The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1050/1060 Broadway - Application� •�,� �•< ,� "�`:: ;� t ��:':; #,, � ;; :r, .��.. ;; �� There were no audience com,-zients and the public hearing was declared closed. • Commissioner Jacobs moved that the Commission�approve these sign variances �s note3 on plans dated October 15, Z974, with the uncersta�dir.g tha� this is the total ��gnage 7rogram. Commissioner Kindig secondeci � the notion and it carried on un�nimous roll call vote. 10 . SIGN VARIANC�' FOR 3 b" 6" HIGH POLE SIGi'�7 Ht�VI1IG 92 SF OF FACE AiZ�A, AT 925 �3AY>�'3�TER FOR FUTNAM DODGE BY COAST/QRS SIGNS. � Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed t'nis applicati�n and stated the present application is for a 7�SSI' pole sign minu� pentastar, 33'9" high, locat�d 138' northeast of the�SP �racks on P..ayswater. This Iocation is 12I' northeast of -the present sign. I� places t�e sign directly opposite a residential section with resuitant visual inpact. The height of the sign is to ma�ce it vis?bie over the top of the Kohleriberg Ford fence. The fenc� has been verified by survey as being 15'8" high. The Assistant City PYanner illustrated that a 28'6" sign with the per�tastar at the original location would be just as visible from C�lifornia Dr:ive as the new taller sign placed farther north. Ther�Fore he cansidered that tl-ie taller sign at its new location would not be:an improvement in visibility. Mr. Joseph Putnam agreed with this theory,_ but stated another reason for moving the sign was to have it closer to �is shok� room on the north end of the property. Co�;�rnissioner Jacobs suaqes�ed he erect a second, smali entrance sign near the sales room instead of enlarging the present one, but he said the cost would be prohibitive. ' Chairman Mink zequested audience comment. There was none, and the : public hearing was declared closed. . Commissioner Sine questioned the Iegality of a fence of thi.s height. • City Engineer Davidson stated he had no opportunity to research ` yet, but would assume it would be illegal at that height. �2r. Putnam commented it had been erected only a year ago, and he had protested ta � the owner �r�ho told him his attorney stated it was legal. Commissioner : _ � _� ,. .. �_.. .... �: . __ � ub,::�;��.�.,.� ;,;� _. ,_x�,�:��''.,��'. �; � Q G� �y 30 � `� L�- -- 11 — 9. SIGN VARIANCES FOR L3F2DADWAY ARCADE PROJECT AT -1.��v BROADWAY FOR N. CRISAFI BY J/�"T DESIGN ASSOCIATES. __,,. Assistant City Planner Yost was invite�' �. the Chair to speak on this application. He told the Commission '�`=1s item entails 5 variances for signs on this project, of whic?^ f�..r variances requested are for modest reasons and can be �:��-_'��rted by staff. The fifth variance is for Sign A and concerns i�-`= size, which is 6Q square feet. Staff feels howe�er, that t'.�� : is not a significant fire hazard and can be approved. � He notP� '_,�at the total signage on Broadway is on].y 5; of the facade �-.: is well within the design criteria. � >' Mr. Jack Webb of J/W Design Associates was �resent, and in response to question stated this wouid be the total signage program for the project. Nothing woUld be added. , .. ... ....,,.:u: �.�.,.-��-.:e...�., ".t�,.�..,._�:x ...::..:.....a�:iace..,o-a�..:-a:� :...,n,.--�:='�'.: , :. , ::.:. .. �w. � � .. ..> -,�s� , ..... �� c.., _ ... =�� . :� :� :.,� .�;:�w �� : �i:: _, �� P � E _ 12 - g. �IGN V1IRIANCES FOR }3ROADWAY ARC7IDE PROJECT AT ].050 BROADWAY FOR N. CRYSIIFI BY J j'7 D�SIGN 11SSOCIATES � Rssistan� City Planner Yost rev�.ewed the eight signs in the sign program submitted by this applicant. Sign A requires variances because it is a wooden sign more than 40 SF and projects nut from the face oF the building more i:han 9". In staff's opinion t�is was dangerous due to possible eftect of seismic forces and City Engineer required strucfural analysis before building permit could be i5ss�d- Structural�analysis dated 9/17/7� has been rec�ived. Sign B, requires variance since it is les� than 10' above the ground. Signs C,D,E, and G are less Lhan 4 SF. Sign F, 7�Z SF. n�eds variance because it, too, is less than IO' from the ground. 5ign H is 34 SF and encroaches on adjacent ARCO property lz", its projection fram the wa11. of the Crisafi building. Letter has been recea.ved from ARCQ acivising they have no objection to this encroachment. .;� � The Assistan� City Planner stres�he�d rawingrforhthishsignaHeand�the��cie between the di.mensiong showr. on d��grLm supplied. H�ight ta bottam of letters is S�St?�ned if wall • instance as 8'6", in the other as 6'9". He also qu � pl�que da.spl�ying directory of offices should be considereci a sign.. �or3D , ' /` �'�ch W�bb o£ �/W Design told the Commi�siora th(�e 24'� rojection of . Sign A was necessary because ot the supporta £�r_.the i�xelJ.a.s behind it, wh�ch he considered necessary for ��sthetics. With regard �o � apparent misrepresent�tion oi d�.mens�on� on Sign H, he told the Corc�mis�ic� this �vas because of an error in scale. There folZo��ed Corc�mission discussion, particularly of Sign A and �re discrep�r�cy on Sign H. They agreed �h� applirant shotix].d cor.�ider a difteren� method of attacha�.g s�5n ��nd �he location of Sxgn H shou�.d be resolved. � Mr. Crisafi requested Commission ap�zoval. of address signs C and G. Commissa.oner Jacobs moved signs C and G be approved as submitted in � 3rawz n g w i t h a t t a c h m� n t s. Commissiorier Kindig secanded the motion and it.carr�.Ed on unanimous roll cali vote. Chair;nan Mink reques�ed that the applican�Arback�againststhe building; progr�rcr with consideration of mov�ng s�.g and showing dimensions of side wall sign H to scale. 10. APPL7CC�1TZON OF MAURY KOLOS FOR CFt�x�gAGEDPEtO OSEDNOFFOCE�ti AREIiOUSE SPEC�AL PERMIT Tfl EXCEED 30� LOT CO BUILDTI�?G, ROLLTNS ROAD AND NORTH C1�ROI.�AN AVErNE �R�F�RRED BY COUNCIL SEPTEMPER 16 1974 Chairman Mink anriounced thi� item, noting ft had been referred 'to the Planninq Commissian for consideration of devel.opmental dif�acesties. Iie cited one of these as being the interpreta�ut notedPreceiptsof a for the combined warehouse-office buiested�to report. new plan. City Pl�nner S�an was requ The City Planner confirmed that a revised plan had been received S�ptember 20, 1974. It incorporates changes which allevi.ate many �: � f � � ;� . .�,,; ��r . . 4;'. , , _ �< .. . �`°� �r�� 4_ 4& .. '"��W�^+. -�. i �" ' �n'r`b,:+w � �� So,�,t. 23,`I�' ;:.. � - :: � . ,.,.f,, .._u.Wn�.�.._. �, _. �,. _.,...,._k:a..�,��v_,