Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05-05-2005Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes May 5, 2005 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 11 file: //14:\Plancomm \2005 \050505.htm 05/31/2005 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins - all present. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Cathy Wolcott, Contract Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager George Berger, Program Manager Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner yll Ramirez, Department Assistant CONSULTANT: Ron Pflugrath, RBF PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on April 29, 2005. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 OBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of April 21, 2005. Minutes Approved Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: None bsent: None bstain: Toerge file: //14:\Plancomm \2005 \050505.htm 05/31/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 2 of I 1 • HEARING ITEMS OBJECT: Bayside Chevron (PA2003 -073) ITEM NO.2 301 East Coast Highway PA2003 -073 aw of proposed changes to the Bayside Chevron project fo� Approved ,mination of substantial conformance with plans approved as part o Permit No. 2003 -012 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -098. -rson Tucker asked for any additional information from staff. Company has special land use restrictions that have t d against the property. The applicant was unaware of Mr. Ramirez described the three proposed changes: • The Monument Sign (location and design) - removal of the stonework from the sign and the sign to be located 6 feet from the property line at Bayside Drive and Coast Highway; however, Mr Ramirez notes the City's Traffic Engineer has checked the plan: and determined the sign must be setback a minimum of 10 feel from all three property lines. • Landscaping - changes in some of the species of the trees. The City's Traffic Engineer has some concerns with putting large tree: in the same location as the monument sign, due to impedinc vehicle sight- distance. The Traffic Engineer is also concerned witt some of the species of the shrubs requested by the applicant, aE they tend to grow a little higher than the species that were previously approved. The Urban Forrester informed staff that FicuE trees are on the problem tree list and does not support plantinc Ficus trees. • The Canopy - change to a flat -roof canopy. hairperson Tucker requested an Irvine Company representative tc me forward and explain their proposed changes. Leo O'Brien, Vice President of Landscape Architecture for Urbai Planning and Design Group, took the podium to answer questions of behalf of the Irvine Company. . Landscaping - the Ficus trees were chosen to keep the characte with the surrounding area and the existing Ficus trees at the reta center on the west side of Bayside at Coast Highway. The Pini trees are requested to help screen the "service area" of the station. • Chuck Trevisan, Architect and Planner with Investment Property Groul or the Irvine Company, took the podium to answer questions regarding file : //H:\Plancomm\20051050505.hhn 05/31/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 3 of 11 he canopy. • The Canopy - the slope of the mansard roof is insignificant. Irvine Company is requesting a flat roof and canopy. nissioner Eaton asked if Mr. Trevisan was concerned with the of the canopy. Trevisan responded that the width is needed to accommodate of the gas station's logo. regard to the landscaping, Commissioner Hawkins asked Mr !n how he will he address issues of the Ficus roots intruding into the right -of -way. O'Brien informed the Commission that root barriers would be used trot the Ficus roots; however, the Irvine Company would be open ig another specie. Mr. O'Brien informed the Commission that the Irvine Company's intent to keep the sign more classic than contemporary by using a simr stucco instead of the stone on the sign. This will also include the remo% of the stone under the bay and on the building. Commissioner Selich commented that the City's street tree marn recommends the rusty leaf fig for parkways of 12 feet of greater; as is his case. n Tucker asked if the applicant understands that the has private right and can ultimately override the PL Cuevos replied that he understands. comment was opened. Vakili, owner of the Chevron gas station, informed m that they already reduced the size of the logo on nissioner Selich commented that the canopy logo on the 2- feet -high with 16- inch -high letters. Vakili said the newer set of plans depicts a smaller logo. Commissioner Selich confirmed that the logo will be under 2 feet and encroach into the crown molding area. Public Comment was closed. file : //H:1Plancomm \20051050505.htm 05/31/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 4 of 11 The Commission had a general discussion about the different e •of the three proposed changes. Upon questioning by Chairperson Tucker regarding all landscape including tree species and height of landscaping, Commissioner t proposed delegation subject to approval by staff. hairperson Tucker summarized the discussion by stating: . The Planning Commission does not approve the canopy change a flat roof from the mansard roof. The stone on the monument sign will remain; however, the Company will exercise their private right to approve the m used and the overall aesthetic look of the sign. . The location of the monument sign and the tree species landscaping will be determined by a future discussion between City Public Works Department and the Irvine Company. In interest of safety, the City Public Works Department will form final determination. otion was made by Chairperson Tucker to refer back to staff with indication that the Planning Commission determines the project being substantial conformance with the plans and with the guidance given he Planning Commission. The details of the open items are to be work out between staff and the Irvine Company, None None Toerge, Tucker, Selich, SUBJECT: Comprehensive Sign Code Update and Sign Design ITEM NO.3 Guidelines Manual (PA2005 -091) PA2005 -097 Code Amendment No. 2005 -005 to amend Municipal Code Chapter Cont. to 6-9 -05 0.67 related to sign standards applicable to all signs on a citywide basis with the exception of the Newport Coast and Ridge Planned Communities, and where sign regulations are not referenced in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area and all other commercially -zoned Planned Communities. The Balboa Sign Overlay and Mariner's Mile sign regulations will be repealed by these proposed regulations, and their provisions will be incorporated into the proposed ordinance. A Sign Design Guidelines Manual is also to be considered, in order to supplement the new sign code and establish criteria for the creation of ell- designed signs and further the intent and purpose of the sign code. file : //H:1Plancomm120051050505.htm 05/31/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Commissioner Tucker noted the items he wanted to initially address: ` The amortization program. . What sign types will be included? . Will Planning Commission recommend a program? . Concept of the life of non - conforming signs. What is the proposed height and amount of signage allowed? . Letter height. . Scope of the ordinance and conflicts with other code provisions. . Concern with heritage sign exceptions and the possible number of heritage sign claims this may generate. . Who will be responsible for the determination of a heritage sign? ommissioner Eaton added another topic: . How will the proposed regulations compare with the existing Code? Cole requested to hear about the Steering Committee and it worked. addition to his written comments discussed by Chairman Tucker, >mmissioner Hawkins requested that staff consider addressing several ier topics, including: Needs additional definitions for commercial speech and service `I stations. . Financial incentives for removing non - conforming signs. McDaniel wanted clarification between signs, billboards, and murals. Berger explained the need to update the sign code. Furthermore, Mr. ger informed the Commission that the Steering Committee was made . Nine members that represented the Chamber of Commerce and all of the Business Improvement Districts A resident member . A local architect . Chuck Trevisan, The Irvine Company Mr. Berger informed the Commission that the Steering Committee: . Met 6 times over the past two years. . The Steering Committee spent time reviewing the work of staff (including the City Attorney's office). . Perhaps the most crucial function of the Steering Committee was that they were able to respond to both the general public outreach effort, the sign manufacturers and business communities. Page 5 of 11 file : //H:1Plancomm\20051050505.htm 05/31/2005 • E • Planning Commission Minutes 04 /21/2005 . Possessed diverse opinions on signage issues, both conservative and liberal, creating active communication. Berger advised the Commission that the Steering Committee is 'king to produce a comparison to the existing code, and intends to ,e the information distributed to Commissioners prior to the next nning Commission hearing for this item. sioner Tucker requested information regarding the amount of and the height. Pflugrath reviewed some of the Steering Committee issues and Sign Area - In proportion with the buildings; proposing 1.5 square feet of sign area. . Sign Area Limitation - 75 feet for the overall maximum of the sign. . Roof signs - Not appropriate in most situations. Provisions will be included in the code. . Pole signs - Prohibited. Pylon signs are more desirable. . Signs on multi- frontages - applicant needs to identify a primary sign location and a secondary. . The primary will be provided the full, 1.5 square foot, sign area criteria. . The secondary will be provided half, .75, the sign area criteria. • Multi- tenant signs - Minimum of 12 -inch letter size to discourage t many tenants on the same sign. • Multiple signs - One sign per street frontage. Not including provisions through the Comprehensive Sign Program and Balboa Sign Ordinance. . Awning signs - No internally illuminated signs allowed at night. Limited to the valance and 50% of the shed. . Changeable copy signs - Could be allowed in conjunction with another sign through an innovative sign program. . Neon signs - Must provide the right amount of signage and not exceed it. The outlining of architectural features are to be prohibited. . Signs along the Bay - Determined not to really be a substantial issue. If an issue were to arise, there are provisions in the existin Sign Code that will be carried forward to allow the Planning Direcw the authority to require the sign to be dimmed. . Temporary signs - Allowed 60 days total throughout the year, but not all at one time. . Pflugrath then notes that the Steering Committee recommended that the signs that were to become non - conforming would have a 15 -year iortization period. file : //H: \Plancomm\2005 \050505.htm Page 6 of 11 05/31/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 "'" Pflugrath also noted that there will be a provision for heritage signs . nd criteria that will need to be met to be considered a heritage sign. Mr. Pflugrath then reviewed some of the Steering Committee's design missioner Selich requested to know the distinction between a pole and a pylon. Berger explained that one distinction is in the width of the poles. The (poles) needs to be a minimum 114 width of the entire sign width anc ?red with a decorative element or cover. nmissioner Selich questioned the reasoning behind allowing letters sheds of awnings, instead of only on the valance. Berger explained the importance of lettering on the shed portion of ings, especially in the pedestrian areas of town. Mr. Burger further ained that some of the traditional awnings have smaller valances i sheds and some businesses use their awning as their only sign. Chairperson Tucker asked if there were any limitation on letter sizes under Comprehensive Sign Program. Mr. Berger informed Chairperson Tucker that, at this time there is no limitation on maximum letter sizes. Mr. Berger volunteered to do some research in the surrounding communities to see what seems to work and ring photo examples back to Commission. missioner Toerge asked how multiple story buildings would be ted by the length limitations and the primary/secondary limitations. Berger explained that most of those buildings are in Planned imunities. In addition, the Steering Committee felt, in those ?noes, the request would be fairly simple to deal with under the iprehensive Sign Program. n Tucker wanted to hear about the sizes and heights of the and pylons. Pflugrath informed the Commission that the pylon height is proposed be limited to 20 feet; from the current limit of 25 feet. Tucker requested to know if there is a life expectancy for a Ms. Wolcott informed Chairperson Tucker that there is an implication in he California Business and Professions Code that the useful life of a ign is 15 years. Page 7 of 11 file : //H:1Plancomm120051050505.htm 05/31/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page 8 of 11 Selich addressed the topic of abandoned signs. • IMs. Wood informed the Commission that we do have a section on bandoned signs. :)mmissioner McDaniel requested a more clear definition to be ;tablished for the extent of a remodel that would require the removal of non - conforming sign. Cole expressed his interest in the incentive program. Wood explained to Commission that staff had developed an ntive program for the businesses on Balboa Peninsula, and didn't much success. Tucker asked for staffs thoughts on the amortization Berger explained that although the Steering Committee felt strongly ut a City -wide sign amortization approach, staff wanted to do a more cted approach to sign amortization. Instead of a city -wide approach t amortization, to take it in steps. The first step being poles signs, roo s and internally- illuminated cabinet faces that are non - conforming. Commissioner Selich requested that any sign over 75 square feet be added to staffs first step of amortization. blic Comment was opened. Luehrs, President of Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce nt on the Steering Committee, feels it's important to make: . the changes reasonable . the application process simple nmissioner Hawkins asked Mr. Luehrs if he was generally in favor of Steering Committee's proposal. Luehrs acknowledged that he is in favor of the proposal. son Tucker asked if Heritage signs could be identified upfront by staff. Wood replied that staff would not have a problem identifying s upfront. • Ms. Wood also informed the Commission that there is a provision allowing the City to be the applicant for heritage signs so that the responsibility wouldn't fall solely on the applicant. file: //H:1Plancomm120051050505.htm 05/31/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Chairperson Tucker clarified that the list of Heritage signs from staff • would be a working list not a final draft. Mr. Luehrs felt staff should not have that responsibility of choosing which signs they felt are Heritage signs, but that the business owners should take on the responsibility if they felt strong enough about it. Bob Roubian, Crab Cooker, expressed the importance of signs for ness owners, and the comfort it brings the public who recognize the s associated with the establishments. behalf of the Irvine Company, Chuck Trevisan, also a member of the ering Committee and the owner of Italiano in Corona del Mar Plaza, uested that the Comprehensive Sign Program have a wider definition, :hat business owners are not restricted to the regulations from the nned Communities or other policies. Wood informed the Commission that some of the newer Planned imunity Texts have Comprehensive Sign Programs incorporated in Jim Wasco, Crab Cooker, expressed his concern regarding the )rtization of non - conforming signs. r. Wasco requested that the Planning Commission to implement the ollowing changes in language to the Heritage sign provision: To provide provisions to allow otherwise prohibited signs (e.g.. roof signs that can be considered Heritage signs). To waive all fees for the review and designation of Heritage signs. To identify Heritage sign designations as perpetual. blic Comment was closed. Tucker asked staff to begin the Heritage sign list. Berger added that staff will also supply the Commission with the ria that suggests why the proposed signs should be considered tage signs. m was made by Commissioner Toerge to continue this item to 9, 2005 Planning Commission Hearing. Eaton, Cole, Tucker, • Absent: I None bstain: None None Page 9 of 11 file : //H: \Plancomm \2005 \050505.htm 05/31/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 Page. 10 of 11 • DDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted: Council gave the fina approval and adoption for the Code Amendment regarding the consistency of the datum reference points used for measuring heigh of finished floor levels and bulkheads in the beach areas. Commissioner Eaton was appointed Chairperson of the Committee for provisions to the Zoning Code. Council referred the St. Andrew: expansion back to Commission. It will be on the May 19, 2001 Planning Commission Agenda. Lastly, the approval of a professiona services agreement with Roma Design Group to prepare performance criteria for evaluating residential development projects in the airpor area. Report from Planning Commission's representative to Economic Development Committee - Commissioner Selich r that there has been no meeting. c) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to t General Plan Update Committee — Commissioner Eaton reported the first meeting they discussed variations in traffic generated different areas of the city. The second meeting was regarding fis, impacts. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Loi Coastal Plan Certification Committee - There has been no meeti since the last report. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff report on at a subsequent meeting - Commissioner Toerge asl about a property on Bayside Drive across the street from 2' Bayside. He questioned the wall that is in place in the front y setback. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on future agenda for action and staff report- None Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - Ms. Teml reported progress with the LCP; stating that we have receiv changes for the Coastal Commission staff. If we want any commer to be delivered with the Coastal Commission staff report, they need be received by May 19, 2005 for the June meeting. h) Project status — Regarding St. Andrew's church, Chairperson TL asked the church to sort through the document and asked • neighbors for feedback. i) Requests for excused absences - none. file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \050505.htm 05/31/2005 • 0 • Planning Commission Minutes 04/21/2005 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION file : //H: \Plancomm \2005\050505.htm Page 11 of I 1 05/31/2005