Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/06/2000•Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 6, 2000 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker: Commissioner Kiser was excused STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Genia Garcia, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary 0 Soecial and Regular Minutes of June 22. 2000 : Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley and voted on to approve, as amended, the special meeting and regular meeting minutes of June 22, 2000. Ayes: McDaniel, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker Noes: None Abstain: Agajanian Absent: Kiser Public Comments: None Postina of the Agenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, June 30, 2000. • Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting of the Agenda • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2000 SUBJECT: Sibling Associates 1, James W. Ray, applicant 2931 -2939 East Coast Highway • Modification Permit No. 5063 Review of Modification No. 5063, relative to the proposed sign program for a multi- tenant building. Commissioner Tucker recused himself from deliberation on this matter due to a conflict of interest. Associate Planner Eugenia Garcia referenced a tenant identification exhibit for the main pole at Iris and East Coat Highway noting the difference between the existing sign on site and the proposed sign. Continuing, she noted that per discussion with the City Attorney, Exhibit A for the findings and conditions has been re- worded for clarity. The changes combine conditions for the wall signs and combine conditions for the pole signs and include: • Condition 2 shall read, The lettering and or graphics located on the wall and pole signs shall be constructed using channel letters or backlit halo letters. • Condition 9 has been separated into condition 4 and condition 10. . • Conditions 6,12 and 13 have been added. Chairperson Selich noted this is an appeal by him from the Modification Committee. His reasons for this were: • Concerned with some of the signs in Corona del Mar. • Any time there is a property that wants a modification permit or an exception to the Sign Code, then we should have a sign program that calls for a higher quality sign than as permitted under our existing code, which is deficient and needs changes. • This is the same reason that I called up the Prudential Realty sign at Marguerite and Coast Highway. • The additional conditions that were put into the staff report are points that I came up with in terms of things that I think should be added to this item. They are: ➢ Proposed sign at a height of 22 feet, is too high and out of scale with the building. I suggest it be reduced to a total height of 18 feet. ➢ Bottom sign kept at five or six feet off the ground for visibility purposes, so the applicant will have the option to either lower the signs or go with four slightly smaller signs in order to get the four tenant identification signs within the 18 feet height. That 18 -foot measurement is to the top of the arch. ➢ Condition would not allow the sign to go wider; it will stay the same width. ➢ The amount of signage in the sign area is limited to 75% of the sign area. He then presented some research material on other cities' sign regulations to the Commissioners for their reading. INDEX Item No. 1 Modification Permit No. 5063 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2000 • The letter signs on the buildings are out of scale to the proportion of the buildings. Upon review of the signs in the area, he suggests a letter height similar to the Blockbuster Sign; that is more than readable from the street and gets the message across. That letter height is 12 inches, which is what I am recommending. • One exception to the 12 -inch height is the letters for the KFC sign, as shown on the exhibit in the staff report. The exception is warranted because they are removing the chicken bucket on the pole and the changeable copy sign. Additionally, the letters KFC are becoming as much a corporate logo similar to the torn ticket of the Blockbuster. • To give further justification looking at Exhibit El, at the maximum 18 feet by 3 feet sign area, it does not look like the letters would be that big in that sign area. • Channel letters or halo signs were proposed by the applicant to be used on the wall signs. However on the pole sign there was some wording on the application that basically states they would do can signs there. Channel letters or halo lighting signs similar to the Prudential Realty sign would be appropriate here. Public comment was opened. James W. Ray, partner with Sibling Associates, owner of this property since the early 70's stipulated that he agrees that the signage in Corona del Mar is not something to be proud off as it is terrible clutter and needs to be straightened away. This is a good process to do this. One of the problems is that most stores in Corona del Mar are not in a position of having to have a planned Sign Program and thus just follow the ordinance. The ordinance as presently drafted, is very permissive and penalizes properties where a planned Sign Program is in order. We have been working with staff and have hired a professional consultant. To date, we have spent almost a half million dollars redoing the fagade on this building and bringing the building up to standards. There were a total of five pylon signs before we started our work. There was one for KFC, which remains in place; one for Mayurs, which we tore down; a liquor store sign cantilevering over the sidewalk is a separate sign with its own pole. The multi tenant sign is to the right. Additionally, there was a small sign that directed people to the dry cleaners. We are now proposing two signs, one as shown in the exhibit and the other is a directional sign for the dry cleaner. I can reduce the height of the pylon sign to 20 feet. Due to the criteria of the traffic department for the height of the bottom of the sign and as the pylon sign must accommodate four tenants we would be forced to squeeze the measurements to a point where this design no longer works. We can live with 20 feet, but not however with a requirement that the signs be channel or halo lit letters. The cost would be prohibitive to a point where our tenants could not afford it as they are all 'mom and pop' stores and could not afford the $15,000 to $20,000, which is what the sign package INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2000 you are suggesting would cost them. I could not on their behalf agree to do that. The 12 -inch high letters could not be seen from the highway at the cleaners, it would not be visible. The Blockbuster sign is right up in front, close to the highway. I am prepared to stipulate to some height, but 12 inches is not enough; however, 75% of the sign area occupied by the letters would work. Chairperson Selich asked what was planned for the cans, what is the treatment going to be on the pole sign? Gary Underwood, 10 Carriage Hill Lane, Laguna Hills asked the definition of a can sign. If each of the tenant panels on that pylon sign is considered a can, I need to understand what makes that so. There has to be some cabinet structure to house the letters. In this case, each of those individual rectangles on the pylon sign is not plastic; rather each rectangle is an aluminum monolith that is painted. The lettering will be routed out of the aluminum so that only the lettering lights up at night, not the surface of the can. It is a different graphic look, but still is technically a cabinet or can because of the rectangular shape that houses the graphics. Mr. Ray noted that he does not know the answers, but wants the same as the Commission to encourage creative and attractive signage and somehow • discourage ugly signage, which includes the classic can sign with the translucent face. One of our tenants is here and has a different sign and I would like him to explain it to you. We think it complies with the spirit of the application as submitted, but I would like to know what you think. This is the tenant that will occupy the front corner that is presently vacant. Dennis Dyson, proprietor of Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf, 1945 South LaCienega Boulevard, Los Angeles stated his concern with the proposed 75% limitation of the sign area. Continuing, he noted that the full registered corporate name is The Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf, which is way too many letters. Because we have so many letters, our enclosing rectangle may not fit within that percentage. If this 75% limitation is adopted, I would like some vehicle whereby we can come back without a full application to get a modification on that requirement. In terns of our building signage, we are proposing that we go With the individual, illuminated channel letters as described in the application. We propose to mount the signs on a free standing or floating blade that is suspended out from the building some 6 inches. The letters themselves are mounted off that by about 2 inches. In doing this, we are trying to get some dimensionality and variation on different planes rather than just attaching the letters directly to the face of the building. He then presented an exhibit for review explaining that the idea is to float the blade and letters so that as one goes down the street, you get a shifting plane affect. Mr. Underwood noted that from a design standpoint, the Commission has to be careful how to define what is or is not acceptable. If everything has to be a • channel letter in the traditional sense without mounting it to a nice INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2000 background; if everything has to be an individual channel letter mounted on a cabinet rather than a cabinet routed out; and if everything has to be 12 inches high or less on Pacific Coast Highway, then you are going to run into real problems. I don't know if this is the time and place to define terms and set a standard for the entire streetscape along PCH, maybe it is. Some of the design related issues you are discussing now are not in themselves modifications to anything in the code. Chairperson Selich answered that this is one application, one project and we are dealing with it on an individual basis because you are asking for a modification or exception to the zoning code. He asked about the routed sign. He then suggested that this item be continued to the next meeting to allow for pictures of what the Coffee Bean Company is proposing and to get an example of the aluminum monoliths. In the meantime, you can ponder over some of the additional changes proposed at this hearing. I came up with the 12 inch lettering because I drove down the street looking at the different signs. The Blockbuster sign is easily read from Coast Highway. If you want to come back with proposals for other sizes, I am willing to listen to that. Mr. Ray answered that there are tenants that are going without signage now. . Commissioner McDaniel noted that the 12 -inch recommendation works with the exception of the logo on the Coffee Bean signage. It works with everything that has been discussed, as It is smaller than the three feet. Chairperson Selich asked if it would be helpful to do all the signs except the Coffee Bean sign and pole sign at the next meeting. The only area of contention is the coffee bean sign. My intent was not to expressly say that everything has to be 12 inch lettering, I am all for creative signs, but you have not provided any sign copy. All that is provided is areas that could be completely filled up that would provide signs that could be completely out of scale to the building. The Mayur sign looks good because you are not using up the whole sign area. You are higher, but you are less in width. Mr. Ray agreed noting that they are asking for an extra sign on the tower elements. The reason is that they are not allowing the Coffee Bean tenant to have any space on the pylon sign. We have a place on the tower that works architecturally for them. We will come back on the coffee bean sign. One of our tenants, Mayur, has the 'y' in their name that drops down as part of the sign style. The total height of that y may be 20± inches. I am trying to create a sign program for my tenants because they may come up with some awful signs left to their own devices. I am a developer, that is my profession. Commissioner Gifford asked if the 75% coverage was acceptable to the applicant as it could provide flexibility to the size of the letters. 0 Mr. Ray stated that they are not going to permit a sign that is 5 feet high by 2 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2000 feet wide. I understand that you need to have checks. Discussion followed concluding that the percentage of the envelopes was acceptable to the applicant and the Commission. As long as the area is controlled, flexibility with letter height is desirable from a design standpoint. The sign program initiated by the applicant restricts the tenants to the lesser permitted by code or what is being allowed in the exhibit contained within the staff report. The routed aluminum effects channel lettering without the depth and allows less light from an angle view than with a halo or channel letter that has relief to it. Everything is opaque, only the graphics light up. In response to inquiry, Mr. Ray remarked that, if they used punch through letters as they route out the aluminum and take a plastic number, shaped the size of a hole and it actually pushes through the hole, projects out beyond the Dan Purcell, Corona del Mar thanked the Commission for recognizing that there is a sign problem in Corona del Mar and taking the time to look into this with the applicant. Commissioner Gifford discussed the wall sign illustration with Mr. Dyson who explained the mechanics of the sign and the various planes that the lettering stands on. • Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich stated that now he understands how the square footage works against the tenant sign area and is now satisfied that it does essentially the some thing as the 75 %. He suggested that requirement be dropped as well as reference to the 12 inches in the letter height requirement. The applicant agreed to the 20 feet on the pole sign. I don't know what the routed letters look like on the aluminum panels, but we will take the applicant up on doing a higher quality of work. Ms. Clauson verified that the additional wording for conditions 2, 6 and 12 was out and that condition 13 limits the pole sign to 20 feet in height. Mrs. Wood asked and it was agreed that condition 2 be reinstated to call out the push through letters on the aluminum face of the signage. Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to approve Modification No. 5063 with the changes discussed. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: Kiser, Tucker INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2000 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Modification No. 5063 Findinas: 1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan designate the site for "Retail Service Commercial' use and the existing commercial structure is consistent with this designation. The sign structures are accessory to the primary use. 2. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the Calif omia Environmental Quality Act under Class 11 (Accessory Structures). 3. The modification to the Zoning Code as proposed would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and is a logical use of the property that would be precluded by strict application of the zoning requirements for this District for the following reasons: • The subject site is comprised of several lots and is constructed with six tenant spaces across the lots, which requires additional signage to properly identify the tenants because of the building arrangement. • The subject commercial buildings have three side exposures to the public streets and require additional signage in order to view two of the businesses when traveling east and west on East Coast Highway. 4. The modification to the Zoning Code, as proposed will not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood or increase any detrimental effect of the existing use for the following reason: Currently the site has three pole signs and the new sign program will reduce the number of pole signs to two with the deletion of the Kentucky Fried Chicken "bucket' sign. • The wall signs are less area square footage than is permitted by Code. • The new signs will be an aesthetic improvement to the subject property. 5. The proposed signs will not affect the flow of air or light to adjoining residential properties because: 0 • The signs are wall signs and the pole signs are located at the street side INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2000 of the property. 6. The proposed signs will not obstruct views from adjoining residential and commercial properties because: • There is no view from this location. Conditions: 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. The lettering and /or graphics located on all wall and pole signs shall be constructed using c-peaaef push through acrylic letters on an aluminum panel. 3. Each tenant shall have one wall sign and the Kentucky Fried Chicken tenant and the tenant located at the northeast front of the building (East Coast Highway and Iris Avenue) shall be permitted one additional wall sign each. 4. The wall signs shall be in substantial conformance with the revised plans dated May 24, 2000, with sign area for each tenant as follows: • East Coast Highway, 52 square feet, 45 square feet and 36 square feet each. • Iris Avenue side (south elevation) 54 square feet, 48 square feet and 43 square feet each. • North elevation 87 square feet. 5 The sign area for each wall sign shall not exceed the maximum sign area allowed as depicted on the revised plan dated May 24, 2000. 6. Logos shall be incorporated into the signs as channel logos. 7. The pole sign with the Kentucky Fried Chicken "bucket" on top shall be removed within 45 days from the date of final approval. 8. There shall be only two pole signs on the property, the major tenant sign and the dry cleaners' directional sign. 0 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2000 INDEX 9. The pole signs shall be in substantial conformance with the revised plans dated May 24, 2000, with sign area for each tenant as follows: • The pole sign panels (pole sign at Iris Avenue and East Coast Highway) are limited to 24 square feet. 10. The major tenant identification pole sign shall have a minimum 5 feet 10 inches underneath the last tenant sign plaque measured to the grade directly below. The size ^f the le#8re Gr. the I'.. -: i.-.,-1 to 12' h iR height d PG1e SigAS e Mey Icy r. t9 7C ., Rt Gf iho _ v v pc.v SigR area- _r 11. The pole sign located at the comer of Iris Avenue and East Coast Highway is limited to 1-8 20 feet in height. 12. All work performed within the public right of way shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department under an encroachment permit /agreement if required. 13. The final location of the signs shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and shall conform to City Standard 110 -L to ensure that adequate sight distance is provided. 14. Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department to include graphic and lettering design criteria to be approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits. 15. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.93.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. ki• SUBJECT: Conexant Project Item No. 2 4311 Jamboree Road GPA 96 -3 (F) A 898 • General Plan Amendment No. 96 -3(F) EIR 159 • Amendment No. 898 TS 110 • Environmental Impact Report No. 159 DA 13 • Traffic Study No. 110 • Development Agreement No. 13 General Plan Amendment No. 96 -3F, Amendment No. 898, Environmental Continued to Impact Report No. 159, Traffic Study No. 110 and a Development Agreement to July 20, 2000 . allow a long range development plan for the construction of up to 566,000 9 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2000 square feet of additional light industrial and supporting office /lab space in four new, multi -story buildings, two new parking structures and the balance of the site landscaped open space. The project site is approximately 25 acres and is located on the northwest side of Jamboree Road between MacArthur Boulevard and Birch Street within the Koll Center Newport Planned CommunityChairperson Selich asked staff for a brief summary of what an initiation is and what it is not for the benefit of the newest Commissioners. Commissioner Kranzley suggested that since there is only one item on the next meeting and there is no copy of the development agreement, I am not willing to vote on a project of this magnitude without reviewing the development agreement. I wonder if we might not be better served to continue this to the July 201h session and spend that session dealing with all the issues of Conexant rather than piece meal it tonight. Chairperson Selich explained that there is a committee comprised of members from the City Council and the Planning Commission who have been negotiating the development agreement with Conexant. The reason we do not have a development agreement tonight is that we still have not reached an agreement with the applicant on some issues. The state of the negotiations is such that at this point there are several conflicting drafts of the development agreement. However, we do have options that can be explained by the Assistant City Attorney. Ms. Clauson explained that the development agreement is a legislative act approved by an ordinance, which is in the purview of the City Council. The Planning Commission makes a recommendation. The Commission's options tonight are: • State the desire to review the entire development agreement before recommending approval to the City Council. • Recommend to City Council a development agreement with the deal points of public benefits that the Commission votes upon be incorporated or be approved by the City Council as part of the development agreement. Commissioner Gifford suggested discussing the Conexant issue after the other agenda items first. Richard Bluth, applicant suggested he present the status of the development agreement to this point and then if the Commission wishes, can defer this item to the next meeting. He asked for ten minutes for his presentation. Straw vote by Commissioners on acting on Conexant without the development agreement: Commissioner Tucker- hear presentation tonight with a time limit . Commissioner Kranzley - continue to next meeting 10 `II:t171 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2000 Commissioner Gifford - hear presentation tonight with a time limit Commissioner Agajanian - hear presentation Commissioner McDaniel - hear presentation with no vote Chairperson Selich noted the result of the straw vote was to proceed with a Conexant presentation with a time limit of ten minutes. Richard Bluth, Director of Facilities, 4311 Jamboree Road distributed a hand out to the Commission and noted the following: • Benefits to Conexant - add 566,00 square feet to existing site; freedom to develop campus as business dictates; maintains common campus for foreseeable future. • Benefits to City - shift hours, vanpool subsidy for compressed workweek employees; traffic demand management administrator 20 hours /week. • Conditions of agreement and benefits to City - ➢ Regional transportation- $1,952,700 ➢ Fair share traffic - $1,064,720 ➢ TPO improvement - $400,000 ➢ Airport area planning study - $254,700 ➢ Fire station acquisition - $250,000 • Long range traffic improvements - $10.00 /square foot fee; 24 month "reachback" after adoption of fee program for Airport Area; potential fees of $5,660,000 • Tax Program - direct pay use tax revenue to CNB; estimated additional city revenue of $400,000 per year, 10 year commitment to direct pay use tax; present value of $3,000,000 In conclusion he requested consideration of approval of the amendment to the general plan, PC text, traffic study, certification of EIR and approval o_ f development agreement, as some of these items are no longer in discussion. Chairperson Selich noted that where they are in the development agreement is regarding the 24 -month reachback term. The city is proposing anywhere from 36 months to 60 months as a more reasonable time period. Even though this is a phased project, the concern is what happens in the period of time at the end of the 24 month reach back in the beginning of the 36 month total duration of the planning process as described. If Conexant pulls any building permits, which most likely will be that first phase within that 12 -month period, then they escape paying the $10 /per square foot. Mr. Bluth answered that our view is that there is a gap. The point is that we are the first to be approached in the City with this fee structure in the airport area. We have a significant project that has a lot of benefit to the City. We feel that we are accepting the concept of this new fee that is really yet to be defined by the Planning Study to be undertaken. We are both motivated by this structure, the City if it is serious about managing the airport area future growth, then it 11 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2000 should not take 5 -7 years to happen. If it happens expeditiously the reachback period is actually in your favor. My view is this is a serious concern for the City, we have accepted it and 3, 4 or 5 years should not be required for reachback. We are not going to develop 566,000 square feet in one or two years, that is not feasible for us. This is a pragmatic view that motivates both the City to move ahead on a program because there is a significant income potential and there is motivation to us to look at our planning and identify if we can or can not start earlier. We are not going to build a multi million - dollar building to avoid a one million - dollar fee if it does not make sense for our business. Commissioner Tucker stated that if we get this done in five years we are doing well. We are about ready to embark on an update of the general plan. Part of that process will be a discussion of intensity of development in the airport area. Before we have any type of program, we have to determine the intensity of development so that we can then design the infrastructure and ultimately price the infrastructure to have a fee program. If the Greenlight Initiative ends up passing, then in the middle of that will be an election of some variety to amend the general plan to allow for the type of development out by the airport that this type of fee would signify might be a possibility. Just to go through those steps with the CEQA analysis in the middle of it because once you determine the amount of intensity of development, size the facility, then you have to analyze what the impacts are. I just don't see it happening in three years. We all want to make sure that it is a fair program. Just as you are concerned that you are the first ones being asked to potentially foot the bill, if we agree to a 24 month reachback and don't get around to adopting this program for six years, you go ahead and develop out your project, then it won't really be fair to the other people out there who will be coming after you. We are looking at fairness as well to make sure it all works. We are a way from having our act together on the fee program. What the decision comes down to whether it is in order for us to certify the environmental document with a statement of overriding considerations. Under the CEQA guidelines, we need to itemize what the benefits are and what the costs to the environment are and come up with a balance. I suppose you don't have to have that statement of overriding considerations. For me, it is easier to do it if we are looking at both the long haul and ultimately trying to resolve issues that we know are going to be out there for many years to come. Ms. Wood noted that she recalled from previous meetings with the Conexant representatives, we were looking at a fire station acquisition contribution of $500,000 and what is presented tonight is $250,000. Chairperson Selich noted that this is an additional change that needs to be worked out as Mr. Bluth verified that this is a change they are proposing. Robert Hawkins, Chairman of EQAC noted that as stated in the report there is an opportunity to capture some of the costs associated with the development agreement in the environmental process if the Commission and City Council choose that option. At that point, some of the traffic mitigation could be funded 12 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2000 through the EIR rather than through the Development Agreement. That is what the comments of Mr. Eaton were directed towards as noted in the staff report on page 3. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Tucker noted that his comments were pre - supposing that the update of the general plan ended up with intensification out by the airport. There is also the distinct possibility that exactly the opposite would occur as well. If we did proceed with that expansion approach, then we would have to figure out how to deal with the traffic measures. There is no indication from anything I have seen so far, that's what necessarily is going to happen so that will play itself out. Commissioner Gifford asked staff what the next agenda will include and was answered that the only item scheduled is Balboa Inn and any continuances from tonight other than Conexant. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to July 201h. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker • Noes: None Absent: Kiser SUBJECT: Parker Stansbury, LLC., applicant 1514 West Balboa Boulevard • GPA 99 -2 (C) • Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 55 • Amendment 904 A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Element and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan to re- designate the subject property from Government, Education, and Institutional (GEIF) to Two Family Residential (R -2), amend Districting Map No. 9 to rezone the subject property from Planned Community (PC) to Two Family Residential (R -2) and to establish a 5 foot front yard setback along the West Balboa Boulevard frontage of the subject property. Public comment was opened. Richard Johnson, Parker Stansbury, law office representing the owner noted that it is a five -foot front yard setback they are asking for. There is a purchase offer on the property contingent on the R -2 zoning. Tom Hyans, 217 19th Street asked about the setbacks on Balboa Boulevard as he . thought that this should be ten feet. 13 INDEX Item No. 3 GPA 99 -2 (C) A 904 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2000 Ms. Temple answered that the setbacks in the older residential areas were established on the districting maps at the time they were adopted about the early 1940's. Each block was looked at independently and the setbacks were established based on the most typical condition for structures in existence at that time. The setbacks in the Balboa Peninsula area vary from 5 to 15 feet on a block by block basis. Staff looked at the proximity to this block and it appeared that 5 feet was the most common condition. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Hyans answered: • Duplex at that site - would place residents in a close proximity to the SCE substation, which generates a constant hum. • For density reasons - it would be reasonable. • Alternative land use - has none • Did not know what the adjacent property setback is. Mr. Johnson noted that the adjacent apartment has a five -foot setback, which is consistent on that block. Public comment was closed. • Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to recommend approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment No. 99 -2 ©, Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 55 and Amendment 904 pursuant to Resolution 1521. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Kiser SUBJECT: Billy's At The Beach, The Chart House (Gordon Barienbrock, applicant) 2751 and 2801 West Coast Hwy. • Use Permit No. 3674 • Outdoor Dining Permit No. 67 • Outdoor Dining Permit No. 68 • Off -site Parking Agreement Request to add accessory outdoor dining to two existing full service restaurants, a 768 sq. ft. outdoor dining area for the existing Chart House Restaurant and a 515 sq. ft. outdoor dining area with a 220 square foot service area, for the existing Billy's At The Beach restaurant. A use permit is required for Billy's At The Beach because the proposed area of the outdoor dining area will exceed the permitted 25% of the net public area of the interior of the restaurant. The proposal includes a request to approve an off -site parking agreement for one additional required parking space for the dining area and for the elimination of one on -site parking space and relocation to the off -site lot. 14 INDEX Item No. 4 UP No. 3674 ODP No. 67 ODP No. 68 Off -site Parking Agreement Removed from calendar City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2000 Ms. Temple stated that staff is recommending this item be removed from calendar to allow time for additional acoustical analysis. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to remove this item from calendar. Ayes: McDaniel, Agaianian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker Noes: None Absent: Kiser SUBJECT: GPA and Prezoning of Santa Ana Heights • GPA 99 -3(B) • Zoning Amendment 903 • Adoption of a Negative Declaration General Plan Amendment, Prezoning Amendment, and sphere of influence change, prior to annexation of approximately 240 acres within the Santa Ana Heights area to the City. Ms. Temple noted that this is a similar action to one previously considered by the Commission for the proposal to annex the Bay Knolls area to the City. Staff has re- crafted existing county zoning to be consistent with city formats and to essentially keep all the land use regulations in tact. The City had already adopted an older zoning document as pre- annexation zoning at the time of approval of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and in association with the Settlement Agreement for the expansion of John Wayne Airport. In this case, the City has already agreed to that Specific Plan. Since we adopted this Specific Plan, there have been a number of changes approved by the County. Therefore, this document has incorporated some of the amendments the County has done to the Specific Plan, which the city never did since the zoning was never actually enforced since we never annexed the area. I received a call regarding the exact annexation boundary from Chairperson Selich. There is a discrepancy between the annexation vicinity map contained in the EIR and the one in the staff report. The difference is that the City now proposes to add to the annexation effort, the remainder of the Newport Beach Golf Course of which only a portion is currently in the City. Looking at the exhibit on page 2 of the staff report, the depiction of the golf course that is shaded is to be annexed. The balance of the Specific Area Plan further to the west of this area is not currently proposed for annexation and is in the Costa Mesa Sphere of Influence. The consultant that prepared the work for this item is in the audience and can respond to any questions the Commission might have. Larry Lawrence, the City's consultant for the project referencing the exhibit stated that the gray shaded areas are to annexed. He clarified the boundary • outline with the Commission using the Specific Plan #7 Land Use Map, 15 INDEX Item No. 5 GPA 99 -3(B) Amendment 903 Negative Declaration Recommended for Approval City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2000 Public comment was opened. Mr. Richard Moriaty, member of the Advisory Committee for Santa Ana Heights stated that there is a significant amount of residents on the west side of Irvine Boulevard who are addressing LAFCO regarding the annexation. They have signed documents stating they wish to be annexed as well. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Tucker asked if the centerline on Irvine Avenue going towards Mesa is the west boundary line and that on the east side is county? Is one of the mitigation measures we are thinking about for Conexant then, not within the City? Ms. Temple answered that a portion between Orchard and Mesa is the centerline. Then at Mesa the boundary jogs in to be the eastern edge of the right of way and not the centerline of Irvine Avenue. It is partially in the City, the County and Costa Mesa. Mr. Edmonston clarified that the city limit is not actually at the right of way, but . it is about where the curb is. The City has participated in the maintenance and operation of that signal that has been within the City for a number of years. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to adopt Resolution 1522 recommending City Council approval of the following items: • GPA 99 -3(B) to show the reconstructed Birch Street -Mesa Drive road alignments, amend the land use designations for certain parcels, and add the northern portion of the Newport Beach Golf Course to the General Plan. Zoning Amendment 903 to adopt a new Specific Plan for the Santa Ana Heights area, and to amend the applicable zoning districting maps to designate the specific plan area as "SP -7" and the remainder of the annexation area as "Open Space- Passive ". Adopt the attached Negative Declaration, finding that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Kiser 1. Environmental Review. a. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, an Initial Study has been prepared for this project. After reviewing the Initial Study, the . proposed Negative Declaration, and all comments received during 16 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2000 the public review process, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve a Negative Declaration reflecting the independent judgment of the City of Newport Beach, and determine that the project will not have a significant impact upon the environment. All records pertaining to this environmental determination are retained in the Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach. b. Pursuant to Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 753.5(c) (1), the Planning Commission has determined that, after considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have the potential for any adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Furthermore, on the basis of substantial evidence, the Planning Commission hereby finds that any presumption of adverse impact has adequately been rebutted. Therefore, pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.2 and Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 753.5(a)(3), the Commission recommends that the project not be subject to Fish and Game Department filing fees. 2. General Plan Amendment 99 -31B). The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to GPA 99 -3(6): a. The amendment provides land use designations consistent with existing land uses and designations in the area, which is largely developed. The amendment will thus provide for continuation of permitted commercial, business, office, residential, and open space land uses, and preservation of the area's character and living environment for residents. b. The amendment is internally consistent with those portions of the General Plan which are not being amended. C. The amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare. In light of the preceding findings, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve GPA 99 -3(B), consisting of the following: (1) On the Land Use Element's "General Plan Land Use" diagram: Realignment of Birch Street to show its curving connection directly to Mesa Drive, construction of which connection has been completed, replacing the right -angle intersection presently shown; plus redesignation of the parcels adjacent to the realigned connection of the two streets from Single Family Residential to Administrative, Professional & Financial Commercial, as shown on Exhibit GP -1 attached hereto. (2) Addition of that portion of the Newport Beach Golf Course not presently within the City to the Land Use Element's "General Plan Land Use" diagram, and designation of the area as "Recreational & Environmental Open Space ", as shown on Exhibit GP -1 attached hereto. (3) Addition of that portion of the Newport Beach Golf Course not presently • within the City to Service Area 4 (Santa Ana Heights) of the Recreation 17 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2000 and Open Space Element, with an "Open Space" designation. (4) Addition of that portion of the Newport Beach Golf Course not presently within the City to the Circulation Element's Master Plan of Streets and Highways, with no change to any of the roadways shown on the Master Plan. 3. Zoning Amendment 903. The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to Amendment 903: a. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Code text and Districting Maps provides for permitted land use and development standards consistent with existing regulations, land uses, and development in the area. b. The new City Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, a component of the zoning amendment, closely follows the provisions of the current County Specific Plan for the area, thus providing for continuity in land use regulation and avoiding the creation of nonconforming uses and structures. C. The amendment is consistent with the General Plan. d. The amendment will not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare. . In light of the preceding findings, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Amendment 903, consisting of the following: (1) Addition of Chapter 20.44 to the Zoning Code, consisting of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan (Specific Plan District #7). The Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan, distributed separately due to bulk, is hereby designated by reference as Exhibit ZA -1 of this Resolution as if fully set forth herein. (2) Amendment to Districting Map Nos. 34, 42, 61, and 67, adding the Santa Ana Heights area to the Maps and designating it as "SP -7" (Specific Plan District #7), as shown on Exhibit ZA -2 attached hereto. SUBJECT: John Kenney, applicant 311 Fernleof Avenue • Coastal Residential Development Pemit No. 25 A request to demolish an existing triplex within the Coastal Zone. Mr. Campbell presented a memo to the Commission listing three additional conditions of approval. They are: • The applicant shall record ingress egress and public safety easement over the subject property necessary to maintain required access to the abutting property described as 309 Femleaf. The easement shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the triplex on 311 18 INDEX Item No. 6 CRDP No. 25 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July b, 2000 Femleaf. The form and content of the easement shall be subject to City review and approval prior to recordation. • The applicant shall install and maintain a protective barrier such as a 6- foot high chain link fence between 311 & 309 Fernleaf throughout demolition and construction of 311 Femleaf. Physical access referred to in condition No. 1 shall be maintained unobstructed throughout construction. • This Coastal Residential Development Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval. Commissioner Tucker asked if there is an easement and was answered that there is none that staff is aware of. The walkway down the center of the property line serves as the egress for both properties. The other option is to move the walkway to the south, which would be a great expense to the applicant. Mr. Campbell noted that the sidewalk is approximately 3-4 feet wide. Part of it is on the southerly property so this easement will range from 1 to 4 feet wide to preserve the walkway. The applicant indicated his concurrence with this. At Commission inquiry it was noted that the applicant would be constructing a duplex on the property at a subsequent time after the construction of a retaining • wall on Fernleaf. The CRDP deliberation assures that we are not removing any affordable housing. Public comment was opened. John Kenney, 21 Odyssey Court stated that he plans to live on the property sometime in September 2000. He stated he does not like the idea of the easement and asked to keep it 1 1/2 feet because there is a 3 -foot walkway. The reason it is not 3 feet clear is that the neighborss planter boxes are within the sidewalk setback. If they removed them, they would have a walkway next to their property that would be at least 3 feet with the exception of the garage area. The distance between both garages and the rear of the property on the alley is six feet. These homes were both built by the original owners in 1953. Family members occupied them both. He clarified that he is asking to demolish the existing triplex. My designation is MFR 2140, which means I need 2140 square feet minimum of lot area per unit. The size of my lot is 5785 square feet, the size for three units required would be 6420 square feet. I am short of that and can only build two units. I plan to build a large duplex and live in the front unit. He concluded asking that the application be approved. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to approve Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 25 with the findings and conditions as amended. . Mr. Campbell stated he did not reference a particular dimension other than 19 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2000 the width necessary to preserve the existing walkway. There is no survey documenting the location of the walkway, it is presumed that the property line is down the middle of the walkway. There is a three -foot walkway that straddles the lot line; it may be off a little bit. In order to create a three -foot walkway on the property to the south, it would require reconstruction of the entire access to the units. We wish to preserve the existing walkway. Commissioner Gifford noted that there is ability for the other property owner to have three feet from the edge of their building. Commissioner Tucker clarified that if the unit at 309 were to be torn down, is there a reason for this easement to survive? He was answered no. Continuing, Commissioner Tucker noted that the new owner should be able to provide their own access at that point. So the easement should be there only as long as those structures remain. We are trying to accommodate the existing units that are there now. Mr. Campbell noted that the condition could be re- worded so that the easement could be removed if the units at 309 were re- developed and no longer necessary. • Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanion, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Kiser • Exhibit A Findings for Approval Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 25 1. Income limits are established by the California Health and Safety Code Sections 50079.5, 50105 and 50093. The moderate income limit for Orange County, adjusted for household size is: $58,450 for a 1 person, $66,800 for a 2 person, 75,150 for a 3 person, $83,500 for a 4 person, $90,200 for a 5 person and $103,550 for a 6 person household. 2. The annual household income of the current residents is: $71,000 for a one person household, $89,000 for a one person household, and $229,000 for a 2 person household. These annual incomes adjusted for household size exceed the moderate income limit established by Health and Safety Code Section 50093. 3. The annual household income of the previous tenants is: $162,000 for a two person household, $87,000 for a two person household. These annual incomes adjusted for household size exceed the moderate income limit established by Health and Safety Code Section 50093. The previous owner occupied the third unit and due to the income from two of the units and 20 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2000 0 triplex asset, he is not considered a low or moderate income resident. 4. The proposed project does not involve the demolition of affordable housing, therefore no replacement housing is required pursuant to Government Code Section 65590 or Chapter 20.86 of the Municipal Code. The applicant shall record an ingress, egress and public safety easement over the subject property necessary to maintain required access to the abutting property described as 309 Fernleaf. The easement shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the triplex on 311 Fernleaf. The form and content of the easement shall be subject to City review and approval prior to recordation. The abutting property described as 309 Fernleaf shall not have the right or privilege to use the easement 8 it redevelops, and the easement shall terminate with the issuance of a demolition permit for the triplex building located on 309 Fernleaf. 6 The applicant shall install and maintain a protective barrier such as a 6 -foot high chain link fence between 311 & 309 Fernleaf throughout demolition and construction of 311 Fernleaf. Physical access referred to in Condition No. 1 shall be maintained unobstructed throughout construction. 7 This Coastal Residential Development Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval. SUBJECT: Fleetwood Joiner & Associates 2128 Mesa Drive • Use Permit No. 3675 Request to exceed the 32 foot Basic Height Limit by 4 feet with a portion of the roof and 8 feet for an elevator tower, where the Code permits structures to exceed the 32 foot height limit up to 50 feet with the approval of a use permit. Commissioner Kranzley asked if this property was subject to CCR's and was answered that probably given the age of the area, that was not likely. There is a reference in the site plan for easements for road and utility purposes. Public comment was opened Mr. Richard Moriarty, 2128 Mesa Drive stated that there is a pre- existing prescriptive easement that is shared by adjacent neighbors. There are two accesses; one is the utility easement and the prescriptive easement off Mesa Drive. There were CCR's placed in 1951 that were supposed to be renewed in ten years, but I don't know if they are in effect on this property. The previous person that signed the CCR's was the girlfriend of the owner. 21 INDEX Item No. 7 UP 3675 . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2000 Public comment was closed. Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3675 with the findings and conditions in Exhibit A. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajonian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Kiser EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Use Permit No. 3675 Findin s: 1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Single Family Detached" uses. A single - family dwelling unit is a permitted use within this designation. 3. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction) from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3675 to permit the construction of a new single family dwelling that will exceed the 32 foot basic height limit 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 is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code for the following reasons: The increased building height results in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit because the square footage of the structure is less than what could be built on the lot. The lot is approximately 3.1 acres and is permitted a 407o lot coverage. The proposed dwelling is approximately 4 %, lot coverage. The reduced square footage will result in substantially larger setbacks than required as well as significant landscape areas. Of particular importance is the fact that greater than required setbacks are proposed adjacent to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve and the Orange County Flood Control Channel, both public open spaces. These large setbacks will enhance the visual open space of these areas to a greater extent than a building constructed to the setback line. The increased building height results in a more desirable architectural 22 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2000 treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area that is required by the basic height limit in any zone because the increased height for the roof above the master bedroom adds to the architectural style of the structure since this area cantilevers out at the point where the slope falls off. Overall, the majority of the roof is 26 feet 6 inches in height, which is well below the permitted 32 -foot height limit with other elements at 32 feet in height. The elevator tower adds a visual relief to the architecturally "straight" lines of the structure. • The increased building height does not result in any undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces because the roof over the bedroom is consistent with the remainder of the roof because it is in a continuous horizontal plane which does not result in abrupt changes. The increased height for a small section of the roof over the sloping portion of the lot, allows the greater portion of the flat roof to be at the lower height which results in a building bulk, both horizontally and vertically, that is comparable to or less than the scale and mass of other dwellings in this district. Additionally, if the entire roof structure was built to a maximum 32 feet, the structure would be more visually imposing than the proposed roof structures • • The structure will not have more floor area than could have been achieved without the Use Permit because the portions of the roof that exceed the basic height limit will not add more square footage to the structure, even though square footage is not an issue in this case. The elevator will not be counted toward the square footage because the elevator is within the footprint of the building. The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. Conditions: 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. Two parking spaces shall be provided for the residential unit on the property. Standard Reauirements 3. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 23 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2000 4. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 5. Coastal Commission approval shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. 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 20.91.050A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4 • • SUBJECT. John Saunders, General Partner, Inc. 4320 Campus Drive . • Use Permit No. 3677 Request to permit the establishment of a vehicle rental and sales facility. The facility will involve the rental and on -site storage of customized vans for eventual sale. • Robert Rush, 2725 West Coast Highway representing the applicant noted that they are in agreement with the findings and conditions. At Commission inquiry, he stated: • Light washing of vehicles with the water dropping into a catch basin with a clarifier. • A six -foot proposed wall around the project on the north side might be difficult for the occupants of the next door building due to sunlight blockage. They propose a redesign of that wall, as both properties are owned by the same people. They suggest connecting the wall from the front corner street to the edge of the building. Then, from the edge of the building to the back wall and leaving the northern area open. They would close off any kind of passageway from the street alongside the building to the back area. This would allow the occupants of the other building to have sunlight. Ms. Garcia noted that on condition 23, Chapter 20.60.105 requires perimeter fencing for the development although the Commission can make an exception for the north side of the property. 24 INDEX Item No. 8 UP 3677 . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2000 Commissioner Kranzley stated that in the letter written by the applicant the revenues that go to the city on the leasing of cars, the exhibit on page 2 of the application lists the % of Newport Beach sales. I wonder what is the difference, is it point of sale? Ms. Wood answered that it is point of sale. Many of the rental car companies have their rental desk at the airport and are required to do so by Orange County if they want to have access to the airport. Some of the companies do most of their business at the site rather than at the airport. Ms. Temple stated that the condition regarding outdoor storage and display area is a permissive part of the code. The code states that the Planning Director may require these yards to be screened to preserve the visual character of the area. We are not screening from street views; we are screening from another adjoining commercial property. I believe that the Planning Commission can set the screening requirements, as they deem appropriate for the purposes of the outdoor storage and display. The actual formal display areas are on the Campus Drive side and do not directly affect the adjoining property. These adjustments can be made to the site plan without additional public notice. Commissioner McDaniel asked what would be stored in that area? He was answered that cars will be parked there. Mr. Rush asked about condition 24 and the direction of the parking spaces adjacent to the north property line as depicted on the parking plan. Referencing the plan, he explained that on the north wall the parking spaces are actually slanting southward. They propose to leave that there, but this item calls for the opposite to allow for proper flow. It had been anticipated for this plan that the entrance would come from the south side with customer parking to the right and drop off at the corner of the building. Exit would be by the top northern route. If the parking spaces were angled the other way, it would promote parking in an area that was not designed for it. Additionally, the northern parking area was designed for rental car storage so that when cars were returned they would enter into the washing area and be backed up by employees for pick up later on. If you reverse the direction, you would have customers backing out of parking spaces to exit the property as opposed to nose out. We ask to strike condition 24. Mr. Edmonston stated that his staff suggested this condition because we did not have the full information that the applicant's representative has just indicated. To the extent that the only use by the public would be getting into the leased vehicle to leave the lot, I don't see it as a problem. I don't think we would need a condition to require that the vehicles are backed into those spaces, the concern is that someone might come in and park nose in. This would cause two -way traffic in a one -way aisle and that is what the condition • was intended to avoid. If somebody else takes over this lot, it might be 25 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July b, 2000 confusing. However, as it is proposed it would work for the applicant. Commissioner Agajanian noted that in the site demolition plan landscaping is shown between the proposed six -foot wall and the existing office building. Is there plant material there now? If the six -foot wall was not placed there, what would the surface be on the side yard for the office? Mr. Rush answered that there are trees there now, located on the other property. If anything needs to be addressed resulting from a fencing issue, it would be moved as opposed to taken out. The surface would be grass and low shrubs, there would be no asphalt or cement. There is a curb there to delineate the property line. Commissioner Tucker stated that a 24 -foot long sign that starts 13 feet above the ground and ends 7 feet tall on Campus Drive troubles him. Is there a little less noticeable sign that could be used instead of this? I prefer the signs that we allow under our code. It is like an underpass, and I would prefer to see a sign and eliminate that structure altogether. The look of an arch that serves no purpose other than to be a platform for signage is inappropriate. Mr. Rush answered that they would be open to anything that fits aesthetically • with the project. This was more conceptual in nature as opposed to be exacting and that we would comply with whatever signage regulation stipulates. John Saunders, 26202 Glen Canyon, Laguna Hills stated that right now there is parking along the northern wall. We intend to freshen up what is there already. It would be better to retain the parked vehicles than a wall that is 4 -5 feet away. If for some reason the cars look bad, to the extent that we are allowed to we can put in a hedge or something else, as we want to keep the people happy. Mr. Rush stated that the platforms on Campus Drive are display areas for vehicles. They serve as potential storage space as well as display. Commissioner Agajanian noted his concern with the arch and asked if there was enough clearance. Mr. Rush answered yes that it was consistent with fire code and that the height of 13 feet was consistent with other buildings along the street. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich stated that there are two issues, the wall and /or potential landscaping along the north property line adjacent to the building and the signs on the arch. • 26 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2000 Commissioner Kranzley stated he was okay with the elimination of the wall and I agree with the comments about the sign. I don't mind the arch but I don't like the sign on the arch. Commissioner Tucker noted that he would prefer a monument sign, but maybe we should have the applicant bring something back to the staff or the Commission. This is a use permit and we want to look at aesthetic things connected with a use permit, so I would like to see it brought back to the Planning Commission. On the block wall, I am fine with it being eliminated, but I think we need to give the applicant an either /or choice, a block wall or landscaping. We should also have requirements that the landscaping be maintained. The deletion of condition 24 or re -doing it with a requirement that those spaces be backed into, I would be supportive of that as well. Commissioner Gifford asked staff if the sign on the arch is a roof sign. She was answered that a structure constitutes something that has a roof; this is more of a character of a wall sign. Commissioner Gifford stated she would not be prepared to vote for a pole sign or any kind of a monument sign with any significant height at all. Ms. Temple suggested that the applicant come back with a sign program for • review. Public comment was re- opened. Mr. Kovous Gitibin, 3636 Birch Street, president of Go Rent -a -Van stated that they have spent a lot of time and money into designing the front of the property. Other car rentals in the area have a plain front with cars parked along the street. We wanted to have the cars parked on site with a roman type structure. This structure will look good in Newport Beach. Public comment was closed. Commissioner McDaniel stated that we should give them directions for signage and let them get on with it. Chairperson Selich supported the previous comments by Commissioner Gifford. I want to see something that is more tasteful than is shown on the drawing. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve Use Permit 3677 with the findings and conditions of approval in Exhibit A with the following modifications: • Condition 22 would have the following added, ' or alternatively such area shall be landscaped in accordance with a landscape plan approved by the Planning Director.' • Condition 23 would read, 'Vehicles using parking spaces adjacent to the north property line as depicted on the proposed parking plan shall • be used for backing vehicles into such spaces.' 27 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2000 • Condition 26 would read - The sign designs shall be brought back to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Mr. Rush noted that these were acceptable. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Kiser EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Use Permit No. 3677 Findinas: 1. The Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial land use classification is primarily for areas that are predominantly office in character, but also accommodate support retail and service uses. Vehicle rental and sales are considered support uses and are therefore in conformance with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. • 2. The APF District establishes that vehicle rental, sales and maintenance are permitted with the approval of a use permit. Vehicle storage and distribution is permitted as incidental to the primary use. 3. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3677 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, for the following reasons: • The vehicle rental and sales use is compatible with the surrounding professional office and general commercial uses in the area since vehicle rental and sales uses are typically a support use. • Adequate on -site parking is available for the proposed use. • Adequate provision for vehicular traffic circulation is being made for the vehicle rental and sales facility. • The vehicle maintenance services will be conducted at the rear of the site and no bodywork or painting will be permitted. • • The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any 28 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2000 easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. Conditions: 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. Thirty -three parking spaces (33) shall be provided on -site, 13 of the total number of spaces shall be for customer and employee parking and shall not be used for automobile storage. 3. All employees shall park on site. 4. All trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and streets. The location of the trash enclosure shall be approved by the Planning and Building Departments. 5. A landscape plan shall be submitted for approval by the General Services, Public Works and Planning Departments that shall include plantings that do • not interfere with sight distance from the driveway or driveways on adjacent lots. 6. Landscaping along Campus Drive shall be regularly maintained free of weeds and debris. All trees and vegetation shall be regularly trimmed and kept in a healthy condition. 7. The entire site shall be kept in a clean and orderly manner. 8. The project shall be designed to eliminate light and glare onto adjacent properties or uses, including minimizing the number of light sources. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer acceptable to the City. Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall provide to the Planning Department, in conjunction with the lighting system plan, lighting fixture product types and technical specifications, including photometric information, to determine the extent of light spillage or glare which can be anticipated. This information shall be made a part of the building set of plans for issuance of the building permit. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified by this condition of approval. 9. The project site shall be illuminated to provide a constant level of light throughout the site and around the building for safety and security purposes. • 10. Unloading of rental cars from auto transport vehicles shall take place on site. 29 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2000 The unloading, staging or storing of cars for rental or for sale off -site is prohibited. 11. No rental or sales vehicles shall be stored on any public street. 12. All vehicle washing and detailing to be conducted at the rear of the site and no bodywork or painting shall be permitted. 13. That all wash water shall drain into the sanitary sewer system and that the wash area drain shall be equipped with a grease trap unless otherwise approved by the Building Director. 14. The vehicle wash facility shall be designed in a manner that will prevent rainwater from entering the sewer system. This will require the provision of a roofed washing area and curbing along the perimeter of a raised surface of the wash facility. The exact design shall be reviewed and approved by the Building, Public Works and Planning Departments. 15. Vehicles shall be washed only at the wash rack and that no portable wash rack shall be utilized on -site. • 16. No vehicles shall be displayed with open hoods, doors, trunks, or tailgates. 17. No vehicle repair other than washing and detailing of vehicles shall be conducted on -site. 18. Storage outside of the building shall be prohibited, with the exception of the required trash container enclosure. 19. No outdoor speakers or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the proposed operation. 20. A maximum of 10 automobiles for sale shall be on display at any time. Any type of banners, pennants or windshield "For Sale" signs including, but not limited to car prices, special discounts or advertisements shall be strictly prohibited. 21. The main building structure shall be fire- sprinklered when any portion of the building is located beyond 150 feet from the public street (Campus Drive). 22. A 6 -foot high block wall shall be installed around the perimeter of the property in accordance with Chapter 20.60.105 of the Municipal Code, but shall not to be located in the required 15 -foot front yard setback, or alternatively such area shall be landscaped in accordance with a landscape plan approved by the Planning Director.' • 23. The lliFeetian of the .....Lin,. speees .-,.Jq.- een♦ to the naFth P e.i., line n 30 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2000 ri4h/ a th dire Gti9R) She" be . e d 1r r,. 90 the r 0 Fl r.., of ;%_' fGler, Vehicles using parking spaces adjacent to the north properly line as depicted on the proposed parking plan shall be used for backing vehicles into such spaces. 24. The final location of all signs, gates, display structures and fencing shall conform to City Standard 110-L to ensure adequate sight distance and shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 25. Should this business be sold or.otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of approval by the current business owner, the property owner or the leasing company. 26. The sign designs shall be brought back to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Standard Reauirements: 1. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. • 2. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 3. The parking spaces and automobile storage areas shall be marked with approved traffic markers or painted white lines not less than 4 inches wide. 4. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.06 of the Municipal Code. 5. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. 6. A drainage study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department showing that the on -site drainage is conveyed to the public right -of -way. The design shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. 7. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 8. 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 31 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2000 INDEX Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 9. This Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Additional Business a.) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood stated at the meeting of June 271h, Council legitimized the Airport Area Development Committee, which includes Commissioners Selich and Tucker working with Conexant; initiated zoning for Mariners' Mile to implement the design framework; approve on second reading the front yard setbacks on Pacific Drive; initiated the General Plan Amendments including an additional one for 100 Newport Center Drive, that increased the square footage by 790 feet (Sports Memorabilia Museum), they denied the one for the corner or MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road; Newport Dunes was continued to September 12, 2000. • b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. C.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Commissioner Gifford asked about the sign program for Balboa Peninsula. There is a new roof sign at 30th and Balboa that sticks out past the building and I would like to know if it has had a modification to allow that. Ms. Wood answered that there will be a public hearing at the Planning Commission as soon as staff on the project completes other assignments. Commissioner Kranzley asked about restrictions to people parking in front of driveways. Mr. Edmonston answered that is a California Vehicle Code Section that allows the City to issue permits to residents to park in front of their own driveway. The Police Department has historically not required such permits and therefore enforces on a complaint basis. d.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. e.) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Kranzley asked to be excused from August 31d meeting. Commissioner Tucker noted he would be gone for the September 7th meeting. Ms. Wood noted she would be on vacation from July 20th through August 3rd. ADJOURNMENT: 10:00 P.M. Adjournment • LARRY TUCKER, SECRETARY 32 . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes July 6, 2000 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • • 33 INDEX