Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/05/2005"Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes May 5, 2005 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 9 ' file: / /N:1Apps1W EBDATAII ntemetlPl nAgend as120051mn05- 05 -05. htm 06/24/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins - all present. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Cathy Wolcott, Contract Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager George Berger, Program Manager Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner yll Ramirez, Department Assistant CONSULTANT: Ron Pflugrath, RBF PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on April 29, 2005. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of April 21, 2005. Minutes Approved Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: Toerge HEARING ITEMS ' file: / /N:1Apps1W EBDATAII ntemetlPl nAgend as120051mn05- 05 -05. htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 2 of 9 Bayside Chevron (PA2003 -073) ITEM NO. 2 301 East Coast Highway I PA2003 -073 of proposed changes to the Bayside Chevron project for determination of Approved ial conformance with plans approved as part of Use Permit No. 2003 -012 and tion Permit No. 2003 -098. on Tucker asked for any additional information from staff. The li has special land use restrictions that have been recorded against The applicant was unaware of the restrictions. Ramirez described the three proposed changes: The Monument Sign (location and design) - removal of the stonework fr the sign and the sign to be located 6 feet from the property line at Bayside Di and Coast Highway; however, Mr. Ramirez notes the City's Traffic Engineer I checked the plans and determined the sign must be setback a minimum of feet from all three property lines. Landscaping - changes in some of the species of the trees. The City's Traf Engineer has some concerns with putting large trees in the same location as tl monument sign, due to impeding vehicle sight- distance. The Traffic Engineer also concerned with some of the species of the shrubs requested by tl applicant, as they tend to grow a little higher than the species that we previously approved. The Urban Forrester informed staff that Ficus trees are the problem tree list and does not support planting Ficus trees. . The Canopy - change to a flat -roof canopy. arson Tucker requested an Irvine Company representative to come forward their proposed changes. O'Brien, Vice President of Landscape Architecture for Urban Planning and ip, took the podium to answer questions on behalf of the Irvine Company. Landscaping - the Ficus trees were chosen to keep the character with surrounding area and the existing Ficus trees at the retail center on the west of Bayside at Coast Highway. The Pine trees are requested to help screen "service area" of the station. Trevisan, Architect and Planner with Investment Property Group for the ny, took the podium to answer questions regarding the canopy. . The Canopy - the slope of the mansard roof is insignificant. The Irvine is requesting a flat roof and canopy. Eaton asked if Mr. Trevisan was concerned with the band width of Trevisan responded that the width is needed to accommodate the size of the on's logo. " file: //N:\ Apps \WEBDATA \Internet\PlnAgendas \2005 \mn05- 05- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 3 of 9 :h regard to the landscaping, Commissioner Hawkins asked Mr. O'Brien how he address issues of the Ficus roots intruding into the public right -of -way. O'Brien informed the Commission that root barriers would be used to control s roots; however, the Irvine Company would be open to using another specie. O'Brien informed the Commission that the Irvine Company's intent is to keep more classic than contemporary by using a simple stucco instead of the stone sign. This will also include the removal of the stone under the bay and on nissioner Selich commented that the City's street tree manual recommends leaf fig for parkways of 12 feet of greater; as is in this case. arson Tucker asked if the applicant understands that the Irvine Company right and can ultimately override the Planning Commission. Cuevos replied that he understands. comment was opened. r Vakili, owner of the Chevron gas station, informed the Commission that reduced the size of the logo on the canopy. missioner Selich commented that the canopy logo on the plans looks 16- inch -high letters. Vakili said the newer set of plans depicts a smaller logo. mmissioner Selich confirmed that the logo will be under 2 feet and not the crown molding area. is Comment was closed. Commission had a general discussion about the different elements of the osed changes. i questioning by Chairperson Tucker regarding all landscape issues, species and height of landscaping, Commissioner Hawkins proposed :ct to approval by staff. Tucker summarized the discussion by stating: . The Planning Commission does not approve the canopy change to a flat roof from the mansard roof. . The stone on the monument sign will remain; however, the Irvine Company exercise their private right to approve the material used and the overall aesth look of the sign. . The location of the monument sign and the tree species for landscaping will determined by a future discussion between the City Public Works Departm " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn05- 05- 05.htm 06/24/2008 'Planning Commission Minutes 04/2112005 Page 4 of 9 and the Irvine Company. In the interest of safety, the City Public Department will form the final determination. Lion was made by Chairperson Tucker to refer back to staff with an indication ti Planning Commission determines the project being in substantial conforman i the plans and with the guidance given by the Planning Commission. The details open items are to be worked out between staff and the Irvine Company. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None xxx SUBJECT: Comprehensive Sign Code Update and Sign Design Guidelines ITEM NO. 3 Manual (PA2005 -091) PA2005 -091 Code Amendment No. 2005 -005 to amend Municipal Code Chapter 20.67 related to Cont. to 6 -9 -05 sign standards applicable to all signs on a citywide basis with the exception of the Newport Coast and Ridge Planned Communities, and where sign regulations are not referenced in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area and all other commercially- zoned Planned Communities. The Balboa Sign Overlay and Mariner's Mile sign regulations will be repealed by these proposed regulations, and their provisions will be incorporated into the proposed ordinance. A Sign Design Guidelines Manual is also to be considered, in order to supplement the new sign code and establish criteria for the creation of well- designed signs and further the intent and purpose of the sign code. Commissioner Tucker noted the items he wanted to initially address: • The amortization program. • What sign types will be included? • Will Planning Commission recommend a program? • Concept of the life of non - conforming signs. • What is the proposed height and amount of signage allowed? • Letter height. • Scope of the ordinance and conflicts with other code provisions. • Concern with heritage sign exceptions and the possible number of heritage sign claims this may generate. • Who will be responsible for the determination of a heritage sign? Commissioner Eaton added another topic: . How will the proposed regulations compare with the existing Code? Commissioner Cole requested to hear about the Steering Committee and how it worked. In addition to his written comments discussed by Chairman Tucker, Commissioner Hawkins requested that staff consider addressing several other topics, including: . Needs additional definitions for commercial speech and service stations. . Financial incentives for removing non - conforming signs. " file: //N:\Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas \2005 \mn05- 05- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 5 of 9 McDaniel wanted clarification between signs, billboards, and murals. :r explained the need to update the sign code. Furthermore, Mr. Berger the Commission that the Steering Committee was made up of: • Nine members that represented the Chamber of Commerce and all of the Business Improvement Districts • A resident member • A local architect • Chuck Trevisan, The Irvine Company Berger informed the Commission that the Steering Committee: • Met 6 times over the past two years. • The Steering Committee spent time reviewing the work of staff (including the Cit Attorney's office). • Perhaps the most crucial function of the Steering Committee was that they were able to respond to both the general public outreach effort, the sign manufacturer and business communities. • Possessed diverse opinions on signage issues, both conservative and liberal, creating active communication. r. Berger advised the Commission that the Steering Committee is working to prodL comparison to the existing code, and intends to have the information distributed to ommissioners prior to the next Planning Commission hearing for this item. Tucker requested information regarding the amount of signage and the Pflugrath reviewed some of the Steering Committee issues and proposals. • Sign Area - In proportion with the buildings; proposing 1.5 square feet of sign area. • Sign Area Limitation - 75 feet for the overall maximum of the sign. • Roof signs - Not appropriate in most situations. Provisions will be included in the code. • Pole signs - Prohibited. Pylon signs are more desirable. • Signs on multi- frontages - applicant needs to identify a primary sign location and a secondary. . The primary will be provided the full, 1.5 square foot, sign area criteria. . The secondary will be provided half, .75, the sign area criteria. • Multi- tenant signs - Minimum of 12 -inch letter size to discourage too many tenants on the same sign. • Multiple signs - One sign per street frontage. Not including provisions through Comprehensive Sign Program and Balboa Sign Ordinance. • Awning signs - No internally illuminated signs allowed at night. Limited to the valance and 50% of the shed. • Changeable copy signs - Could be allowed in conjunction with another sign through an innovative sign program. " file: //N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn05- 05- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04121/2005 Page 6 of 9 Neon signs - Must provide the right amount of signage and not exceed it. The outlining of architectural features are to be prohibited. Signs along the Bay - Determined not to really be a substantial issue. If an issi were to arise, there are provisions in the existing Sign Code that will be carried forward to allow the Planning Director the authority to require the sign to be dimmed. Temporary signs - Allowed 60 days total throughout the year, but not all at one time. Pflugrath then notes that the Steering Committee recommended that all the signs were to become non- conforming would have a 15 -year amortization period. Pflugrath also noted that there will be a provision for heritage signs and criteria will need to be met to be considered a heritage sign. Pflugrath then reviewed some of the Steering Committee's design guidelines. Selich requested to know the distinction between a pole sign and a Berger explained that one distinction is in the width of the poles. The legs (poles) ds to be a minimum 1/4 width of the entire sign width and covered with a c)rative element or cover. ioner Selich questioned the reasoning behind allowing letters on the sheds instead of only on the valance. Berger explained the importance of lettering on the shed portion of awnings, ecially in the pedestrian areas of town. Mr. Burger further explained that some of traditional awnings have smaller valances than sheds and some businesses use r awning as their only sign. Tucker asked if there were any limitation on letter sizes under ive Sign Program. Berger informed Chairperson Tucker that, at this time there is no limitation on Jmum letter sizes. Mr. Berger volunteered to do some research in the surrounding imunities to see what seems to work and bring photo examples back to ssioner Toerge asked how multiple story buildings would be affected by the limitations and the primary/secondary limitations. Berger explained that most of those buildings are in Planned Communities. In ition, the Steering Committee felt, in those instances, the request would be fairly )le to deal with under the Comprehensive Sign Program. Tucker wanted to hear about the sizes and heights of the monument and Pflugrath informed the Commission that the pylon height is proposed to be limited 20 feet; from the current limit of 25 feet. " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn05- 05- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 7 of 9 Tucker requested to know if there is a life expectancy for a sign. Wolcott informed Chairperson Tucker that there is an implication in the California iness and Professions Code that the useful life of a sign is 15 years. Selich addressed the topic of abandoned signs. Wood informed the Commission that we do have a section on abandoned signs. issioner McDaniel requested a more clear definition to be established for the of a remodel that would require the removal of a non - conforming sign. Cole expressed his interest in the incentive program. Wood explained to Commission that staff had developed an incentive program for businesses on Balboa Peninsula, and didn't see much success. Tucker asked for staffs thoughts on the amortization program. Berger explained that although the Steering Committee felt strongly about a City- : sign amortization approach, staff wanted to do a more directed approach to sign irtization. Instead of a city -wide approach to sign amortization, to take it in steps. first step being poles signs, roof signs and internally - illuminated cabinet faces that non- conforming. imissioner Selich requested that any sign over 75 square feet be added to staffs step of amortization. Comment was opened. hard Luehrs, President of Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce and participant the Steering Committee, feels it's important to make: • the changes reasonable • the application process simple :r Hawkins asked Mr. Luehrs if he was generally in favor of the Steering proposal. Luehrs acknowledged that he is in favor of the proposal. Tucker asked if Heritage signs could be identified upfront by the City Wood replied that staff would not have a problem identifying Heritage signs . Wood also informed the Commission that there is a provision allowing the City to the applicant for heritage signs so that the responsibility wouldn't fall solely on the Aicant. -son Tucker clarified that the list of Heritage signs from staff would be a list not a final draft. "file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn05- 05- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 8 of 9 Luehrs felt staff should not have that responsibility of choosing which signs they are Heritage signs, but that the business owners should take on the responsibility if t felt strong enough about it. Bob Roubian, Crab Cooker, expressed the importance of signs for business iers, and the comfort it brings the public who recognize the signs associated with establishments. behalf of the Irvine Company, Chuck Trevisan, also a member of the Steering nmittee and the owner of Italiano in Corona del Mar Plaza, requested that the nprehensive Sign Program have a wider definition, so that business owners are not ricted to the regulations from the Planned Communities or other policies. Wood informed the Commission that some of the newer Planned Community is have Comprehensive Sign Programs incorporated in them. Jim Wasco, Crab Cooker, expressed his concern regarding the amortization of - conforming signs. Wasco requested that the Planning Commission to implement the following nges in language to the Heritage sign provision: To provide provisions to allow otherwise prohibited signs (e.g.. roof signs that can be considered Heritage signs). To waive all fees for the review and designation of Heritage signs. To identify Heritage sign designations as perpetual. lic Comment was closed. iirperson Tucker asked staff to begin the Heritage sign list. Berger added that staff will also supply the Commission with the criteria that gests why the proposed signs should be considered Heritage signs. was made by Commissioner Toerge to continue this item to the June 9, I Commission Hearing. and Hawkins None None None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted: Council gave the final approval ai adoption for the Code Amendment regarding the consistency of the daft reference points used for measuring height of finished floor levels and bulkheads the beach areas. Commissioner Eaton was appointed Chairperson of tl Committee for provisions to the Zoning Code. Council referred the St. Andrei "file:HN:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn05- 05- 05.htm 06/24/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 9 of 9 iansion back to Commission. It will be on the May 19, 2005 Planning Comr Agenda. Lastly, the approval of a professional services agreement with Design Group to prepare performance criteria for evaluating res development projects in the airport area. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Econoi Development Committee - Commissioner Selich noted that there has been meeting. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Update Committee — Commissioner Eaton reported at the first meeting discussed variations in traffic generated in different areas of the city. The sE meeting was regarding fiscal impacts. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Certification Committee - There has been no meeting since the last report. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at subsequent meeting - Commissioner Toerge asked about a property on Baysi� Drive across the street from 2323 Bayside. He questioned the wall that is in pla, in the front yard setback. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a agenda for action and staff report - None Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - Ms. Temple rer progress with the LCP; stating that we have received changes for the G Commission staff. If we want any comments to be delivered with the G Commission staff report, they need to be received by May 19, 2005 for the meeting. Project status — Regarding St. Andrew's church, Chairperson Tucker asked church to sort through the document and asked the neighbors for feedback. Requests for excused absences - none. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION "file: / /N:\ Apps \WEBDATA \Internet\PlnAgendas \2005 \mn05- 05- 05.htm 06/24/2008