Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/17/2000• Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2000 Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Commissioners McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker: All Commissioners were present - Commissioner Tucker arrived at 7:30 p.m. Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager 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 • Minutes of August 3, 2000: Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford and voted on to approve, as written, the minutes of August 3, 2000. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford Noes: None Abstain: Kiser, Kranzley Absent: Tucker Public Comments: None Postina of the Agenda: The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, August 10, 2000. 40 Minutes Approved Public Comments Posting City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2000 SUBJECT: Coco's Bakery Restaurant (Coralee Newman, contact) 3436, 3446 East Coast Highway, and 411, 413 Narcissus Avenue • Use Permit No. 3678 • Outdoor Dining Permit No. 72 • Off -Site Parking Agreement • Waiver of Combining Requirement Request to permit a remodel and expansion of the interior dining area for a full - service restaurant. Also, included in the request are the following: • The addition of outdoor dining area. • An off -site parking agreement. • A waiver of the requirement to combine the commercial properties. Associate Planner, Eugenia Garcia, made a brief visual presentation. She presented slides that represented elevations, architectural tower, additional landscaping, proposed outdoor dining, waiting area and Coast Highway parking area usage during lunchtime. Additionally, she noted: • The existing landscaping located in the public right of way. • The back of the building currently encroaches into the required ten -foot alley setback and was approved by the prior use permit. • The trash enclosures were also permitted to be located on the adjacent property. • The offsite lot across the alley has an additional twenty -four spaces for parking. • A hedge covers a block wall that separates the commercial property from the residential property. Commissioner Kranzley asked about the lease on one of the properties involved with this application, what happens in 2015 when the lease is up? Ms. Temple answered that if they were to lose the lease on the onsite parking lot, which is the leased lot, then they would cease to be in compliance with the use permit and the ability to maintain the restaurant would be terminated. Commissioner Kranzley noted his concern about the lot on the other side of the street that the building is actually on. Ms. Temple noted that where the building is and where the off site parking is across the alley, are in a single land ownership. It is the on -site parking adjoining the existing restaurant building on the corner of Coast Highway and Narcissus that is owned by the other entity. Chairperson Selich clarified and confirmed with staff that the lot adjacent to the building is owned by the other entity, not one of the two back lots. • Commissioner Kiser noted that we are talking about the nine -space parking area INDEX Item No. 1 UP No. 3678 ODP No. 72 Off -Site Parking Agreement, and Waiver of Combining Requirement City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2000 adjacent to the restaurant. This area as part of the proposal would have an off - site parking agreement with the neighboring landowner, correct? Ms. Clauson answered that is one of the properties. The concept we have been discussing with the applicant is that there would be agreements to connect both the properties across the alley and the property directly adjacent to the restaurant in one off -site parking agreement that would be recorded against all the properties. Commissioner Kiser stated that one of the reasons for that is so the owner could not take the lot that presently has twenty -four spaces on it and develop it. That would be part of the permit and be a restriction as well. Ms. Clauson answered that is the same owner. The adjacent property owner has a lease, so the off -site parking agreement would be recorded against the property and the leasehold. The decision for the Planning Commission relates to the length of the lease, which is approximately fifteen years. This corresponds to the remaining length of the lease for Cocos. This is the lease that will be expiring in 2015 that coincides with the ground lease expiration on the restaurant. Continuing, she noted that she has asked for and been provided copies of all the leases and she has determined that they all line up the way it has been represented. Coco's has represented that they are doing this remodeling based upon the remaining fifteen -year lease. Commissioner Kranzley clarified that the building is on two lots, one is owned by the owner of Coco's and the other is leased. Ms. Clauson answered that her understanding is that Sibling and Associates own the restaurant site. Sibling and Associates also own the two lots on the other side of the alley. The lot adjoining the restaurant site is owned by a different individual who has leased in a long -term lease that property to Sibling and Associates. Sibling and Associates has leased the Coco's site, the adjoining site and the two properties on Narcissus to Coco's. Commissioner Kranzley noted that the building is on the lot that faces Coast Highway, correct? Ms. Clauson answered that there apparently is a partial encroachment of the back part of the building onto the other site. Commissioner Kranzley asked, what happens to the building at the end of the lease of the building? If the owner of that leasehold interest decided not to lease that lot to Sibling and Associates, then they could tear down that portion of the building that goes onto the other lot. Shouldn't we have some kind of bond to ensure that if that does happen, that we would not have an open, half -torn building there? At that time, we could enforce setback requirements between the two lots. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2000 Mrs. Wood answered that the building code would protect us in that event because they could not leave the building open and still occupy it. It would have to be finished off on the exterior to retain the certificate of occupancy. Mrs. Clauson stated that the applicant is well aware of this possibility and the whole concept is that this is going to be for another fifteen -year duration. The applicant and Sibling and Associates have an interest in buying that property and there is a possibility that could happen at some point in time. That is part of the combining requirement, that is the reason why you are being asked for the waiver of combining, so staff's suggestion that this long term lease being recorded against the properties would keep them from being separated and sold off for that period of fifteen years. At the end of the fifteen years, the situation will be the same, they will have to deal with the fact that if that other property is sold off and someone else wants to develop it, then they are going to have to get rid of the building or re -build the building to comply with the building code because it crosses the property line. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Clauson stated that it is up to the Planning Commission to make the determination that this is a sufficient period of time for the use with the conditions that will be clearly stated in both the off site parking agreement • and the use permit that if they lose the parking, then they have to provide it somewhere else or the use will therefore be terminated. They won't be able to continue that restaurant use without the parking. Referencing an exhibit in the staff report, Chairperson Selich asked if the area in back of the restaurant is indicated for any use on the plan. It looks to be about 730 feet, what is the disposition on that and is it restricted for table seating? Mrs. Garcia answered that the area to the back where it shows the community meeting /dining room is the 'back of the bakery'. The applicant has indicated that it is unusable, and has not labeled that area. It has been proposed that area is to be used for storage and not used for any dining. Staff proposes that the setback waiver for the original granting of the use permit remain in place with this change to the use permit. There has been no discussion to restore the original setbacks with this proposal. Commissioner Agajanian, referring to the site plan, asked if the footprint of the tower was on the adjacent parcel and if there were any restrictions. He was answered that it would be subject to the some code requirement for that portion of the building that crosses the building line. Ms. Temple added that if Sibling Associates could not acquire a further interest in the properly and the parking area property owner desired to develop that independently, they would have to tear the tower down and whatever else crossed the property line. Should that happen, probably the restaurant itself • would not be viable anymore in its current design and perhaps would be torn 4 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2000 down or substantially remodeled. The setback encroachment is on the rear alley side. Looking at the floor plan the side abutting the on -site parking is almost entirely windows. They could not be allowed under the building code if another building is built next door. They would be confronted with substantially changing the building as well, and since they would not be in compliance with the use permit requirements, the ability to maintain the use without further city review would also end. Commissioner Agajanian asked if the nine parking space lot adjacent to the restaurant was developed, what would be the potential for that lot? Ms. Garcia answered that the development standards for that would be .5 floor area ratio, which would mean 50% of the property could be developed as long as it could be parked. Commissioner Kranzley then spoke about the Speedway restaurant site that is vacant and without significant remodeling not a viable use. I am concerned that we are potentially creating another similar situation in fourteen years when this lease is up that we may be creating an eyesore. How do we get around that? I am concerned about the lot that the building is on that is not owned by Sibling and Associates. • Ms. Clauson answered that if the adjoining property owner that has the parking, decides he wants to develop it and doesn't want to sell it to Sibling, then Sibling has lost their parking and can no longer operate Coco's. That situation exists now, regardless if you approve this proposal or not. They will then have a building that has no use because there is no parking, or may have some commercial use that would be parked by the alley parking behind it, but they would not be able to continue a restaurant there. They would not be able to continue that building and the building couldn't be occupied if they had to shear off some section of that property. We would not have to have a bond for that because they would have to, under the building code, fix the building. Commissioner Gifford stated that the concern is about an eyesore. Perhaps staff could work on some thoughts with regard to condition number one, about the development being in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan except as noted in the following conditions... It seems that it might be considered in substantial conformance in terms of the plan. You might come up with some language to suggest that however if a portion of the building is required to be removed from the lot next door, a new site plan must be approved. They could just leave it there. Speedway is empty, but it is still there. It is not appealing in its present form to lease. I would request some additional language to be added to give assurance. Ms. Clauson stated one option would be to have the back portion at the point where it crosses over the property line put up a bond or something to have that back portion of the building demolished and filled in so that you have only the INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2000 front part remaining. This should address the concern. Commissioner Kranzley noted that the lot he is concerned about is the one that has nine parking spaces on it. The lot where there is a relationship with the owner of the lot that the Coco's is on is the bulk of the parking with twenty -four spaces. The use could discontinue, but another use could come in there with a parking requirement that would be less than nine spaces. Ms. Temple added that should that occur and the building owner decides to convert it to say a suite of retail stores or office and maintain the existing building that would still involve a substantial renovation to the building. In making that further investment in the building, I can't see where they would not pay attention to the aesthetics of the outside element. A substantial internal renovation would have to be done in order to convert it to another use such as retail or office. Commissioner Kiser asked if the tower element was included in the evaluation of the floor area ratio. Ms. Temple noted that the definition of gross floor area is the area within the surrounding exterior walls and buildings. This particular building does have walls and doors and is fully enclosed. Even though the tower element represents substantial architectural feature, we did not feel that it fell within the definition of gross floor area, in this case. Commissioner Agajanian, referring to the site plan, noted the dimensions along Coast Highway and along Narcissus Avenue and asked if those dimensions constitute the lot with nine parking spaces on it? If the lease is not renewed, could the existing restaurant come in with reduced tables sufficient enough to continue as a restaurant? Ms. Clauson answered that the lease on Coco's is for the same duration as the lease on the adjoining properties, so Coco's would have to get an extension on the lease to come in with some alternative application. I do not know if Siblings would give an extension of the lease if they could not provide the parking, or even if they would ask for an extension of the lease. The property could continue as a restaurant on a smaller scale with the side parking but the applicant would have to come back for approval for any changes. This would not be an automatic approval, because any change to the use permit requires that the applicant come back to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Commissioner Gifford noted that on page 10 of the staff report under the general heading of combining of lots and parcels required, the second paragraph states that Section 20.60.040 (C) requires that in order to grant a waiver of the merger, we have to make a finding that the estate in the real property is of sufficient length to guarantee that the lots or parcels which constitute the development site will be held as a single entity for the economic duration of the building improvements on the site. This refers specifically to the improvements and that INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2000 we have to make that finding. At the top of page 1 1 it says that staff feels that findings can be made to approve a waiver of the merger requirement because the lease is of sufficient length to guarantee that the lots will be held as a single entity for the restaurant use. I am not sure that I understand that sentence provides the basis of the waiver if you read it in conjunction with the paragraph on page 10 that talks about the single entity for the economic duration of the building improvements on site. Ms. Temple stated that the premise upon which staff was operating on both the improvements and the use is that the applicant has indicated to us that their interest in doing these improvements remains even if they lose the lease in fifteen years. They are satisfied that the duration of the lease is sufficient to account for the investment they are putting into the property. That is the basis by which we connected the finding and the statement. Commissioner Gifford noted she understands the applicant knows the risk, but questions how the applicant's willingness to take the risk allows a finding that the lot or parcels that constitute the site will be held as a single entity for the economic duration of the building improvements on the site. Chairperson Selich noted his understanding that the building lease and the • parking lot lease expire the same year. The applicant by entering into an agreement knows that his lease is up in 2015 and is basically saying that the economic life of the improvements he is putting in expires in 2015. Commissioner Gifford commented that if the applicant chose to say that the economic life expired in 5 years, I am not sure if it is the applicant's view or if it is an objective criterion. Chairperson Selich noted that the objective criterion is the applicant entered into a lease that expires on a certain date and it is not his opinion, it is the fact that he entered into the lease that sets the economic life. Commissioner Gifford stated it sets the economic life interest in the parcel, I am not sure that I see that it sets the economic duration of the building improvements. Commissioner Kiser stated that maybe what is being asked is that staff look carefully at this Section 20.60.040 C to make sure that the finding in fact can be made. Sometimes these sections are paraphrased in the staff reports and possibly that is the case. I share the same concern, that we want to make sure that we don't have a finding here in approving this that can't be made under that Section. Ms. Clouson added that the language she reads is the estate in the real property is of sufficient length to guarantee, I don't see building. • INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2000 Commissioner Kiser commented could we also come from the perspective under that ordinance being looked at is in fact the estate in real property that is being developed is a fee estate possibly by Sibling Associates, the owner and achieve a finding that way? Ms. Clauson answered that it says,'..where said development is found or intended to be under multiple ownership or combination of ownership in fee, leasehold or other estate and real property.' Commissioner Kiser stated the thought is that it says where the development site (reading from the staff report) and since what is being developed here is only the parcel which Sibling Associates owns and the development of the building is entirely on their property. Ms. Garcia stated that the parcel that has the nine parking spaces is 50 feet wide, so given that the 17.10 and 24 is 41.10 there is approximately an 8 feet, 2 inch encroachment of the building beyond the property line. Commissioner Kiser asked if it was possible that the master reciprocal parking agreement could be considered to be the covenant and agreement that is referred to in that section, that possibly we are needing to waive that • requirement? Ms. Clauson answered that there are two issues the Planning Commission is looking at: • Section 20.60.040 C is the waiver of combining that deals with the building crossing the properly line. • Another section deals with an off -site parking agreement. Commissioner Kiser, reading from the staff report said, 'the requirement for a covenant and agreement, a resubdivision, or a lot line adjustment may be waived by the Planning Commission...' Is it possible that this combined parking agreement which will have something to do with the use as well could be considered to be the covenant and agreement that is set forth? Ms. Clauson answered that is what staff is proposing, that this off site parking agreement would have the some findings and duration and affect as the covenant for the combining. Commissioner Kiser stated if that is the case then is it possible we don't have to waive the requirements of that Section because in fact we have a covenant and agreement. Chairperson Selich added that anytime where you have a situation where this occurs, you either have to require them to combine the lots or do a waiver. 0 Ms. Temple added that the off -site parking agreement applies to more than just TLT *7; 1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2000 these two lots. Ms. Clauson stated that if the Commission does not feel comfortable after they hear from the applicant that the fifteen years is not sufficient and there is no resolution of the concerns of the Commission, they do not have to do a waiver. The applicant can then provide us with a covenant. Commissioner Kiser asked about the part of the restaurant that has the community meeting /dining room space, is it parked per the 1/50 square foot requirement? Ms. Garcia answered that the community meeting /dining room net public area was included in the total request of 1650 and is accounted for in the 1/50 in the parking. Our initial evaluation was that if they want to call it a community room, by code it is net public area. It does not have to be a community room and can be used for a dining room. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Garcia noted: • there is a required ten foot setback on the alley • building encroaches 7 feet into the required setback • side yard has a service entry and walkway that is 4 -5 feet • • trash containers are on the property next door and do not encroach onto this property • outdoor dining area shaded by umbrella type tables is a controlling factor for the outdoor dining area not to become enclosed • Alcohol Beverage Control requires certain security types of features that include more solid enclosures, i.e., glass walls, etc. • Patio enclosures allowed without requiring more parking are becoming more formal than anticipated with the original adoption of the statute. • We are asking that there be no roof and that there be umbrella tables only - no trellis structures. Public comment was opened. Gary Long, representing the lessor and Sibling Associates, referring to page 2 of the staff report, clarified that the lots at 413 and 411 Narcissus are owned in fee by Sibling and Associates. The lot on which the bulk of the restaurant sits is also owned in fee by Sibling and Associates. The lot in the comer is owned by the Welter Family Trust. There is no relationship between the ownership of the Welter Family Trust and Sibling Associates. Sibling and Associates have been operating on the ground lease since 1959 and will continue until June 2014 when it expires. We intentionally made the Coco's lease concurrent with the ground lease. We have had discussions with the Welter Family Trust about acquiring that property, however, they have not indicated an interest in selling it. Therefore, when we entered into negotiations with Coco's almost two years ago, we told them the . maximum term is until June 30, 2014 with no option to extend. What happens in INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2000 2014, we do not know. If we do acquire that property depending on market conditions there may not be a Coco's there, it might be that a different use is appropriate. Otherwise, the building is torn down at the end of the lease. We are proposing to do a third remodel to this building. Our investment in the base building has been amortized away. Coco's understands that in 14 years it is gone. Continuing he added: • All three properties that Sibling owns and the land subject to the ground lease are leased to Coco's. • Coco's is leasing the building as well as all 33 parking spaces. • An off -site parking agreement is not necessary because it is not off -site parking but on property that is leased to Coco's. However, we are in agreement to do one. • Tower elevation is not as big as it looks on the exhibit that shows the view from Coast Highway and is an entry way only. The exhibit distributed tonight is not the final plan. • Intent is to remodel both buildings to make them architecturally compatible ( Coco's and Hazel property). • Adjacent property is the Hazel property where the dumpsters are. Tony Bar, Vice President of Development for Coco's stated that they want to do the remodel to change the building, as it is outdated. We realize that this investment is for a 14 -year lease and we may be out then. We accept the consequences if that should happen. At Commission inquiry he confirmed: • Area in the back that is unmarked will be used for storage. • Did not look at removing 7 feet off the back of the building to restore the original setback. • We have always had access to the trash dumpsters on the adjacent lot, as it is part of the lease for that use. Robert Bruck, 380 Stevens Ave., Solano Beach architect for Coco's noted that they asked for a trellis over the outdoor dining area. He asked that they be allowed to have the trellis in the outdoor seating area to afford a place to attach heaters and /or lighting. The other issue is the hours of operation. Tony Bar noted that they would like to close the outdoor dining at 10:00 p.m. to coincide with the regular hours. There will be no live entertainment or loud music and will not be an issue where it would bother the residents in the neighborhood. When we close the restaurant at 10:00 we close the door to new people coming in. Ken Agner, project manager clarified that the community room is strictly dining. We called it a community room to fit into this area. Most of the Coco's restaurants have a separate area for meetings or for people who want to put a group together, but it is a dining area essentially. 0 10 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2000 Marvin Nevin, Ocean Boulevard stated that this restaurant is a local favorite. He asked that they be allowed to remodel and that the handrails out front will make it more accessible. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Kranzley stated that he passed on some language for a proposed condition that would require that at the end of lease, if it was not renewed and not able to purchase a fee interest in the land that the building would either be demolished or remodeled within the framework of the existing architecture on site. My biggest concern is that we do not have an eyesore at the end of fourteen years. Chairperson Selich clarified that the two lots in the back are zoned residential and are used for parking. If they decide to sell those two lots off for residential in 2014 then the 9 -space parking lot lease expires. At that point in time, they would have to bring the building back to conform to the properly lines. If this is turned into retail space do they have to provide on -site parking or an off -site parking agreement? Or, are they allowed to go back to retail space in that building? Ms. Temple noted that in the background section of the staff report, the building • was originally built in conjunction with the off site parking. It would not be considered legal, non - conforming so with the reconstruction of the building and the tenant improvements they would have to provide the code required parking. Chairperson Selich stated that the unused floor area is about 15% of the total building. Is there any other situation where there are buildings where we have restricted that much floor area to non -use? A restaurant does not need that much storage. Ms. Temple answered that the primary vehicle related to restaurants is the limitations on net public area, and not what they are showing in terms of 'back of the house'. I believe that storage for items related to outdoor patio, umbrellas and extra tables is planned there. There are no windows or doors in that area. You could put a general condition that limits that unused area for general storage of the restaurant on site. We would then have an enforceable condition should they try to use it for another use. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to approve Use Permit No. 3678, Outdoor Dining Permit No. 72, Off -Site Parking Agreement and the Waiver of Combining Requirement subject to the findings and conditions outlined in Exhibit A with the following changed conditions: • Patio to close at 10:00 p.m. • Original setbacks should be restored in the rear of the property with permission to set the dumpsters there. • Trash enclosure on site. • • An open enclosure over the patio area to accommodate both heating 11 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2000 and lighting units. Applicant has said they will remove the building in 15 years if the two lots do not come under common ownership. This certainly satisfies the issue of economic life and allows for the finding of a waiver, however, a condition is to be included specific to this issue. Chairperson Selich added that in addition to the setback with all that space there, they could create alcoves outside the setback by the building to set the dumpsters in. Commissioner Gifford stated she would amend her motion Commissioner Gifford noted that her preference would be to allow the restaurant to serve until 10:00 p.m. but subject to our standard condition relating to a call up of this use permit if there are complaints. Commissioner Kranzley then asked if a condition regarding the requirement to tear down the property at the end of 14 years could be included. Commissioner Gifford noted that this is part of the record and we could make that finding. It would have to be incorporated in a condition or some other kind • of other document. Ms. Clauson suggested that a condition be included to make it clear that upon termination of the lease, or the loss of the parking, that the use would terminate and the building would be either demolished or brought into compliance with city codes. Commissioner Gifford noted that city code does not pertain to eyesores. Commissioner Kranzley noted that we are talking about nine spaces. The back of the building that would be removed (8 feet 9 inches) could be stuccoed, have a use there that requires nine less spaces and have a building that is an eyesore. We are not going to lose the 24 spaces; we are losing the 9 spaces and 8 feet 2 inches of the building. That is why I wanted to go into the architectural guidelines. Commissioner Gifford added that if you provide for remodeling, you are implicitly making a finding that it is not the end of the economic life of the improvements. I find those two things incompatible because you are acknowledging that the improvements have continued economic life. Ms. Clauson stated that if they lose that parking next to the property at the end of the lease, they intend to demolish that building. Things can happen between now and 2014, where they could get the property, they could decide to continue the use, or do something else and get approvals and remodel the • building in any number of different ways. My point is only that something else 12 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2000 • could happen between now and 2014 that they would have to get approval for and would have to be acceptable. If nothing happens, and nothing is acceptable, they have said there is no economic use for that building and they will tear it down. Commissioner Kiser stated that the practicalities would take care of the situation. If they have to remove part of the building at the end of the lease, they will not leave it open. They are very responsible properly owners. Following a brief discussion, Commissioner Gifford renewed her motion with the exclusion of the tear down condition. Ms. Temple noted that we could include a fact that, 'the existing building is in fact 40+ years old and the actual improvements being made are simply extending the life of a building that has already reached its economic life' and also that, 'the economic life of the building is dependent upon the parking and the lease.' Chairperson Selich stated that the motion is to approve the application with: • Outdoor dining hours remain the same as the operation of the restaurant. • Trellis remains on the outdoor dining area subject to the review of the Planning Director. • The building will have a ten foot setback • Dumpsters placed in an alcove outside of the ten -foot setback next to the building. All the gentlemen representing Coco's and the property owners agreed to these additional and modified conditions. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: None Absent: None Recused: Tucker 13 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2000 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR Use Permit No. 3678 Outdoor Dining Permit No. 72 Off -Site Parking Agreement Waiver of Combining Requirement Findinas: 1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan and designates the site for "Retail Service and Commercial" uses and the existing restaurant is a permitted use within this designation, and the off -site parking lots in a residential district is not in conflict with the General Plan. 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 1 (Existing Facilities). 3. The request of Use Permit No. 3678 to establish the parking requirement, the Off -Site Parking Agreement, and the waiver of the combining of lots requirement may be approved for the following reasons: • • The physical design characteristics of the restaurant are for dining purposes only and the alcoholic beverage service for the facility is incidental to the primary service of food. • The operational characteristics of the restaurant do not include do not include areas designated for solely for cocktails, dancing, live entertainment or other attractions, which would require additional parking. • The restaurant closes nightly at 10:00 p.m. • The restaurant serves primarily the local residents who either walk or bike to the restaurant establishment. • The existing on -site and off -site parking, and circulation system, is adequate to accommodate the proposed dining areas. • The restaurant facility is located in a commercial area that is comprised of uses whose parking demand does not occur simultaneously, particularly in the evening. • The off -site parking lot located at 411, 413 Narcissus Avenue and 3436 East Coast Highway is currently being used to meet the parking requirement of the restaurant facility and is located so as to be useful in conjunction with the existing restaurant uses. • Parking on the off -site lot will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. • The existing on -site and off -site parking, and circulation system, is adequate to accommodate the proposed dining areas, which have been used for parking for the subject restaurant since the . commercial building was constructed. 14 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2000 • The off -site parking lots to the rear, across the alley, are owned by the same owner as the restaurant site and will be maintained as an off - street parking lot for the duration of the restaurant use. • The restaurant is operating under a lease with both property owners, which is of sufficient length to guarantee that the parking will be provided for the restaurant facility. • A condition of approval is included, requiring the provision of 33 parking spaces in the three off -site lots and that the off -site parking agreement be recorded in the County Recorder's Office. • The waiver of the requirement to combine the two commercial lots into one lot or parcel is appropriate in this case, because the lots are under separate ownership with a long -term lease that is of sufficient length to guarantee that the lots will be held as a single entity for the duration of the restaurant use. • The existing building is in fact 40+ years old and the actual improvements being made are simply extending the life of a building that has already reached its economic life. • The economic life of the building is dependent upon the parking and the lease.' 4. The approval of Use Permit No. 3678, Off -Site Parking Agreement, and • Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 72 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 would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, for the following reasons: • The restaurant use is compatible with the surrounding commercial uses since restaurant uses are typically allowed in commercial districts and conditions of approval have been incorporated which will minimize noise impacts. • The restrictions on the use of outdoor - amplified sound and patio speakers and compliance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, Community Noise Ordinance, should limit potential noise impacts on the neighboring commercial businesses and residential uses. • The proposed outdoor dining is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. • The existing on -site and off -site parking, and circulation system, is adequate to accommodate the proposed exterior dining areas. • That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to walls and landscaping will be of no further detriment to adjacent properties because the site is already developed, and has been in existence for many years. • The proposed exterior changes to the restaurant facility will be an aesthetic improvement to the property. • • The limited hours of the outdoor dining areas should prevent noise from 15 .rLT* 3 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2000 adversely impacting the residential uses in the neighborhood. The proposed accessory outdoor dining expansion will not be located so as to result in a reduction of existing parking spaces because there is adequate parking available, on both off -site lots. The restrictions on the use of solid roof structures as applied to this approval are consistent with the intent and purpose of the accessory outdoor dining to provide outdoor dining opportunities. The proposal will not add a new liquor license to an over- concentrated area, providing only for the operational change of an existing restaurant with an existing alcoholic beverage license. Conditions: 1. Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. The interior net public area of the restaurant shall be limited to 1,650 square feet. 3. Nine (9) on -site parking spaces shall be provided for the restaurant on the • adjacent lot located at 3436 East Coast Highway, and twenty -four (24) off - site parking spaces shall be provided in the off -site lot located at 411 and 413 Narcissus Avenue. 4. The on -site parking plan, the parking plan for the off -site lot located at 411, 413 Narcissus Avenue and 3436 East Coast Highway, and the vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 5. The owner or owners and the City shall execute a written instrument or instruments, approved as to form and content by the City Attorney, providing for the maintenance of the required off - street parking on such lots for the duration of the proposed use or uses on the building site or sites. Should a change in use or additional use be proposed, the off - street parking regulations applicable at the time shall apply. Such instruments shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder. 6. Grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 7. Kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction of the Building Department. 8. The existing boundary wall between the off -site parking lot and the adjoining • residential lot shall be maintained in accordance with Section 20.82.040 of 16 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2000 the Newport Beach Municipal Code, specifically, the wall shall be a maximum 3 foot high masonry wall along the front 5 feet of the side properly and 6 feet high for the remaining portion of the side property line. 9. The existing 2 foot wide landscape planter adjacent to the boundary wall between the offsite parking lot and the adjoining residential lot shall be maintained with a groundcover that shall not exceed 3 inches above a 6 inch high curb so as not to obstruct the front overhang of parked vehicles. Plantings shall be planted in areas between parking stalls to screen the boundary wall. 10. Trees, shrubs, or vines shall be planted in the 5 foot wide planter areas along the front property line, and along the side property line on the corner commercial property, to screen the off -site parking lot and the on -site parking from Narcissus Avenue. A landscape plan shall be approved by the Planning, Public Works and General Services Departments 11. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code or other applicable section or chapter, additional street trees shall be provided and existing street trees shall be protected in place during construction of the subject project, unless otherwise approved by • the General Services Department and the Public Works Department through an encroachment permit or agreement if required. 12. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code or other applicable section or chapter, additional street trees shall be provided as required by Ordinance, unless otherwise approved by the General Services Department and the Public Works Department through an encroachment permit or agreement (if required). 13. 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. 14. The accessory outdoor dining for the restaurant shall be used in conjunction with the related adjacent food establishment and shall be limited to 382 sq. • ft. maximum of dining area. 17 INDEX . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2000 15. The area outside of the food establishment shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. 16. The outdoor dining area associated with the restaurant uses shall be limited to the area as delineated on the approved site plan only. 17. For sunshade purposes, coverings shall be limited to the use of umbrellas, retractable awnings or an open trellis sturcture with a minimum vertical clearance of 7 feet measured from the floor of the dining area to the lowest portion of the shade structure. The use of solid, permanent roof coverings ^• pehers shall be prohibited. The design of any trellis is subject to the approval of the Planning Director 18. Alcoholic beverage service shall be prohibited in the outdoor dining areas, unless the approval of the Police Department and the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board are first obtained. Any substantial physical changes required (as determined by the Planning Department) to accommodate alcoholic beverage service shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this Outdoor Dining Permit. 19. The hours of operation of the outdoor dining area are limited to between • the hours of 7:00 a.m. to -54W 10.00 p.m., daily; and that any increase in the hours of operation shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this application. 20. No amplified music or entertainment is permitted in the outdoor dining area. 21. Outside paging systems shall be prohibited. 22. Should problems arise with regard to tables, chairs or stools encroaching into the public right -of -way, private property pedestrian access or walkways, the Planning Department reserves the right to require the removal of all or a portion of the outdoor dining area seating. 23. The operator of the restaurant facility shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility. The noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code that provides, in part, that the sound shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified time periods. Between the hours of Between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Measured at the property fine of Commercially zoned property: 65 dBA 60 dBA Measured at the property line of • N INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2000 24. The patio shall be closed for the evening upon verification of non- compliance with any conditions of this Use Permit or Outdoor Dining Permit and, if the patio is not closed, the matter shall be referred to the Planning Department for action on the Use Permit and /or Outdoor Dining Permit. 25. The area of the outdoor dining shall be delineated with physical barriers designed, installed and maintained around the patio area to insure compliance with the Community Noise Control Ordinance (Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code). 26. The approval is for the establishment of outdoor dining for an existing full service restaurant facilities as defined by Title 20 of the Municipal Code, with the principal purpose for the sale or service of food and beverages with sale and service of alcoholic beverages incidental to the food use during the specified restaurant hours of operation. 27. This approval is non - transferable by the permittee or property owner; and should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current owner or the leasing company, that this approval does not transfer and that a new application must be approved • by the Planning Department. 28. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in the trash enclosure, or otherwise screened from the view of neighboring properties except when placed for pick -up by refuse collection agencies. That the trash dumpsters shall be fully enclosed and the top shall remain closed at all times, except when being loaded or while being collected by the refuse collection agency. 29. The applicant shall maintain the trash dumpsters or receptacles so as to control odors which may include the provision of fully self- contained dumpsters or may include periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Department. 30. Storage outside of the building shall be prohibited, with the exception of the required trash container enclosure and existing storage structures. 31. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal Code. 32.The rear of the building shag be altered to reinstate the required 10 -foot alley setback. 33, A trash enclosure shall be established on the property to serve the restaurant. It shall be located in an alcove at the rear of the buldling and • shall comply with all required setbascks. 19 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2000 Standard Conditions: a. 32. The proposed restaurant facility shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. b. The project shall comply with State Disabled Access requirements. c. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. d. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal Code. e. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or Outdoor Dining Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit or Outdoor Dining 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. • f. This Use Permit and Outdoor Dining Permits shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code SUBJECT: First Republic Bank Sign Nancy K. Parker, contact 2800 East Coast Highway Exception Permit No. 53 Request for an exception to the Sign Code to allow an additional 'time and temperature" projecting sign which contains a marquee type sign animated with mechanically changeable copy. Ms. Garcia presented a short visual presentation noting that the bank had just been remodeled and signage added. Additionally, she noted that the proposed time and temperature sign would be at the exterior of the building and project over the right of way. Existing signs within the City having changeable copy or animated in nature are located at: Heliotrope with time and temperature that encroaches over the public right of way - building records are not available to show when it was installed or whether a permit was issued. • • Newport Center Edwards Theater sign - copy is changed by hand, 20 INDEX Item No. 2 EP No. 53 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2000 animation is the neon tubing on sides. • Hard Rock sign in Newport Center - guitar strings have a strumming effect and copy scrolls surrounded by a flowing neon tube. Staff is concerned with the issue of the type of proposed sign could involve copy not governed by the City. It is possible that other than what the applicant is proposing, other messages could appear that may be detrimental to the general public. Public comment was opened. Jeff Jennings, 2973 Clay Street, San Francisco of Ad Art that does all the design sign work for First Republic Bank in all the California and New York locations. He stated that the intended use for the sign is for information on the Dow Jones, NASDAQ, time and temperature. In many instances it is only used for time and temperature and can be here if you wish. The software can be programmed for four seconds on and one second off frequency. Typically what we use the board for is around the area of ten to fifteen seconds per message. When we put this sign program together for this location, we did not exceed the amount of square footage for the building. What is consistent in all locations is the presence of the flagpoles, state and US, and time and temperature. The hours of sign operation • are three hours on before the bank is open and two -three hours after they close. Commissioner Kranzley noted that the Planning Commission could not regulate the messages. Why is it important that you have this sign? Mr. Jennings answered that the sign will bring attention to the bank. The bank has a standard signage throughout all their locations. The signage is considered to be a public service announcement and a benefit to the community. Scott Struber, 1415 Franklin Street, San Francisco stated that if you are traveling north bound on Coast Highway you pass this building by without seeing it. The facade is not distinguishable from a neighboring store. We are a customer service oriented institution and do not do a lot of advertising. People look at these clocks to tell them the time. Commissioner McDaniel asked if the NASDAQ information is on line or if it was something that has to be updated on a regular basis. He was answered that the software program runs this information via a modem and also includes Down Jones and S & P. The bulbs are 3 -watt lamps for a low intensity effect and will not be bright. Commissioner Tucker asked if the proposed sign would stick out from the wall 4 feet and 6 inches? Why do you need the changing time and temperature? Mr. Jennings answered yes, that the projection would be similar to the awning . next door in length from the wall. It is a point of reference and provides 21 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2000 commuters with information that they can rely on. It is also a light source that attracts attention and is not different from the rest of the signage in the area. Commissioner Tucker noted that one of the key findings for us to give this special privilege is that the Commission must make a finding that the approval is necessary to preserve a substantial property right. What substantial property right does the script generate that a sign does not generate? Our requirements are it is has to be necessary to preserve a substantial right. Mr. Strueber answered that we don't have to have it, we feel we are providing a service to the public as well as our customers. It can just have our name. Ms. Temple explained that the finding for this particular property is in order to have signage that is equally effective to any other business in the area. If there were some special circumstance surrounding the property where the normal code allowed signage would not provide signage of equal benefit to other businesses in the area, it may be necessary for the purposes of preserving the properly rights. Commissioner Tucker asked about the sign and what it would look like? • Mr. Jennings explained that the background would be green and is consistent with the current building signage. The area where the lighted script is four feet by two feet eight inches. The entire area will be lit. He added that they had gotten CalTrans approval for the use of the time and temperature unit as long as it is not faster than 4 seconds on and 1 second off. n U Commissioner Agajanian asked staff what the policy was about flags as signs or moving objects? Staff answered that they were exempt regardless of placement. Dan Purcell, 3 Canyon Lane stated that the only people this type of sign is going to service is the addicted stock picker or market timer who may be sitting at Starbucks. When you drive by this building, you can't help but see it. They don't need another flashing gizmo out there on the building. Commissioner McDaniel noted that he has been a banker since 1971. 1 looked this morning around our lobby and noted that there are three clocks there, my computer has a clock and I have a watch and two other clocks on my desk that were given to me. I know what time it is. The only time that anybody has asked me about the temperature has been when it has been over 100 or less than 0 in the entire time I have been a banker. 1 have been in forty some buildings and we have never needed flashing signs to let people know we are there. Our business development officers are always relying on relationships and knocking on doors. I find no reason to have a flashing blinking sign on a bank to help them with their business. 22 .IT*R • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2000 Commissioner Kiser stated that this would set a bad precedence if we approved this proposal. There is a proposal for a time and temperature issue and there is one in the next block on the other side of the street, so to the extent it is a public service in all deference to what the bank wants to achieve, I think it is already achieved. To the extent that it is for the Dow Jones averages, certainly I think that could be a public service, but with the amount of time that the copy needs to stay up and such, someone driving by would have to stop traffic to see it all. The biggest concern I have is that we can not regulate copy. It could be changed to any commercial use they wanted over the years. Due to the nature of the area in Corona del Mar, it would not be an attractive structure. Commissioner Agajanian noted his support of the previous comments adding the sign is not necessary and would be bad precedent to have a sign that sticks out over the public area. Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to deny Exception Permit No. 53 for the reasons and findings in Exhibit B of the staff report. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None • EXHIBIT "B" FINDINGS FOR DENIAL FOR Exception Permit No. 53 FINDINGS: That the approval of this exception permit is not necessary to protect a substantial property right because: Adequate signage can be provided on the building within the permitted 200 sq. ft. per face permitted in the Sign Code. This property occupies a highly visible location on East Coast Highway which has frontage on both the Highway and Goldenrod Avenue and animation is not necessary to provide adequate signage. 2. That the proposed animation is not compatible with the business area in Corona del Mar since the area currently has one non - conforming operating animated signs. 3. That the proposed animation is not compatible with the residential uses in close proximity to the proposed sign due to the potential to produce the effect of a flashing sign after dark. • 23 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2000 4. That the proposed sign is not consistent with the stated purpose of the Sign Code since the sign may provide the ability to advertise direct products, services and listings which is beyond the purpose of the identification and advertisement of the on -site business. 5. The approval of Exception Permit No. 53 w ll, 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 because: • The proposed animation could distract the attention of motorists, which could create traffic hazards. • The sign could create the effect of a flashing sign at night, which could disturb nearby neighbors. • The approval could create the standard and precedent for the approval of additional animated changeable copy signs. The proposed sign would stick out over the public area SUBJECT: Balboa Peninsula Sign Regulations Proposed sign regulations for commercial properties on the Balboa Peninsula and a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Code to implement the new sign regulations. Review proposed Balboa Sign Overlay. 2. Adopt resolution of intent to revise Sections 20.43.050 (Property Development Regulation N), 20.45.035 (Property Development Regulation T), 20.67.010 (B), and Districting Maps Nos. 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, to implement the new sign regulations. Ms. Temple noted that this is a commencement of the public hearing process for a set of special regulations designed particularly for the Balboa Peninsula. This has been worked on by a committee for approximately the last year or so. The sign regulations have been done as part of the overall peninsula improvement program that the City Council is pursuing. The action tonight is to only adopt a resolution of intention if the Commission chooses. The consultant that we hired to prepare the sign regulations is here and will make a presentation. Ms. Wood noted that this is not the start of the public review process, it is the start of the Planning Commission review process. We have had a lot of public • participation beginning with the visual preference survey that the consultant 24 INDEX Item No. 3 Balboa Peninsula Sign Regulations . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2000 did at the start and then all of the steering committee meetings. We also held a workshop for all the businesses and property owners on the peninsula. This has had a lot of public review so far. The steering committee members were Commissioner Gifford, Robert Jorgenson from the City Arts Commission; Richard Luehrs from the Chamber of Commerce; Tom Hyans represented Central Newport Association; Bob Rubien and Butch Wilson were two of the local business people as well as a representative from Peninsula Point. Additionally this has been reviewed by the Council approved committee, 'Promote Revitalization of the Peninsula' (PROP) who recommend approval. Mark Broeder, Urban Design Studio consultant noted the following: • Businesses on Balboa Peninsula are different than ones on a commercial corridor - smaller and on small lots. • Signs traditionally used such as'A' frame, projecting, and roof signs have been done away with. • Sign regulations prohibit some of these signs that are critical to the successful running of a small business in a pedestrian area like Balboa Peninsula. • A steering committee looked at each type of sign that is permitted /prohibited under the Sign Ordinance to assess how it could or should not be used on the peninsula. • Broad community consensus was gathered through a visual preference survey. The signs were presented in a manner to allow the public to choose whether a sign should or should not be allowed on the peninsula. • The committee took this information and evaluated them as to types, size, location, illumination, etc. • A new sign ordinance has been crafted as a result of this committee work for the peninsula. • Committee prohibited pole signs - but there are some that could be used in a creative manner. • We looked at 'what ifs' during our study and actually came up with a creative sign program. • We also came up with a set of design guidelines for quality in signs. The committee has worked hard in coming up with this information and I feel that as soon as this is adopted, the merchants from Corona del Mar will be wanting this some ordinance. He then went over the Balboa Sign Overlay document in the staff report. Chairperson Selich asked what will happen after tonight when we do the resolution of intention. He was answered that staff will advertise it for a public hearing and bring it back when staff has had the opportunity to address concerns noted by the Planning Commission tonight. Commissioner Tucker stated that he has read the report and encourages this • type of approach. I think that something like this will get adopted and after it 25 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2000 has been around for a year or so we will probably revisit this as the signs come through. There was a provision that indicated what signs were prohibited and I guess that everything that is not prohibited is allowed under the section that talks about procedures for sign approval. I would like to have some text about what is possible, as it only speaks about what isn't. Mr. Broeder noted that since this is an overlay zone, the underlying Newport Beach Sign Ordinance is still in affect. If the overlay document says something different than the Sign Ordinance, the overlay takes precedence. If a sign is not mentioned in the sign overlay as a permitted sign and is prohibited in the Newport Beach Sign Code, it is going to be prohibited. Continuing, he noted a couple of things that interested him in writing this overlay that came out were the prohibition of pole signs and internally illuminated can signs. Not so much pole signs because most communities want to prohibit pole signs but it was the internally lit can signs (plastic face cabinet signs). The reason was we showed a series of these in the visual preference survey and they continually scored the lowest in the entire visual preference survey. The sign on the bank item you heard earlier, only the copy is illuminated at night. It is a much more readable sign, a lot easier to read and a lot crisper and cleaner and more of an upscale look in signage. Given the types of people on that committee, they supported this. The reason is that they felt looking at a series of other types of signs, which used indirect lighting; it was much more appropriate to the ambience they are trying to create as merchants on the peninsula. I thought that was kind of different. The following was done by the committee: • They prohibited inflatable signs. • Talked about types of signs to be exempt from this overlay provision. • Talked about types of signs that are to be permitted. Commissioner Kranzley stated that on page 33 there is a picture of DP's sign as an example of a changeable copy sign. This might be confusing and I suggest that you use another because on page 40 that sign is an example of what is prohibited as a pole sign. It is also an inappropriate changeable copy sign due to white /treatment background. He then asked if there was a discussion on the differences between a mural and a sign. If you have a building that has a coffee shop inside and outside an artist paints a picture of people drinking coffee, is it a sign or a mural? Mr. Broeder answered that this was not discussed. I can tell you that most communities would say that if the mural has anything remotely to do with what is sold on that premises or what is done on that premises, than it acts as an advertising device. • Mr. Alford added that the current Sign Code states that any mural containing 26 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2000 anything relating to a product or service provided on site, is considered a sign and would have to abide by the standards for that district. Commissioner Kranzley commented that he was on BPPAC, and is pleased about the proposed incentive program for a rapid turnover of the signs that are not in compliance. I think you have done a terrific job, thank you very much. Commissioner Gifford stated that changeable copy signs should be included in prohibited signs. Commissioner Agajanion asked if any fiscal impact study hod been done with regards to the incentives being offered? Any assistance from the owners in removing their signs at their own cost? Ms. Wood answered that the monies will be coming from Community Development Block Grant. So for have the City has put into the Capital Improvement Program the sum of $5,000 per year. We do not know what the response might be. We may have to do it on a first come first serve basis. If it is very popular, we can always ask Council to put more money into that account to cover it. The state law requires that we can not ask business owners to remove their signs for a period of fifteen years without compensating them. • Commissioner Kiser stated this is a positive program especially the incentives for early changing and the 15 year duration. These are small business owners and this may be a real burden. I agree that changeable copy sign should be prohibited other than possibly for theater marquees, churches and museums and of course the gas price signs would be exceptions. Are banners considered by size? Mr. Broeder answered they are temporary and the requirements are on page 31 in the report. Commissioner Kiser added that 90 days total per year per business might be too much. I have reviewed several California cities sign ordinances fairly recently. I noticed among those that the temporary signage requirements tended to go 30 days at a time continuous and 60 days a year maximum. Were bench signs dealt with in here? Signs that emit noises or flash, were they included? Mr. Broeder noted that banners were a hot button with the committee members. Every community I know is trying to find a way to allow the temporary banners, but as you know there are those people who would abuse the ninety -day restriction. How does the City control it, it's a nightmare. The City usually contracts bench signs to the actual bus bench provider. I do not know what category that would fall in. Noise emitting signs are not covered in here, but if the current code prohibits it then that takes precedent. We have called attention in this overlay to the ones different than those in the code or ones we felt needed to be in here because they are dealt with on a daily or 27 INDEX 4P City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2000 weekly basis. Commissioner Kiser continued asking about neon sign requirements and stated that a list of additional prohibited signs be incorporated in the overlay. Commissioner McDaniel asked where clocks fit? Mr. Alford answered that this is done on a case by case basis. There might be a clock with a sign on it or incorporated into a sign. Whether it is a clock, a clock with a sign on it or a sign in a clock, the design really has to be looked at. Chairperson Selich noted his concern of this is not being codified in the Zone Code. Sometimes we are at a disadvantage, particularly in the Planned Community Regulations that are not part of the Zoning Code. We do not have a place to refer to things and we get issues in front of us and need to look something up when we get the staff report. It seems that this will affect a lot of properties. Why are we not putting this into the Zoning Code and why are we doing it as an overlay? Ms. Wood noted that there was a lot of discussion about this. However, because of the different format of this report with all the tables and photographs, and the value of having it reproduced in color does not fit at all with the Municipal Code, it would not be compatible. We would have to have two productions of it, which leaves the fear that the two might not be kept up to date. Chairperson Selich noted another concern he had was the approval authority table on page 22. He questions under the multi- tenant sign whether that should go to a Modifications Committee. We are moving into an area where there will be a lot of judgement regarding signs, aesthetics and interpretation. Our Modifications Committee is more of a technical committee and we might be better served by having the Planning Director being the designated approval authority. She /he can then designate a staff member who has certain qualifications to do this review. It is not uncommon to have a single person as a zoning administrator to make decisions like this regarding signs or minor variances, things of that nature. I agree on the prohibition of the changeable copy. Window signs are another problem, with people painting stuff all over their windows. What do we have to address this? Mr. Broeder answered that a regulation in the overlay states that window signs can not cover more than 20% of the window if it is a solid sign. If it is a free- standing channel sign where you would measure around the entire outside of the letters themselves, 50% total of the window area is permitted. Anything above those percentages would be prohibited. They are their own category. If you had a wall sign and an 'A' frame sign you can still have your window sign. • Chairperson Selich asked if you are allowed 80 square feet of sign area, you 28 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2000 INDEX could fill that up on your building and then do your window signs? Mr. Broeder answered yes and noted that the 20% number was the percentage that was finalized after much debate by the committee. We made a differentiation between the solid types of window signs and the channel letter type. The neon type signs could be included as long as it was next to the glass. The definition is on page 11. Bars and taverns are an unusual category. The sign regulations for the window signs are fairly well defined. You could restrict everything to 20% but then there is no differentiation between a transparent sign and a solid sign. The neon tube signs fall in the category of ancillary signs such as MasterCard, Visa Card signs. Ms. Wood stated that there is a size limit to them as well. Chairperson Selich then noted: Measurement of sign area - the measurement is around the background, the field counts as part of the sign. Time and temperature devices are considered incidental - the zoning code covers the size. • Commissioner Tucker noted that merchants will have an opportunity to comment on this. Mr. Broeder noted that some of the merchants gave input on this document. We had an open house on this. The word is out there that this is a merchant friendly document. Ms. Temple added that we will notice all business license holders and business property owners and anybody else we can think of that might be interested. Ms. Wood noted she would make a personal outreach to the steering committee members to get them to come to the hearing as well. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to adopt resolution of intent to revise Sections 20.43.050 (Property Development Regulation N), 20.45.035 (Property Development Regulation T), 20.67.010 B), and Districting Maps. Nos. 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, to implement the new sign regulations. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: I Additional Business 29 . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 2000 a.) City Council Follow -up - Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood reported that at the meeting of August 81h the General Plan Amendment and Prezoning of Santa Ana Heights was approved as was the General Plan Amendment for 1514 West Balboa Boulevard. 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 would like staff to check that the clock placed on the Prudential building in Corona del Mar is consistent with the final determination of that matter. The roof sign of Dave's Tax seems to have disappeared by virtue of the building that was built in front of it on Balboa. It was on the corner of 30th and Balboa Blvd.; I would like to know the disposition. d.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - Commissioner Gifford asked that when the Balboa Sign regulations comes back could we have information on the matter of flags (national or logo type) as being exempt and what it entails. Ms. Temple noted she would be compiling an ongoing list going back in history on Commissioners requests that we may not have reported back on and make sure when we have lighter agenda, that we are progressing in addressing those requests of the • Planning Commission in a more timely fashion. e.) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Tucker confirmed that he would be absent from the September 7th meeting. 0 ADJOURNMENT: 10:30 p.m. STEVEN KISER . SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 30 INDEX Adjournment