HomeMy WebLinkAboutP.H. 1 TEMP BANNER 01-06-92r 1.' ��'� t?'• -!1 Li Ali �'r}..+�►� :.*
PUBLIC HEARING N0. 1
1-6-92
I.
1) AJANUARY 6 , 19 9 2715,P
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
i t= Divi : COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
cI IJ I.1..? F-.-. CT: PRICING INFORMATION ON TEMPORARY BANNER
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council uphold the..Planning
Commission's denial of a request to place pricing informaion on a
temporary banner to be located at 13102 Newport Avenue.
BACKGROUND
This item was continued from the November 18, and December 21 1991
City Council meetings at the applicant's request.
On October 28, 1991, the Planning Commission denied the applicant's
request to place pricing information on a temporary banner to be
displayed at 13102 Newport Avenue, #106, by Minute Order. The
applicant has requested an appeal of the Planning commission's
decision by the City Council.
The applicant's request is for approval of pricing information to
be displayed on a temporary banner. The subject pricing information
will be placed on a four -foot by twenty -foot white banner which
will read, in red letters, "Appetizers, house wine and margaritas
from 99(,' Monday through Saturday." The banner will be on the west
elevation of the restaurant, located at the southeast corner of the
intersection of Irvine Boulevard and Newport Avenue, addressed as
13102 Newport Avenue.
The applicant has submitted a Temporary Use Permit application and
fee, as required by Tustin City Code. The applicant was eligible
to have his Temporary Use Permit for a temporary banner approved on
November 31 1991, in accordance with the Sign Code requirement
allowing banners to be displayed on a quarterly basis with a
Temporary -Use Permit.
Pricing information on banners is, however, prohibited by the new
Sign Code that is now officially in effect.
City Council Report
Pricing Information on Temporary Banner
January 6, 1992
Page 2
This item does not require a public hearing, therefore no formal
public notification was made. The applicant and property owner
were f orwarded copies of the meeting' s agenda and staf f reports f or
this item.
DISCUSSION
After review of the information provided by the applicant, the
Planning Commission felt that it was inappropriate for the Planning
Commission to approve pricing information, given that pricing
information was prohibited by the new Sign Code. To approve the
subject request would be to encourage other requests to vary from
the new Sign Code, and may set precedence to permit other
variances.
While there was no Code requirement prohibiting pricing information
on temporary banners at the time the Commission acted on the
subject request for pricing information on a temporary banner, it
has been the policy of the Planning Commission to discourage its
use.
CONCLUSION
The Community' Development Department recommends denial of the
request to authorize pricing information to be placed .on a banner.
tw4n'1�111
Becky Stone
Assistant Planner
CAS:BCS:rm/faraday4.bcs
4a 2; � ; V, /-, 0
ristine A. Shingl on
Assistant City Manager
Community Development