The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/07/2005"Planning Commission Minutes 07/07/2005 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 2005 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 16 ' file: / /N:IApps\WEBDATA1I nternetlPlnAgendas120051mn07- 07- 05.htm 06/25/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Commissioner McDaniel was excused. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager George Berger, Program Manager Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None ELECTION OF OFFICERS: On motion by Chairman Tucker, the Commission unanimously elected: Chairman - Michael Toerge Vice Chairman - Jeff Cole Secretary - Barry Eaton POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on July 1, 2005. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of June 23, 2005. Minutes Motion was made by Chairperson Toerge to approve the minutes as corrected. Approved Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Toerge and Tucker Noes: None Absent: McDaniel ' file: / /N:IApps\WEBDATA1I nternetlPlnAgendas120051mn07- 07- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/07/2005 Page 2 of 16 raster Development Corporation (MDC) (PA2004 -231) ITEM NO.2 4200 Von Karman Avenue I PA2004 -231 General Plan Amendment to Statistical Area L4 (Koll Center Newport Office Site B) of the Recommended and Use Element to increase the maximum allowable gross office area by 1,750 square feet, for approval nd a Planned Community Text Amendment in Professional and Business Office Site B by ,367 net square feet in order to replace an existing one -story 1,330 square feet office building rith a 3,080 square foot office building. Ung gave an update of the staff report noting the applicant has received from the K npany an initial approval of the project and that it had been forwarded via email to tl nmission. With regard to the square footage adjustment request, it has been removed p Commission's direction of the June 9th meeting. She then noted revised Exhibits A and were distributed. Exhibit A has the square footage adjustment removed to reflect tl sting condition plus the proposed increase in square footage; in Exhibit B, the gross squa age has been removed that had been added for reference only. imissioner Hawkins asked if the letter referenced in that email had been forwarded. answered, no. ;ommissioner Tucker noted the original staff report had a reduction in Exhibit A fn ,060,898 to 1,062,648 and now that is back to 1,062,648 so that hasn't changed and is amain as it is today. Ms. Ung answered yes. tinuing, Commissioner Tucker noted that on Exhibit B on Site B, it said 965,216 square f in parenthesis 1,008,182 and the change has the 965, 216 but it doesn't look the same. Ung answered, that is correct, staff just removed the gross square footage as a ref a we are not using that number in keeping the PC text the same. It hasn't changed. -e McDonald, applicant, noted that he has met with the Koll Company and they noon port his application as they have stated they will be submitting a formal letter of approva some minor architectural recommendations and other construction detail they need. He ad that the Commission approve the General Plan Amendment and thanked Ms. Ung foi efforts and time. He noted he understands the square footage in the PC text and concurs the proposed changes to the exhibits. iissioner Hawkins noting the letter to be received from the Koll Company asked if ; documents, in particular a parking agreement is expected, or is the letter going to ant for his needs? McDonald answered that it is an architectural submittal that he made and it is Koll's r hts as the declarant to review the project and the surrounding modifications to the p as as well as the new building. There is certain protocol within the CC and R's on the take. He then gave a brief overview of the protocol and requirements. drperson Tucker asked the applicant if he had read the code requirements in exhibit C resolution. McDonald answered yes, he has read and accepts the conditions. comment was opened. " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn07- 07- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/07/2005 Page 3 of 16 d Hoffman of Government Solutions, representing the Koll Company, noted that they al everything the applicant has indicated. She noted the process and dates that have t ad upon. She also noted agreement with the changes made to Exhibits A and B that i made for clarification. At Commissioner Hawkins' questioning, she noted that the li is what is required under the documents and that there likely will be a series of letters. Baines, on behalf of the neighboring property at 4220 Von Karman Avenue . Review of plans and elevations. . Intended end use of property and whether this is a speculative development will be leased to someone who is unknown. irperson Toerge noted that plans and elevations are part of the package and speaker can also come to the Planning Department to review them. As to ipant, that is not under the purview of the Planning Commission. The zo vs for certain types of uses. Any application for use not consistent with the zo Id require an additional public hearing. comment was closed. on was made by Commissioner Toerge to recommend approval of General 2004 -006 and Code Amendment No. 2005 -006 to the City Council with Ifications to exhibits A and B. None McDaniel None *W* JBJECT: Steven Fischer ( PA2005 -098) ITEM NO. 3 3600 E. Coast Highway PA2005 -098 Use Permit approval to allow a waiver of 4 off - street parking spaces for the Approved welopment of a new two -story, 3,250 square -foot commercial building. s. Ung noted that this item had been continued from the June 23rd meeting in order r the applicant to work with the City's traffic engineer to revise the on -site circulation r the proposed project. Since then, we have received a revised site plan, which has :en reviewed by the traffic engineer who finds that it is acceptable. Although the irking layout is improved, staff does not support the parking waiver and maintains the commendation for denial. The attached resolution for approval has been modified (ding a condition pertaining to the improvements on the landscaping along the screen 311 in front should the Planning Commission choose to approve this project. Commission inquiry, Ms. Ung noted that the applicant had requested a continuance resolve some of the circulation issues. The Planning Commission is reviewing that iplication tonight. Staff is still recommending denial of the parking waiver. iairperson Toerge added the prior application had all parking on site with a parking �ucture underneath and retail on top. "file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn07- 07- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/07/2005 Page 4 of 16 )mmissioner Tucker noted that there are conditions that need to be met in order to ant a parking waiver. One of them is that a municipal parking facility is so located as be useful in connection with the proposed use or uses on the site. The word facility used as opposed to lot, which I assume the code would say; however it doesn't. its applicant is creating 4 parking spaces on Coast Highway. Not every parking ace on Coast Highway is a parking facility, but I do think there is some room on this rticular issue. To eliminate curb cuts and create parking spaces that are available to s applicant and the community as a whole on a 2417 basis and those spaces will be use to nearby residences and businesses. Is there any information lacking that wld give more guidance as to what is a municipal parking facility? Coast Highway is fined by the City. . Temple answered that the principal guidance staff has on this question is the fact t we have never used as a justification for a parking waiver the presence of on- set parking spaces. With this or any other project, despite the presence of old curb s from the prior use these parking spaces would appear, regardless. We wouldn't :k to close old curb cuts in any event for a new development on this site. To the ant that the Planning Commission perceives some ambiguity in the required findings approval they could find that this appearance of additional on- street parking spaces s sufficient to justify that these municipal parking facilities could be used to satisfy ling number one. What's staffs primary hesitation is, and in fact a great concern, is t not only would additional applicants who might be in a similar circumstance seek a iilar waiver, which in the City's mind or Commission's mind might be okay, but that Aicants would seek generally to receive parking waivers just because there were -king spaces present in the street. That plus the history that we have never used street parking spaces considered a municipal parking facility is the reason for our iissioner Toerge commented that if it is clear that the basis for reliance on this ular finding was that new spaces were created and that the waiver was directly a )n of the new spaces created, then that would eliminate most of the precedent and would create an argument for staff to make for someone coming in the future 1 for a waiver with no new spaces created. Temple answered that should the Commission decide that is a criteria that they Id feel comfortable with, then staff would suggest that we also be requested to nd the Code to change this finding to be clear that it is either an existing municipal ing lot or only street spaces in the event that new spaces are being created as a It of the development, so that it is clearly stated in the Code. By making this ng in its current state, you are finding that these on- street parking spaces are a icipal parking facility and it might be difficult to argue that any others are not, so we Id want to clarify this in the Code. missioner Tucker noted he was not sure that he agreed with these comments and rstands that if the motion does happen it needs to be clear that there are new es. The closure of those curb cuts on Coast Highway is a good thing and we hav( to have that done especially on Mariner's Mile. ssioner Hawkins noted his concern over parking waivers and noted that the ins we are looking at can be construed on either a broad or narrow basis with to a parking facility. He asked the City Attorney how the Commission should be ling the terms of a parking waiver? " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn07 -07- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/07/2005 Page 5 of 16 on Harp, Assistant City Attorney, noted that the on- street parking spaces being )ted would not qualify as a municipal parking facility and that the positive rpretation of that provision is just because they are creating new spaces, those ces belong to the City and are not qualifying as a municipal parking facility under Code. He indicated that the waiver findings should be construed narrowly. Eaton asked: • In the original parking report, it indicated that the Traffic Engineering office did no like the design of the prior parking lot and included that a waiver of 30 percent of the required off - street parking is not desirable. • Does this concern still exist? Edmonston answered that the current proposed lot design meets our standard. e amount of parking tends to be the Planning Department's purview and the usabil it tends to be the Public Work's Department. At Commission further inquiry, he ted that the percentage does make some difference. When you are dealing with a call lot, even one space is a big percentage. missioner Tucker noted that in this particular case, if our interpretation is different the City Attorney's office interpretation, do we have the ability to have our xetation prevail or do we have that authority? Harp answered that the section is fairly clear, but the Planning Commission is the sion maker and can defer in their interpretation. rmmissioner Tucker continued saying the Code Section does not say parking lot and rking spaces on the street are owned by the City, I am not sure what you call them. this particular case, I like the new design a lot better than the old design, but the old sign is something that they can go back to and create the additional parking spaces site. I am not sure that the first proposal would look good in Corona del Mar, nor do public any good after hours of operation of those businesses that are not open. I understand that the Commission would have the ability to take a different eroretation if it chooses. Hawkins asked with respect to the design of the parking what the was? Edmonston answered that the prior design had a number of head -in spaces that le it difficult if the lot was full for someone to exit and get turned around; whereas, they are all perpendicular to the aisle so the accessibility of those spaces is fitly improved. Toerge asked: The curb cuts that are there today, could they remain if the applicant chose to design a project where they were incorporated in its use? The 25 foot wide driveway aisle, is that our standard? Are the four newly created parking spaces along Coast Highway for sure, or is there something that might come up that might cause one or two to be eliminated? " file:// N: 1Apps1WEBDATA1IntemetlPlnAgendas120051mn07- 07- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/07/2005 Page 6 of 16 Edmonston answered: Possibly, it depends on the kind of design. The City does not allow parking that would back directly out onto Coast Highway and we try to minimize the amount c curb cuts on our arterial highways. We would look to reduce the numbers, but that is not to say that there couldn't be some design that would be acceptable that would use both those driveways. Our basic standard is 26 feet and what they have done here due to the limited space have made the parking space wider so that you can use a narrower aisle, it gives the same effective turning radius to get in and out of the space. We do provide some amount of red curb at the comer and these spaces do not go all the way up the corner. I don't know of any reason why they would not be implementable. mmissioner Tucker, noting similar concern, stated that he would ask that condition modified so that if they do lose one of those parking spots on the street, then their care footage goes down by 250 square feet. ommissioner Hawkins asked is eliminating curb cuts along arterials is a City policy or it is something that staff does? Where does that come from? Does the City currently ave an in -lieu parking program that a developer could pay into? Edmonston answered that it has been a long standing practice and it was Council . Temple added that the City Municipal Code has a section regarding commercial in i parking fees; however, that program has not been used for many years and the fe( irged is extremely low so as to be of no use to provide funds for off - street parking. a result, the City Council has asked staff to commence re- visiting the concept of an ieu parking program, which has been assigned to one of the Economic velopment members of the Planning Department. nmissioner Henn asked if there had been discussion with the applicant following revised building plans addressing the issue of the parking shortage, and whether it explored there could be some not substantial modification of the building size that Id allow for on -site parking. drperson Toerge stated that this item first was heard on November 2004. At that a it was parked entirely on site and had a ground floor parking structure with all of office and retail space located on top of the structure. It fell within the height riction, met the parking requirements, but did not meet the building bulk airements of the City. While the parking structure is not counted as square feet in is of FAR, it does add to the bulk of the building resulting in the bulk of the building fitting in the Code. It was 60 to70% in excess. Through that hearing project, nbers of the Commission suggested that there might be some reasonable mative if the structure became smaller, was ground level and did not exceed the ding bulk and that we might consider a parking waiver for the newly created parkinc ces on the street by the elimination of the curb cuts. comment was opened. Wiggle of Keisker and Wiggle Architects, representing the applicant, noted the "file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn07- 07- 05.htm 06/25/2005 'Planning Commission Minutes 07/07/2005 Page 7 of 16 • The circulation on site has been improved. • This site has no access to the alley. • This lot is narrower than the surrounding lots. • The difficulty is the distance from the building (post office) and Coast Highway in terms of the circulation that had been worked out. The reconfiguration that was done has enhanced the circulation and maintained the same amount of parking. • We are proposing a high quality project that is commensurate with the neighborhood. • The spaces that are being requested under waiver are spaces that are being created. • We recognize that the new street parking is not exclusive parking to our building and there is the opportunity for when our use is closed then it would be public parking, which is an added benefit. • We are in complete accord with the staff report and accept that the addition that losing a space will require deletion of 250 square feet. imissioner Eaton, referring to the site plan, asked about the area between the and the building and asked what that area was for. Wiggle answered that the exit maneuvering of vehicles is increased by that area. have added landscape against the stairs and back building so there is not a sea of halt. There is not enough room in that area to add another parking space. rson Toerge, referring to the site plan, asked about the planter between the 42 h wall and the parking spaces. Could the planter be put in front of the wall of behind it? Wiggle explained the parking space measurements and aesthetic concerns. He lained that there will be a stone wall with quality materials and breaks. Cole asked about reducing the building size. Wiggle answered the building is smaller than previously seen. Property values are ;p and it becomes an economic burden to reduce the size any further. comment was closed. I Toerge stated: • This is a better project than the one that was originally submitted even though it did fit the current parking requirements and required no waiver. • He does not support consideration of street front parking to be used for other applications for satisfying on -site parking requirements. • Clearly the two unique elements of this site are that it is eliminating two existing curb cuts and has no alley access. • He stated that he had studied the entire Coast Highway from Avocado to Seaward and then presented his findings of 31 curb cuts in 25 parcels; only 4 including the subject property, have no alley access. He then discussed unique features of each of the four. • We would not be creating a precedent so long as our interpretation is in fact that " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATAI Intemet lPlnAgendas120051mn07- 07- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/07/2005 Page 8 of 16 this site is unique, the circumstances are unique in that it has no alley access, is eliminating two curb cuts and adds 4 new public parking spaces. nmissioner Hawkins noted: • What is key in this determination is the parking waiver. • We need to make the findings as identified in the staff report. • He does not see how we can make any of those findings including city metered parking spaces being regarded as a City owned parking facility as required to make the findings for parking waivers. Going further down the site to the Bandera's you have a parking lot which has parking spaces on a lot rather than on a street. • He does not support the expansion of the parking waiver requirements this far to allow for the creation of parking spaces that are really city parking spaces. • He agrees with the Chair that this is a much better project than before, but the problem is the site is limited. • He noted he would support a project that would pay some significant in -lieu parking fees but unfortunately the City does not have such a program. • He then noted that since the Commission can not make the findings, he could not support this application. nmissioner Tucker noted his support of the application citing the resolution Iresses the problem with 'these spaces are qualified as municipal parking facilities ated in close proximity of the site', the key is 'these spaces'. So the finding is on se extra four spaces being created and that encapsulates the concern that the iirman has expressed. tion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve Use Permit No. 2005 -021 X2005 -098) subject to the findings and conditions attached to the June 30, 2005 ns. He then added another condition to read, 'To the extent less than four new king spaces along Coast Highway are created in connection with the project, the care footage of the project shall be reduced by 250 square feet for each space not ated.' nmissioner Hawkins stated that he reviewed the proposed resolution approving the and that he regards on- street parking as fungible and does not see that the ations of these on- street parking spaces are unique in any sense. He believes that cone else can use this argument eliminating a curb cut and gaining additional king spaces. He stated his opposition to the motion and the waiver. Ayes: Cole, Toerge, Tucker, and Henn Noes: Eaton, Hawkins Absent: McDaniel Abstain: None SUBJECT: Hamburger Mary's Bar and Grille Restaurant (PA2005 -087) ITEM NO. 4 4221 Dolphin Striker Way PA2005 -087 The applicant requests approval of an amendment to an existing Use Permit to allow Approved an existing restaurant to have live entertainment and dancing. Ms. Ung gave an overview of the staff report noting that there is no provision for live entertainment and dancing with the existing use permit and that is the reason for this " file:// N: 1Apps1 WEBDATA1Intemet \PlnAgendas120051mn07- 07- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/07/2005 cation. Additionally, the applicant is proposing a smoking area outside with no service provided. erson Toerge asked what the difference was between a live entertainment and a special event permit. 3. Temple answered that a live entertainment permit is approved by the City Manager d issued through the Revenue Division of the Administrative Service Department. It issued to a person or a business and stays in affect so long as that person or tablishment wishes to retain it. A special event permit is a specialized permit ended to address one time, or a once in a while event, and are also issued by the ty Manager but are reviewed and approved by the City's Recreation and Senior ,rvices Department. The reason why this department is the issuing entity is because )st of our special events are events that occur in our public parks. The special event �rmit process is much more extensive in that all of the affected departments also irticipate in the review such as General Services, Police, Fire, Planning, and Building Sax, applicant, noted the following: 60% of our volume will be food. If the kitchen is open after 9 p.m., we will are asking for the live entertainment. increase our volume and that is why we We feel we can do this with karaoke, charity events and singers at our location. Commission inquiry, Mr. Sax noted the kitchen will be open as long as the operation open. The hours are 11 a.m. to 2 a.m. Tucker asked: • The smoking patio, what is the treatment along the easterly edge on MacArthur? • How far is the nearest hotel from that smoking area? • Is the building on the east side being changed? • Is there a prohibition of outdoor speakers on the patio? Sax answered: • There is a four foot high wall with plantings so that it is not wide open. • The plans show a door that will be glass from the actual building onto the smoking patio. • No change to the exterior of the building other than painting and the addition of the patio. • There is a prohibition of speakers on the patio. Temple answered the closest hotel is the Radisson one block down on MacArthur Eaton asked about the palm trees on the smoking patio. Sax answered that the palm trees are being saved and the patio will be built .md it so there is no touching of the trees. Page 9 of 16 " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn07- 07- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/07/2005 Page 10 of 16 iirperson Toerge referenced condition 20, noting we are not approving a bar, am, cocktail lounge or nightclub. Condition 16 states that the full menu will be ilable at all times. He then asked the applicant if he had read and agrees to the ings and conditions as contained in the staff report. Sax answered yes. Lion was made by Commissioner Cole to approve Use Permit No. 2005 -018 with all conditions of approval prepared by staff in the report. iirperson Toerge noted that he sees no issues with these hours of operation or the arior smoking patio as the establishment is in the airport area. nmissioner Hawkins noted a proposed change to condition 20 - add, ....'or other nmercial recreational and entertainment uses as derrned by Municipal Code Won 20.05.050 subsection l ; which is the requirement that discusses those uses. second proposed change was to condition 27 - strike throughout that section Dholic beverage outlet' and put'restaurant. He then proposed to remove the )iage ...if directly related to the patrons of the subject alcoholic beverage outlet. Temple noted that the City's Zoning Code does not have any use classification for :aurant. If you wish to delete the 'alcoholic beverage outlet' reference, it should be nged to'eating and drinking establishment'. nmissioner Tucker noted alcoholic beverage outlet operator really means one that s alcohol beverages on the site. Even a restaurant that has 90% of their sales as 1 and has the authority and exercises the authority to sell alcoholic beverages is an )holic beverage outlet operator, is that not? Temple answered it is, also definitionaly in our Alcohol Beverage Outlet Ordinance the change sought since this is not an ABO Use Pen-nit would not cause us any blems from an enforcement perspective. nmissioner Tucker asked that the section cited by read. istant City Attorney Harp read a portion of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section )5.050 subsection I, into the record which provides as follows: "Commercial ;reation and Entertainment. Provision of participant or spectator recreation or artainment. This classification includes cinemas, theaters sports stadiums and nas, amusement parks, bowling alleys, billiard parlors, pool rooms, dance halls, roller skating rinks, golf courses, miniature golf courses, scale -model courses, oting galleries, tennis /racquetball courts, arcades or electronic games center ving three or more coin- operated game machines and card rooms. This ;sification does not include adult- oriented businesses." dic comment was opened. n Sax said this was rather confusing as they are not going to have games, shooting eries etc. He stated he does not see how this applies. iirperson Toerge stated he is suggesting that this exclusion does not allow any is in Section 20.05.050 Subsection I. " file: / /N:Wpps1WEBDATA1 Internet lPlnAgendas120051mn07- 07- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/07/2005 Page 11 of 16 Sax stated he agrees nmissioner Tucker asked for clarification on the rest of the proposed changes ght by Commissioner Hawkins. nmissioner Hawkins answered condition 27 on page 27 strike throughout that Lion 'alcoholic beverage outlet' and put'restauranf. He then proposed to remove verbiage ...if directly related to the patrons of the subject alcoholic beverage outlet. nmiccinner Cnla nntari ho wn dri Amami hic mntinn to raflart thaca nhnnnac None McDaniel None ITEM NO. 5 PA2005 -091 de Amendment No. 2005 -005 to amend Municipal Code Chapter 20.67 related to Recommended n standards applicable to all signs .on a citywide basis with the exception of the for approval wport Coast and Ridge Planned Communities, and where sign regulations are no :renced in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area and all other commercially ied Planned Communities. The Balboa Sign Overlay and Mariner's Mile sign ulations will re repealed by these proposed regulations, and their provisions will be orporated into the proposed ordinance. A Sign Design Guidelines Manual is also to considered, in order to supplement the new sign code and establish criteria for th ation of well- designed signs and further the intent and purpose of the sign code. Development Project Manager George Berger gave the following . The sections on 'A' frame signs have now been rewritten to prohibit them private property. . GEIF and Open Space Districts - a set of standards have been submitted reductions from the commercial standards where appropriate, particularly area requirements for walls and freestanding signs. . We have reduced the percentage of building replacement needed Comprehensive Sign Program is required; the trigger for that is now 20 %. . For future tenant and construction and project signs, we have reduced tt number of signs which a project could have had from 3 different signs down to sign on each project frontage, up to a maximum of 2. Technically if you had project that was going up on a corner that had three sides or one that is doub fronted, you could have had at least 2 if not 3 frontages for all those signs ar have up to possibly 6 signs. Now, the maximum you can have is 2. The Heritage Sign program list is still being worked on. We have been in to with the owners on the initial list; however, it has been slow to get the calls b from them, and since some of the sign owners do not know how old their si are, so we are having to go back to find out the information. The list will ' file: / /N:1Apps\WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn07- 07- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/0712005 Page 12 of 16 brought back for consideration at a later date. . Editorial and typing issues that were noted by staff and Commission have been addressed. . The Irvine Company letter (which he presented and distributed) is to discussed. . A question on abandoned signs has come up. The City Attorney has asked tl we add a clause on page 51, 'An abandoned sign or a non- conformi abandoned sign shall be immediately removed by the owner or lessee.....' T reason is the difference in Califomia law for the time frame that can be used remove an abandoned sign versus an abandoned non - conforming sign. Comments on the table for GEIF on page 25; the text was clarified to all awning signs and wall signs but to preclude window signs from being allowed they are not appropriate. The footnotes have been left off below the table will added - they are the same as on page 23, which are the same footnotes as the regular commercial signs. . In the Irvine Company letter, item 1 - staff feels it could go either way, but � would like your input so that this can be addressed. The request is to change t wording on Item 1 to suggest a more objective standard; whichever is lower more objective than what The Irvine Company suggested that we revise it which is, as determined by the Planning Director. The Planning Director, practice, is capable of making that decision; however, The Irvine Company correct that whichever is lower allows for less discretion. We would like to bri this to you and ask your preference. nmissioner Cole asked what is the concern of the Irvine Company that has request? Berger answered that the concern is that the pad for a building that is far lower o. higher than the roadway. He discussed the placement of signs on berms. He cluded that The Irvine Company is asking for as much discretion as they can ge ause they do have so many pieces of property that are height challenged. ;ussion followed. Commission inquiry, Mr. Berger discussed in further detail staffs position iments /suggestions made in The Irvine Company letter dated June 15, 2005. Wood discussed the possible ramifications of administration. Tucker noted the following: . Page 4 of the Sign Ordinance - spelling of supersede Page 19 - a lot of language in the text plus tables that are to be a quick look up the text. If there is a conflict between the text and tables, what prevails? suggested that a sentence be added that favors the text, as that is the m precise. 'Tile://N:\Apps\WEBDATA\Internet\PlnAgendas\2005\mnO7-07-05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/07/2005 Page 13 of 16 . Page 27 - Awning maintenance item number 7, delete as there is a section that covers a lot more detail. . Page 38 - the inconsistency language regarding text and tables on page 19 also noted here. . Page 44 - section B, sign permit requirement. The last sentence, strike should be aware that'.... . Page 48 C - insert ...'is the approving authority' after The Zoning Administrator. He noted his concern that an applicant have recourse to apply for a bigger that 20 to 30 percent above that allowed. Ms Wood answered that a modificatioi could cover something beyond the 20 to 30 percent. Commissioner Eatoi suggested inserting a sentence, 'Any request in excess of these figures wouh require a modification.' . For the Comprehensive Sign Program, the Zoning Administrator is the authority and therefore the Planning Director is not involved. Berger noted that in a number of circumstances, the Planning Director can make jest that a Comprehensive Sign Program be required. He proceeded to gig Commissioner Tucker noted: . Page 48 paragraph 5 - change text to '....total number, location and /or of the signs...' . Page 52 - combine 5 and 6 and just say an abandoned sign. Page 51 - the time frames may be different but it seems that the word and nonconforming are similar. Discussion followed. ron Harp stated that abandoned signs and abandoned nonconforming signs ined differently. The abandoned non - conforming sign has specific requirements; ke it out for clarity. At Commission inquiry he explained that in the Califon siness and Professions Code there are specific provisions on when you can get an abandoned non - conforming sign. The way we define a non - conforming si rors that definition used in the Code including the 90 day requirement that it has abandoned before it can be removed without the City having to pay to have the si noved. An abandoned sign is a broader definition because it applies to all signs tl not fall into that non - conforming category. The differences are not major, but tht differences. The case law of abandoned signs turns on when and how you actuE ablish that it has in fact been abandoned. We included the time provisions for t ne basically so that it all runs together. , Commissioner Tucker noted: Page 53 - changes in proper maintenance - add language, '....display sun shall be kept clean and painted and repaired at all times.' Additionally, in third sentence, '...:faded, cracked, or broken faces or surfaces and .....' " file: / /N:\ Apps \WEBDATA\ Internet \PlnAgendas\2005 \mn07- 07- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/07/2005 Page 14 of 16 Harp noted that in the modification permit - if someone is looking for 20 to it more, then they are coming in for the Comprehensive Sign Program; thi be coming in for a modification permit as you are looking for more than wh be achieved through the Comprehensive Sign Program, so you could justify the modification permit provisions. Wood noted there could be instances where the applicant could apply for both. ussion followed. ier Hawkins agreed with Commissioner Tucker's proposal and page numbers in the Sign Code: . Page 11 Definitions: - Portable 'A' sign should be stricken. Mr. Berger agreed. Page 6 - change the language in definition of A -Frame Sign to read, freestanding portable sign usually used on public sidewalks hinged at the top, attached in a similar manner, and widening.....' . Page 13 - definition of service station. A reference to fuel docks should fall this definition. Wolcott answered that is the definition in the California Code dealing with ins signs specifically, so we took their definition. It was not written to cover Temple added that this code will be in Title 20, it will only apply to zoned property. fuel docks are typically not on zoned property and would not apply. Hawkins continued: . Page 35 - Paragraph 17, add '.....approval of a Modification Permit.' immissioner Tucker proposed the following language on page 48. Second sentei 'c', The Zoning Administrator shall not approve an increase in sign height by m in 20 percent above that allowed or an increase in sign area by more than rcent above that allowed absent a modification permit' He then charged Mr. H contemplate this language to be sure that this would not create a hardship >blem elsewhere in the document. Harp agreed. Berger added one more strikeout in the definition of'A' frame sign. Staff would strike out the'usually used on public sidewalks' clause. was made by Commissioner Eaton to recommend approval of ent No. 2005 -005 to the City Council with the modifications made tonight. comment was opened. Pflugrath, commended the Commission and staff for their due diligence on th and noted that the lengthy 2+ year process really made a difference in getting " file:// N: 1Apps1 WEBDATA1Intemet \PlnAgendas120051mn07- 07- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/0712005 Page 15 of 16 mmissioner Cole noted at the first hearing there was feedback from interest rties. He asked if they will be kept up to date as to the proceedings of this meeti particular the Chamber of Commerce. He noted his concern that there seemed ve been little active participation by citizens on this important matter. Berger noted the full subcommittee had not been kept up to date as the pro( moved from the committee review stage to the Planning Commission stage o i individually by him during course of conversation. The Chamber of Commi esentative has been keeping updated on this item because he also sits on cutive Committee of the Economic Development Committee, and we have n updated regularly. We will be making versions of the guidelines to :ommittee as they are approved. nmissioner Tucker asked about the Heritage Sign list, and what the plan was for it. Berger noted it will be coming back to the Planning Commission for review befor( City Council adopts it. There are plans to have at least 3 meetings on this item a Council level - one Study Session and two regular public hearings. Wood added that the motion to approve should also include the P mission approval of the Sign Design Guidelines as well. The maker of the comment was closed. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker Noes: None Absent: McDaniel Abstain: Henn BUSINESS: BUSINESS City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple reported that the Code Amendment for tt requirements for parking standards for condominium conversions was discussed detail. Staff recommended a requirement for a condominium conversions existing units that could be allowed only when the current code for parking was m within the project. She noted the discussion in detail. The City Council introduc( the change leaving it at the code in existence at the time the unit was construct( for two- family properties and for current code for all others. It will be coming ba for second reading and final action. The question of the duplexes will be comi( back to the Planning Commission at the August 4th meeting. The other item was discussion regarding scheduling for the public hearing of the St. Andrew's Chun expansion project which was set for August 9th for the opening of the pub hearing with adjournment to August 11th; that will be the only item on the agenda. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Committee - none. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Committee - no meeting. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Certification Committee - Chairperson Toerge reported that there were me( June 27th and 30th in an effort to review the comments that were responses " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn07- 07- 05.htm 06/25/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 07/07/2005 Page 16 of 16 Coastal Commission that were responses to our original submission of our LCP. Staff is currently coordinating biological responses and the next meeting is not ye scheduled. Ms. Temple noted that there is a scheduled Coastal Commissior meeting on August 11th. Discussion followed. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Zoning Committee Chairperson Toerge noted the last meeting was June 29th and they are charged make the code easier to understand. Topics of discussion were building heigh and how they are determined, and how to make proper grade determinations. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at subsequent meeting - Chairperson Toerge appealed the condominium conversi at 701 Begonia. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda action and staff report - none. . Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - Ms. Temple stated that going projects have been placed on the additional business. The last remaining item was the Sign Code and of the two items left it is unlikely to have resources in the near future. Unless something new comes up, you will not seeing any further updates. Project status - Our Lady Queen of Angels is a complete application and is environmental review. Commissioner Tucker reported that the Marina park proj next meeting on July 19th will be the last of the presentations. All of those land i scenarios will be forwarded to Council for determination. Ms. Temple noted that initial study process has been completed for the retail application at Dover PCH. Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Tucker will be gone on July 21 as will Commissioner Henn. Full CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION " file: / /N:1Apps1WEBDATA1 Internet \PlnAgendas120051mn07- 07- 05.htm 06/25/2008