�..rr....r O 7 a w tam �..�r.•.!.•••�..�/Tom'...•.. srrtCMGnoas: a w.r.�r.r�•.�.�w+r.•.� ,w 117 g „.............ow�..+ u' W a CHANNEL LETTER DETAIL WX$ _A-'TABH MtFv ® '�v LANE n _ .Td ! lJ � R : s,• � O , `a � .�"'� tl O a O O': a . I � WEYMAflTH LANE410 �► i, /J /O 28 �_ ►_. O$ Q) 13 O iI I IJftae' d 7 3 a P 3 / d +c 47 4B ts,m,; P J 9 /O :' // /P 33 Sc S 5P 31 Z ® til _ I O 29 O O Lea / II /1 /6 Q I � C •a' n' so' atr' say' crt�eD p' x..' a. .• „ —__.___._ i 153 ii4?Rt:'HESTER 4 I I � J i Ar'/E I O 31 • .4. 5 ) 6 1 7 6 9 10 t2 t3 N 4 IB 17 IB t9 i 19 © h � 0� 31 A0 O 30 G� �O ° O O 0 CO ; >� 0 0 0 • � �, S9 I , y .. 3 ," , . AA9. 6 ? N0.62 y I I� d NQ 6/23 s Ps �' 3-► �' ? �+� 41 4, S ., �. . �� •�• 1 ,• •L• M.or•P4 P3 PP P/ PO 19 10 /7 dd d7 so 19 .wr 0 dI p'dt N'd! "M,84 c.' 63 l BAR t NO. /2896 - 163 051 Y✓ � 1 O16 O 15 ~ O 13 Ac. / O/AC. 2.J2 AC. / 61 AC. P. N /22-/ ` 1?3 AC. 1.15 AC. 7 49 AC. .41 55 Rs ?J.,? .Sz 4 18� J IJAC. �` � PS r1J-6 29 I $ Ado 17 IS � 16 sS' re•�r' fd?.I' iva.sa' sr.ly' ,o0 2?i.so' /•o jet • w So' .l1 )o /Z3 W (NUNT/N67JN BEACH BLVO/ (NAIIPSM/RE AVE/ BOULEVARD /+,/Nnnti�oM 6E.cN Bwo! BEACH (HAwvs/+gE avEN1El BOULEVARD -T r,.• 'CT NO. /2896 M.M 594-2/,22 NOTE•ASSESSOR•S BLOCK a 159-16 AS: �� r 3 - 1 91 t.d CEL MAP P.M. /22-/ IARCEL NUMAW WI /r� 2 EAST 5/DE SHOWN IN CIRMS CO v w z/9 -41 u � f 22 j� \2� � ?O 13 \11 715 j23 �; Q O ' o y ,y ....' • LO 1 -tso 33) 26 — —�4 g —�— -- — •• I M 1 F 35 10 a 19 150d ' :Y Ya. __ ------� ----i I--- 83 G vLL/cad.15 A, 1- i.27) 25d- 66. a _.. 30,' 5 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK i March 20., 1991 Superior Electrical Advertising 1700 W. Anaheim Street Long Beach, CA 90813 Gentlemen: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its regular meeting held March 18 , 1991, approved the appeal filed by Councilmember Silva to the denial of your sign permit . Please call the Community Development Department for further information. A copy of the Council minutes when completed will be forwarded to you. Sincerely yours, Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB :me CC: City Attorney Community Development Director City Administrator 10F1x (Teleph,wne: 7 7 4-536-5227) Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Number A-6214, September 29, 1961, and A 24831 June 11, 190 STATE OF CAUFORNIA County of Orange I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the ORANGE COAST DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, p r r:f.e%d ^^d p. `:1:-h ad in tshte ^1-�r `Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Y� `�bPUBLIC NOTICE �,] PUBLIC NOTICE �' Valle e Southoas communes an _ I ,t y� Irvine the Coast communities d ;. NOTICE OF mer9g) �z PUBLIC REQUEST Special _Sign Laguna Beach issues of said newspaper to wit Permif"'Nb:' 90-10 is a re- APPEAL OF PLANNING. the issue(s) of: quest twrepl Kc an existing, i COMMIS$IONa.St codeconformmg' (7*`feet DENIAL OF SPECIAL high/35'�sGuare fo911,Qdnffi SIGN`-PERMWNO identlflc. tlon m�onu�ma tr 90-t0,SPECIAL SIGN ' pig', i :19�oot�18 PERM ITNO;88.4(R) inch/80 square toot'center I AND PLANNED SIGN identification monument PROGRAM NO.89.3(R) sign in Ileu_.of the c%54.eru March 7, 1991 (AUTOPLEX/EL POLLO. matted seVen'(7) foot high; i LOCO CENTER) 50 square foot monument sign..• `NOTICE- 1S., HEREBY Special Sign Permlt�N6 GIVEN'that the Huntington 89 4 R is a,,r,e uest,to J' Beach.; City Council ;will) amend a condition"of ap= fio fd a pubic hearing-!-the provol_whichl prohibited a { Council Chambdv .at the business: identification' Huntington, Beachi Civic, (walq=sign on'fthe"'west:ele= `Ceriter', 2000-•Maln-Street; vation of.the.El P llo4Loco I Huntington Beach;rtCaiif=j'Resfaurantt 'Thettapplicant ornia, on the date-and at i : , the time Indicated below to s requesting a 50 square;, receive and consider the. foot business Identification' (wall) sign on the west ele-' statements of all persons; vation of the building. - hwho wish to be heard rela- Planned Sign Program ive to the"application de-j No. 89-3(R) is;a=request to (scribed below amend the planned sign DATE/TIME Monday„ program for the Autoplex March'18r 1991,7:00 PM Center to Include a new APPLICATION NUMBER:, center Identification monu- Appeal of Planning Com-, ment sign, new business misslon's denial of Special• Identification wall sign and j Sign Permit No. 90-10, za request 30;modify^the ex- Special Sign Program No. 'isting�El Pollo'Loco monu= I declare, under penalty of perjury, tha: -,he 89-4(R) and Planned'Sign ment sign. foregoing is true and correct. Permit No.89.3(R) ENVIRONMENTAL STA- "� 9 I APPELLANT: Mr. Jim TUS:'Eategorlcallysexempt Silva,City Council Member pursuant to Section 15311,s I APPLICANT: Superior E Class 11.of the California! March 7, 1 lectrlcal Advertising Enviro_nmen%I1Qualit Actg Executed on C ZONE:C4 (Highway Com(` COASTAL STATUS NotI at Costa Mesa, California aI zone!le (u'nless In coast-1 ! ON FILE: A cbpY of;the;; proposed request;is on fits° ! the City Clerk's:office 2000 Main Street,Hunting- ton. Beach, California Signature 92648, for inspection by - the public. is ti, — ALL'INTERESTED PER- SONS.'aretinvitedito(attend` said hearing ,and.express opinions or submit`- evi- deuce for or against the. application as ouilin'ed PROOF r P U 8 LI�ATIO N I above. If there are.any-call '� ther questions please call Herb Fauland, Assistant Planner at 536-5271. Connie Brockway, I' City Clerk, City of Huntington Beach 9 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION March 18, 1991 Date Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator6MT Prepared by: Michael Adams, Director of Community Develop ' t Subject: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-10, SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-4(R) AND PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 89-3(R) (RESCHEDULED FROM THE MARCH 4, 1991 CITY COUNCIL MEETING) Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ J New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE• Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by Mr. Jim Silva, City Council Member, to the Planning Commission' s denial of Special Sign Permit No. 90-10, Special Sign Permit No. 89-4(R) and Planned Sign Program No. 89-3(R) , a request to permit a center identification monument sign with variance to height and sign area, delete a condition of approval, and amend the planned sign program for the Autoplex center pursuant to Article 961 Signs of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. RECOMMENDATION• Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation: Motion to: "Uphold the Planning Commission' s denial of Special Sign Permit No. 90-10, Special Sign Permit No. 89-4(R) and Planned Sign Program No. 89-3(R) with findings" . Planning Commission -Action on January 23 , 1991: A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO DENY SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-4(R) WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Richardson, Newman, Shomaker, Ortega, Leipzig NOES: Kirkland ABSENT: Bourguignon ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED P10 5/85 A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY RICHARDSON, TO DENY PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 89-3(R) WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Richardson, Newman, Ortega, Leipzig NOES: Shomaker, Kirkland ABSENT: Bourguignon ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHOMAKER, SECOND BY NEWMAN, TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-10 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Richardson, Newman NOES: Shomaker, Kirkland, Ortega, Leipzig ABSENT: Bourguignon ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED Findings for denial - Special Sign Permit No. 90-10 , Special Sign Permit No. 89-4(R) . and Planned Sign Program No. 89-3(R) : (Attachment #1) ANALYSIS• Proposal • Special Sign Permit No . 90-10 is a request to replace an existing code conforming (7 foot high/35 square foot) center identification monument sign with .a new 13 foot - 8 inch high/80 square foot center identification monument sign in lieu of the code permitted seven (7) foot high, 50 square foot monument sign. Special Sign Permit No. 89-4(R) is a request to delete a condition of approval which prohibited a business identification (wall) sign on the west elevation of the E1 Pollo Loco Restaurant. The applicant is requesting a 20 .25 square foot business identification (wall) sign on the west elevation of the building . Planned Sign Program No. 89-3 (R) is a request to amend the planned sign program for the Autoplex Center to enlarge the existing center identification monument sign, add a new business identification wall sign and enlarge the existing E1 Pollo Loco monument sign. Backggound/Proposal : On December 19, 1989, the Planning Commission approved Special Sign Permit No. 89-4 and Planned Sign Program No. 89-3 to allow two (2) monument signs : 1) 35 square feet/7 feet in height (Autoplex) ; and 2) 14 square feet/6 feet in height (El Pollo Loco) , a tenant directory sign for the Autoplex Center and a business identification (wall) sign on the west elevation (front) of the E1 Pollo Loco Restaurant . RCA 3/4/91 -2- (8735d) Applicant ' s Request: The applicant is requesting to replace the existing code compliant 7 foot tall/35 square foot Autoplex center identification monument sign with a 13 foot - 8 inch/80 square foot center identification monument sign with eight (8) tenant panels and no center identification. The applicant is also requesting to delete a condition of approval which prohibited a business identification (wall) sign on the west elevation of the E1 Pollo Loco Restaurant (see Attachment No. 3) . In addition the request will amend Planned Sign Program No. 89-3 to include the aforementioned revisions and modify the existing E1 Pollo Loco monument sign by increasing it in height (6 feet to 7 feet) and sign area (14 square feet to 41 square feet) . The applicant ' s basis for the variance and amendments to the previously approved special sign permit and planned sign program is that the lot is unusually shaped. The lot has 201 feet of frontage with a lot depth of 442 feet and, therefore, the lot has limited street frontage and the tenants located to the rear of the property have limited street visibility. Design Review Board: Staff presented the applicant ' s proposal before the Design Review Board on November 15, 1990 for their recommendation to the Planning Commission.' The Board recommended that the Planning Commission refer the signs back to the Board after their action. The Board' s action was based upon the monument sign' s excessive height, sign area, number of tenant panels, no center identification and the possibility that the signs may be modified by the Planning Commission to meet the requirements and intent of the sign code. Planning Commission Discussion: The Planning Commission at the December 18, 1990, meeting discussed the sign proposals as outlined in the Staff Report dated December 18, 1990 (see attachment #6) . The Planning Commission discussed each separate request and concluded that the main issue was the height and size of the proposed center identification sign for the Autoplex Center. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to work with staff on a more visible and/or effective monument sign for the Autoplex. - No direction regarding the E1 Pollo Loco was given by the Planning Commission (See Attachment No. 4) . The Planning Commission at the January 23, 1991 meeting was presented with the applicant ' s revised proposal along with staff ' s alternative sign proposals (see attachment #7) . The applicant ' s revised proposal included maintaining the existing El Pollo Loco monument sign at its present height but also to retain their request for the additional wall signs for the restaurant . After lengthy discussion by the Planning Commission, no concensus was achieved regarding the Autoplex monument sign, the E1 Pollo Loco signs and therefore, the Planning Commission denied the three (3) requests (see Attachment #5) . RCA 3/4/91 -3- (8735d) , Analysis of Appeal ' The appellant Mr. Jim Silva, City Council Member, cites the following special concerns and situations should be re-analyzed in the Planning Commission' s denial of Special Sign Permit No. 90-10, Special Sign Permit No. 89-4(R) and Planned Sign Permit No. 89-3(R) ; 1) The center is located on an unusually shaped lot with a narrow frontage and considerable depth (201' wide by 442 ' deep) . 2) The property is located between two (2) protruding buildings and 3) The heavy traffic volume and high speed traffic along Beach Boulevard requires a taller and larger sign for proper visability. A discussion of the appellant ' s concerns are discussed below. Lot Configuration The appellant states that the center is located on an unusually shaped lot with a narrow frontage and considerable depth (201 ' wide by 442 ' deep) . Under existing sign code, a property with such a narrow frontage along Beach Boulevard is entitled to a monument sign of 7 feet in height. In reviewing the applicant ' s original request -to permit - a 13 foot -8 inch high/80 square foot center identification monument sign with eight (8) -tenant panels, and the applicant' s alternative proposal for a 12 ' -0" high/80 sq. ft. with eight (8) tenant panels, staff believes the signs are inconsistent with the sign code. Staff believes that the intent of the code is to limit the size and items of information on a monument sign to center identification and/or major tenant only for proper visibility along Beach Blvd. Staff believes that customers of the center are not impulse consumers . The existing center identification monument sign as approved by the Planning Commission through Special Sign Permit No. 89-4 meets the requirements and intent of the sign code. Adjacent Buildings The appellant states that the property is "sandwiched" between two tall and protruding buildings, Barr Lumber to. the north and Caps Radiator to the South. In Staff ' s analysis, the location of the two adjacent buildings do not affect the existing Autoplex freestanding monument sign since the Barr Lumber building is setback . approximately 10 '-0" less than the main Autoplex building. Staff believes no obstruction of site visability occurs for the southbound or northbound traffic along Beach Blvd. With regards to the Cap' s Radiator building, the building does obstruct the E1 Pollo Loco building because the restaurant is setback an additional 25 feet from the adjacent Caps Radiator building. However, to provide adequate site identification for two (2) disparate uses, the site has been provided with two (2) monument signs . Staff believes that the location of the adjacent buildings is not an issue with regard " to the visability of the two (2) freestanding monument signs along Beach Boulevard. RCA 3/4/91 -4- (8735d) Beach Blvd./Traffic Visability The appellant states that the high volume and high traffic speed along Beach Blvd. requires a taller, larger sign which can be seen in both directions along Beach Blvd. Staff believes that the applicant ' s proposals are too excessive in height, sign area and number of tenant panels . As proposed, the number of tenant panels (8) would require the high speed traffic along Beach Blvd. to slow and read the specific users panel . This may create conflicts on the heavily traveled major thoroughfare and may become a hazardous situation. Staff believes the intent of the code is to provide a sign which has adequate height (Max. 7'-0") and center identification to properly identify the center only. This reduces the need to slow down and read a sign when the center is properly identified. Staff believes the existing code conforming Autoplex and El Pollo Loco signs are adequate and provide the proper site visability. Staff has recommended that the existing sign, utilize a modified color scheme. This would highlight the signs structure, panel background, and letter colors for better visability along Beach Boulevard. Alternative Action Should the City Council recognize a need for the Autoplex to enlarge their existing freestanding monument sign, and find that strict compliance with Article 961 Signs would result in a substantial hardship to the applicant, the City Council may approve either of the applicant ' s two proposals. or any of staff ' s sign alternatives as depicted in the. January 23, 1991, Planning Commission Staff Report (See Attachment No. 7) . Depending on the alternative selected, a variance to the sign code with findings may be required. This action would require the approval of Special Sign Permit No. 90-10 and Planned Sign Program No. 89-3(R) with a condition that the sign be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Staff would suggest that Alternative "D" on Attachment No. 7 may provide the best compromise between the applicant ' s request and compliance with the sign code. Alternative "D" would exceed allowable height by 2 '-4" and exceed sign area by 6 .4 square feet . It would also provide eight tenant panels . Selection of this alternative would require approval of Special Sign Permit No. 90-10 and Planned Sign Program No. 89-3(R) . Conclusion Planning staff does not support any alternative which would permit an increase in the freestanding monument sign' s height, sign area, number of tenant panels and location within the landscape planter. Based upon the aforementioned analysis, Staff believes the existing signage is adequate but would recommend the signs utilize an improved color scheme for improved visibility. RCA 3/4/91 -5- (8735d) FUNDING SOURCE: Not Applicable ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may overturn the Planning Commission' s action on January 23, 1991, by approving the appeal and approve Special Sign Permit No. 90-10, Special Sign Permit No. 89-4(R) , and Planned Sign Permit No. 89-3(R) with findings and suggested conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Findings of Denial 2 . Area Map 3 . Letter of Appeal dated January 28, 1991 4 . Draft Minutes of the December 18, 1990 Planning Commission meeting 5 . Draft Minutes of the January 23, 1991, Planning Commission meeting 6 . Planning Commission. Staff Report dated December 18, 1990 7. Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 23, 1990 MTU:MA:HF: lp RCA 3/4/91 -6- (8735d) Huntington Beach Planning Commission P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 January 25 , 1991 Superior Electrical Advertisement 1700 W. Anaheim Street Long Beach, CA 90813 SUBJECT: SPECIAL SIGN PERM-IT NO. 90-10/SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-4 (R)/PLANNED .SIGN PROGRAM NO. 89-3 (R) REQUEST: To permit a center. identification monument sign with variance to height and sign area, delete a condition of approval and amend the planned sign program for the center . LOCATION: 19300-19324 Beach Boulevard (Eastside of Beach Boulevard approximately 550 feet north of Yorktown Avenue) DATE OF ACTION: January 23 , 1991 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-10 : 1 . Strict compliance with Article 961 Signs will not result in a_ substantial hardship to the applicant because the two (2) existing monument signs provide adequate signage for the two disparate uses on the site, i . e . restaurant and automotive service and the applicant ' s proposal for a 12 foot -0 inch monument sign does not meet the intent of the code with regard to height , sign area, number of tenant panels and the lack of center identification. 2 . The proposed new 12 foot -0 inch monument sign will adversely affect other signs in the vicinity since the total sign height and sign area as proposed greatly exceeds that which is allowed by code and was analyzed through Special Sign Permit No . 89-4 . 3 . The proposed 12 foot -0 inch monument sign will be detrimental to property in the vicinity and will not be compatible with the surrounding area . The excessive height, sign area, tenant panels and no center identification does not meet the requirements or intent of the sign code or recently approved signs . Special Sign Permit �,. 90-10/ j Special Sign Permit `�:�. 89-4(R)/ Planned Sign Program No . 89-3 (R) Page Two 4 . The proposed 12 foot -0 inch monument sign along Beach Boulevard will obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic vision. The excessive height, sign area, tenant panels and close proximity (125 feet) between the two (2)" signs has the potential to require motorists to slow down to properly see the two (2) monument signs and tenant panels and, therefore, cause a traffic and pedestrian conflict along Beach Boulevard . FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-4 (R) 1 . The request to delete a condition of approval to permit an additional business identification (wall) sign for the El Pollo Loco restaurant will not result in a substantial economic hardship to the applicant because as permitted through Special Sign Permit No . 89-4 there are two (2) monument signs permitted on-site for two disparate uses, i . e. restaurant and automotive which have been adequately identified through proper signage . 2 . The request to delete a condition of approval to permit an ;additional business identification (wall) sign for the El Pollo Loco restaurant will adversely affect other signs in the vicinity since the site currently has a monument sign and business identification (wall) sign and the unnecessary duplication of sign-age does not meet the requirements or intent of the sign code. 3 . The request to delete a condition of approval to permit an additional business identification (wall) sign for the El Pollo Loco restaurant will be detrimental to property located in the vicinity and will not be compatible with the surrounding area because the site is adequately provided with signage and the unnecessary duplication of signage does not meet the requirements or intent of the sign code. 4 . The request to delete a condition of approval to permit an additional business identification (wall) sign for the El Pollo Loco restaurant may prove to be a traffic hazard and cause pedestrian and vehicular conflicts along Beach Boulevard. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 89-3 (R) 1. The request to permit a center identification monument sign with variance to 'height, sign area , number of tenant panels , location, delete a condition of approval and amend the planned sign program does not reflect the requirements of a planned sign program or the intent of the sign code by the use of excessive height, sign area; tenant panels, lack of a center identification, and the unnecessary duplication of signage. 2 . The request to permit a center identification monument sign with variance to height, sign area, number of tenant panels, location, delete a condition of approval and amend the planned sign program does not provide signs that will be compatible with the existing on-site signs or the requirements and intent of a planned sign program and sign code. Special Sign Permit. 90-10/ Special Sign Permit "�-i�o. 89-4 (R)/ Planned Sign Program No. 89-3 (R) Page Three 3 . The request to permit a center identification monument sign with variance to height, sign area, number of tenant panels, location, delete a condition of approval and amend the planned sign program will not be compatible with signs in the surrounding commercial vicinity, with recently approved signs and with the sign criteria as outlined in Planned Sign Program No . 89-3 . I hereby certify that Special Sign Permit No . 90-10, Special Sign Permit No . 89-4 (R) , Planned Sign Program No . 89-3 (R) were denied by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach on January 23 , 1991 upon the foregoing 'findings . Sincerely, Mike Adams, Secretary Planning Commission by: #L. Hal Simmons Senior Planner (8509d-1, 3) G.ARFIELD ..... ........ . ..... .. .. ...... .. ...._ AVE.I I, a i R27/7 R" � Lev - o,Lrxxsr IRA 0 S 11 Rxn enl� R u. z ? oo R �' _ .. j i b^- --�. R I `" N.�EYLLIE w.9 R I R I [ MH � a 'm � �� Yl 'R^-PDRI R2MI-A ' --= r X—LE ..M N.UNE RLK]oo]e]0o•xa rR "RA-0 i YrAI_A-0 R2 l ft2 soy ''w RI RI CF-R' ..rxe RCNu RI wl.res eaKK C, R2 . - R 2 M•CLD CR Y R2 ; I �RI �. C F E RI R r q R2 i-R2 M I W R2 I I I � RI o RI R 8 n(0)R2 01 o R2•" OLc TOWN SPECIFI LIAR 2 J PLAN(DISTRICT I.) soak zeolz I •a �? of a �09+ 0 i - R2 R] RI oa ]] • zRI �... ri.� R o I •:C R2-0-PD o `o• ""':"i R2-0 ) •` �]o R •R2 R4 R23 2' J o: GRANT DR .r•'`.; i: I :q K;t'; N IiNC TR]959 I_.bWEN—.— AVE. J V' 2 0 R I90 RI o I R I > : R2 . > .>:e'a•i.....- R2.O•PD: g^' ... ., L� j Cpl' .L �ca s RIRII<L nN0 R. RI ITD R �nNn[ MAYE CR NIIIIANS AVE. Ro RI RIso zs,T DANBURY.._CR AM TYLER CR R2 R2 DR 'Tw :; R2 6 RI RI RI OP-0-CD R2 0 PD l ;' N R 2 y 7`A�� I I II S t R I ROL N CR i GIL[ORD CR .••;:•J::.�� JD`J R2 C4,e1 W WEHU^R. RI ;�=p -� •::-:: -• ' - Q] I]]0 TO ]EC t �CR• R 1 fl �O —x]0 Il :i •�'`-.' —-----. AVE. l-_-- YORKTDWN K : .i1 % C2 r— --(Q)R3 I R2 iRI RI P� .Q I NP?]Cw -• '.`R2 '.•. •• OCEfCtRf . C F-C I I I,5MI e R2 i 64Rz- RI J R I xvo d R2{P rV (c EPI-(iR) R2-0-CD Rsoono a.^c u.rr'• PIERRE RARI R 2 C N+e•I[xe•E-- /{�Rz-�:4;. [, RI ICMITA—___AVE I n.00; YFP2 a RI cw'[w M. I CD c] U R2-0 R2 R2 ,.. :R. ID ! 6D'` RI h z RI r� • -0 T N I �I -CD 0 �� SP IFI P N • r�.`s..._--- - LN �Rlu i 7. D ( (DI RI T o) C '0 vEMICL ]E.,_E C.`•;` RI RI< wi $ CD. CD 0 u N.s z%opop'' -- CD 01 I C 2 L:J g.00 % RTfw[LI N[RI • Lam_._ a it A ���J vE. iYiz.].o• RI I RI RI RI ' —u c —�I rar r- � I I ., .1 1 P r-�r-�1 r-� I te- r SSP90- 10/SSP89-4 R /PSP89-3 R �. HUNTINGTON BEACH HUN'fINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION JI B CITY--:OF HUNTINGTON BEACH -CITY CLERK_ .=ter CITY QF CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION HUNft►:uTel�t E�c_Artl cK�tF� HUNTINGTON BEACH - - - - - -- � a � 29Pi `9! Connie Brockway, Jim Silva, To City Clerk From City Councilman APPEAL OF SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT 90—'Bate January 28, 1991 Subject SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT 89-4 (R); AND PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM 89-3 (R) Please agendize an appeal for Special Sign Permit No. 90-10; Special Sign Permit No. 89-4 (R); and Planned Sign Program No. 89-3 (R) for the next City Council meeting. 1 would like to appeal the Planning Commission's January 23rd decision due to the following special situations: a. The center is located on an unusually shaped lot with a narrow frontage and considerable depth (201' wide by 442' deep). Under existing sign code, a property with such a narrow frontage along Beach Boulevard receives a monument sign of only 7 feet in height which cannot be readily seen by passing motorists. b. The property is "sandwiched" between two tall protruding buildings, Barr Lumber to the north and Caps Radiator to the south. c. The heavy traffic volume and the high traffic speed along Beach Boulevard requires a taller, larger sign, which can be seen in both directions as automobiles approach the center. Without additional signage I fear that businesses in the center will continue to struggle and fail, thereby having a substantial impact on the sales tax revenues that the city could have otherwise expected from the property. JS:paj ICA Mike Adams, Direc f Community Development suggested that the Commission continue item in order for staff to further clarify the legal requirement A MOTION WAS MADE BY WIL SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO CONTINUE REVISED FINAL TRACT 9908 TO THE JA Y 22, 1991 MEETING, IN ORDER FOR STAFF TO FURTHER CLARIFY THE LEGA UIREMENTS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Mountford, Williams, a, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: Shomaker ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED B-2 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO, 90-10/SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO, 89-4(R)/PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO, 89-3(R) : APPLICANT: Superior Electrical Advertising LOCATION: 19300-19324 Beach Boulevard (Eastside of Beach Boulevard approximately 535 feet north of Yorktown Avenue) Special Sign Permit No.' 90-10 is a request to replace an existing code conforming (7 foot high/35 square foot) center identification monument sign with a new 13 foot - 8 inch high/80 square foot center identification monument sign -in lieu of the code permitted seven (7) foot high, 50 square foot monument sign. Special Sign Permit No. 89-4(R) is a request to delete a condition of approval which prohibited a business identification (wall) sign on the west elevation of the E1 Pollo Loco Restaurant. The applicant is requesting a 20.25 square foot business identification (wall) sign on the west elevation of the building. Planned Sign Program No. 89-3(R) is a request to amend the planned sign program for the Autoplex Center to enlarge the existing center identification monument sign, add a new business identification wall sign and enlarge the existing E1 Pollo Loco monument sign. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Special Sign Permit No. 90-10, Special Sign Permit No. 89-4(R) and Planned Sign Program No. 89-3(R) with findings . THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Carl Middleton, Cardinal Development, stated that as the developer of the center he realized a mistake had been made by letting the project move ahead without adequate signage. Mr. Middleton said the PC Minutes - 12/18/90 -3- (8108d) DRAF businesses in the center are not surviving as well as they had projected. He feels the businesses are definitely not doing well, and considers it a hardship. John Adams, President Priority Auto Care, stated he was concerned with the quality of signage along Beach Boulevard. Mr. Adams said that he is in the back of the center and cannot be seen. He also stated that he has location maps on his advertisements, yet customers still complain that they cannot find his establishment. Eddie Abderrahman, 19308 Beach Blvd. , Ste. "C" , stated that he has had his business in the center for five (5) months and he is failing because of inadequate signage. Bryan K. Ras, 19308 Beach Blvd. , said that his customers complain they cannot find his business and, therefore, he is failing. Mel Berkley, Manager Quick Lube, stated that he has the same ' complaints as the previous speakers . He said he is sustaining a loss because of lack of signage. Mr. Berkley also said that all the businesses are trying very hard, and they are quality businesses. Mathew Ahearn, E1 Pollo Loco, stated that because of the poor signage his franchise is failing compared to other stores in the chain at similar type locations . Ken McCarty, 19132 Huntington St. , stated that• his shop has no visibility from Beach Boulevard. He said customers cannot find his shop, so. he has to spend lots of money advertising so they can find him. Stan Janocha, 20781 Hunter, representing Superior Electrical Advertising, stated that they would not work on a sign or propose a sign that was not aesthetically pleasing. He stated that the tenants need better signage, because business is not very good. A discussion ensued among the Commissioners . Some Commissioners felt that it was poor planning on the part of the original development and site layout, but they must try to help the tenants who are caught in the middle of the situation. Others felt that they must stand by the sign code, not allowing the special requests but allow the applicant ' s to go back to staff to come up with alternative sign proposals which would provide improved signage and or compromise solution. A MOTION WAS MADE BY WILLIAMS, SECOND BY ORTEGA TO DENY SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-10, SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-4(R)AND PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 89-3(R) WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Williams, Ortega, Leipzig NOES: Shomaker, Mountford, Kirkland, Bourguignon ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED PC Minutes - 12/18/90 -4- (8108d) DRAF:'�' A MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY SHOMAKER TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-10, SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-4(R)AND PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 89-3(R) WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Kirkland NOES: Williams, Ortega, Bourguignon, Leipzig ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY WILLIAMS, SECOND BY ORTEGA TO CONTINUE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-10, SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-4(R)AND PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 89-3(R) TO THE JANUARY 8, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, IN ORDER FOR STAFF TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT AND COME UP WITH AN ALTERNATE PLAN, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FIRE HAZARD FIR%PR ION EMERGEN Y MEDICAL SERVICES REPORT: Presenter: Departing a Chief Ray Picard Fire Chief Picard gave a it interview to the Commission. Chief Picard gave a slide presen 'on as he explained the progress being made within the Fire Depart The Planning Commission ezpres heir appreciation to Chief Raymond C. Picard by adopting Re tion No. 1441. A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND EIPZIG, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1441 IN APPRECIATION OF CHIEF RA C. PICARD' S YEARS OF SERVICE, BY THE FOLLOWING .VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, 0 a, Kirkland, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 12/18/90 -5- (8108d) 10 MINUTES i .roc ... .. HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 23 , 1991 Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California STUDY SESSION - 5 :30 PM REGULAR MEETING - 7: 00 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P ROLL CALL: Shomaker, Mountford, Williams, Ortega, Kirkland, A P Bourguignon, Leipzig A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. (4 MINUTES PER PERSON, NO DONATING OF TIME TO OTHERS) Anyone wishing to speak must fill out and submit a form to speak prior to Oral Communication or Public Hearing items. No action can be taken by the Planning Commission on this date, unless agendized. B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS B-1 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO, 90-10/SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-4(R)/PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 89-3(R) (CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 8 , 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING).: APPLICANT: Superior electrical Advertisement LOCATION: 19300-19324 Beach Boulevard (Eastside of Beach Boulevard approximately 550 feet north of Yorktown Avenue. ) Special Sign Permit No. 90-10 is a request to replace an existing code conforming (7 foot high/35 square foot) center identification monument sign with a new 13 foot - 8 inch high/80 square foot center identification monument sign in lieu of the code permitted seven (7) 'foot high, 50 square foot monument sign. UE Special Sign Permit No. 89-4(R) is a request to delete� a conc'itiori` M of approval which prohibited a business identification (wall) sign on the west elevation of the E1 Pollo Loco Restaurant. The applicant is requesting a 20 .25 square foot business identification (wall) sign bn the west elevation of the building. Planned Sign Program No. 89-3(R) is a request to amend the planned sign program for the Autoplex Center to enlarge the existing center identification monument sign, add a new business identification wall sign and enlarge the existing E1 Pollo Loco monument sign. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: . Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Special Sign Permit No. 90-10, Special Sign Permit No. 89-4(R) and Planned Sign Program No. 89-3(R) with findings. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Stan Janocha, 20781 Hunter Lane, restated his case on poor signage. He reiterated the fact that he feels the location and size of the lot make it very difficult for customers to find them. Mr. Janocha stated that because of the tremendous amount of competition, staff ' s alternative would not be effective. Carl Middleton, 375 Briston, Costa Mesa, stated the importance of tenants identifying themselves . Mr. Middletown requested that they consider only tenant panels . John Adams, 19512 Woodlands, stated he. is very concerned about the attractiveness of the community, but with current signage the customers cannot find the businesses. He also stated that staff ' s alternative would not be effective. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Newman stated the problem seems to be that the address is at the bottom of the sign. Commissioner Newman also said that she is uncomfortable with changing the sign program for financial viability. Commissioner Shomaker stated that she is against generic signs, and as we are more sophisticated with sign designs, we should not forget the business aspect. Commissioner Ortega stressed that in order for a code change a hardship must be realized. She also stated that the address numbers should be more readily visible. PC Minutes - 1/23/91 -2- (8717d) A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY, NEWMAN TO~DENY SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-10 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING •VOTE: AYES: Newman, Ortega, Leipzig NOES: Richardson, Shomaker, Kirkland ABSENT: Bourguignon ABSTAIN: None SPLIT VOTE - NO ACTION A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY ORTEGA, TO DENY SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-4(R) WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Richardson, Newman, Shomaker, Ortega, Leipzig NOES: Kirkland ABSENT: Bourguignon ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY ORTEGA, SECOND BY RICHARDSON, TO DENY PLANNED - SIGN PROGRAM NO. 89-3(R) WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Richardson, Newman, Ortega, Leipzig NOES: ; Shomaker, Kirkland ABSENT: : Bourguignon ABSTAIN: : None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHOMAKER, SECOND BY RICHARDSON, TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-10 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Richardson, Newman, Shomaker NOES: Kirkland, Ortega, Leipzig ABSENT: Bourguignon ABSTAIN: None .SPLIT VOTE - NO ACTION A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHOMAKER, SECOND BY. NEWMAN, TO APPROVE SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-10 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Richardson, Newman NOES: Shomaker, Kirkland, Ortega, Leipzig ABSENT: Bourguignon ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED PC Minutes - 1/23/91 -3- (8717d) FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO, 90-10: 1. Strict compliance with Article 961 Signs will not result in a substantial hardship to the applicant because the two (2) existing monument signs provide adequate signage for the two disparate uses on the site, i .e. restaurant and automotive service and the applicant ' s proposal for a 12 foot -0 inch monument sign does not meet the intent of the code with regard to height, sign area, number of tenant panels and the lack of center identification. 2 . The proposed new 12 foot -0 inch monument sign will adversely affect other signs in the vicinity since the total sign height and sign area as proposed greatly exceeds that which is allowed by code and was analyzed through Special Sign Permit No. 89-4 . 3 . The proposed 12 foot -0 inch monument sign will be detrimental to property in the vicinity and will not be compatible with the surrounding area. The excessive height, sign area, tenant panels and no center identification does not meet the requirements or intent of the sign code or recently approved signs . 4 . The proposed 12 foot -0 inch monument sign along Beach Boulevard will obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic vision. The excessive height, sign area, tenant panels and close proximity (125 feet) between the two (2) signs has the potential to require motorists to slow down to properly see- the two (2) monument signs and tenant panels and; therefore, cause a traffic and pedestrian. conflict,. along Beach Boulevard. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL SPECIAL SIGN- PERMIT 'NO. 89-4(R) 1. The request to delete a condition of approval to permit an additional business identification (wall) sign for the El- Pollo Loco restaurant will not result in a substantial economic hardship to the applicant because as permitted through Special Sign Permit No. 89-4 there are two (2) monument signs permitted on-site for two disparate uses, i .e. restaurant and automotive which have been adequately identified through proper signage. 2. The request to delete a condition of approval to permit an additional business identification (wall) sign for the E1 Pollo Loco restaurant will adversely affect other signs in the vicinity since the site currently has a monument sign and business identification (wall) sign and the unnecessary duplication of signage does not meet the requirements or intent of the sign code. PC Minutes - 1/23/91 -4- (8717d) I FL 3 . The request to delete a condition of approval to permit an additional business identification (wall) sign for the E1 Pollo Loco restaurant will be detrimental to property located in the vicinity and will not be compatible with the surrounding area because the site is adequately provided with signage and the unnecessary duplication of signage does not meet the requirements or intent of the sign code. 4 . The request to delete a condition of approval to permit an additional business identification (wall) sign for the E1 Pollo Loco restaurant may prove to be a traffic hazard and cause pedestrian and vehicular conflicts along Beach Boulevard. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 89-3(R) 1. The request to permit a center identification monument sign with variance to height, sign area, number of tenant panels, location, delete a condition of approval and amend the planned sign program does not reflect the requirements of a planned sign program or the intent of the sign code by the use of excessive height, sign area,. tenant panels, lack of a center identification, and the unnecessary duplication of signage. 2 . The request to permit a center identification monument sign with variance to height, sign area, number of tenant panels, location, delete a condition of approval and amend the planned sign program does not provide signs that will be compatible with the existing on-site signs or the requirements and intent of a planned sign program and sign code. 3 . The request to permit a center identification monument sign with variance to height, sign area, number of tenant panels, location, delete a condition of approval and amend the planned sign program will not be compatible with signs in the surrounding commercial vicinity, with recently approved signs and with the sign criteria as outlined in Planned Sign Program No. 89-3 . C. CONSENT CALENDER D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS E. DISCUSSION ITEMS F. PLANNING COMMISSION INQUIRIES PC Minutes - 1/23/91 -5- (8717d) huntington beach department of community development sTA f f _REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development . DATE: December 18, 1990 SUBJECT: SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-10/SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-4 (R)/PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 89-3(R) APPLICANT: Superior Electrical Advt . DATE ACCEPTED: 1700 W. Anaheim Street November 26, 1990 Long Beach,' CA 90813 MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: PROPERTY Cardinal Development - January 25, 1991 OWNER: 375. Bristol St . , Ste. 50 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) REOUEST: To permit a center identi- fiction monument sign with GENERAL PLAN: General variance to height and sign Commercial area, delete a condition of approval and amend the EXISTING USE': Automotive planned sign program for Center/Restaurant the center . ACREAGE-: 2 . 0 acres LOCATION: 19300-19324 Beach Blvd. (Eastside of Beach Blvd. approximately 550 feet north of Yorktown Ave. ) 1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION.: Deny Special Sign Permit No . 90-10, Special Sign Permit No . -89-4 (R) and Planned Sign Program No . 89-3 (R) with findings . 2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Special Sign Permit No. 90-10 is a request to replace an existing code conforming (7 foot high/35 square foot) center identification monument sign with a new 13 foot - 8 inch high/80 square foot center identification monument sign in lieu of the code permitted seven (7) foot high, 50 square foot monument sign. Special Sign Permit No . 89-4 (R) is a request to delete a condition of approval which prohibited a business identification (wall) sign on the west, elevation of the E1 Pollo Loco Restaurant . The applicant is requesting a 20 . 25 square foot business identification (wall) sign on the west elevation of the building . Aftl A-F M-23C4:6 Planned Sign Program No . 89-3 (R) is a request to amend the planned sign program for the Autoplex Center to enlarge the existing center identification monument sign,. add a new business identification wall sign and enlarge the existing E1 Pollo Loco monument sign. 3 . 0 SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) LAND USE: Autoplex/E1 Pollo Loco North of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) LAND USE: Barr Lumber East of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential ZONE: R1 (Low Density Residential) LAND USE: Single Family Residential South of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General.- Commercial ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) LAND USE: Auto Service West of Subject Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: General Commercial ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) LAND USE: Retail 4 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 11, Section 15311 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. Staff Report - 12/18/90 -2- (8034d) 9 . 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: Background: On December 19 , 1989 the Planning Commission approved Special Sign Permit No . 89-4 and Planned Sign Program No. 89-3 to allow two (2) monument signs : 1) 35: square feet/7 feet in height (Autoplex) ; and 2) 14 square feet/6 feet in height (El Polio Loco) , in lieu of the code requirement allowing one (1) monument sign 50 square feet/7 feet in height . The request also included the placement of the monument signs 125 feet apart in lieu of the minimum code, requirement of 200 feet between monument signs . As part of staff ' s recommendation and the approval process, the Planning Commission included two (2) conditions of approval which prohibited the placement of two (2) code permitted signs on-site through Special Sign Permit No . 89-4 and Planned Sign Program No . 89-3 . The two- (2) prohibited signs were a tenant directory sign for the Autoplex Center and a business identification (wall) sign on the west elevation (front) of the E1 Polio Loco Restaurant (see Attachment No . 6) . Applicant ' s Proposal : The applicant is requesting to permit a 13 foot - 8 inch/80 square foot center identification monument sign with eight (8) tenant panels and no center identification and delete a condition of approval which prohibited a business identification (wall) sign on the west elevation of the El Polio. Loco Res.t.a.ur-ant (see Attachment No . 3) . In addition the request will amend- Planned Sign Program No . 89-3 to include the aforementioned revisions and modify the existing E1 Polio Loco monument sign by increasing it in height (6 feet to 7 feet) and sign area (14 square feet to 41 square feet) . The applicant' s basis for the variance and amendments to the previously approved special sign permit and planned sign program is that the lot is unusually shaped. The lot has 201 feet of frontage with a lot depth of 442 feet and, therefore, the lot has limited street frontage and the tenants located to the= rear of the property have limited street visibility (see Attachment No . 2) . Design Review Board: Staff presented the applicant ' s proposal before the Design Review Board on November 15, 1990 for their recommendation to the Planning Commission. The Board recommended that the Planning Commission refer the signs back to the Board after their action. The Board ' s action was based upon the monument sign' s excessive height , sign area, number of tenant panels, no center identification and the possibility .that the signs may be modified by the Planning Commission to meet the requirements and intent of the sign code (see Attachment No . 4) . Staff Report - 12/18/90 -3- (8034d) Staff Analysis : In reviewing the applicant ' s request to permit a 13 foot -8 inch high/80 square foot center identification monument sign with eight (8) tenant panels, staff believes the sign does not meet the intent of the code with regard . to height, sign area, number of tenant panels and the lacy, of a strong center identification (Autoplex) . Staff believes that the intent of the code is to limit the size and items of information on a monument sign to center identification and/or major tenant only for proper visibility along Beach Boulevard. The specific automobile users on-site are not typical impulse consumer uses and, therefore, should not require tenant panel identification when a strong center identification sign is provided. The existing center identification monument sign as approved by the Planning Commission through Special Sign Permit No . 89-4 meets the requirements and intent of the sign code. With regards to the applicant ' s request to delete a condition of approval for Special Sign Permit No. 89-4 which prohibited. a business identification (wall) sign on the west elevation of the El Pollo Loco - building, staff does not support the request . The condition of approval was placed on the project as an exchange between allowed wall signs and freestanding signs . In permitting a second freestanding sign along Beach Boulevard through Special Sign Permit No . 89-4 , staff felt then as they do now that restricting the business to one (1) or the other eliminates some unnecessary duplication of signage. The building was permitted a business identification (wall) sign on the north elevation. Examples of this exchange through a planned sign program include the Kentucky Fried Chicken at Beach Boulevard and Garfield Avenue., and the Burger King at Newland Center . The proposal also includes a request to enlarge the existing E1 Pollo Loco monument sign in height (6 feet to 7 feet) and sign area (14 square feet to 41 square feet) . The sign was approved by the Planning Commission through Special Sign Permit No . 89-4 . In the original analysis to permit two (2) monument signs in lieu of one (1) , staff based its recommendation of approval on the fact that the two (2) signs met the sign code with regard to height and sign area . The combined sign area (35 square feet) was within the sign area (50 square feet) permitted for one (1) monument sign. As proposed by the applicant, staff does not support the request . Staff believes the intent of the approved special sign permit was to allow two distinctly different types of uses (automotive center vs . restaurant) separate identification. The applicant ' s request does not meet the intent of a planned sign program, the requirements of the sign code, nor the analysis of Special Sign Permit No . 89-4 . The -proposed signage is excessive in height, sign area and proposes unnecessary duplication of signage. Staff Report - 12/18/90 -4- (8034d) Based upon the aforementioned analysis and staff ' s non-support of .. the applicant ' s proposal, the entire amendment to permit the modifications as part of Planned Sign Program No . 89-3 for the Autoplex/E1 ' Pollo Loco Center should not be granted. The sign program as approved by staff and analyzed through Special Sign Permit No . 89-4 is adequate and should remain in effect (see Attachment No. 5) . Alternative Action: If the Planning Commission determines that there is a basis for additional signage to be permitted on the site, staff would recommend an alternative to the applicant ' s request . Staff would continue to recommend denial of the two (2) requested monument sign enlargements , but would suggest that the addidtional wall sign for E1 Pollo Loco could be permitted. In' lieu of the larger center monument sign, staff would also suggest that a tenant directory sign could be permitted if properly located. The wall sign and tenant directory, while normally permitted by code, were conditioned to be prohibited on this site by the Planning Commission due to the previous special sign permit request for two (.2) monument signs . if the Planning commission opts to consider this alternative, the proper action would be to deny Special Sign Permit No . 90-10 and approve Special Sign Permit No . 89-4 (R) and Planned Sign Program No . 89-3 (R) as modified to delete the conditions prohibiting the wall sign and 'tenant directory (see Attachment No . 7) . 10 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Special Sign Permit No . 90-10, Special Sign Permit No . 89-4 (R) and Planned Sign Program No . 89-3 (R) with findings . FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-10 : 1. Strict compliance with Article 961 Signs will not result in a substantial hardship to the applicant because the two (2) existing monument signs provide adequate signage for the two disparate uses on the site, i .e. restaurant and automotive service and the applicant ' s proposal for a 13 foot -8 inch monument sign does not meet the intent of the code with regard to height, sign area, number of tenant panels and the lack of center identification. 2 . The proposed new 13 foot -flinch monument sign will adversely affect other signs in the vicinity since the total sign height and sign area as proposed greatly exceeds that which is allowed by code and was analyzed through Special Sign Permit No . 89-4 . ' Staff Report - 12/18/90 -5- (8034d) 3 . The proposed 13 foot -8 inch monument sign will be detrimental to property in the vicinity and will not be compatible with the surrounding area. The excessive height, sign area, tenant panels and no center identification does not meet .the requirements or intent of the sign code or recently approved signs .. 4 . The proposed 13 foot -8 inch monument sign along Beach Boulevard will obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic vision. The excessive height, sign area, tenant panels and close proximity (125 feet) between the two (2) signs has the potential to require motorists to slow down to properly see the two (2) monument signs and tenant panels and, therefore, cause a traffic and pedestrian conflict along Beach Boulevard . FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-4 (R) 1 . The request to delete a condition of approval to permit an additional business identification (wall) sign for the E1 Pollo Loco restaurant will not result in a substantial economic hardship to the applicant because as permitted through Special Sign Permit No. 89-4 there are two (2) monument signs permitted on-site for two disparate uses, i .e. restaurant and automotive which have been adequately identified through proper signage. 2 . The request to delete a condition of approval to permit an additional business identification (wall) sign for the E1 Pollo Loco restaurant will adversly affect other signs- .in the vicinity since the site currently has a monument sign and business identification (wall) sign and the unnecessary duplication of signage does not meet the requirements or intent of the sign code. 3 . The request to delete a condition of approval to permit an . additional business identification (wall) sign for the E1 Pollo Loco restaurant will be detrimental to property located in the _ vicinity and will not be compatible with the surrounding area because the site is adequately provided with signage and the unnecessary duplication of signage does not meet the requirements or intent of the sign code. 4 . The request to delete a condition of approval to permit an additional business identification (wall) sign for the E1 Pollo Loco restaurant may prove to be a traffic hazard and cause pedestrian and vehicular conflicts along Beach Boulevard. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO 89-3 (R) 1. The request to permit a center identification monument sign with variance to height and sign area, delete a condition of approval and amend the planned sign program does not reflect the requirements of a planned sign program or the intent of the sign code by the use of excessive height, sign area, tenant panels , lack of a center identification, and the unnecessary duplication of signage. Staff Report - 12/18/90 -6- (8034d) 2 . The request to permit a center identification monument sign with variance to height and sign area, delete a condition of approval and amend the planned sign program does not provide signs that will be compatible with the existing on-site signs or the requirements and intent. of a planned sign program and sign code. 3 . The request to permit a center identification monument sign with variance to height and sign area, delete a condition of approval and amend the planned sign program will not be compatible with signs in the surrounding commercial vicinity, with recently approved. signs and with the sign criteria as outlined in Planned Sign Program No . 89-3 . 11 . 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The Planning Commission may approve Special Sign Permit No . 89-4 (R) and Planned Sign Program No . 89-3 (R) as discussed above with findings and conditions of approval . ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Area map 2 . Applicant 's narrative 3 . Applicant ' s proposed site plan and sign elevations 4 . Design Review Board Minutes dated November 15, 1990 5 . Special Sign Permit No . 89-4%Planned Sign Program No . 89-3 site plan and sign elevations 6 . Planning Commission minutes and conditions-of approval dated December 19 , 1989 7 . Alternative Action - Findings and conditions of approval HS:HF: kjl Staff Report - 12/18/90 -7- (8034d) GARFIELD :. AVE.I I, - IRA-O Ro CI y R F R2 aa)N -..... _ _....T _.-Z a3�o6J! Ru0'nn z ` RI -' R 2 T y - ar_:.r., ...-- } .K,I R - RI ,n � r S y . RI wM " � '!':'r M H � I J _':•<. I aNOEvaac oR R I cii'aFiwiis&i'rA:; uMrw�<' 1�9_ 4!�'R2-PD cS RI MI R2 C2 : (I .�I r y�.,., N I E RLK 3003$3004 YlM1kf:.Y. I -`RZV RA-o R2 :s R2 8 MI-A-O R R2 w, .i -[Is RI RI CF-R a9Lx9 acK rn ..:C.`... R RI wNTEi eenu c R2 ... R2 C41 "RI CF-E RI RI R I A �� I - b (FERRY S..tK::•.'.i.l EMfdLp R K[n R2+ R 2 R2 ;. R I R�....5 J(0)R2-OI R2'..,'.L w RI i I OLD Town SPECIP' R2 RI ?o • 2 `'! PLANEDISTRICT I.) �p _ _ �e OUTK M I J SDU.I � 4 ,sE•� r.9,.( R i 'v RI \J�.R�IJ\/ z RI 0. v R2-0-Po os :b oN' 'r' R2 0 "uo R R2 RZ GRANT DR eal N R4 R i J V 4 ..�..V.....,..:._..w`;,; .2 iR -OWE A--- AVE. N a•.:¢ :i^" Ric zso KERI39 oA I RI u F K ¢, �q RI •u ..� cLE.El : C2� z RN W .C. R 2 �wNl`rBlC RAres CR a e R IS I R /] waa<eE-R2-O PD R2.0 I RI R AC o�[ .e`'3S,ti f RI ti 3.__- NILI IANS AVE. RI R I LOY SY:Ir "'>oro-• el g.�I'•.. ` �' i =>♦ 3 I%NAM TYLER CR DANBURY CR x,/P �33 Ail;e5f?. Qi[ .a1. ,,.:JO t 'r4? CR . . , , R2 R2 R2 RI RI � ,•� i A �=RIw l R2-0-CO. I ,y Llzb' 3 i R R2 L 2 0-PD C x R POI K CR OP-0-CD I I aLroaD CR t.: �: N gR3 i _ C4 .- a RI 3 :::�-.•� 5 • W_jQ R2 WWENIDCK R BaOrl .:: �e1L"I CO :Sb TO 3[C E 3�CR. R I W R - -- —I AVE. ---- YORKTOWN C2 -o(0)R3 ;; R2 RI RI R2-0-CD ff? - —1� Ca I �-sa• K%4'x'w� - ��R2 ,`,-._wE!s._v3 uEx«r aL IR II Ci F—C r i I i:'A. R2``` /R2fPP� �ta F RI R R2-0-CD e !� 1 -•, ,<•ly4' RACE OR MERRE 49 3,--- RA R2 C2 K,.•IE a•[>: Rz`• [, RI RI . wiC.Hlrn---SAVE xT.aC1 I' of YFP2 O R•n3oo'�" � -CD-0 I L•9,.60- ,A. E RI RI �I R2-0 R2 R2 IL RI = i - N II - - - - I 0 7 I CD O , I - — LK. SP IF P N ' _ li �� sc: ..._- ----- D / - CD�D VENICL LC IN rCC; I .. (DI CD.. T O) > g I ..9•:=•.I•w RI' & CD-O �.-. CD 0 - i i`o:rz J 'I Rsr�L nL RI BOI —uiICA - -� r-,� r=�r .—� �--, ,-Rrr l'�; ' L31,, ` RI RI I RI RI p 0 SSP90- 10/S'SP89 4(R)/PSP89-3(R) �. HUNTINGTON BEACH }� HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION . su E_ ior Electrical advertising 6 Signage Systems 1930 � BEACH BOULEVARD Storefronts HUNT I NGTON BEACH, CA Graphic OCTOBER 11 , 1990 Design Consultants VARIANCE APPLICATION PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM e9-4 11-A - SITE REASONS FOR INITIATING THIS APPLICATION The reasons for initiating this application is because of the unusual shape of this site. The site is approximately 45(--) ' deep, yet it has only approximately 200 ' of street frontage. 11-B - AREA DESCRIPTION AND POPULATION SERVED BY THE PROPOSED USE OR PROJECT This commercial property is on Beach Blvd. in a heavily travelled area where the daily traffic count is approxi- mately 46, 000-) cars per, day. This commercial property serves the general population with automotive care services. 11-C - DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AND SERVICES This project has eight (8) separate automotive care facilities which range from tire sales to all types of automotive repair- services. There is also one fast-food restaurant on this site. 11-D - DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING USES The surrounding uses are all commercial in nature with some retail and a large amount of automotive related set-vices such as automobile sales and automobile service facilities. 12-A - WHAT EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES APPLY TO PETITIONED PROPERTY ( INCLUDING SIZE, SHAPE, TOPOGRAPHY, LOCATION OR SURROUNDINGS) THAT DEPRIVE IT OF PRIVILEGES NORMALLY ENJOYED- The subject property is on an unusually shaped level parcel of land located on Beach Blvd. between Yorktown and Gat-field Avenues. The property currently is improved with new automobile care service facilities and one fast-food restaurant. The subject property is 4C(--) ' deep with only 200 ' of street frontage. Because of this unusual shape, only two existing tenants have street frontage visibility for the 46, 000 cars that travel this 213 street daily. The rest of the tenants are tucked-back: into the 775-3627 center, with no visibility to Beach Boulevard. Because of the 433-7421 shape of this property a larger, more appropriate tenant sign 714 is required so that all tenants on this property have visibility 995-9356 to Beach Boulevard. Fax: 213 435-1867 1700 West Anaheim Street / Long Beach, California 90813 AUTOPLEX-HUNTINGTON BEACH -2- OCTOBER 11 , 1990 The proposed modification will allow monument signage spaces for all autocare tenants in the center that have no direct street visibility. 12-B - WILL THE REQUEST CONSTITUTE A GRANT OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE INCONSISTENT WITH NORMAL LIMITATIONS' No. Approval of this variance will not grant special privileges inconsistent with normal limitations in this area. If this property had 450 lineal feet of street frontage instead of the existing 200 feet, the signs submitted would be allowed under the existing Huntington Beach Sign Ordinance. 12-C - WHY IS THIS REQUEST NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND ENJOYMENT OF ONE OR MORE SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGHTS-' The sizes of the existing monument- signs and a lack: of a restaurant wall sign on Beach Blvd. are creating a negative impact on the success of all the existing merchants. With the heavy traffic volume and high speeds on Beach Blvd. , proper- signage is imperative to their long term success and viability. The existing program places the merchants at an unfair economic disadvantage. 2.-D - STATE REASONS WHY THE GRANTING OF THIS REQUEST WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE. The granting of this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare. The sign will , in fact, 1 ) better inform the public, ) attract patrons and clients to this center in an orderly fashion, .=) provide more tax revenue for the City of Huntington Beach, 4) will provide more enjoyment for the people of, this area because of the services_ rendered by this center,. The success of this center which .relies heavily on the approval of the sign design submitted, will result in a material benefit to the public welfare and to higher property values for, the people in the surrounding areas. N m U m CS 7T V \ v � t superior 2111� C,�.��dECtfICal adVErtisinga� -v iaroB.M�u..oni.i a,�.,,s.s�✓.00so,x s�.k l �t .LN3 314 71 wl A yY � -A n• v v I V- Chi V to-it-Ao t.S. Saf WpJ 1a ScJ4.E supr=1 i©1 noaess Ig3m gift+8u�p• EIECtIICcII adVEt'as^ n9g c—FvED M'iFiuprX� °^� p^� w�.�• si `•� -?-a-`v P6�C GAL L A W , IP.A.c_��' . etc - o 1, � q, � v:':17E�J AT)I%�1'Y>E�SAL hET O� 4atST E�ti - --_-- LFiP•NtiL-LFi-fG'Pe� � r ='!3_'e7?Stl TE! A iI� _ E.�:]::: �k ir irID ary Ntb' -- PAX P N T S• O l; G+1, Q;LWAG �i IE�(�� Il.tdlt IiN4Ttp MoJL4H5,tJt OW-,' G7 GF INTO- i Ml►J°T G} iJ►JE�. 1 1.. 1� uxrrw� �r��i�r f•E��r-tu 1E��1 GpE3; iT A) � ' pirJi rD M-P 2-t18 F5,016W 1 GtEsrDM iFEIA�E{7 A�Ir�E�1rl PSI tr}c+a�.1eE�G�1sm�cnc.t'IaJ - F TO f�c P�`rUc Ft, STEc- F1 Aft TD #�C- 040O Z-ALA-MHO-rt/E it,14 DEL. ovEL-FV- tU--. i d s $ L6T•1't%F--fo e-t4 Tv Fr u.K'u�1 F r1abD lea ��EL r�+esT1G �/�,'vtKKTwrtiuw• GG�O�5QC U F�eJ�-1oi tom, , E2,?D—o Lz/-o 'd Z7v3 t� W/-0 74i�Nllll� a . Go�oR�rPf�ihePTloNS Z791j RED vs(��Eua� �' 20517 Ye",J 13"P, GI 2 C NOTES: SPECIRGnONS^ .e..w V CHANNEL LETTER DETAIL MA 8 D. SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO . 90-10/PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 89-3 : Applicant : Superior Electrical Advertising Request : Review of .revised planned sign program. Location: 19300-19324 Beach Boulevard Action : Recommendation to the Planning Commission Herb Fauland, staff planner , displayed the site plan, colored elevations and photographs of the existing buildings and site . Mike Adams designated Sergio Martinez to represent him as he left the meeting . Lengthy discussion on the proposal followed . Kirk Kirkland, supported by Daryl Smith and Sergio Martinez , expressed his concern about the excessive number of panels ( 8) and its impact Ion the rapid traffic moving along Beach Boulevard . DARYL SMITH MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TAKE ACTION ON THIS APPLICATION AND REFER IT BACK TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE MATERIAL-COLOR PALETTE. SERGIO MARTINEZ SECONDED .THE MOTION AND IT PASSED 3-0 . E . REVIEW/APPROVAL OF MINUTES : MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 8, 1990 MEETING WERE CONTINUED DUE TO LACK OF A QUORUM. SERGIO MARTINEZ MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 5 : 05 P.M. DARYL SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT PASSED 3-0 . Respectfully Submitted, L v' Ser rtine , DRB Secretary SM: ss DRB Minutes 11/15/90 -3- (7893d) La , PLANNED SIGN PROGRANI �8cl • .5 vCLac_ Z,, f�,sTi>.`i N1�1w6 . �.'>'�fo',rvNJ /rM L=o Ab•/eY.�d>tw - ---'/-- 77,- -,W'Z <-l+Yniw.C[W;_ ,P'.+>V.r�1.y,/Yd' d>vwN I - l''� SUITE A SUIT!D. SUITE E SUITE f ' I 'ira.rT__>� ING 'A' ---- I I/n�"ac�' y�u -I �1-� I"� 79J00 EACH BLV D. r. ,�5�'�y A I i__L�(j f.' SUITE A - Q IIO.. SIGH 1 IT y 1�1 q J �, yq a��' ^45771* iY!!' J SU17E EI - e� 01 ,� ® _OIRECTORY YONUYEN7 - _ BUILDING 'D' - N,v:/ 1 AI lo f•.CI• '' - yy>r! rvr�>tn�. 15 ,•I --- r.l �l I,— BEAC�BLVD.. •? �,vc,,.roe <�Jr. .. i .. _ SUITE C y i I� � !! ! 'BUILDING 'C' i — d—...—►_ .. 1 ,.i I SUIT[D l s 11 W f- 61� I 7i —_ �; r.•' 19]16 m _.1 t BUILDING 'B' 1 i ___ I ;7,;d: ;v-rri I !•, T> 97h� I -�_ ®u fouo Eoco YON— _ ;�-f� I � I , I I �sw;rrc•s��r4++� ' I ...._ ", if I I s'o'c'hrr'm l,•IG,✓G4Y'A2lriy d .�l�ivt- L I y � 1 . n SITE PLAN b'P 27 we MdX oelrni•I/w-tT NJre1a•`�i MiLxn � .�oJI 1'.20' . 1 i vct i o_brL E rss::t plrr i ��� a nrs• 19308 BUILDING ADDRESSING SUITE IDENi1FICATIOt1 t HUNTINGTON BEACH AUTOPLEX CARDINAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 9/13/89 3I88)Airway Avenue,Costa Mesa.CA 9Z6Z6(7I4)557-4064 .- ... ... REV.3120/99.._ PLANNED SIGN PROGRAMS •� 4• -6 pEt,t OcL. 'jLi`s"TEeAso-�T *-sT'4 , I 1 PRECISION TUNE 19300.- 19302 — t © SINGLE FACE INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED DIRECTORY ® DOUBLE FACE INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED:f;!i,T� Ili•.i•-o•®DOUBLE FACE INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SIGN Ad Colors And Finish!.As Pas'El Polio Loco'Speclllcallons. 171:L�T�� 13�( Lo�D)g1,bIJ t SECONOART•EL POCLO IOCO•SIGNS if,own show I_nmmm Few ® INDIVIDUAL ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTERS ___� µ -- RRP t:O gum nL.•r sl.,111.r«•s ro..l L....q.A..rums r,.rr.p.I.•.r..A.rr..«.w wa r.s Llw.a r.a o,L......,d• e. ... ruA s-L..ea,w«r.i.... u. r ..u...r r..w —�.......- WT.ILLON.DIRECTIONAL.I uENO SIGNAGa • .C.w.r.. • . ... a.er.,.... ....... ...1.a.,.r...T.A. .r.. •... .. I, TYPE'e•SIGN SECTION M1•bM.L C-P-1.1....A.1 l•asp P.feu N.0 4u by.l.n.A, •r•0.Ill.. a TA.ull"D a TAT6 N •DE a 11—T AD TaNA.a OFFICa I, •. D.C. C.-r.«s.a.I..r..Ire. Pr....—.r.A• .. Mal..e.I•.ON•••T.w•wi 1•I.r1 01• a««..Tr....ir.I..«III Ir.ar.a APPROVED EOL Note:sign 0 Side Elevation Mounted T,Lover Fascia a.A..N...I..,a li Ie..Cul Out Add,...N•..r.,. Y..,Sipe L•wa,a Ir.P'.fasr --__ _,T,.<•:,E. _gave=- --- ---__Ij- —" r I �',tl BLDG. B - WEST ELEV. (BEACH BLVD.'VIEW) r>r�:.r{�Ir�Y�=. - `.1.' '•r,i •yrJ, r.:•.:_-- --- --,}�,--�z-„r—a:•_:...:,.r...;,i�! a •;li�I;�.,i ��vi� �J� CZ*-,b L IAz —GbannnrL-ettors:._.—.__—�e�-NMELZ€uEes.=—_—=--CHANNEL=1cET1ER;';SICtN_ BLDG. D WEST ELEV. (BEACH BLVD. VIEW) N.. Fw Ten.nl.With(60)Or u.,,Lln..l Feet Of L....h,ld F,,,1,9,. 9/2s/89 — JVVP HUNTINGTON BEACH AUTOPLEX 4/12189 3188J Airway Averiue,Costa Mesa.CA92626(714)5577.4064 1/6189 12/13/88 R2146 5 . All utilit shall be installed underground at the time said parcel is d oped . 6 . ' The tentative' , cel map shall comply with all applicable City Ordinances . 7 ., A copy of the rec _ ed parcel map shall be filed with the Department of Comm ty Development . 8 . All Public Works imp ments shall be constructed to City standards . 9 . Drainage flow/direction: 11 be approved by the Department of Public Works . 10 . A grading plan shall be sub ted to the Department of Public Works for review and it must approved (by issuance of a grading permit) . A plan for t control for all water runoff from the property during const tion and initial operation of the _project may be required if ' ed necessary by the Director of Public Works . 11 . A detailed soils analysis shall be epared by a registered Soils Engineer . . This analysis shal iclude on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of m ials to provide detailed recommendations regarding gr g , chemical and fill properties , foundations , retaining wal streets , and utilities . C-3 SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO . 89-4 APPLICANT: JOHN HOWENSTINE LOCATION: 19300-19320 Beach Boulevard Special Sign Permit No . 89-4 is a request to allow two monument signs to be constructed on the Beach Boulevard frontage of the Autoplex site rather than the single monument sign .which would be permitted by Code . Section 9610 . 5 (b) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code specifies that parcels with less than 400 feet of frontage qualify for one sign only. The subject parcel has 201 feet of frontage along Beach Boulevard . The applicant is in the process of completing a planned sign program for the site, but must first obtain Planning Commission approval for the special sign permit request . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15311, Class 11, of the California Environmental Quality Act . PC Minutes - 12/19/89 -5- (4419d) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Special Sign Permit No . 89-4 with findings and conditions of approval . THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Carl Middleton, property owner , spoke in support of the request . He said they have been criticized for not being flexible however they like a tight planned sign program. He expressed concern regarding the Design Review Board ' s approval of his proposed signs since the minutes did not reflect their approval. He said that he was surprised that the directory sign was being eliminated since it was staff ' s recommendation and urged approval of the directory sign for visibility and for approval of the wall sign on the west side of the building facing Beach Boulevard . -He said he agrees with staff ' s alternative action with the addition of the wall sign on the west GI.C�P _ There were no other persons present to speak for or against the request and the public hearing was closed . After discussion the Commission agreed to approve the special sign request with the alternative action which would permit the two tenant panels to be incorporated on the Autoplex. monument sign but would eliminate the tenant directory sign as well as the wall sign on the western building face of the fast-food restaurant . A MOTION WAS MADE BY LEIPZIG, SECOND BY MOUNTFORD, TO APPROVE ' SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-4 WITH FINDINGS AND AMENDED CONDITIONS OF . APPROVAL . A MOTION TO AMEND THE MOTION WAS MADE BY KIRKLAND, SECOND BY BOURGUIGNON, TO PERMIT THE WEST FACING EL -POLLO LOCO WALL SIGN, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE : AYES: Shomaker, Kirkland, Bourguignon NOES : Williams , Ortega , Mountford, Leipzig ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None AMENDMENT MOTION FAILED THE VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION TO APPROVE : AYES: Shomaker, Kirkland, Williams , Bourguignon, Ortega , Mountford, Leipzig NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes - 12/19/89 -6- <4419d) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT: 1 . Strict compliance with Article 961 will result in a substantial economic hardship to the applicant because there are two disparate uses on the site, i . e . restaurant and automotive service, which .should be separately identified with adequate signage .- 2 . The two proposed monument signs will not adversely affect other signs in the vicinity since the total sign area of 49 square feet is no greater than that which is allowed by code . 3 . The two proposed monument signs will not be detrimental to property located in the vicinity and will be compatible with the surrounding area . 4 . The two proposed monument signs along Beach Boulevard will not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic vision . 5 . The proposed tenant directory sign, which is conditioned to be eliminated, may prove to be a traffic hazard -due to its location at the head of the driveway . CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT : 1 . The site plan and sign elevations received and dated November 27 , 1989 shall be the approved layout with the following modifications : a . An "El Pollo Loco" attached channel letter sign shall be permitted only on the north elevation of the building , and not on the west elevation . b . The base of the "Autoplex" monument sign shall be modified such that it is a maximum of eleven feet long and three and one-half feet wide . Placement shall conform to sign code requirements . C . The address range on the base of the "Autoplex" monument sign shall be corrected . d . The tenant directory sign shall be eliminated from the Planned Sign Program. 2 . The applicant shall complete the submittal for Planned Sign Program No . 89-3 . As originally conditioned by the Planning Commission in conjunction with Use Permit No . 88-34 , a planned sign program must be approved prior to the issuance of any sign permits . 3 . The Special Sign Permit approval is limited to the specific request and does. not encompass approval for other signs included on the plans , such as restaurant menu signage, directional signs or wall signs . PC Minutes - 12/19/89 -7- (441.9d) 77 4 . The Planning Commission reserves the right to . rescind this special sign permit approval in the event of any violation of the terms of the applicable zoning laws . Any such decision shall be preceded by notice to the applicant and a public hearing and shall be based on specific findings . C-4 CONDITI&L USE PERMIT N0 . 89-63/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO . 89-427/ TIVE DECLARATION NO . 89-54 APPLICANT WLA ARCON, INC . LOCATION : theast corner of Talbert Avenue and Brookshire Lane . Conditional Use Per No . 89-63 in conjunction with Negative Declaration No . 89-5 s a request to construct a 13 , 110 square foot Elk' s Lodge on a 1 . 7 e site which would be used for dinner and lunch meetings for co nity service groups on weekdays and for wedding receptions or vate parties on weekends . I ' Tentative Parcel Map No . -427 is a request to consolidate five lots into one lot to cre a legal building site for the lodge . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : Pursuant to the environmenta egulations in effect at this time, the Department of Community elopment .posted draft Negative Declaration No . 89-54 for ten ys , and no comments , either verbal or written were received . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Negative Declaration No . 54 , Conditional Use Permit No . 89-63 and Tentative Parcel Map No . -427 with findings and conditions of approval . COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS STATED HE WOUL E ABSTAINING FROM THE ITEM DUE TO ADVICE FROM THE FAIR POLITICAL ACTICES COMMISSION SINCE THE APPLICANT IS HIS LANDLORD . THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Bob Cooley, Secretary of the Elk' s Lodge member of the Building Committee, spoke in support of the request He explained to the Commission what the three rooms at the lod ould be used for . He said that upon approval of the conditional permit a liquor license would be applied for and brought bac o the Commission for approval . PC Minutes - 12/19/89 -8- (4419d) ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO, 89-4.(R)/ PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 89-3(R) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-4 (R) 1 . The request to delete conditions of approval to permit an additional business identification (wall) sign for the E1 Pollo Loco restaurant and permit a tenant directory sign will not result in a substantial economic hardship to the applicant. 2 . The request to delete conditions of approval to permit an additional business identification (wall) sign for the E1 Pollo Loco restaurant and permit a tenant directory sign will not adversly affect other signs in the vicinity. 3 . The request to delete conditions of approval to permit an additional business identification (wall) sign for the E1 Pollo Loco restaurant and permit a tenant directory sign will not be detrimental to property located in the vicinity and will be compatible with the surrounding area because the site is not adequately provided with signage. 4 . The request to delete conditions of approval to permit an additional business identification (wall) sign for the E1 Pollo Loco restaurant will not be a traffic hazard and cause pedestrian and vehicular conflicts along Beach Boulevard. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO 89-3 (R) 1 . The request to delete conditions of approval and amend the planned sign program does reflect the requirements of a planned sign program and the intent of the .sign code . 2 . The request to delete conditions of approval and amend the planned sign program will provide signs that will be compatible with the existing on-site signs, the requirements and intent of a planned sign program and sign code. 3 . The request to delete conditions of approval and amend the planned sign program will be compatible with signs in the surrounding commercial vicinity and with the sign criteria as outlined in Planned Sign Program No . 89-3 . CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO 89-4 (R)/PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 89-4 (R) : 1 . The location, size, colors and materials shall be generally as shown on the site plans and building elevation dated recieved November 27, 1990 . Office of the City Clerk M mv/ City of Huntington Beach PRESORT z. 15 MAR AN 1 111 P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 926U FIRST CLASS hi' '92' F;ME T E R 8014730 --S 3.17 Paq�fic Coast 11-fig,hway 111111 L 1101, Bei-ich, CA 92648 A,14 vv Publish 1/10/91 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-17/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 90-18 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 90-2 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 90-8 (To permit a 48, 250 square foot commercial development with restaurants, beach related concessions and subterranean parking) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center , 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California , on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Tuesday, January 22 , 1991, 7 : 00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Conditional Use Permit No . 90-17/Coastal Development Permit No . 90-18/Final Environmental Impact Report No . 90-2 General Plan Conformance No . 90-8 APPLICANT: Redevelopment Agency/Jonathan Chodos APPELLANT: Councilwoman Grace Winchell LOCATION: Ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway between Main Street and First Street (southeast of the pier) ZONE : Downtown Specific Plan District 10 (Pier Related Commercial) REOUEST: Appeal of the Planning Commission ' s approval of 48 , 250 square feet of commercial development, including up to 5 restaurants and beach-related concessions with parking and 78 , 250 sq . ft . of public plaza. ENVIRONMENTAL The project is covered by Final Environmental Impact STATUS: Report No . 90-2 (supplement to Final Environmental Impact Report No . 82-2) , which the Council will also act upon. (OVER) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) COASTAL STATUS: This project is in the appealable portion of the Coastal Zone. Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, the action taken by the City Council is final unless an appeal is filed to the Coastal Commission by the applicant or an aggrieved 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 submitted to the Coastal Commission within ten ( 10) working days of the date of the City Council ' s action. There is no fee for the appeal of a coastal development permit . An aggrieved person may file an appeal to the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days , pursuant to Section 30603 of the Public Resources Code, in writing to : California Coastal Commission 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 P. O. Box 1450 Long Beach, CA 90801-1450 The Coastal Commission review period will commence after the City appeal period has ended and no appeals have been filed . Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date of the conclusion of the Coastal Commission review. Applicants are advised not to begin construction prior to that date . PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE : (1) Staff Report; (2) Public Hearing; (3) City Council Discussion; and (4) City Council action. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Reach, California. 92648 , for inspection_ by the public. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any further questions please call Laura Phillips , Associate Planner at 536-5271 . Connie Brockway City Clerk (8137d) 2 . All internally illuminated . signs shall comply with the Huntington Beach Electrical Sign criteria . .3 . Prior to .issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following : a . Provide a revised and complete Planned Sign Program No . 89-3 (R) which reflect text revisions , plan revisions and approval of Special Sign Permit No . 89-4 (R) and Planned Sign Program No . 89-3 (R) for inclusion in the subject file. b. All conditions as specified herein shall be completed. c. The signs shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board. 4 . No sign shall be installed, erected, altered, or reconstructed without prior City approval and issuance of appropriate Building Division permits . 5 . Prior to submittal for plan check, the sign plans must be approved by the owner or owner ' s representative. 6 . There shall be no signs affixed or maintained upon the exterior walls , of the premises or the building, or in the parking lot and landscaped areas other than as permitted herein, excepted with the city and property owner ' s approval . 7 . Any proposed sign that does not comply with the standards of Special Sign Permit No . 89-4 (R)/Planned Sign Progam No . 89-3 (R) shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board and approval of a Special Sign Permit by the Planning Commission. 8 . All applicable conditions of approval for Special Sign Permit No . 89-4 shall remain .in effect with the exceptions as approved through the revised special sign permit and planned sign program -request . 9 . This permit shall not become effective for any purpose until an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been properly executed by the applicant and an authorized representative of the owner of the property, recorded with County Recorder ' s Office, and returned to the Planning Division; and until the ten day appeal period has elapsed. 10 . The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Special Sign Permit No . 89-4 (R)/Planned Sign Progam No . 89-3 (R) if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs . (8034d-8, 9) f huntington beach department of community development STA'f f REPORT . TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: January 23 , 1991 SUBJECT: SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT N0. 90-10/SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-4 (R)/PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 89-3 (R) (CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY 8, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) APPLICANT: Superior Electrical Advt . DATE ACCEPTED: 1700 W. Anaheim Street November 26, 1990 Long Beach, CA 90813 MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE: PROPERTY Cardinal Development January 25 , 1991 OWNER: 375 Bristol St . , Ste. 50 I Costa Mesa, CA 92626 ZONE: C4 (Highway I Commercial) REQUEST: To permit a center identi- fication monument sign .with GENERAL PLAN: General variance to height and sign Commercial area, delete a condition of approval and amend the EXISTING USE: Automotive planned sign program for Center/Restaurant the center . ACREAGE: 2 . 0 acres LOCATION: 19300-19324 Beach Blvd. .(Eastside of Beach' Blvd. approximately 550 feet north of Yorktown Ave . ) 1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Deny Special Sign Permit No . 90-10 , Special Sign Permit No . 89-4 (R) and Planned Sign Program No . 89-3 (R) with findings . 2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: Special Sign Permit No . 90-10 is a request to replace an existing code conforming (7 foot high/35 square foot) center identification monument sign with a new 13 foot - 8 inch high/80 square foot center identification monument sign in lieu of the code permitted seven (7) foot high, 50 square foot monument sign. Special Sign Permit No . 89-4 (R) is a request to delete a condition of approval which prohibited a business identification (wall) sign on the west elevation of the E1 Pollo Loco Restaurant . The applicant is requesting a 20i25 square foot business identification (wall,) sign on the west elevation of the building . ARX Nam A-F M-23C Planned Sign Program No . 89-3(R) is a request to amend the planned sign program for the Autoplex Center to enlarge the existing center identification monument sign, add a new business identification wall _ sign and enlarge the existing E1 Pollo Loco monument sign. The applications were continued from the December 18, 1990 and .January 8, 1991 Planning Commission meetings in order to allow the applicant to work with staff to 'design alternatives to the proposal presented for the freestanding Autoplex sign. 3 . 0 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS: At the December 18, 1990 meeting, the Commission indicated a desire to work with the applicant on a more visible or effective monument sign for the Autoplex. The following alternatives have been prepared: Existing Sign: The existing center identification monument sign is a 7 ' -0" high/35 square foot sign which is code conforming . Staff believes the existing code conforming center identification monument sign could be redesigned to make better use of colors . A modified color scheme could highlight the sign and provide an improved contrast between the sign' s structure, panel background and letter colors . The proposal for different colors should be reviewed by the Design Review Board. This action would require approval of Planned Sign Program No . 89-3(R) . Applicant ' s Original Sign Proposal : The applicant requested to permit _a 13 ' - 8" high/80 square foot center identification monument sign with eight (8) tenant panels and no center identification. This sign does not conform to the code requirements for height, sign area, number of tenant panels and location within a landscape planter . This action would require approval of Special Sign Permit No . 90-10 and Planned Sign Permit No. 89-3(R) . Applicant ' s Revised Sign Proposal : After the December 18, 1990 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has prepared a revised monument sign proposal . The revised freestanding monument sign is a 12 ' -0" high/80 square foot monument sign with eight (8) tenant panels . The sign would also be relocated to the center of the landscaped planter north of the Autoplex' s centrally located drive approach. As revised by the applicant, the sign still does not conform to the code requirements for height (maximum 7 ' -0") , sign area (maximum 50 square feet) , tenant panels (maximum 3) , and the requirement that the sign .be located within a landscape planter a minimum 2 ' -0" greater than the sign itself . The sign is 11 ' wide and the landscaped planter is 12 ' wide. This action would require approval of Special Sign Permit No . 90-10 and Planned Sign Program No . 89-3 (R) . Staff Report - 1/23/91 -2- (83908d.j i 1 •1.0 �-- i PRECISION TUNE J — 19300. - 19302 I I, DOUBLE FACE INTERNALLY !LLUMINATED SIGN i t �4-u� 'SX�STI ►ate Lj1� 3 . I T • i • i 0 • �uJli�) • � DK.8f�h17.E DOUBLE FACE-MCO.Lj 1ENr SC=r l Q VtPribriftlyAutoCare 510I1TL1I1C + I $RAKE EXPRESS 4 day tire store _ I ('EUROPEAN.REPAIR. -_ i I193 00.-- 19:320 tiers ! a o I -Aut-Opf-ex— y 193D0.- 7 9302 h 4 day tire store r/3forltyAutoG�e -` -Q -- frecuionTme N ®EUROPEAN REPAIR SRAKEExaRrss L Appli ant ' s Alternative Sign Proposal : The applicant has also submitted an alternative monument sign. The alternative sign is a 9 ' -4" high/58 square .foot monument sign with eight tenant panels . The sign does retain and highlight the center identification, incorporates the Planning Commission' s direction to" place the address at the top of the sign, but does not meet the intent of the sign code with regards to height, sign area, number of tenant panels and location within a landscape planter . It is, however, closer to code than their primary request . This action would require approval of Special Sign Permit No. 90-10 and Planned Sign Program No . 89-3(R) . Staff Alternatives : The Planning Commission also requested Planning staff to provide_ alternative sign proposals for their review. These alternative signs are reflective of some of the Planning Commission' s comments , and are a compromise between the applicant ' s request and what is permitted by code. A brief description of each staff alternative is provided below. Staff Sign Alternative "A" This sign conforms to code with regards to height (maximum 7 ' -0" ) , sign area (18 square feet) and the number of tenant panels (maximum 3) . The tenant panels are generic but may be substituted for the major tenants on-site. The center iden.ti.fi.c.ati.on has- been . highlighted to provide better visibility and the address has been moved from the monument base to the top of the sign also for better visibility and center identification. This sign alternative would require the approval of Planned Sign Program No . 89-3 (R) . Staff Sign Alternative "B" This sign conforms to code with regards to height (maximum 7 ' -0" ) , and sign area (39 square feet) . The tenant panels have been increased in number to six (6) but may only indicate generic information. The increase in tenant panels may be done through the planned sign program process, but staff believes the increase" should only be permitted with the use of generic information. This alternative sign is a modification .of the existing sign, retains the address on the monument base, and highlights the center identification. This sign alternative would require the approval of Planned Sign Program No. 89-3 (R) . Staff Sian Alternative "C" This sign does not conform to code with regards to height (maximum 8 ' -0") . The tenant panels have also been increased to six (6) based on generic information as in Alternative B. The sign does conform to sign area (maximum 46 square feet) . The sign' s increase Staff Report - 1/23/91 -3- (8398d) . 4.O" 19300.`- 19302 .1 Sµov ✓ 'r V — µVFFLE� OIL CNAULE __ ;:+i, ° '. . 19300 - 19302 I. /:haK•.�61�4L•T-'�-p,• I. µdK. +i EIG44T - -1-0" 2. insx• Sle.n�6e.E'A—I a T�. 2. N.eu. Si�>J 4¢eA - 39 Thy (GE-V,f-v) 1-1o1Y T6uauT'}M-+GLS /-�aY OG 6V o�TITJ{(:p Fp L, TEuaur'�D�cLS ItiG¢ESSEp I wu Mry P /•nc1oQ •t'ewaany owLY. STAFF: �Ew ELIG SuFOL^^oTLOU Owl.-�( -- a-n+ L Auto _ tex 1 9 3,0 0'. 19 3 0 2 193.00.:_ 19302 L�¢eIG.£5 TV�E•UO •$esafLES T uE- UP TIQf�$ CGG sTcr� 00 - `� o "Ti 2E-5 ��lJT�'�O •6 N.UFFLE��j 01L Lu/'�-�E � H,t�cpLE2S OIL GHai�E �A2TS 17.�+-ate✓ 1, µo-x. 'Sl4FJ l•�EIG i-1T- 81-�„ I. M-OK FFEI BHT L, µn.x Slimy A¢.Ga. - 4� lil 2. n.�o-,� Sl�� A¢E4— 6G•� .j• /tea 6x. Te..,awc P CLS (o I V'X qZ' '?o V-LS - 6 ('4 •IL �ENE2.IL TENAwT pi.w£l-S ONLY •d, �6VE�1L y.-+FO Cnnfl'noN/LSusIwc45 IJ....G-Nu Logo S 6. in height is due to the relocation of the center ' s . address to the top of the sign. This alternative sign is a modification of the existing monument sign. This sign alternative would require the approval of Special Sign Permit No. 90-10 and Planned Sign Program No. 89-3 (R) . Staff Sign Alternative "D" This sign does not conform to code with regards to height (maximum 9 ' -411) , sign area (maximum 56 .4 square feet), and the number of tenant panels (maximum 8) . The sign' s increase in height is due to the relocation of the center ' s address to the top 'of the sign and an increase of the tenant panels from six (6) to eight (8) panels . The number of tenant panels is based upon the number of tenants on-site for the Autoplex. The tenant panels may use generic information or substitute the business name only of the on-site users . The use of logos would be prohibited. This alternative sign is a modification of the existing monument sign. This sign alternative would require the approval of Special Sign Permit Lao . 90-10 and Planned Sign Program No . 89-3 (R) . Autoplex Monument Sign Summary: Should the Planning Commission recognize a need for the Autoplex to enlarge their existing freestanding..monument sign, and find that strict compliance with Article 961 .Signs would result in a substantial hardship to the applicant , the Planning Commission may approve either of the applicant ' s two proposals or any of staff ' s sign alternatives . Depending on the alternative selected, a variance to the sign code with findings (see Attachment No. 6) may be required. This action would require the approval of Special Sign Permit No . 90-10 and Planned Sign Program No . 89-3 (R) with a condition that the sign be reviewed. by the Design Review Board (see Attachment No . 6) . Planning staff does not support any alternative which would permit an increase in the freestanding monument sign' s height sign area, number of tenant panels and location within the landscape planter . Other Signage: The applicant has eliminated their request to enlarge the existing E1 Pollo Loco monument sign in height (6 feet to 7 feet) and sign_ area (14 square feet to 41 square feet) . The applicant ' s revised request does continue to include the deletion of a condition of approval for Special Sign Permit No . 89-4 which prohibited a business identification (wall) sign on the west elevation of the E1 Pollo Loco building facing Beach Boulevard. The condition was placed on the project as an exchange between allowed wall signs and freestanding signs . The applicant ' s request is to place a 27 . 75 square foot (18" x 8 ' -6") business identification wall sign on the west elevation facing Beach Boulevard. An existing 27 . 75' square foot (18" x 18 ' -6") wall sign is located on the north elevation facing the parking lot . As previously discussed in the Planning Staff Report - 1/23/91 -4- (8398d) Commission staff report dated December 18, 1990, Planning staff does -not support this request (see Attachment No . 5) . The condition of approval was placed on the project restricting the business to one (1) sign in an attempt to eliminate unnecessary duplication of signage. The approval of any new on-site signs, modification of existing on-site signs, or the deletion of conditions which would permit code permitted signs requires that Planned Sign Program No . 89-3 be revised to reflect those changes . 4 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Special Sign Permit No . 90-10, Special Sign Permit No . 89-4 (R) and Planned Sign Program No. 89-3(R) with findings . FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT N0, 90-10 : 1 . Strict compliance with Article 961 Signs will not result in a substantial hardship to the applicant because the two (2) existing monument signs provide adequate signage for the two disparate uses on the site, i .e. restaurant and automotive service and the applicant ' s proposal for a 12 foot -0 inch monument sign does not meet the intent of the code with regard to height, sign area, number of tenant panels and the lack of center identification. 2 . The proposed. new 12 foot -0 inch monument sign will adversely affect other signs in the vicinity since the total sign height and sign area as proposed greatly exceeds that which is allowed by code and was analyzed through ' Special Sign Permit No . 89-4 . 3 : The proposed 12 foot -0 inch monument sign will be detrimental to property in the vicinity and will not be compatible with the surrounding area . The excessive height, sign area, tenant panels and no center identification does not meet the requirements or intent of the sign code or recently approved signs . 4 .• The proposed 12 foot -0 inch monument sign along Beach Boulevard will. obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic vision. The excessive height, sign area, tenant panels and close proximity (125 feet) between the two (2) signs has the potential to require motorists to slow down to properly see the two (2) monument signs and tenant panels and, therefore, cause a traffic and pedestrian conflict along Beach Boulevard. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-4 (R) 1 . The request to delete a condition of approval to permit an additional business identification (wall) sign for the E1 Pollo Loco restaurant will not result in a substantial economic hardship to the applicant because as permitted through Special Sign Permit No . 89-4 there are two (2) monument signs permitted Staff Report - 1/23/91 -5- (8398d) on-site for two disparate uses, i .e. restaurant and automotive which have been adequately identified through proper signage. 2 . The request to delete a condition of approval to permit an additional business identification (wall) sign for the E1 Pollo Loco restaurant will adversely affect other signs in the vicinity since the site currently. has a monument sign. and business identification (wall) sign and the unnecessary duplication of signage does not meet the requirements or intent of the sign code. 3 . The request to delete a condition of approval to permit an additional business identification (wall) sign for the E1 Pollo Loco restaurant will be detrimental to property located in the vicinity and will not be compatible .with the surrounding area because the site is adequately provided with signage and the unnecessary duplication of signage does not meet the requirements or intent of the sign code. 4 . The request to delete a condition of approval to permit an additional business identification. (wall) sign for the E1 Pollo Loco restaurant may prove to be a traffic hazard and cause pedestrian and vehicular conflicts along Beach Boulevard. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 89'-3 (R) 1 . The request to permit a center identification monument sign with variance to height, sign area , number of tenant panels, location, delete a condition of approval and amend -the planned sign program does not reflect the requirements of a planned sign program or the intent of the sign code by the use of excessive height, sign area, tenant panels, lack of a center identification, and the unnecessary duplication of signage. 2 . The request to permit a center identification monument sign with variance to height, sign area, number of tenant panels, location, delete a condition of approval and amend the planned sign program does not provide signs that will be compatible with the existing on-site signs or the requirements and intent of a planned sign program and sign code. 3 . The request to permit a center identification monument sign with variance to height, sign area, number of tenant panels, location, delete a condition of approval and amend the planned sign program will not be compatible with signs in the surrounding commercial vicinity, with recently approved signs and with the sign criteria as outlined in Planned Sign Program No. 89-3 . 5 . 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The Planning Commission may approve Special Sign Permit No . 90-10, Special Sign Permit No . 89-4 (R,) and Planned Sign Program No . 89-3 (R) as discussed above with findings and conditions of approval . Staff Report - 1/23/91 -6- (8398d) ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Area map 2 . Applicant ' s narrative 3 . Applicant ' s proposed sign elevations "A and B" and site plan 4 . Staff ' s Alternative Signs "A-D" 5 . Planning. Commission staff report dated December 18, 1990 6 . Alternative findings and conditions of approval for Special Sign Permit No . 90-10, Special Sign Permit No . 89-4(R) and Planned Sign Program No. 89-3 (R) HS:H : kj 1 Staff Report 7 - - 8 3��su ` ) GARFIELD R- : ,,., IRA-0 Rz CI ,� �' Po I:, j(— wL.c�sr t = _ RI - R2Rl .... I RI .; so wwr:r lei _ R I a R l o RI ' V / EEi111iNgBON'VI, �9- :': `R2s M I ;. 7 C2 P( 'R2-PD lsg FAI R2 ��:. y� -hi it ;Aid" .Ram '" ��ycc. ''•1nIRr..0 y ,. y x,.witc ra5E, �y •1.... xw N.-E 9LR)oo)asoo. R2-P�1 RA o� R2 t•-R2 ) ..Ix. �s:•'•'•}�'� ':. ,.}f Y�AI_A•0 ft2 »� •Es RI RI CF-R 'El cw .v AQ::.r =_y C4� RI RI HrEs R2 !Y'R2 1 I 0 RI CF—E RI R :�' ` •'-' ` , -_. R 2 - '" ICtaa:!SGi-L.Cd.) nno cR .[n R2 W R2^ 3. M I R2 I 0.3 N 2 8=(0)R2-01 R2', a DLr Tovaa VEC.11 R2 tl I RI RI ?�o RI AL . �7 •,'`1';�0 - - N1 x I r.LNOUTN m .a x : si4: ;....sxes....'..cS:J e' lC4 z s z I � ^ PL STRICT I.1 a zeal v ESE RI RI R RI oL oi, i`E': l R3 x.- o z: a ow _ d'%r a• p DR4 n R 2 I 4 ��g �•owQ R2 0 PD b H ' oN;'^I R RL I .'.RANT OR ww,0 :,.,. R2-0 gi .z N LINE TRR 395? i -•Y-......r •� «� I,, N� o R2 —IOwEN-.- AVE. J 290 RI R 2 MATE$ CR R irr:eti•i.-..ae•,5'. 7R2-0 RI ; _ zl RI = ..•( J.N•t:u RI ITBURN RI 3 JCR R2.0 RI ro) RI a 'R? _ w_. _ {`' I MILE JAMS AVERT R I (7 .yQ�•,--- a i)• 3 IXHAAI TILER CR DANBURY -CR " r.; t r I ss ov. )y:rojtiK.4x;.r% �•� I cR N . s.,,• R 2 R 2 R 2 ��y5.�_�!. =RI ^w R2-0-CD N, •24.? m A RI RI z OP-0 CD ':R2 0 PD C .. c? R Z )�o t— x " R I �oL R cR < aRroRo cR N Y,R3 w Rz C4„� a) WENLDCK RI n R -- -i AVE. L.--- YORKTOWN ,. p C2 `L I` R2 /RI RI Zf. ice_• '\•..__;!�W.-M TNo-rxwy R2 �.. ...._ aECE.r oR CiF-C R-. 0 R2 -0 Nl, I R.1e' R2`tI R2- RI RI xvo L• �° /Rz-FP •fite F .r R2-0-CD ao C:;;;;' ­Rl'FP2`' „OE -ICE G. L,EARE •,'� RI avE . ,RA R2 C2 N.v,fz /�R2'l4:•, C.qE RI RI „ -CD-O] ?1 I R•waoo l�FPz cvo a oR .S �1 R2-0 R2 R2 .T CR. L•9�.60' RI ? RI RI 0-0 T N I 11 CD O o _ // P SP IF I P N �� 3 xt w. I f fI -CD}O vENICI sc._E IN rlct (DI CD. D T Ol f -CD-O U N.s•zz•.iw� i RI z I CO ][� - I C 2L.� oq. --- uRsrwctt w. RI NBol �eixs o' RI 4I RI J�RI RI 3 P' 1, i \1 , C� SSP90- 10/'.'SP89-4(R)/PSP89-3(R) J. HUNTINGTON BEACH }} HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION r-w i CARDINAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Development • Asset Management 375 Bristol Street, Suite 50, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 557-1934 FAX (714) 557-0535 January 16, 1991 ZC1F i" 'J, Mr. Herb Fauland. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Community Development �;.r,=;T 2000 Main Street, 3rd Floor °E?�� 0 Huntington Beach, California 92648 GON'Mu�iiTY, ems: `�'°oN Re: Huntington Beach Autoplex Dear Mr. Fauland: As a' follow-up to the two letters submitted by Mr. Stan Janocha of Superior Electric, we would like to reiterate several points with respect to the various monument sign alternatives you will be presenting to the Planning commission. Our intent is to develop a sign of sufficient size to present eight tenant sign pane-ls.. with full business identity so that each tenant has a sign along Beach Boulevard. This concept appeared to be what the Commission directed at their December meeting. Most of the alternatives developed by staff have less than eight panels. One proposal has eight panels presented with two rows of four. This proposal lacks sufficient area to present the tenant business names in readable letter heights, leaving only enough area for generic names such as brakes, tires, mufflers, etc. These scenarios do not accomplish the desired objective. Our proposal accomplishes the desired objectives of overall visibility, letter height, and sign panels for each tenant. One final point,- lease agreements with two major tenants mandate that the full business name be presented on the monument sign. The staff alternatives do not satisfy this agreement, leaving the Landlord in violation of his contractural obligation., and thus unable to accept the staff's proposals. Mr: Herb Fauland City of Huntington Beach Page 2 We hope this information will be useful when considering all of the alternatives. sincer y, _ red MacMurdo Vice President Development/Construction su ,- e, ior EIEctrical advErtising Signage Systerns Storefronts Graphic J;:.-tr-lu-=r''✓ 1 1 y L`'`'1 Design ConsUItantS DEPArZ'FME.-F1' OF COM,IAI)PdFFY MR. HERB FAL{I-r1ND City of Huntington Beach Community De to.l(_!PM2nt 2000 Main Street , ';r-'d Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 I 'e: A u.t::o p l e t Huntington Beach, CA Dear Mr. G<:au(l. ?.nd: Enclosed are the revised drawings 'for N(_ topl.Fe:>: Huntington Beach, CA. As r•E_t tTiy previous letter da. -.d. - I •a.r y..:7. copy attachadt we a 1'e rescinding o u I'' request to enlarge t I-'I t:: monument s:I.c=1 I..i for ttF_l !-'ollo Loco" . However, we are still requesting thc.---- additional t::r .f:_!t-. "El F''l. .l._) Loco" wall mount letters O I') the west elevation. The s]. ;•. e of the existing letter are 1.8 high by 1.ii -5t` Wide. TI'Ice new set of letters t'or"' the front elevation will be identical in size, color, and shape . as existing letters. Please call me after you have reviewed i-I-lu_ac..e drawings. 1 tl'J ti more personal meeting with you early would like have E�_ one f:�: n�,r F� .- _ next week, prior to your final staff report . C, Sincerely, STAN JANOCH('-) SJ/I- e Enclosures: Flan No. 90--7-08 39 January 4 - letter Messenger 213 7750627 433-7421 714 995//156 Fax: 213 435-1867 1700 West Anaheim Street / Long Beach, California 90813 !DUPE ior ElEctrical advErtising Signage -' Systems Storefronts LI L:'[ II; I'I I. Graphic I':::i. 'I_';� c_-;• I-i!_!.ri'i.: i. Design injn%_trl :1. 1:,;r!,:r) I Consultants ..t)i..! F`I .. ..(.n :... 1,_-;I._tt .I.L..::1 i.. I...t i 1 .;.l:'t !, :I.'_�]. I.-,a .i n i::: ..�.1-1l C7 ._.•:�::•l I'',_.: .. _'.t _t::'`'�:`!'::. .I-i I::?i j l i�:�:I...1. `.-' i:?L�i:_ !.'i ij.I. .I.`�; =(_tl.i lil]. I.. 'I;::; _j t_( 1.1. ,'I: 7. � t. I I � III....r 1 LA AFI....!"I ._ ]., I _. I r.::� •....r::���i i i......._ _ .... ... ... : ��� ...,, .. .... _.11 III..i•....1 :: I_.:L-!I i�I("!J.•-" J. .L !, 1 f 1 .,...: I h!:•.. U:,::'I za _I._!..-:,.I F_. f C.!,__! I.:A!.=i=:�: '.-�1 1 1:.:'%!. I '_:i i-I i_'�.. �:=;�:•:... _..... _ .. ._. i' �_,. !.!'.'..=I ..i ..'i'1._' _:7.::a('i ..:d...I':_ .i i_: i"i .. _._._..�_! .I.•. t I!'::: �' I. _.r?r� 7.r I i 1._i rl I j7t]. :I.L_I...f 1 r l 1. I'':_!.:_:.i.. i.i.:)i i I _ l_•_I�I_a.I 1'•-i l'::ij I.f-I!'_.' ._i Y-',.._I-I 7. I.(':.L_ l:.�.Y I.:_.�I_-i._I'I ...-._- _'.I'-'i:_ �-I:(. _ J. .... .. : .. .... J .I_ _ L. i7 r i I.l 1.L r I:� i 1 i.J I l I::i;?.':_f` i::l..i L i i_' _. 1__�(...I t;J:L 1 .I. i 71.:f.'I 1.-1-, =I-! '].!"1].E:i I't i J S' i::h r2 t!!!.:L 1 d J.n q_ . T h w_ =1 '-.i.i.. .i.n'-_, w I-, 'I,f1 1__� `T 1.I'l :1. I-I i:::'r' :I I`% ... _ .. _.1 _ .._ - .1 _ik r I!J 1.t 1 L'-' t'C�.f__{].I�I i;_:I.:.•_i Gti J. .t .I. j l t.�.i_t:.h i_I t-`_-.' I'.,i;;?ci l[:_l._i_'rl t L_ _ ._. _ , t.i_t_t I'•,=!`T: c) i l:I I E= h Lk J. tJ].I t��, I tl t:_ IJ ct.,....E::q I'' 1- I.i I r:� 4:%]. .I. J. f =' 4 J I...i J. (:? :?rl-F e ._. i ._i--' i"-�I'' I: - _ .. .I. '_C- i':i� .- '-r- L...i i=' t:=tJl'y t--!1. _ v. 111 In�tl:i fl I! II't:!'l:_::. �_...L :t 1 r-I Y = F t't'E-'I 1!...In j�o E 1. P'_J.I. 1 o ._U C! J. I'!.=t'q t-?:! l•J h c:.'4 _].f_I_.i:: _ �.t ].Itl.ln._1.'Li=-? l_llJ.l" OY`].�Jll'lc�l Y'`i :,�l..l':= t:_ r'r .':?. C? I.:I'lt_: n -' _ - L_ �'C�7. l i::i I_lJ C_l_1" m o n u.i n F.�r-t•l; __1�=;n i 5 1 Cl n fl;?.1. 7. Y':_(-t :L rt _ c 11,_t. ._. ._ .;5 .L s. ItJ 1-_ t�t .. 1 1 I---• �:t I_!,t':��!-. t. .I: _-+.I I :a Li d .L 'I.: i I...i-a.l. c:>C- t i�; i_I...i:i.I..)I...1 v .. C.. 1 I i I" I:)i <=.11.1-))L J i (:] ,_)Y` f f l C.':. i r r..n t I ].1::. _.i_ 7.r_!rl "Fur... '� .I. I'()J. �.1.1 lJ C.:I..1 W e --,c .I. !,I--I va is t I...I 1 s 'T I"l I rl-L- .=f:L 0 T' .I.,:_'!i'I_.1,':: _. ].'_] l'::'. L I--,t_1:: .I.v ].I Il I'=1-1 I.. L.:.t f...l.!.` t C] t I_i t l..t P:u.r E? S Li(=G F'c:F.''=i C.)-F E_.L Pc)c)1. 7.o L.t:J i-C) r I--,<:?.I-i C"f) 1 1t YOU hi:1ve ctn} qt_tC' t7.C7rlS Y'C?qa.I.-(:i.l.(-It i h.l pt-of=':_' 1 I::)1('cd.s'=' do 1-1 l: I-te_,Si.t iate to .cal. ]. . "1 cer- �1.,'."; 0 !' 19 91 213 r;1 JANOCHA 775-3627 DEPARTMENT OF 433-7421 SJ/I-te .COMMUNITY DEVELOP.MEINT 714 PLANNING; DIVISION 995-9356 cc : Car'Cllnal Developrner L J Fax: 213 l 435-1867 17no VVPst Anaheim Street / Lana Reach C alifnrnia gOR1'4 I t� j PridrityAutoCary I ¢ Precision Tune IFL�'ViU•6H'P7I.FJ ceC1nS15E-4L:/1�G BL�PYL 2INc`=trH Hu5a�O 1 -jr vUJYL St��P � nI � t I, � — I�_ I GUT'PUt FL UGC6��T ✓AMPS 4 aUG EU�. F.C-♦�' EAU LIGHn UG q (� BRAKE EXPRESS - PbiPTEr=> r-III • iJ - -- ==•... - �.(dT�'--,e,LL PIMEUcra-Z;cCE •• I � GLGC£ L= - 4 day tire More _ >��E 10 exu�-ILIA couolnolJS S. t— i OEEUROPEAN. REPAIR — ----- —_ -- —a �� a'.or fu � w € /n � EUD yIE�-/ _ '''OIJ11P•�lri E��y<:-1i'I�. -- --- 7i"= Imo" V v C}ran�a� ani f,levaat,�� }yawyI eN:V/ L L-0 -� � A � a m � IA I I I I .w 100 m 7T superior electrica!ads-;._:'sings �ttLR 4�rn:w 3.lyq".r,n Gl9(L�) ]�Y1r1]b`r �r99)) '���o-�—••�- f i 4 I i r 1 I I I 1 4 I wl I 1 I 4 i i I I I i ---New 5; n tocJ on A f � " �, 5-r�F ,L�.L.T��'_►��T two : ITS c Cobh w �— O d 1-9 300 ' *19302 /-;A-oeo- 47 t�OT "f" 1..10 waT Tom''Aga l.� Mom-•( 15r- J6 V df•T I I VTE.b FCC ASP�' 8� • .� c��. GoDE GoNroe �►��• i 1O - o -T, -ex ' I -- 193 0 0 19302 i S,5P4 110 . 1O 41) pw �.,1' T1�F� 1y1�"1T�IZU�T'1�/� : 1.�;-r;•s . op 0 —]pits L. ICX t4 19 3-D 0 19302 o = 00 i �O � GIN��►� -����-r �.��=4 � �0' [D 'PSP *1' Sa • 3 C rZ.) op d � i 0 193-D0 . '- -19 3 0 2 ly ��..2T5 Sn-�-o� •/' � r a ` Q 49 , 4 " 2 . I�-aec S t a�moo. 5Co ah SA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Q� APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION' S DENIAL OF SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 90-10, SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 89-4 (R) AND PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM NO. 89-3 (R) (AUTOPLEX/EL POLLO LOCO CENTER) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Monday, March 18, 1991, 7 : 00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Appeal of Planning Commission' s denial of Special Sign Permit .No . 90-10, Special Sign Program No . 89-4(R) and Planned Sign Permit No. 89-3 (R) APPELLANT: Mr . Jim Silva, City Council Member APPLICANT: Superior Electrical Advertising LOCATION: 19300-19324 Beach Blvd. (eastside of Beach Blvd. approximately 535 feet north of Yorktown Ave. ) ZONE: C4 (Highway Commercial) REOUEST: Special Sign Permit No . 90-10 is a request to replace an existing code conforming (7 foot high/35 square foot) center identification monument sign with a new 13 foot - 8 inch high/80 square foot center identification monument sign in lieu of the code permitted seven (7) foot high, 50 square fool monument sign. Special Sign Permit No . 89-4 (R) is a request to amend a condition of approval which prohibited a business identification (wall) sign on the west elevation of the E1 Pollo Loco Restaurant . The applicant is requesting a 50 square foot business identification (wall) sign on the west elevation of the building . Planned Sign Program No . 89-3 (R) is a request to amend the planned sign program for the Autoplex Center to include a new center identification monument sign, new business identification wall sign and a request to modify the existing E1 Pollo Loco monument sign. (OVER) t 1 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15311, Class 11 of the California Environmental Quality Act . COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable (unless in coastal zone) ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk' s Office, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any further questions please call 'Herb Fauland, Assistant Planner at 536-5271 . Connie Brockway - City Clerk City of Huntington Beach (8619d) 16 CERTIFICATION OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP LIST A—TTAC H ED LIST REPRESENTS THE K �S iND ADDRESSES O.: PLL PROPERTY OWNERS LOC__=ED WITHIN 300 _C _ O '^=E EY.TE ZOR 30UlTDAR_BS Or THE PROPERTY LOCATED x T _l q 3 bo .. -l 43z4 �'i��c� '61 v�1, , l-�u►�k►�G�'t�n 'Bed THIS INFORL TION 47AS OBTAINED FROM LATEST ORANGE COUNTY ASSESSMENT ROLLS. 5 J SUSAN W. CASE 1461 Glenneyre St FF Laguna Beach CA 92651 714-494-6105 a , 19330Q-19324 'Beach Blvd 150 Huntington Beach CA i 153-051-25 March 4 1991 Page 1 i 1 Arnold Kimbrough 9 Robert Chase 18 Steven Cook 19361 Beach Blvd 19321 Beach Blvd 19311 Weymouth Ln Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92646 025-180-06 025-182-22 153-033-07 2 Garrett Mosure Jr 11 Robert Sterman 19 Mutsuya Matsumoto 12 Sycamore Creek 1651 E 4th St #150 19321 Weymouth Ln Irvine CA 92715 Santa Ana CA 92701 Huntington Beach CA 92646 025-181-25 025-182-32 153-033-08 3 Jack Leider 12 Eugene Opfer 20 Ken Ikeda 1924 Galaxy Dr 19231 Worchester Ln 19331 Weymouth Ln Newport Beach CA 92660 Huntington Beach CA 92626 Huntington Beach CA 92646 025-181-29 153-024-53 153-033-09 4 U-Haul Real Estate Co 13 George Yoshihara 21 Erwin Bender P 0 Box 29046 91251 Weymouth Ln 19341 Weymouth Ln Phoeniz AZ 85038 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92646 025-181-36 153-033-02 153-033-10 5 Raul Rios 14 Martha Baker 22 Raymond Mc Graw 737 William Ave 19261 Weymouth Ln 19351 Weymouth Ln Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92646 025-182-06 153-033-03 153-033=11 6 Goldie Honnell 15 Raymond Lopez 23 David Forman 731 Williams St 19271 Weymouth Ln 19372 Worchester Ln Huntington Beach CA 926407 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92626 025-182-07 153-033-04 153-033-16 7 Carl Stewart 732 Owen Ave 16 Richard Olson 24 S Judith Sangster Huntington Beach CA 92648 19281 Weymouth Ln 19362 Worchester Ln 025-1.82-15 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92626 153-033-05 153-033-17 i 8 Hun Kwon 10 9442 Hyannis Port Dr. 17 Donald Kiser i 25 Robert Montgomery Huntington Beach CA 92646 19301 Weymouth Ln 19352 Worchester Ln 0.25-182-21,23 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92626 153-033-06 153-033-18 I 3�9 0 Page 2 150 i I 26 Mario Ayon 35 J Guadalupe Magdaleno 44 Donald Adams 19342 Worchester Ln 19242 Worchester Ln 19331 Worchester Ln Huntington Beach CA 92626 Huntington Beach CA 92626 Huntington Beach CA 92626 153-033-19 153-033-28 I 153-034-09 I I I 27 Ronald Garry 36 Patrick Murphy 45 David Nelson 19332 Worchester Ln 19241 Worchester Ln 19341 Worchester Ln Huntington Beach CA 92626 Huntington Beach CA 92626 I Huntington Beach CA 92626 153-033-20 153-034-01 153-034-10 28 Robert Randall 37 Wilfredo Romano 46 Verne Miller 19322 Worchester Ln 19251 Worchester Ln 19351 Worchester Ln Huntington Beach CA 92626 Huntington Beach CA 92626 Huntington Beach CA 92626 153-033-21 153-034-02 153-034-11 29 Harold Wignall 38 Jack Mannschreck 47 Devinder Mavi 19312 Worchester Ln 19261 Worchester Ln 19361 Worchester Ln Huntington Beach CA 92626 Huntington Beach CA 92626 I Huntington Beach CA 92626 153-033-22 153-034-03 153-034-12 i • � I 30 Manuela White 39 Willie Reise 48 Jeremiah Cua 19302 Worchester Ln 19271 Worchester Ln I 790 Metro Dr Huntington Beach CA 92626 Huntington Beach CA 92626 Monterey Park CA 91754 153-033-23 153-034-04 153-034-13 31 Lawrence Greenwald 40 Albert Lansing 49 Maureen Robinson 19282 Worchester Ln 19281 Worchester Ln 4655 Clubview Dr Huntington Beach CA 92626 Huntington Beach CA 92626 Thousand Oaks CA 91362 153-033-24 153-034-05 153-041-17 32 William Fowler 41 Robert Shaw 50 Mini=Skools Ltd 19272 Worchester Ln 19301 Worchester Ln 5601 W Slauson Ave #290 Huntington Beach CA 92626 Huntington Beach CA 92626 Culver City CA 90230 153-033-25 153-034-06 i 153-051-08 33 Rick Barron 42 Marvin Manor 51 Huntington Beach Inns Inc 19262 .Worchester Ln 19311 Worchester Ln 19360 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach CA 92626 Huntington Beach CA 92626 Huntington Beach CA' 92648 153-033-26 153-034-07 153-051-09 I 34 Jack Carlino i 43 Kenneth Inouye 52 Yee Sing Yee 19252 Worchester Ln i 19321 Worchester Ln 29155 Bobolink Dr Huntington Beach CA 92626 Huntington Beach CA 92626 Laguna Niguel CA 92677 153-033-27 153-034-08 153-051-10 i I I I I . Page .3 150 I 53 Cap Rap Ltd i 7282 Westminster Ave Westminster CA.92683 153-051-18 I I 54 Fred Hensel P O Box 536 Huntington Beach CA 92648 153-051-19 j i 55 Josef Wuerer 2134 N Greenleaf St j Santa Ana CA 92706 ! I 153-051-24 - I 56 Nichols Trust 502 21st P1 j Santa Monica CA 90402 ! -153-051-25 APPLICANT Superior Electrical Adv. 1700 W Anaheim St j Long Beach CA 90813 i I I Property Owners Cardinal Development 375 Bristol St #50 Costa Mesa CA 92626 i Tenant 19324 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach CA 92648 I ' I Tenant I 19300 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach CA 92648 I Tenant- .. - -- --- - 19326 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach CA 92648 i I ... . . . . .-.. ,. .-' - - -.-.. .....1 -:. . ..- _ .... .,_. ... ........ :. . _ - - _ -:. _ _. ,, •.: . ... . . . . , . . .: : - . _.. .. . .... . . -. . n 1 .. .. - .- - . ... ._ .. .. - .. . . .. ..... - . .. .. .. - .- -.-.. _. ... - -.. Y - 4�y1. --::2� , - --, K ..:_ ... -.--. .- _ _ __ .. ._. r I. .. - - .. .. . -. -. .-.. .. .-.._...-.. _ . . .. .. -. ..-.- . .. _ .. .. .. .. _ _ .-.:. .. - . ..: .. : ..'. '_::: .. . .. :- - .. .. .. .-.- .. - .....- .- .-. . - . . -..... - ........ . . - - .. -. .. .:. - - .. ....- -- - -. .-._..... _ . - .. - .. :. - .... ..- -- - - . _ . . .._ .:..- - .- - - _. } �3 j * - - : - _ - -1 1`_ _ t Y 1. .... - -. .a :.-... - -: - _ : - - - . - -.. _.. .-... .. � ..-. , J ..�_.___R>--�.:+�• ��.,.�.� _ _...�.........��-:- _. ,f _.t,.o..� ...v .}-_-,__'_„ c—__.—:c_i=i::o.=:,7 .— ,•ii=i�.,t>.i.�.--.7.,_..._.s..0 �'��.�.,w.:E r Y r.e.a.i.,.e i Office of the City Clerk .,-..-___:::,.:.x.-- : City of Huntington Beach _ _ .T. . �;, _ i,i=, i.l ..,, r P.O.BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 _ r. .. y „ ,� .t ! #0 s °a 5``(� I- Tenant '�/.�j� , 19324 Beach Blvd . Huntington Beach CA 92648 i I . 11 IIIIIIIIIiII,i,I,III Ill Mill till Ill IIIIII11illill