Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/21/1996COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: MINUTES of of ROLL INDEX CALL Commissioner Pomeroy was excused, all other Commissioners were present EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Pairicia Temple, Acting Planning Director Rich Edmonston, Traffic Engineer Ginger Varin, Executive Secretary ■ ** • Minutes of March 7, 1996: Minutes 3/7/96 Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve as amended, the March 7, Approved 1996, Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED - 5 Ayes, 1 Ayes * * * * Absent, l Abstain Absent Abstain Public Comments: None Public Comments Posting of the Agenda: Posting Agenda Ms. Temple stated that the Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, March 15, 1996, outside of City Hall. * ** • of of COMMISSIONERS 4 r L ok\010W100ji MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 21, 1996 ROLL INDEX CALL SUBJECT: Street Name Change - Hoag Memorial item 1 Hospital Presbyterian 301 Newport Boulevard Street Request to consider naming a private street to "Hoag Drive" located Name Cha within the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian property. Commissioner Gifford asked for clarification of the responsibility of the Approved applicant to pay the costs related to the change in the signage. Staff answered that it has been the standard practice that if a street name change occurred, it would be the applicant's responsibility to pay for the signage. This practice is not worded as a condition. Chairperson Ridgeway clarified that this is a Newport Boulevard address and there are no signs currently posted for Hoag, it is in internal street ' that is being created. Staff affirmed this is correct and further clarified that typically once streets are named, they have street signs associated with them. This is for both private and public streets. This will become a named private street that typically would have signage in points where it connects to other streets. Chairperson Ridgeway stated in other similar situations, there were conditions pertaining to the installation of signs being the financial responsibility of the applicant, and asked if the sign locations had been established. Staff responded that there are no specific plans as yet, but reiterated that every time there has been a named private street, there have been signs installed. Based on that precedence it is assumed that the Hospital would desire signs for the private street. Commissioner Adams added that a couple of the streets will terminate at signaled intersections that would probably have internally illuminated 1 2 nge 4 r COMMISSIONERS �,9 <9pf CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 21, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX street. name signs on the mast arms and signs at cross streets. There would be some cost for this sign implementation. Commissioner Gifford noted that it is stated in the staff report that the purpose is to make it easier for patients and visitors to locate the entrances to the hospital and their destination buildings, and stated it is appropriate to have-signs. Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Lief Thompson, Vice President of Facilities Design for Hoag Hospital, 301 Newport Boulevard - spoke in answer to the questions raised by Commission. Regarding the names of the streets and entries off of Pacific Coast Highway and Hospital Road, Hoag Hospital would be willing to work with City staff to resolve the signage issue. Currently, there is a Hoag Hospital sign off Pacific Coast Highway and suggests that ' is a suitable sign to address the hospital. At the corner of Hospital Road and Placentia there are new Hoag Hospital signs on both corners of that intersection announcing that you have arrived at Hoag Hospital. They are willing to sponsor or pay for a sign at that intersection with the Placentia Street sign if it can be done so as not to cause confusion and is helpful to the public. Chairperson Ridgeway asked staff if this was acceptable, and staff agreed that it was. He also inquired of the two roads that are named Hoag, East and West. One is for the ambulance entrance and one for the main entrance, would there be required some sort of designation for an East and West Hoag Drive? Staff answered, typically yes, at those intersections where the Hoag Roads with different names intersect. The signage would be limited, particularly if there are no buildings addressed off one of the other streets. Mr. Thompson stated that the primary road will be Hoag Drive, and the consecutive addresses they propose would primarily reference that Drive. The only other signage planned is for the Fire Department to number the I 3 COMMISSIONERS • Oq< MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 21, 1996 ROLL INDEX CALL power plant and cafeteria entrances, primarily for their use and not for the public use. Public Hearing was closed. Motion * Motion was made for approval of the private street naming with the condition that the applicant pay for the printing street signage and installation required by the City and work with the City Traffic Engineer Ayes * * * * ** in that regard. MOTION CARRIED - 6 Ayes, 1 Absent. Absent Condition: 1. That the applicant shall assume all costs incurred for the construction and installation of street signage as required by the Public Works Department. SUBJECT: The Raft Cafe Item 2 2816 Lafayette Avenue Use Permit No. 3578 UP 3578 To approve changes in the operational characteristics of an existing Approve restaurant so as to allow the service of beer and wine and to permit occasional live entertainment. Staff commented that this is a request to add the service of beer and wine to an existing restaurant within the Cannery Village area of Newport Beach. In association with this request, the applicant also requested a permit for occasional live entertainment which heretofore has been authorized through the Special Events Permit process. In writing this report, staff structured the recommended action in a way which was similar to the direction that the Planning Commission gave staff at the last meeting in regards to live entertainment in areas where it was in an open air setting. Staff has suggested that rather than authorize the • 4 COMMISSIONERS Ry MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 21, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX ongoing live entertainment through this Use Permit, to simply allow the Planning Director to approve temporary permits on an as needed basis and allow those entertainments to occur through the Special Events Permit process until the comprehensive Zoning Code update is completed. It is anticipated that an alternate path for live entertainment will be available as an outcome of that process. Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Buzz Person, 507 29th Street spoke as the representative of Mr. Robert Redmond and the Raft Cafe. Mr. Person stated that the applicant understands and agrees to the terms and conditions of the Use Permit No. 3578. With reference to the live entertainment, prior to this application, the Raft Cafe had perhaps five (5) or six (6) weddings in a year where they had a disc jockey bring in recorded music. • Chairperson Ridgeway stated that there is a comprehensive review of the Zoning Code in process, therefore fixture avenues may exist for these approvals. Mr. Person stated he understands that. He went on to explain that there is part of the building that they have an option on and pending the review of the Zoning Code, they will be coming back to expand the restaurant. Public Hearing was closed. Motion * Motion was made to approve changes in the operational characteristics of the Raft Cafe to allow the service of beer and wine. It was clarified that the subject of occasional live entertainment was addressed in Condition Ayes 11. MOTION CARRIED - 6 Ayes, 1 Absent. Absent Findings: 1. That the proposed ancillary service of beer and wine is consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. • 5 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 21, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX 2. That the proposal will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That the waiver of development standards as they pertain to the required front yard setback, walls and landscaping surrounding the restaurant site, on -site parking and the illumination thereof, and the undergrounding of utilities will not be detrimental to surrounding properties. 4.1 That the approval of Use Permit No. 3578 does not include the approval of live entertainment, and that the applicant has indicated that temporary staff approvals will be sought for occasional live entertainment in conjunction with special events, until such a time that an ordinance may be otherwise be adopted by the City with respect to live entertainment. ' 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 3578 will not, under the circumstances of the case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification related to the proposed signing is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan, except as noted below. 2. That the development standard pertaining to the required front yard setback, perimeter walls and landscaping, on -site parking and the illumination thereof, and the undergrounding of utilities shall be waived. 6 4 L COMMISSIONERS A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 21, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That all signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 4. That a washout area for refuse container be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 5. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 6. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction of the Building Department. ' 7. That the hours of operation shall be limited between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., daily. 8. That all trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and streets. 9. That no outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the proposed operation. 10. That no off -sale beer or wine shall be permitted in conjunction with the subject restaurant. 11. That live entertainment shall be permitted only in accordance with a temporary live entertainment permit issued by the Planning Director and in conjunction with a Special Events Permit and/or a Live Entertainment Permit issued by the Revenue Manager in accordance . with Title 5 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 12. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the 1 7 COMMISSIONERS 041NO":�0j- • �A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 21, 1996 ROLL CALL I INDEX revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, . or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 13. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. *s* SUBJECT: Harbor Day School I Item 3 3443 Pacific View Drive Use Permit No. 1546 (Amended) U UP 1546 COMMISSIONERS 4 MINUTES CI'T'Y OF NEWPORT BEACH March 21, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX at the amount of land available, an architect could design additional onsite parking. Staff pointed out that there is a suggested additional condition that would require onsite parking. Commissioner Selich asked Mr. Edmonston about afternoon parking on San Joaquin Hills Road for picking students up, and wanted to know if there have been any problems related to that. Mr. Edmonston answered no,.and that it has been monitored on a number of occasions by City staff. They observed that school staff control the students very strictly. School staff limit a certain amount of students outside the property on the sidewalk at any 'given time. No problems have been experienced that he is aware of. ' Ms. Temple added that at Commission's chair, there is an additional condition suggested by Traffic Engineering regarding the street signage. Mr. Edmonston has discussed this condition with the Principal of the School before this meeting and he has agreed to it. Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Sid Dupont, Head Master of Harbor Day School, 3443 Pacific View Drive - was available to answer Commission's questions and also referenced that Mr. Bill Stambley of the Board of Trustees and Mr. John Golmer of the Bluerock Partnership firm were available for comments. Chairperson Ridgeway asked the applicant if any study had been done to show additional parking on the school site. Mr. Dupont replied that the request has been reviewed. During his tenure of 31 months, he has not witnessed any problems with parking on the adjacent cul -de -sac. Whenever there is a "parent event" the school gets permission from and are granted parking both at St. Michael's Church 1 9 COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 21, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX and United Methodist and, more recently the cemetery if there is no service. In response to Chairman Ridgeway's statement of inadequate on site employee parking, Mr. Dupont agreed. Chairman Ridgeway stated that he has no problem with the request but does have a problem with the parking provided. Mr. Dupont said he would be happy to put in additional parking spaces by taking away some of the green area but perhaps that may impede the efficiency of the drop off and pick up procedure on the Pacific View side of the school. In response to a question from Commissioner Thomson, Mr. Dupont stated that the school is in the process of a student reduction, current enrollment is 410 which will be reduced to 402 at Board direction. One additional part time teacher will be added to staff. ' Commissioner Thomson stated that the parking impact will be negligible. Mr. John Golmer, Bluerock Partnership, 2300 Newport Blvd., in response to Commission inquiry, stated that site planning on this property for additional parking had been attempted. He stated his firm had provided two alternatives (and provided copies to Commission). He recommended one that did not interfere with the "drop off' area. Chairperson Ridgeway asked about the school's compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Handicap stalls are supposed to be readily accessible to the building. Discussion ensued with curb cuts, problems and/or lack thereof. Chairperson Ridgeway stated that his question is directed to the Uniform Building Code and the application of the new standards for ADA. Staff reported that since new construction is occurring on site, should the Commission determine to request additional parking, then the Building Department would review the proposed layout for ADA compliance and that would be worked out in the Plan Check process. 10 March 21, 1996 • and United Methodist and, more recently the cemetery if tyre is no service. / In response to Chairman Ridgeway's statement of in equate on site employee parking, Mr. Dupont agreed. Chairman Ri gel stated that he has no problem with the request but does havefa problem with the parking provided. Mr. Dupont said he would/Ibe happy to put in additional parking spaces by taking away some of the green area but perhaps that may impede the efficiency of tie drop off and pick up procedure on the Pacific View side of the school. In response to a question from Commissioner Thomson, Mr. Dupont stated that the school is in the process of a student reduction, current enrollment is 410 which will be reduced to 402 at Board direction. One additional part time teacher will be added to staff. Commissioner Thomson stated that the parking impact will be negligible. • Mr. John Golmer, Bluerq& Partnership, 2300 Newport Blvd., in response to Commission inquiry, stated that site planning on this property for additional parking had been attempted. He stated his firm had provided two alternates (and provided copies to Commission). He recommended one *t did not interfere with the "drop off' area. Chairperson Ridgeway asked about the school's compliance with the Americans wi isabilities Act (ADA). Handicap stalls are supposed to be readily accessible to the building. Discussion ensued with curb cuts, problems and/or lack thereof. Chairperson Ridgeway stated that his question is directed to the Uniform Building Code and the application of the new standards for ADA. Staff reported that since new construction is occurring on site, should the Commission determine to request additional parking, then the Building Department would review the proposed layout for ADA compliance and that would be worked out in the Plan Check process. • 10 COMMISSIONERS '9i Ap -� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 21, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Adams stated that the parking lot design could be re- designed in such a way that it would be, better than presently shown. He suggested using 90 degree stalls on the aisle parallel to Pacific View Drive adding it looks like it might have enough width. It may enable the applicant to pick up at least five (5) parking spaces without any impact to the "drop off' zone or providing spaces in the awkward space by the exit aisle. He recommends this project be conditioned to add at least five (5) parking spaces to get the parking up to one (1) parking space per employee. Even if there is no problem now, since this runs with the land and the school is underparked for its size and use, it should have more parking spaces. Mr. Dupont asked if they could reconfigure with some compact stalls also. City staff answered that was no problem. • Public Hearing was closed. Motion * Motion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 1546 (Amended) with the inclusion of substitute condition number three (3) amended as recommended by staff and an added condition number eight (8). Ayes * * * ** MOTION CARRIED - 6 Ayes, I Absent. Absent 3. That a minimum of one parking space shall be provided for each full -time employee and faculty member (35 spaces plus 1 handicap space) and that the on site parking spaces shall be available for use by the full -time teachers, administrative faculty and employees at all times. That prior to issuance of building permits, the final parking lot striping plan shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 8. That prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall correct the signage on the overhead sign located on San Joaquin Hills Road by replacing the "SCHOOL XINW sign with a "SCHOOL" sign. • 11 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 21, 1996 ROLL CALL I INDEX Findinas: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact and has been determined to be categorically exempt from CEQA under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). 3. That the number of parking spaces required to be provided on site is adequate to accommodate the existing private school facility; and the proposed new building will not increase the parking COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 21, 1996 ROLL CALL I INDEX 21. 1972, May 19, 1983 and January 4, 1990 shall remain in effect. 3. That a minimum of one parking space shall be provided for each full -time employee and faculty member (35 spaces plus 1 handicap space) and that the on site parking spaces shall be available for use by the full -time teachers, administrative faculty and employees at all times. That prior to issuance of building permits, the final parking lot striping plan shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 4. That prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide information to the City Traffic Engineer establishing the traffic and pedestrian circulation with regard to student drop -off and pick -up. Also, should problems arise in the future with regard to the student drop -off and pick -up, that the applicant shall ' w work directly with the City Traffic Engineer to resolve said problems and concerns. 5. That the proposed new structure shall be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system and fire alarm system to the satisfaction of the Fire Department and in accordance with Fire Code requirements. 6. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 7. This use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4 COMMISSIONERS 9, I' A ;ixois CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 21, 1996 ROLL CALL _F_[ 1]]T INDEX 8. That prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall correct the signage on the overhead sign located on San Joaquin Hills Road by replacing the "SCHOOL XINO" sign with a "SCHOOL" sign. SUBJECT: Accessory Outdoor Dining on Public Item, 4. Sidewalks Staff reported that this qualifies as a non - substantive housecleaning item. Approvea The issue of outdoor dining originated with the Economic Development Committee and the Restaurant Industry. This constitutes a minor revision to the portion of the zoning code addressing accessory outdoor dining. The Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance that was approved by City Council, last week, addresses only outdoor dining on public property. This is phase two of the outdoor dining issue. Phase one was the ' Accessory Outdoor Dining Amendment addressing sidewalk cafes on private property in malls and the like. This would add a clarification section to the accessory outdoor dining section that says if a sidewalk cafe is on public property, they need an Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit plus an Encroachment Permit. The Encroachment Permit would not become effective until an Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit was received. Commissioner Selich asked staff if you have outdoor dining on private property as well as public property, would the total area devoted to outdoor dining be limited to the maximum that is stated in the Code? Staff answered that it would be subject to the Accessory Outdoor Dining limit which is twenty-five (25) percent of the interior net public area, and that this limitation applies to the combined total of outdoor dining on public and private areas Public Hearing was opened and closed. ' 14 COMMISSIONERS '9i 'gyp CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 21, 1996 ROLL INDEX CALL Motion Motion was made for approval of amendment to Chapter 20.72, Ayes * * * Resolution 1428. MOTION CARRIED - 6 Ayes, l Absent Absent s�* SUBJECT: Illuminated Sign Regulations Item s (Public Hearing) Amendment 841 A 841 Staff reported that the City Council initiated the Amendment to revise the Approve current standard for illuminated signs. The City's current standard is 15,000 foot - lamberts which allows for excessively bright signs. This is brighter than the industry would normally consider readable. It is proposed to replace the current objective standard with an interpretive policy statement. This would allow the Planning Director to order the dimming of excessively bright signs. The Planning Director would use a • set of guidelines based on the existing ambient light standards in order to make that determination. The proposed standard is based on industry guidelines and would allow a sign that is readable, so there should not be an impact to the overall ability of a person to perceive the sign message. Chairperson Ridgeway asked if the EDC had reviewed this proposal. He was answered, no. He stated that perhaps no action be taken on this item until the EDC has at least reviewed this proposal and is represented at the meeting. Staff responded by stating that the City Council has initiated this item and directed the Commission to consider it. They did not direct it to the Economic Development Committee although clearly, sign issues are of interest to the EDC. This particular amendment is addressing a fairly isolated aspect of sign regulation and does not address the size, number or other specific nature of the Sign Code generally. Chairperson Ridgeway expressed concern of a potential to increase the work load of the Planning staff by a need to do an inventory. • 15 March 21, 1996 • Motion was made for approval of amendment to Chapter 20. Resolution 1428. MOTION CARRIED - 6 Ayes, 1 Absent s *� , SUBJECT: Illuminated Sign Regulations (Public Hearing) Amendment 841 Staff reported that the City Council initiated the Amendmentto revise the current standard for illuminated signs. The City's current standard is 15,000 foot - lamberts which allows for excessively bright signs. This is brighter than the industry would normally - consider readable. It is proposed to replace the current objective standard with an interpretive policy statement:' This would allow the Planning Director to order the dimming of excessively bright signs. The Planning Director would use a set of guidelines based on the existing ambient light standards in order to . make that determination. The proposed standard is based on industry guidelines and would allow a sign that is readable, so there should not be an impact to the overall ability of a person to perceive the sign message. Chairperson Ridgeway asked if the EDC had reviewed this proposal. He was answered, no. He stated that perhaps no action be taken on this item until the EDC has at least reviewed this proposal and is represented at the meeting. Staff responded by stating that the City Council has initiated this item and directed the Commission to consider it. They did not direct it to the Economic Development Committee although clearly, sign issues are of interest to the EDC. This particular amendment is addressing a fairly isolated aspect of sign regulation and does not address the size, number j or other specific nature of the Sign Code generally. Chairperson Ridgeway expressed concern of a potential to increase the work load of the Planning staff by a need to do an inventory. • 15 COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 21, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX Staff answered that this action would not. One of the directions given to staff was to consider, within the Amendment, an amortization period for non- conforming signs. As indicated within the staff report, the procedures that are required by the State in order to establish an amortization program are fairly difficult and very time intensive. Therefore, at this time, staff is not recommending that an amortization procedure be adopted. If the City undertakes a comprehensive review of the Sign Code, which the Commission has suggested, it should be done sometime after the comprehensive Zoning Code update. Amortization considerations can be done at that time, so the inventory process would not be done twice. Commissioner Selich stated that with the situation of the Specialty Food Amendment, due to timing, the EDC did not get to present their recommendations to the Planning Commission. He therefore had suggested that the EDC be involved in this issue prior to the Planning ' Commission review. Staff answered that if the Commission thinks this would be something the EDC should review, it is well within its authority to continue this item and request staff to achieve a recommendation from the Economic Development Committee. Mr. Alford continued his presentation at Chairman Ridgeway's request. The additional comments were related to the amortization period that Council has asked Commission to review. Commission might want to consider the ramifications discussed earlier when _ making their recommendations to the City Council. Commissioner Adams clarified with staff that the amortization component is not suggested at this time. Staff commented that the amortization language is not being recommended at this time. This item was brought up at the last minute at the City Council level, and Council did not give staff direction relating to the form it would take, but did indicate this should be a fairly quick 16 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 21, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX period to bring the existing signs into conformance. At that time, Council was not aware of the State mandates and our direction was to report back to the City Council just as we have reported it to you. Commissioner Adams asked if it makes sense for the Planning Commission to act on this without the amortization component. Without that component, there really isn't any clear fiscal impact to business or economic impact of this. To argue future ones, it appears to be a negligible impact, all it is doing is changing the way the Commission is looking at this. All due respect to EDC he continued by saying that perhaps input from EDC is not warranted. He asked for clarification on the process of the amortization program. When will it be presented to Commission for review or is it State mandated? Ms. Clauson answered that there are provisions in the Business and Professions Code attached to the staff report that have very detailed I regulations on how signs may be is amortized. The designated life span of a sign is fifteen (15) years. If the City was to shorten this amortization life, it would have to pay the fair market value. The situation is the City may undertake an update to the Sign Code. When that Amendment is done, the issue of the amortization of non - conforming signs will be resolved. If an amortization program is established, a single inventory of sign non - conformitieswould be undertaken. Commissioner Adams asked what will happen if this Amendment is approved. Does this give staff the authority to go out and tell people to turn down their signs? Ms. Clauson answered that this only applies to new signs and does not . affect existing signs. Public Hearing was opened and closed. Commissioner Gifford asked about a reference in the Business and Professions Code to abandoned signs. Is there anything available to Commission now to deal with abandoned signs? ` I 17 COMMISSIONERS 4 %\43 �v MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 21, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX Ms. Clauson answered there is no specific authority for the City to deal with abandoned signs in the Municipal Code. There are provisions to deal with abandoned signs once an inventory is done under the Building and Planning Code. Commissioner Gifford asked for clarification of a point in the Recommended Sign Luminances table. The term "High rise signs and signs in areas of high sign competition" seems vague and subject to interpretation. For example, what is contemplated by "..high sign competitionT Mr. Alford responded that would be a sign environment more intensive than the Central Business District where brighter signs are the norm and they have to be at a somewhat higher lumination level to keep any sign on an equal playing field and not drown each other out. ' Commissioner Gifford asked, for example, if she was opening a business on Balboa Boulevard, could she claim that was an area of high sign competition and ask for the very high rating? Staff answered, that would probably not be the case. In Newport Beach most likely it would be seen in shopping centers and in areas fairly well luminated with a number of signs. It would not be seen in any of the strip commercial areas. Commissioner Gifford asked if this was defined anywhere, or can a claim be made just by saying that I, as the business owner, feel I am in a high sign competition area. Staff answered this is actually for the Planning Director to make his interpretation on whether the sign is excessively bright. It is not a matter of applying a standard to a particular sign, it is that if the Planning Director determines a sign is excessively bright he would take into consideration the ambient environment. 18 COMMISSIONERS \� $n �qi 6 0��02 �G�F9O� �. F- 16— L CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 21, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX Discussion continued regarding comparisons of .brightness and areas of competition. Commissioner Kranzley asked for an example of a 100 candelas/square foot sign for a point of reference. Mr. Alford answered that he does not have any measurements to point to any identifiable sign. Commissioner Kranzley stated that when shopping centers are referenced, he is concerned due to the many issues regarding signs in Corona del Mar Plaza. Mr. Alford stated there is no local example he could cite. The brightness comparison would possibly be a sign on a high rise. ' Commissioner Selich asked how the Planning Director will make these determinations? Will he go out and look at the area at night and the signs that are lit up? Staff answered that would have to be a consideration. One reason this approach is being proposed is that it is more difficult to set up objective standards that would be determined by a measurement. Different ambient lighting environments, locations, angles and relationship to the sign surface need to be addressed. An actual numeric standard would be difficult to set. Commissioner Selich continued, if he had a sign and was proposing it and there was a question as to what the ambient light was in the area, then the Planning Director would go out and take a look at the area and have another conference on it. Staff stated that the descriptions would help guide the Planning Director, and give a good description of what the lighting environment is like. There might be some gray areas, but these standards are distinctive 19 .COMMISSIONERS ;\� o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 21, 1996 ROLL CALL INDEX enough where there would not be that much difference. There is a range within the recommended sign luminances that is proposed. Commissioner Selich asked about the available remedies to the applicant if he disagrees with the Planning Director's interpretation. He was answered that all decisions of the Director's are appealable to the Planning Commission. Motion Motion was made to approve adoption of Resolution No. 1429 recommending approval of Amendment 841 to the City Council. Ayes MOTION CARRIED, 6 Ayes, l Absent. Absent Ms. Clauson added to Commissioner Gifford's question about the enforcement. There is nothing in the City's Municipal Code right now, but when the Sign Code is reviewed and an inventory is done, there is another section of the Business and Professions Code which has • procedures for abating illegal signs and abandoned signs. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Additio n Business a.) City Council Follow -up - A verbal report by the Acting Planning Director regarding City Council actions related to planning - City Council considered the request to add limited alcoholic beverage service and live entertainment to specialty food service permits and after a brief discussion, declined to move forward with that proposal. The Council is becoming concerned with the changed nature of specialty food and the ability of the City to continue to approve uses with those operational characteristics while still meeting the technical criteria of having traffic and parking generation similar to retail uses. Rather than approve the amendment, staff was directed to return in six weeks time with recommendations regarding alternatives on specialty foods. In the zoning code review committees, the issue of restaurant regulation as a general topic has been discussed quite heavily. As • 20 al COMMISSIONERS • �°2 �9, MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 21, 1996 ROLL CALL I INDEX a result of Council direction, staff revisited the issue if restaurant definitions and continues to work with the Police Department on other issues related to the regulation of alcoholic beverage service. These aspects of the zoning code update may move forward more quickly if the Council concurs with the direction taken so far by the sub - committee of the Planning Commission and EDC on restaurant and alcoholic beverage service. The direction taken is to expand to a fairly significant degree the number of definitions of food service uses. Those definitions surround not only size but operational and performance characteristics of the uses and set both regulatory and parking requirement and other limitations as appropriate based on the performance of the various food service uses. Both the Traffic Engineering and the ITE criteria are incorporated in these uses. Commission was assured that the Police Department is always included in review of permit applications involving alcoholic ' b beverages through the ABC process. b.) Verbal report by the Planning Department Manager regarding Outdoor Dining Permit, Specialty Food Permits, Modification Permits and Temporary Use Permit approvals - Outdoor Dining Permits approved for China Palace and El Ranchito. c.) Verbal report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Commissioner Selich verified the time with staff for the joint meeting with EDC and Commission as being April 25th at 4:30, location to be announced. d.) Verbal report from Planning Commission's representative to the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee - Commissioner Gifford reported she was not in attendance at the last meeting, but has received a copy of the minutes. She reported that the 15 point proposal had been adopted by the City Council at its last meeting. Staff added that Council has authorized the Planning Department 21 COMMISSIONERS r 9$°� 6 \�9�o r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 21, 1996 ROLL CALL I INDEX to enter into an agreement with the firm of Urban Design Camp to conduct the Balboa Peninsula Planning Study which will address the 15 point plan of BPPAC. e.) Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. f) Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - Commissioner Selich reported that the zoning code review will not be done by April but should be done by May, 1996. g.) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Kranzley will not attend the next meeting.