Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/03/2000•Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 3, 2000 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. ROLL GALL Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker: Commissioners Kiser and Kranzley were excused STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Tony Brine, Transportation Engineer Genia Garcia, Associate Planner Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary 0 Minutes of July 20.2000: Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford and voted on to approve, as amended, the minutes of July 20, 2000. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford and Tucker Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Kiser, Kranzley Public Comments: None Posting of the Agenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, July 28, 2000. INDEX Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2000 SUBJECT: Sibling Associates 1, James W. Ray, applicant 2931 -2939 East Coast Highway • Modification Permit No. 5063 Amendment to Conditions for Modification No. 5063, relative to the proposed sign program for a multi- tenant building. Commissioner Tucker recused himself from this item due to a conflict of interest. Public comment was opened Mark Frank, 19209 Fox Land, Huntington Beach representing the applicant stated that they are in agreement with the revised findings and conditions in the staff report. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to approve Modification No. 5063 with the revised findings and conditions attached in Exhibit A of the staff report. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajonion, Selich, Gifford Noes: None Absent: Kiser, Kranzley Recused: Tucker EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Modification No. 5063 Revised Findinas: 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 California 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: 0 INDEX Item No. 1 Modification Permit No. 5063 Approved City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2000 • 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. • The sign area for the tower element is smaller than the sign area for the other tenant wall signs due to the height and narrowness of the tower element, which results in the need for expanding the horizontal width of the sign area by 2 feet. • The proposed sign will use less sign area if configured with the lettering on one line than if the lettering were stacked up and down within the previously approved sign area. 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: • The signs are wall signs and the pole signs are located at the street side 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 3 121.11 . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2000 constructed using channel letters or backlit halo letters. 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, 48 square feet for the tower tenant, 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, with the exception of the tower tenant located in the east corner of the building as noted in Condition No. 4. • 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. 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. 11. The pole sign located at the comer of Iris Avenue and East Coast Highway is limited to 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. 0 INDEX is City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2000 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. SUBJECT: Conexant Project 4311 Jamboree Road • General Plan Amendment No. 96 -3(F) • Amendment No. 898 • Environmental Impact Report No. 159 • Traffic Study No. 110 • Development Agreement No. 13 General Plan Amendment No. 96 -31', Amendment No. 898, Environmental Impact Report No. 159, Traffic Study No. 110 and a Development Agreement to allow a long range development plan for the construction of up to 566,000 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 Community. Ms. Temple stated that the applicant has requested that this item be removed from calendar. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to remove this item from calendar. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Kiser, Kranzley 5 INDEX Item No. 2 GPA 96 -3 (F) A 898 EIR 159 TS 110 DA 13 Removed from calendar • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2000 SUBJECT: Koll Office Site B GPA and PC Amendment • General Plan Amendment 97 -3(B) • Zoning Amendment 905 • Traffic Study No. 119 • EIR No. 158 • Planned Community Amendment To allow an additional 250,000 gross square feet of office use within Office Site B of the Koll Center Newport (KCN) Planned Community. The amendments will provide for the construction of a ten -story office tower. Public comment opened. Timothy L. Strader, 3801 Inlet Isle, Corona del Mar spoke as a partner in the Koll Center Newport No. A, which is the owner of the residual land at Koll Center Newport at Jamboree and MacArthur. He stated that they filed this general plan amendment in 1997 and have now reached the point where the environmental impact report has been circulated, comments received and staff is in the process of putting together a response to those comments. We were here for a study session a month ago, and as a result present to you tonight a brochure that answers some of the questions that were raised at that meeting. Pat Allen of Langdon and Wilson referred to the exhibit as Mr. Strader continued with his presentation. Mr. Strader noted the following: • Proposing a ten story office building adjacent to the two existing ten story office buildings formally known as Security Pacific Plaza. • The two existing ten story office buildings are now owned and occupied by Conexant. • At the rear of these two buildings is a two -story parking structure. • The proposal is to tear down that parking structure and install a two-story structure at the intersection of Jamboree and MacArthur. Referencing the last sheet in the brochure, he noted the cross section depiction of what that two -story structure would look like driving by the project. ➢ Landscaped berm along MacArthur. ➢ Parking structure will be indented into the ground so that the view from MacArthur will be similar to the existing view. • Plan to demolish the existing two-story structure at the rear of the building and commence construction of a six -story parking structure that will be adjacent to the existing Conexant buildings. • Conexant is attempting to create a campus like setting for their entire project. By moving the structure back from Jamboree, the vista is opened from the existing Conexant property to their two buildings. The parking structure will be moved back to allow for a pedestrian connection directly • to the building. The access off Jamboree will come into the property and `II.1.1�:� Item No. 3 GPA 97 -3 (B) A 905 TS No. 119 EIR No. 158 Continued to 09/07/2000 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2000 will allow access to the left into the parking structure or the right into the existing parking lots at Conexant. Currently, the two -story structure blocks any direct access between the Conexant property and the property they purchased (two ten -story buildings). The existing FAR at Koll Center Newport is .5. Many of the projects constructed in the last few years have a 1 FAR. It has always been contemplated that as the market matured in the area, we would convert from free parking to pay parking and then structured parking. Structured parking on a pay as you go basis is acceptable in the market place today. Commissioner Tucker noted a proposed condition that states, "the parking structures located along MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road shall be designed so that parked cars are not visible from the roadway, etc:' Mr. Strader answered that this is a new condition. Mr. Pat Allen, 1230 Devon Lane, architect of the project added that the berm would be similar to the one along Circuit City and Nordstrom. By berm height and adjusting the depth of the garage; creating a steeper slope on the • backside to bring in natural light and ventilation, will result in a garage that is not exposed to the automobiles on MacArthur. Commissioner Tucker stated that if it is going to be similar to what it is today, you could see lots of cars from MacArthur. It surprises me that it says you would not be able to see any cars. It doesn't have to be screened anymore than it is today, in my opinion. How high are you raising the berm and what will happen to the mature trees that are there today? Will it look like it does today? As for as the intensification of the development, where you sited the additional building and then taken and tucked all the parking behind the buildings and pared back that long linear parking structure, I think that is a good feature. If the Jamboree /MacArthur looks similar to what it does today, there is a fair amount of intensification in that project, but it doesn't really look like it. Perhaps it will even look more open. Mr. Allen explained about the parking today that you do see cars that are partially screened by trees in the parking lot. Mr. Strader stated that this is the first time that they have seen this condition regarding the parking. He asked that it be changed to say, be designed to minimize the views of parked cars from the roadway. We would be willing to accept a condition like that. I don't think that you can have a condition that no cars are visible from the roadway, it is not possible. Larry Lawrence, consultant to the City on this project stated that this condition • was derived from both the EIR mitigation measure and the condition that was INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2000 placed in the draft of the Conexant PC amendment. This condition is for the commercial section; I used the same terminology. Commissioner Tucker noted that this is a different condition, Koll Center is a surface lot as opposed to a structure. This is supposedly going to be designed so that you can not tell it is a parking structure as the second level is underground. Mr. Lawrence commented that Mr. Strader's amendment is reasonable. We don't have to exactly match the provisions for Conexant. Commissioner Tucker stated that we don't have all the information and Koll Center will be back in a couple of weeks. I would like to see it designed in a fashion that is as near as possible to what exists today so that it has that feeling of openness as opposed to intensification. Mr. Strader referencing a three dimensional model noted the two -story structure alignments with the berms in existence today. Commissioner Tucker noted that this model would not be in our archives. I am looking for something to show what is there today versus what you are planning • on doing. I don't have a problem with the proposal; we need a set of plans to help us understand that. With the intensification of some 200,000+ square feet, you effectively have left the general feel of the area alone. Mr. Strader noted his agreement and will have an exhibit to depict the proposal. Commissioner Tucker referencing page 8 of the KCN Planned Community text says no changes are proposed to the permitted uses in the KCN PC text. Referring to the staff report, the proposed amendments relate exclusively to the maximum square footage allowed in Office Site 8 and related standards ... it should be noted that the site plan included with this report is conceptual and provided for informational purposes only. The KCN PC text does not contain any provisions for Planning Commission review of site, architectural, landscape or other specific development plans. My question is, how is it that the plans submitted to us that we are looking at, how do we see that what we think is going to happen will happen? Is there no review? Ms. Temple answered that there are two ways staff would administer the issuance of a building permit pursuant to this approval. One would be making sure that there are sufficient provisions within the PC text should it need to be added in order to address any specific design related issues that the Commission may find necessary. The second is that the EIR and all of the impacts and mitigation measures provided therein are based on the conceptual site plan to the extent that it is necessary to understand those • details in order to define mitigation. If a project was modified to an extent T1TD: 4 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2000 where any of those findings, lack of significance or new significance was at least possible or mitigation measures not able to be complied with or deemed adequate, then we would not be able to find that the project was substantially similar to that approved through its environmental process. We would have to come back for some modifications. The only other way to get a hard site planning type review on a project of this nature would be to actually require some subsequent review of the final plans before permits are issued. The next item on the agenda, a process similar to that could be required in the PC text and then the project would come back with the final details. You can't conditionally zone, so you would have to make additional provisions in the PC text specific to this site that staff would then review the plans for compliance with. Commissioner Tucker stated that he understands wanting the consistency between the two projects, but really the parking structures are completely different with the Conexant one sifting out close to the street and the Koll Center big parking structure is kind of buried behind everything. The little parking structure is the one that is right where we want to make sure that the appearance remains pretty much as it is today. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to continue this item to September 7, 2000. Ayes: McDaniel, Agojanian, Selich, Gifford, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Kiser, Kranzley SUBJECT. Development Plans Regulations Citywide A resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Code to require development plans for large commercial and residential projects. Chairperson Selich asked about the process; in the past haven't we had some direction from Council before we do a Resolution of Intention? Ms. Temple answered that the Code allows either the City Council or the Planning Commission to adopt a Resolution of Intention. However, if the Planning Commission is uncomfortable doing this and would like the City Council to consider the Resolution of Intention, we certainly can do that. I � i. J INDEX Item No. 4 Development Regulations Discussion Item Plan • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2000 Chairperson Selich noted he is not uncomfortable, but thought there had been City Council input first. We spent a lot of time streamlining the Code a couple of years ago, which got rid of a lot of review processes and now we are introducing more review again. It would be well to develop some system as we go through this to get it out to the Economic Development Committee and Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC), the Chamber of Commerce and people like that for review for their comments. We don't want to send something without input from all these groups prior to the Council. I am not sure how we can do this, but somehow we should have some process to achieve this. Ms. Temple answered that if the resolution is adopted, the Commission can give staff direction on those bodies that it would like to see have a chance for review and comment prior to scheduling the public hearing. Commissioner McDaniel stated this is a good start. I agree that we have a way to go and I am not sure how to proceed, but we do need to get input from other groups within the City. Commissioner Gifford asked what the affect of the resolution of intent actually is. • Ms. Temple answered that the Code requires that for an amendment, which is applicable citywide and not related to a property owners individual property, to be initiated is through the adoption of a resolution of intent by either the Planning Commission or City Council. A private property owner can only request an amendment as it relates to his own property and not the Zoning Code, which applies citywide. The affect of adopting this resolution is to begin a process whereby we can schedule a public hearing and have a specific amendment to be presented and heard. u Commissioner Gifford asked if we were inclined to adopt a resolution of intent tonight, give input for any changes in the proposed amendment and then bring the resolution back to reflect what the Planning Commission's input has been could we then circulate it as a draft? Ms. Temple answered that there is no real governance in the code procedurally how to do that. The Planning Commission could decline to adopt the resolution, but give staff direction on a process before which they would not want to consider a resolution. For instance, review with the committees the Chairman talked about or perhaps some other forms of outreach, such as review by a Planning Commission sub- committee. At some point in time we are going to have to come back with some form of proposal that may or may not be what is ultimately recommended for approval through the public hearing process. This process would provide for a draft that had been circulated at the time Planning Commission adopted the intent. 1[! INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2000 Chairperson Selich asked if the resolution of intent gives the impression that we have already come to some major conclusions on this? Ms. Temple answered that in her opinion it would not, but it might give other parties that concern. Chairperson Selich stated that is his concern that it would look like we already made up our minds so to speak on it and then people would feel like we are not really asking for their input. I am generally in favor of this as it is a good first step in getting into more review of projects. I think through Use Permits we haven't had enough clear authority or direction to get into doing site or building reviews and other things on some of the projects we are looking at. For example, the Shores Apartments, if that property would have been torn down and another apartment built there, there would have been no discretionary site plan reviews. I think this is a glaring omission in our ordinance. I don't know of too many cities that allow major projects to go through without some form of site plan review. Ms. Temple noted that the Colony on Block 800 went through with no site review whatsoever. • Chairperson Selich noted another concern that if we do this, are all the site plan reviews done by the Planning Commission, or is there a hierarchy where some of it is being done by staff? There should be some threshold where some things could stay with the staff. Patrick Alford answered that the intent is that the projects that meet the threshold proposed in the revised Chapter 20.92 would go to the Planning Commission. However, this could be modified by an overlay of a development plan or a specific plan and that authority could be delegated to staff if the Planning Commission or City Council so choose. These thresholds are just starting points for discussion purposes. We can set them at whatever level the Planning Commission would like, or a two tier system that could include the Planning Director and then the Planning Commission. Chairperson Selich noted that a lot of cities have a two tiered system where the minor projects go to administrative review or our version of a Modifications Committee. The larger ones go to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tucker noted that he would love to see this. It would be nice to have some form of quality control. I think that most cities do it in a two -tier system, which is a good approach to have some idea as to the quality if things that are being built. The one part that I am concerned about is that to the extent that we set up a Development Plan review process, that is a discretionary approval under CEQA, and right now zone sites go through the process without having to go through the discretionary permitting process. • What I would like to see and it may involve the City Attorney looking at it, is if 11 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2000 we adopt this plan review, does that mean that the projects that presently do not have to go through the CEQA process, suddenly are going to have to go through the CEQA process as we now have a discretionary review for a project? Ms. Temple noted that any project subject to a discretionary review upon which conditions can be placed is considered a project under CEQA. A smaller project can still be found within categorical exclusions and not be required to prepare an environmental document. Those determinations would be mode on a case by case basis based on the provisions of CEQA. Some projects may be subjected to more environmental review than the other ones would be. Commissioner Tucker questioned whether this amendment would create a new class of projects subject to CEQA. It is one thing to look at the quality of a project; it is another thing to hit somebody with the whole initial study process that is not subject to it today. He does not want this process to add the extra burden of CEQA compliance. Ms. Temple answered that staff will look at this and try to come up with a way to do this. I don't know whether there have been any cases pursuant to CEQA . or not as to whether a process that involves the ability to impose conditions implies a discretionary review. The only strategy I can think of is that the Planning Commission and /or Director as the case may be, not be given the authority to deny a project but only to impose conditions and see if that gets us around that. Commissioner Tucker stated that he agrees that we need to go slow in terms of coming up with anything on this. I would like input from people in the business and development communities about some of these thresholds. They seem for us to be involved, fairly low. Maybe with the two -tier approach is how we deal with it. Chairperson Selich asked that staff bring this back with a two -tier approach as a discussion item. Whatever we decide, we would be better off to circulate it without a resolution of intent so that it doesn't look like we have made up our mind yet. We can then follow up with a Resolution of Intent after we get some input. Bring it back as a discussion item with a two -tier approach. In the staff report the paragraph that deals with the limitations on conditions of use permit, I went to the Internet to get some additional information. I got a report that is put out by the Office of Planning Research on conditional use permits. It really says some interesting things and is something that we have had to deal with here before, most recently the car rental place on Campus Drive where we were concerned about the signs and whether tying the signs into the use permit was legitimate or not. As I go through and read this, I don't find anything either in the State Planning Act or in what they cite in case law that restricts us • on tying things like that together. He then read excerpts. Continuing, he 12 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2000 stated that there is a lot of leeway in imposing conditions of approval on a use permit. That does not reconcile with the statements in the second paragraph of the report where it says it would not be appropriate to place conditions on the signs of a conventional restaurant unless it can be demonstrated that special sign controls bear some reasonable relationship with the effects of the restaurant. I don't see that. Ms. Clauson noted in her opinion that the language read by the Chairman confirms the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission per the provision of our ordinances and codes. Now, particularly with signs, we have signs that are authorized under our code 'by right'. A use permit authority deals with a use and how you make that use fit into the area that it is being zoned into. The concept of a use permit is that there are certain uses permitted 'by right' and then the decision is that they don't fit quite right, but if you impose conditions on them, they will fit. We have 'by right' certain signs that are allowed and we have no design review or standards on what those signs are to look like or conditions on where they are to be placed. Our concern is there is no connection or authority within our code at this point in time for the Commission to put additional standards on signs that are authorized 'by right' as far as what they look like or where they are located. Unless there is some connection to the use that is going in and making that use fit in the area. To distinguish that • from a sign program, they are asking for something more than what they are getting 'by right'. They are asking you to use your discretion to come up with a program for how signs are going to look for them to get more signs. This is an area where we have concern because of the fact of the lack of guidance to the Planning Commission. Some of the language you just quoted as your were reading, talks about the fact that you are supposed to have standards or guidance for you to use your discretion in when approving a discretionary permit. Chairman Selich stated we do not have those. All our code has in it is basically a recitation of the standard test which is the 'general welfare standard, nuisance standard, general plan consistency standard and the zoning consistency standard. It does not provide guidance. Between State Law and our Zoning Code, I would take the opposite stand, it is wide open and we can pretty much do what we want within reason and a reasonable relationship with the property. Just because you have a 'by right' sign situation or a 'by right' setback that doesn't mean that you can not in the context of reviewing a use permit put conditions on those items. I would be interested in having further information from your office supporting your point, because I interpret this a little differently. Commissioner Gifford noted that where it states in the staff report that it would be appropriate to place conditions on the signs of a drive - through restaurant, because this land use typically has more signs resulting in a greater potential for visual impacts. If visual impacts is something that is relevant then it could apply • to more than drive- through restaurants. We have a Sign Ordinance that is 'by 13 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2000 right' and we don't except out drive - through restaurants. Ms. Clauson answered that she thought the report intended the interpretation was that you are going to need some sort of sign program to get more signs, or signs that are not permitted 'by right' under the sign code. In other words, a different kind of a sign or a pole sign. Commissioner Gifford noted that if we are talking about the sign ordinance as because it is in place we can't use a use permit to regulate signs, then I don't understand the difference between a drive- through restaurant and where it is appropriate and inappropriate with a conventional restaurant. That is where I am missing the link. Ms. Clauson stated that her understanding is that what is being said is that a drive- through restaurant is a type of restaurant that is going to need more or different signs than the sign code allows for. Mr. Alford noted that typically signage is addressed for those types of uses on a case by case basis through the use permit process knowing that the amount of signage plays an important role in the overall design of a drive- through restaurant or a drive- through bank. By their nature, they require more signage • so you might have a situation where you are trading off and allow them additional signage on the property for those directional signs or menu boards. You might then have a smaller sign identifying the site. Commissioner Gifford stated she understands when someone might request an exception to the limitation of the sign code. Is the only way for them to do this through a use permit or can they get a modification? Mr. Alford answered there are other ways to seek relief from the regulations of the Sign Code in which case you do have discretion on the signs in that issue. We are talking about an application for a use permit dealing with a particular use that has certain characteristics that need to be addressed when you review the conditions imposed on the project. Commissioner Gifford asked if someone requests as part of their application, a variance from the sign ordinance, then we can address that in the use permit? She was answered yes. Ms. Temple added that it does not necessarily need to be a situation where an exception or modification for signs is actually required. The Code allows in addition to regular business signage, certain types of on -site directional signs that are necessary for flow- through parking lots and safe movement through a parking lot, which are usually reviewed by traffic engineering. However, if you have a situation where you have a conforming sign situation but you know that due to the nature of the use, and a drive - through restaurant is a good • example, that there is likely to be a higher number of these on -site directional 14 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2000 signs not regulated by Title 20. Maybe you ought to look at the overall sign program in context both those controlled by Title 20 and those not and come up with a program that makes sense. That is when you can get into looking at the overall sign program and also perhaps modify the size of permitted signs if you're going to have a high number of on -site directional signs if it is a very large site. Commissioner Gifford asked that directional signs could be at the discretion of the traffic engineer to give them as many as the applicant needs? (specifically McDonalds and Auto Bistro) Ms. Temple answered that the two directional signs on Auto Bistro were permitted. But we were able to look at the whole of it because in that particular case they were requesting a pole sign that was not permitted. Absent that request for the other sign, the Auto Bistro could have come in and installed those two smaller signs for entrance and exit. Commissioner Gifford then stated that we often have landscape plans that we require in connection with a use permit. Often there is existing landscaping just as there may be an existing sign. There doesn't seem to be a problem with us imposing conditions about the landscaping. Landscaping is a visual impact as • are signs; I want to understand what distinction might be there. Ms. Temple answered that many times we are a little bit out on the limb on landscaping. Where the code addresses the need for landscaping and provides an interest in landscaping, the stated purpose is for the purpose of screening a parking lot. We look at it in that regard, not the aesthetics of the project. We don't have a lot of good guidance in the Code in terms of what we are trying to achieve. Commissioner Gifford noted that if there is a condition that they have to screen the parking lot, that is considered an acceptable condition in a use permit. Ms. Temple answered that is the requirement in the Restaurant Development Standards. We have no landscaping requirements in the code otherwise. Landscaping is not required in most areas if it is not a restaurant. Commissioner Tucker noted under Section 20.91.035 A2 it states that one of the conditions for granting of a use permit is that the project will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the City. I was under the impression that language was broad enough to allow us some latitude in dealing with things like signs, landscaping and walls. If we are allowing someone to do something above and beyond what our code on a base line allows, then we have been getting into design type issues. I thought that clause gave us the power for doing that. • Ms. Clauson noted that at the Chairman's request, she would get more of a 15 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2000 legal analysis on it. It is interpreted very broadly from the point of view of putting conditions on a use to make the use fit into the zone where it is being placed. The case law does not interpret it to extend past that to start getting into the design of what a building looks like. There is support for cities to adopt that type of a program, which we have put together and brought before the Planning Commission. You can have design review, or development review or site plan review. You have to put that type of authority into the code. The concept of the general health, safety and welfare and the conditions that are acceptable on use permits are related to making the use that any impacts or problems that the use will have in the neighborhood in the zone, not on what it looks like. Chairperson Selich said he is interested in any case law where someone has actually challenged somebody doing something like a sign or landscape setback or building setback or something that is a 'by right' provision but a Planning Commission came in under the guise of a use permit and put more restrictive conditions and were challenged. Ms. Clauson said she had not found anything like that. All the cases that do deal with use permits and do discuss the authority under a use permit deal with specifically the conditions and discuss the concept of the reason why you are • allowing this or providing this use permit is to make that use fit into the zone. Then there are cases that deal with the authority for cities to adopt design review standards or architectural standards or historical standards. The concept under property and development rights is that there is some standard that is adopted that you are guided by and so is the applicant. Chairperson Selich noted he does not see it in the state law or zoning ordinance, so that is where he is missing something. In the absence of a court case, where do we go? Ms. Clauson stated they are not proposing to the Planning Commission that there is something clear that says what we are doing is wrong. What we are saying is that we have some concerns about the extent to which the actions have been changing and growing to the fact that we probably should develop a program that says that is what we can do. I am not saying we are going to lose if somebody challenges us. Our concern and the reason why we have discussed this is we could be challenged and could lose. If that is the direction the City Council and Planning Commission want to go, we should embrace that and create a program for it that is acceptable to us. I am not aware of any cities that do design review or architectural review in the context of a use permit. They do it in the context of provisions of their code that authorize those reviews. Commissioner Gifford stated that if we were to adopt the ordinance in the staff report, and we did not address signage in the use permit process and treat it • strictly the way the sign code reads, what projects of the last few years that 16 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2000 would have fallen into the cracks between the site plan review and not be able to address it in the use permit? Ms. Temple noted that for the future projects, this requirement for the development plan review will be inclusive based on the thresholds that the Planning Commission and City Council adopt. They would come into play for any project that met those thresholds regardless of whether they also require a use permit or not. So, if a project needed a use permit, you would still have the authority under that type of review for making the use compatible with the neighborhood and the site. You would also have the Development Plan Review for the purposes of the other things that are listed in here, such as landscaping, signage, site design, parking lots, etc. They would come hand in hand and be at the some hearing. In terms of the past, there are several projects, Jiffy Lube comes to mind, it was small and probably would not have crossed one of these thresholds and so you might be left with a more limited review. Commissioner Tucker noted that under a use permit we have the right to be arbitrary. We can deny a project for a reason or for no reason at all. We don't have to agree to it. • Ms. Clauson stated you can't be arbitrary. The standard for review on a use permit is that there are facts to support the findings and that you can not be arbitrary and capricious. Staff generally provides facts for what is wrong with the use, why it does not fit. You do need to come up with facts to support why it is detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. That is the basic finding. You have to have substantial facts to support it, it is not a preponderance, but there has to be some articulated facts to support why the project is not approved. Chairperson Selich then read additional excerpts supporting testimony. Commissioner McDaniel noted that it is clear that we need an ordinance. It sounds like maybe we ought to form a sub - committee to look at this and come back with what we think we ought to be doing here. This is a discussion that could go on for a long time. We are fairly clear that we need something. Chairperson Selich commented that we don't need a subcommittee, we agree on an ordinance. We are discussing issues here of dealing with projects that are going to come up in the time before this ordinance becomes eff ective. Ms. Clauson recommended that the Commission continue to look at projects in the some manner with the knowledge that it is helpful to have facts or findings that support the reasons. • Dan Purcell, 3 Canyon Lane stated that he agrees with the discussion by the 17 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 3, 2000 INDEX Commission on this subject. He stated that design review is needed as division can come from trying to accommodate private views. SUBJECT: Coco's Bakery Restaurant (Coralee Newman, contact) Item No. 5 3446 East Coast Highway. UP No. 3678 • Use Permit No. 3678 ODP No. 72 • Outdoor Dining Permit No. 72 A use permit for an expansion of an existing full- service restaurant which includes Continued to on -sale alcoholic beverages and a modification of the parking requirements. 08 /17/2000 Also included in the application is a request to add accessory outdoor dining to the subject facility. Ms. Temple stated that staff has requested that this item be continued to August 17th meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to continue this item to August 17, 2000. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Kiser, Kranzley ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Additional Business a.) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple stated at the meeting of July 25th, Council had the public hearing of the Naval appeal of the denial of the variance that was referred back to the Planning Commission for review; received and filed an analysis of the protection from traffic and growth initiative; certified the petition entitled 'Newport Beach Traffic Planning and Improvements' Traffic Phasing Ordinance' and adopted a resolution setting the election date. 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 - none. d.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - Commissioner Gifford thanked staff for sending the Harbor Element out for their review. Discussion was held on the peninsula sign presentation. e.) Requests for excused absences - none ADJOURNMENT: 8:30 p.m. Adjournment STEVEN KISER , SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 18