Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 07-07-2005• 0 0 Planning Commission Minutes 07/07/2005 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 2005 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 19 file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \070705.htm 08/19/2005 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn - Commissioner McDaniel was excused. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager George Berger, Program Manager Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None ELECTION OF OFFICERS: On motion by Chairman Tucker, the Commission unanimously elected: Chairman - Michael Toerge Vice Chairman - Jeff Cole Secretary - Barry Eaton POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on July 1, 2005. CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of June 23, 2005. ITEM NO.1 Minutes Motion was made by Chairperson Toerge to approve the minutes as Approved corrected. file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \070705.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/07/2005 Page 2 of 19 yes: 1 Eaton, Hawkins, Toerge and Tucker • oes: None N bsent: McDaniel HEARING ITEMS OBJECT: Master Development Corporation (MDC) (PA2004 ITEM NO.2 31) PA2004 -231 4200 Von Karman Avenue Recommended General Plan Amendment to Statistical Area L4 (Koll Center Newport Office for approval Site B) of the Land Use Element to increase the maximum allowable gross office area by 1,750 square feet, and a Planned Community Text Amendment in Professional and Business Office Site B by 1,367 net square feet in order to replace an existing one -story 1,330 square feet office building with a 3,08 square foot office building. Ung gave an update of the staff report noting the applicant has recei the Koll Company an initial approval of the project and that it had b, arded via email to the Commission. With regard to the square foot stment request, it has been removed per the Commission's direction of � 9th meeting. She then noted revised Exhibits A and B that % ibuted. Exhibit A has the square footage adjustment removed to reflect ing condition plus the proposed increase in square footage; in Exhibit B, s square footage has been removed that had been added for refere Commissioner Hawkins asked if the letter referenced in that email had forwarded. He was answered, no. nissioner Tucker noted the original staff report had a reduction in Exhibit A 1,060,898 to 1,062,648 and now that is back to 1,062,648 so that hasn' led and is to remain as it is today. Ms. Ung answered yes. mtinuing, Commissioner Tucker noted that on Exhibit B on Site B, it 5,216 square feet and in parenthesis 1,008,182 and the change has the 6 but it doesn't look the same. . Ung answered, that is correct, staff just removed the gross square foot a reference, since we are not using that number in keeping the PC text ne. It hasn't changed. McDonald, applicant, noted that he has met with the Koll Company at now support his application as they have stated they will be submitting 0 letter of approval with some minor architectural recommendations at construction detail they need. He asked that the Commission approve ti iral Plan Amendment and thanked Ms. Ung for her efforts and time. h 1 he understands the square footage in the PC text and concurs with ti rsed changes to the exhibits. ommissioner Hawkins noting the letter to be received from the Koll Comp< sked if any other documents, in particular a parking agreement is expected, Its the letter going to be sufficient for his needs? file: //14:\Plancomm\2005 \070705.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/07/2005 Mr. McDonald answered that it is an architectural submittal that he made and • is Koll's review rights as the declarant to review the project and the surroundir modifications to the parking area as well as the new building. There is certa protocol within the CC and R's on the steps to take. He then gave a bri overview of the protocol and requirements. arson Tucker asked the applicant if he had read the code requirements C of the resolution. McDonald answered yes, he has read and accepts the conditions. comment was opened. of Hoffman of Government Solutions, representing the Koll Company, not they agree with everything the applicant has indicated. She noted t ;ass and dates that have been agreed upon. She also noted agreement w changes made to Exhibits A and B that had been made for clarification. nmissioner Hawkins' questioning, she noted that the letter form is what aired under the documents and that there likely will be a series of letters. Michael Baines, on behalf of the neighboring property at 4220 Von Karmar Avenue asked about: • Review of plans and elevations. • Intended end use of property and whether this is a speculative development that will be leased to someone who is unknown. Chairperson Toerge noted that plans and elevations are part of the package and that the speaker can also come to the Planning Departmen to review them. As to the occupant, that is not under the purview of the Planning Commission. The zoning allows for certain types of uses. Any application for use not consistent with the zoning would require ar additional public hearing. comment was closed. on was made by Commissioner Toerge to recommend approval aral Plan No. 2004 -006 and Code Amendment No. 2005 -006 to t Council with the modifications to exhibits A and B. None McDaniel None 3600 E. Coast Highway Use Permit approval to allow a waiver of 4 off - street parking spaces for Page 3 of 19 ITEM NO.3 PA2005 -098 Approved file : //H:1Plancomm120051070705.htm 08/19/2005 • Planning Commission Minutes 07/07/2005 development of a new two -story, 3,250 square -foot commercial Ung noted that this item had been continued from the June 23rd sting in order for the applicant to work with the City's traffic engineer b se the on -site circulation for the proposed project. Since then, we e received a revised site plan, which has been reviewed by the traffic ineer who finds that it is acceptable. Although the parking layout is roved, staff does not support the parking waiver and maintains the >mmendation for denial. The attached resolution for approval has n modified adding a condition pertaining to the improvements on the Iscaping along the screen wall in front should the Planning nmission Choose to approve this project. Commission inquiry, Ms. Ung noted that the applicant had requested a itinuance to resolve some of the circulation issues. The Planning mmission is reviewing that application tonight. Staff is still :ommending denial of the parking waiver. rperson Toerge added the prior application had all parking on site a parking structure underneath and retail on top. Commissioner Tucker noted that there are conditions that need to be me in order to grant a parking waiver. One of them is that a municipal parking facility is so located as to be useful, in connection with the proposed use or uses on the site. The word facility is used as opposed i lot, which I assume the code would say; however it doesn't. This applicant is creating 4 parking spaces on Coast Highway. Not every parking space on Coast Highway is a parking facility, but I do think there is some room on this particular issue. To eliminate curb cuts and create arking spaces that are available to this applicant and the community as a whole on a 2417 basis and those spaces will be of use to nearby residences and businesses. Is there any information lacking that would live more guidance as to what is a municipal parking facility? Coast Highway is owned by the City. Ms. Temple answered that the principal guidance staff has on this question is the fact that we have never used as a justification for a parking waiver the presence of on- street parking spaces. With this or any other project, despite the presence of old curb cuts from the prior use these parking spaces would appear, regardless. We wouldn't seek to lose old curb cuts in any event for a new development on this site. To he extent that the Planning Commission perceives some ambiguity in the required findings for approval they could find that this appearance of additional on- street parking spaces was sufficient to justify that these municipal parking facilities could be used to satisfy finding number one. What's staffs primary hesitation is, and in fact a great concern, is that not only would additional applicants who might be in a similar circumstance seek a similar waiver, which in the City's mind or Commission's mind might be okay, but that applicants would seek generally to receive Page 4 of 19 file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \070705.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/07/2005 Page 5 of 19 parking waivers just because there were parking spaces present in the treet. That plus the history that we have never used on- street parking paces considered a municipal parking facility is the reason for our nmissioner Toerge commented that if it is clear that the basis for once on this particular finding was that new spaces were created and t the waiver was directly a function of the new spaces created, then t would eliminate most of the precedent value and would create an ument for staff to make for someone coming in the future asking for a ver with no new spaces created. Temple answered that should the Commission decide that is a ria that they would feel comfortable with, then staff would suggest we also be requested to amend the Code to change this finding to b r that it is either an existing municipal parking lot or only street :es in the event that new spaces are being created as a result of the :Iopment, so that it is clearly stated in the Code. By making this ng in its current state, you are finding that these on- street parking :es are a municipal parking facility and it might be difficult to argue any others are not, so we would want to clarify this in the Code. ommissioner Tucker noted he was not sure that he agreed with these omments and understands that if the motion does happen it needs to be clear that there are new spaces. The closure of those curb cuts on Coast Highway is a good thing and we have tried to have that done especially n Mariner's Mile. tiissioner Hawkins noted his concern over parking waivers and that the conditions we are looking at can be construed on either a or narrow basis with regard to a parking facility. He asked the City ey how the Commission should be construing the terms of a a waiver? >n Harp, Assistant City Attorney, noted that the on- street parking )es being created would not qualify as a municipal parking facility a the positive interpretation of that provision is just because they are ting new spaces, those spaces belong to the City and are not ifying as a municipal parking facility under the Code. He indicated the waiver findings should be construed narrowly. Eaton asked: . In the original parking report, it indicated that the Traffic Engineerii office did not like the design of the prior parking lot and included that a waiver of 30 percent of the required off - street parking is not desirable. . Does this concern still exist? Edmonston answered that the current proposed lot design meets our file: //H:1Plancomm120051070705.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/07/2005 Page 6 of 19 tandard. The amount of parking tends to be the Planning Department's . purview and the usability of it tends to be the Public Work's Department. At Commission further inquiry, he noted that the percentage does make some difference. When you are dealing with a small lot, even one space is a big percentage. nmissioner Tucker noted that in this particular case, if our rpretation is different than the City Attorney's office interpretation, do have the ability to have our interpretation prevail or do we have that Harp answered that the section is fairly clear, but the Planning nmission is the decision maker and can defer in their interpretation. Dmmissioner Tucker continued saying the Code Section does not say irking lot and parking spaces on the street are owned by the City, I am >t sure what you call them. In this particular case, I like the new design lot better than the old design, but the old design is something that they in go back to and create the additional parking spaces on site. I am not ire that the first proposal would look good in Corona del Mar, nor do the iblic any good after hours of operation of those businesses that are not )en. I do understand that the Commission would have the ability to take different interpretation if it chooses. (Commissioner Hawkins asked with respect to the design of the parking hat the rationale was? Edmonston answered that the prior design had a number of head -in ces that made it difficult if the lot was full for someone to exit and get ed around; whereas, now they are all perpendicular to the aisle so & risibility of those spaces is greatly improved. Toerge asked: The curb cuts that are there today, could they remain if the applicant chose to design a project where they were incorporated in its use? The 25 foot wide driveway aisle, is that our standard? Are the four newly created parking spaces along Coast Highway for sure, or is there something that might come up that might cause one or two to be eliminated? Edmonston answered: . Possibly, it depends on the kind of design. The City does not allow parking that would back directly out onto Coast Highway and we try to minimize the amount of curb cuts on our arterial highways. We would look to reduce the numbers, but that is not to say that there couldn't be some design that would be acceptable that would use both those driveways. file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \070705.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/07/2005 Page 7 of 19 • Our basic standard is 26 feet and what they have done here due to the limited space have made the parking space wider so that you can use a narrower aisle, it gives the same effective turning radius to get in and out of the space. • We do provide some amount of red curb at the corner and these spaces do not go all the way up the comer. I don't know of any reason why they would not be implementable. imissioner Tucker, noting similar concern, stated that he would ask condition 4 be modified so that if they do lose one of those parking s on the street, then their square footage goes down by 250 square ssioner Hawkins asked is eliminating curb cuts along arterials is a [icy or if it is something that staff does? Where does that come Does the City currently have an in -lieu parking program that a )er could pay into? Edmonston answered that it has been a long standing practice and it Council adopted. Ms. Temple added that the City Municipal Code has a section regarding commercial in -lieu parking fees; however, that program has not been used for many years and the fee charged is extremely low so as to be of • no use to provide funds for off - street parking. As a result, the City Council has asked staff to commence re- visiting the concept of an in -lieu parking program, which has been assigned to one of the Economic Development members of the Planning Department. �sioner Henn asked if there had been discussion with the it following the revised building plans addressing the issue of the shortage, and whether it was explored there could be some not tial modification of the building size that could allow for on -site Chairperson Toerge stated that this item first was heard on November 2004. At that time it was parked entirely on site and had a ground floor parking structure with all of the office and retail space located on top of he structure. It fell within the height restriction, met the parking requirements, but did not meet the building bulk requirements of the City While the parking structure is not counted as square feet in terms of FAF it does add to the bulk of the building resulting in the bulk of the building not fitting in the Code. It was 60 to70% in excess. Through that hearing project, members of the Commission suggested that there might be som reasonable alternative if the structure became smaller, was ground level and did not exceed the building bulk and that we might consider a parkin waiver for the newly created parking spaces on the street by the elimination of the curb cuts. comment was opened. file: //H:1Plancomm120051070705.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/07/2005 Gary Wiggle of Keisker and Wiggle Architects, representing the applicant, noted the following: . The circulation on site has been improved. . This site has no access to the alley. . This lot is narrower than the surrounding lots. . The difficulty is the distance from the building (post office) and Coast Highway in terms of the circulation that had been worked out. The reconfiguration that was done has enhanced the circulation and maintained the same amount of parking. . We are proposing a high quality project that is commensurate with the neighborhood. . The spaces that are being requested under waiver are spaces that are being created. . We recognize that the new street parking is not exclusive parking to our building and there is the opportunity for when our use is closed then it would be public parking, which is an added benefit. . We are in complete accord with the staff report and accept that the addition that losing a space will require deletion of 250 square feet. lioner Eaton, referring to the site plan, asked about the area the trash can and the building and asked what that area was for. Mr. Wiggle answered that the exit maneuvering of vehicles is increased by that area. We have added landscape against the stairs and back building so there is not a sea of asphalt. There is not enough room in that area to add another parking space. airperson Toerge, referring to the site plan, asked about the planter ween the 42 inch high wall and the parking spaces. Could the planter put in front of the wall instead of behind it? Wiggle explained the parking space measurements and aesthetic cerns. He explained that there will be a stone wall with quality erials and breaks. Cole asked about reducing the building size. Wiggle answered the building is smaller than previously seen. perty values are steep and it becomes an economic burden to reduce size any further. comment was closed. Toerge stated: This is a better project than the one that was originally submitted even though it did fit the current parking requirements and required no waiver. Page 8 of 19 file : //H:\Plancomm\2005 \070705.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/07/2005 • He does not support consideration of street front parking to be used for other applications for satisfying on -site parking requirements. . Clearly the two unique elements of this site are that it is eliminating two existing curb cuts and has no alley access. • He stated that he had studied the entire Coast Highway from Avocado to Seaward and then presented his findings of 31 curb cuts in 25 parcels; only 4 including the subject property, have no alley access. He then discussed .unique features of each of the four. • We would not be creating a precedent so long as our interpretation is in fact that this site is unique, the circumstances are unique in that it has no alley access, is eliminating two curb cuts and adds 4 new public parking spaces. Commissioner Hawkins noted: . What is key in this determination is the parking waiver. . We need to make the findings as identified in the staff report. . He does not see how we can make any of those findings including city metered parking spaces being regarded as a City owned parking facility as required to make the findings for parking waivers. Going further down the site to the Bandera's you have a parking lot which has parking spaces on a lot rather than on a street. . He does not support the expansion of the parking waiver requirements this far to allow for the creation of parking spaces that are really city parking spaces. . He agrees with the Chair that this is a much better project than before, but the problem is the site is limited. . He noted he would support a project that would pay some significant in -lieu parking fees but unfortunately the City does not have such a program. . He then noted that since the Commission can not make the findings, he could not support this application. Commissioner Tucker noted his support of the application citing the resolution addresses the problem with 'these spaces are qualified as municipal parking facilities located in close proximity of the site', the key is 'these spaces'. So the finding is on these extra four spaces being reated and that encapsulates the concern that the chairman has Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve Use Permit No. 005 -021 (PA2005 -098) subject to the findings and conditions attached to the June 30, 2005 plans. He then added another condition to read, 'T he extent less than four new parking spaces along Coast Highway are created in connection with the project, the square footage of the project hall be reduced by 250 square feet for each space not created.' Commissioner Hawkins stated that he reviewed the proposed resolution pproving the use and that he regards on- street parking as fungible and Page 9 of 19 file : //H:1Plancomm120051070705.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/07/2005 Page 10 of 19 oes not see that the locations of these on- street parking spaces are unique in any sense. He believes that anyone else can use this rgument eliminating a curb -cut and gaining additional parking spaces. yes: Cole, Toerge, Tucker, and Henn Noes: Eaton, Hawkins bsent: McDaniel bstain: None OBJECT: Hamburger Mary's Bar and Grille Restaurant (PA2005 -087) ITEM NO.4 4221 Dolphin Striker Way PA2005 -087 The applicant requests approval of an amendment to an existing Use Approved Permit to allow an existing restaurant to have live entertainment and dancing. Ms. Ung gave an overview of the staff report noting that there is no provision for live entertainment and dancing with the existing use permit and that is the reason for this application. Additionally, the applicant is proposing a smoking area outside with no food service provided. Chairperson Toerge asked what the difference was between a live entertainment permit and a special event permit. Ms. Temple answered that a live entertainment permit is approved by the City Manager and issued through the Revenue Division of the Administrative Service Department. It is issued to a person or a business and stays in affect so long as that person or establishment wishes to retain it. A special event permit is a specialized permit intended to address one time, or a once in a while event, and are also issued by the City Manager but are reviewed and approved by the City's Recreation nd Senior Services Department. The reason why this department is the issuing entity is because most of our special events are events that occur in our public parks. The special event permit process is much more extensive in that all of the affected departments also participate in the review such as General Services, Police, Fire, Planning, and Building Departments. Stan Sax, applicant, noted the following:' . 60% of our volume will be food. . If the kitchen is open after 9 p.m., we will increase our volume and that is why we are asking for the live entertainment. . We feel we can do this with karaoke, charity events and singers at our location. • At Commission inquiry, Mr. Sax noted the kitchen will be open as long as he operation is open. The hours are 11 a.m. to 2 a.m. file : //H:1Plancomm120051070705.htm 08/1912005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/07/2005 Tucker asked: S. The smoking patio, what is the treatment along the easterly edge on MacArthur? . How far is the nearest hotel from that smoking area? . Is the building on the east side being changed? . Is there a prohibition of outdoor speakers on the patio? Mr. Sax answered: • There is a four foot high wall with plantings so that it is not wide open. • The plans show a door that will be glass from the actual building onto the smoking patio. • No change to the exterior of the building other than painting and the addition of the patio. • There is a prohibition of speakers on the patio. s. Temple answered the closest hotel is the Radisson one block down on MacArthur Boulevard. Eaton asked about the palm trees on the smoking patio. r r. Sax answered that the palm trees are being saved and the patio will Ye built around it so there is no touching of the trees. hairperson Toerge referenced condition 20, noting we are not approvir bar, tavern, cocktail lounge or nightclub. Condition 16 states that the II menu will be available at all times. He then asked the applicant if he ad read and agrees to the findings and conditions as contained in the aff report. Sax answered yes. was made by Commissioner Cole to approve Use Permit No. 8 with all the conditions of approval prepared by staff in the *.rson Toerge noted that he sees no issues with these hours of on or the exterior smoking patio as the establishment is in the area. Commissioner Hawkins noted a proposed change to condition 20 - add, ....'or other commercial recreational and entertainment uses as defined by Municipal Code Section 20.05.050 subsection 1', which is he requirement that discusses those uses. The second proposed change was to condition 27 - strike throughout that section 'alcoholic beverage outlet' and put'restaurant. He then proposed to remove the verbiage ...if directly related to the patrons of the subject alcoholic Page 11 of 19 file: //H:\Plancomm \2005 \070705.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/07/2005 Page 12 of 19 outlet. Ms. Temple noted that the City's Zoning Code does not have any use classification for restaurant. If you wish to delete the 'alcoholic beverage utlef reference, it should be changed to 'eating and drinking nmissioner Tucker noted alcoholic beverage outlet operator really ins one that sells alcohol beverages on the site. Even a restaurant has 90% of their sales as food and has the authority and exercises authority to sell alcoholic beverages is an alcoholic beverage outlet rator, is that not? Temple answered it is, also definitionaly in our Alcohol Beverage et Ordinance but the change sought since this is not an ABO Use nit would not cause us any problems from an enforcement Tucker asked that the section cited by read. Assistant City Attorney Harp read a portion of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.05.050 subsection I, into the record which provides as follows: "Commercial Recreation and Entertainment. Provision of participant or spectator recreation or entertainment. This classification M includes cinemas, theaters sports stadiums and arenas, amusement parks, bowling alleys, billiard parlors, pool rooms, dance halls, ice /roller skating rinks, golf courses, miniature golf courses, scale -model courses, hooting galleries, tennis /racquetball courts, arcades or electronic games center shaving three or more coin - operated game machines and card rooms. This classification does not include adult- oriented businesses." comment was opened. Sax said this was rather confusing as they are not going to have �s, shooting galleries etc. He stated he does not see how this person Toerge stated he is suggesting that this exclusion does not any items in Section 20.05.050 Subsection I. Sax stated he agrees. ioner Tucker asked for clarification on the rest of the proposed sought by Commissioner Hawkins. ommissioner Hawkins answered condition 27 on page 27 strike throughout that section 'alcoholic beverage outlet' and put'restaurant. He then proposed to remove the verbiage ...if directly related to the patrons of the subject alcoholic beverage outlet. file : //H:1Plancomm120051070705.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/0712005 Page 13 of 19 Cole noted he would amend his motion to reflect these (PA2005 -091) I PA2005 -091 Amendment No. 2005 -005 to amend Municipal Code Chapter Recommended related to sign standards applicable to all signs on a citywide basis for approval the exception of the Newport Coast and Ridge Planned nunities, and where sign regulations are not referenced in the Sant Heights Specific Plan area and all other commercially -zoned ed Communities. The Balboa Sign Overlay and Mariner's Mile sign Aions will re repealed by these proposed regulations, and their ;ions will be incorporated into the proposed ordinance. A Sign n Guidelines Manual is also to be considered, in order to ement the new sign code and establish criteria for the creation o lesigned signs and further the intent and purpose of the sign code. Economic Development Project Manager George Berger gave the following brief overview: • The sections on 'A' frame signs have now been rewritten to prohibi them on private property. • GEIF and Open Space Districts - a set of standards have bees submitted with reductions from the commercial standards when appropriate, particularly for area requirements for walls am freestanding signs. • We have reduced the percentage of building replacement needei before Comprehensive Sign Program is required; the trigger for tha is now 20 %. • For future tenant and construction and project signs, we haw reduced the number of signs which a project could have had from different signs down to 1 sign on each project frontage, up to maximum of 2. Technically if you had a project that was going up of a corner that had three sides or one that is double fronted, yot could have had at least 2 if not 3 frontages for all those signs an( have up to possibly 6 signs. Now, the maximum you can have is 2. . The Heritage Sign program list is still being worked on. We have • been in touch with the owners on the initial list; however, it ha: been slow to get the calls back from them, and since some of tht sign owners do not know how old their signs are, so we are havin< file : //H:1Plancomm120051070705.htm 08/19/2005 wian cs. Ayes: Eaton, Hg Noes: None Absent: McDaniel Abstain: None (PA2005 -091) I PA2005 -091 Amendment No. 2005 -005 to amend Municipal Code Chapter Recommended related to sign standards applicable to all signs on a citywide basis for approval the exception of the Newport Coast and Ridge Planned nunities, and where sign regulations are not referenced in the Sant Heights Specific Plan area and all other commercially -zoned ed Communities. The Balboa Sign Overlay and Mariner's Mile sign Aions will re repealed by these proposed regulations, and their ;ions will be incorporated into the proposed ordinance. A Sign n Guidelines Manual is also to be considered, in order to ement the new sign code and establish criteria for the creation o lesigned signs and further the intent and purpose of the sign code. Economic Development Project Manager George Berger gave the following brief overview: • The sections on 'A' frame signs have now been rewritten to prohibi them on private property. • GEIF and Open Space Districts - a set of standards have bees submitted with reductions from the commercial standards when appropriate, particularly for area requirements for walls am freestanding signs. • We have reduced the percentage of building replacement needei before Comprehensive Sign Program is required; the trigger for tha is now 20 %. • For future tenant and construction and project signs, we haw reduced the number of signs which a project could have had from different signs down to 1 sign on each project frontage, up to maximum of 2. Technically if you had a project that was going up of a corner that had three sides or one that is double fronted, yot could have had at least 2 if not 3 frontages for all those signs an( have up to possibly 6 signs. Now, the maximum you can have is 2. . The Heritage Sign program list is still being worked on. We have • been in touch with the owners on the initial list; however, it ha: been slow to get the calls back from them, and since some of tht sign owners do not know how old their signs are, so we are havin< file : //H:1Plancomm120051070705.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/07/2005 to go back to find out the information. The list will be brought bad • for consideration at a later date. • Editorial and typing issues that were noted by staff and Commissiot members have been addressed. • The Irvine Company letter (which he presented and distributed) is t( be discussed. • A question on abandoned signs has come up. The City Attorne,. has asked that we add a clause on page 51, 'An abandoned sign o a non - conforming abandoned sign shall be immediately remove( by the owner or lessee.....' The reason is the difference in California law for the time frame that can be used to remove an abandonec sign versus an abandoned non- conforming sign. • Comments on the table for GEIF on page 25; the text was clarifies to allow awning signs and wall signs but to preclude window sign: from being allowed as they are not appropriate. The footnotes hav( been left off below the table will be added - they are the same as of page 23, which are the same footnotes as for the regula commercial signs. • In the Irvine Company letter, item 1 - staff feels it could go eithe way, but we would like your input so that this can be addressed. The request is to change the wording on Item 1 to suggest a mon objective standard; whichever is lower is more objective than wha The Irvine Company suggested that we revise it to, which is, a: determined by the Planning Director. The Planning Director, if practice, is capable of making that decision; however, The Irvin( Company is correct that whichever is lower allows for less discretion. We would like to bring this to you and ask you preference. imissioner Cole asked what is the concern of the Irvine Company spurred the request? Berger answered that the concern is that the pad for a building that lower or far higher than the roadway. He discussed the placement is on berms. He concluded that The Irvine Company is asking for ch discretion as they can get because they do have so many pieces perty that are height challenged. Discussion followed. t Commission inquiry, Mr. Berger discussed in further detail position on comments /suggestions made in The Irvine Company ated June 15, 2005. Ms. Wood discussed the possible ramifications of administration. Page 14 of 19 file : //H: \Plancomm\2005 \070705.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/07/2005 Page 15 of 19 Commissioner Tucker noted the following: •• Page 4 of the Sign Ordinance - spelling of supersede • Page 19 - a lot of language in the text plus tables that are to be quick look up for the text. If there is a conflict between the text ar tables, what prevails? He suggested that a sentence be added th favors the text, as that is the most precise. • Page 27 - Awning maintenance item number 7, delete as there is maintenance section that covers a lot more detail. • Page 38 - the inconsistency language regarding text and tables c page 19 is also noted here. • Page 44 - section B, sign permit requirement. The last sentenc strike 'applicant should be aware that'.... • Page 48 C - insert ...'is the approving authority' after The Zonir Administrator. He noted his concern that an applicant ha) recourse to apply for a bigger than 20 to 30 percent above th allowed. Ms Wood answered that a modification could cov something beyond the 20 to 30 percent. Commissioner Eat( suggested inserting a sentence, 'Any request in excess of the; figures would require a modification.' • For the Comprehensive Sign Program, the Zoning Administrator the approving authority and therefore the Planning Director is n involved. r. Berger noted that in a number of circumstances, the Planning Direct can make a request that a Comprehensive Sign Program be required. F proceeded to give scenarios. , Commissioner Tucker noted: . Page 48 paragraph 5 - change text to '....total number, and/or height of the signs...' . Page 52 - combine 5 and 6 and just say an abandoned sign. Page 51 - the time frames may be different but it seems that word abandoned and nonconforming are similar. Discus followed. aron Harp stated that abandoned signs and abandoned nonconfc igns are defined differently. The abandoned non - conforming sig piecific requirements; we broke it out for clarity. At Commission ii he explained that in the California Business and Professions Code file : //H:1Plancomm\20051070705.htm 08119/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/07/2005 Page 16 of 19 dare specific provisions on when you can get rid of an abandoned nc conforming sign. The way we define a non - conforming sign mirrors tt definition used in the Code including the 90 day requirement that it has be abandoned before it can be removed without the City having to pay have the sign removed. An abandoned sign is a broader definiti because it applies to all signs that do not fall into that non - conformi category. The differences are not major, but there are differences. T case law of abandoned signs turns on when and how you actua stablish that it -has in fact been abandoned. We included the tir provisions for the same basically so that it all runs together. , Commissioner Tucker noted: Page 53 - changes in proper maintenance - add langua! '....display surface shall be kept clean and painted and repaired all times.' Additionally, in the third sentence, '....faded, cracked, broken faces or surfaces and .....' Aaron Harp noted that in the modification permit - if someone is lookir or 20 to 30 percent more, then they are coming in for the Comprehensh Sign Program; they would be coming in for a modification permit as yc are looking for more than what could be achieved through tt Comprehensive Sign Program, so you could justify it under It modification permit provisions. • Ms. Wood noted there could be instances where the applicant cou apply for both. Discussion followed. rmissioner Hawkins agreed with Commissioner Tucker's added referencing page numbers in the Sign Code: . Page 11 Definitions: - Portable 'A' sign should be stricken. Mr. Berger agreed. . Page 6 - change the language in definition of A -Frame Sign to read, A freestanding portable sign usually used on public sidewalks hinged at the top, or attached in a similar manner, and widening.....' Page 13 - definition of service station. A reference to fuel should fall within this definition. Wolcott answered that is the definition in the California Code de; i service stations signs specifically, so we took their definition. It written to cover marina vehicles. Ms. Temple added that this code will be in Title 20, it will only apply • oned property. The fuel docks are typically not on zoned property a ould not apply. file : //H:\Plancomm120051070705.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/07/2005 Page 17 of 19 (Commissioner Hawkins continued: . Page 35 - Paragraph 17, add '.....approval of a Modification Permit.' )mmissioner Tucker proposed the following language on page 48. ,cond sentence in 'c', The Zoning Administrator shall not approve ar ;rease in sign height by more than 20 percent above that allowed or ar ;rease in sign area by more than 30 percent above that allowed absem modification permit.' He then charged Mr. Harp to contemplate thi: )guage to be sure that this would not create a hardship or problem sewhere in the document. Harp agreed. Berger added one more strikeout in the definition of 'A' frame sign. f would like to strike out the 'usually used on public sidewalks' clause. n was made by Commissioner Eaton to recommend Amendment No. 2005 -005 to the City Council with the i tonight. comment was opened. Ron Pflugrath, commended the Commission and staff for their iligence on this item, and noted that the lengthy 2+ year process i ade a difference in getting it right. 3sioner Cole noted at the first hearing there was feedback ed parties. He asked if they will be kept up to date as tc sings of this meeting in particular the Chamber of Commerce. his concern that there seemed to have been little a ation by citizens on this important matter. Berger noted the full subcommittee had not been kept up to date process had moved from the committee review stage to the Planni omission stage other than individually by him during course versation. The Chamber of Commerce representative has be ping updated on this item because he also sits on the Executi nmittee of the Economic Development Committee, and we have kE n updated regularly. We will be making versions of the guidelines subcommittee as they are approved. Commissioner Tucker asked about the Heritage Sign list, and what plan was for it. Mr. Berger noted it will be coming back to the Plam Commission for review before the City Council adopts it. There are pl to have at least 3 meetings on this item at the Council level - one SI . Session and two regular public hearings. Ms. Wood added that the motion to approve should also include file : //H:\Plancomm\2005 \070705.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/0712005 Page 18 of 19 Planning Commission approval of the Sign Design Guidelines as well. • he maker of the motion agreed. Public comment was closed. Aye s: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker Noes: None bsent: McDaniel bstain: Henn ADDITIONAL BUSINESS City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple reported that the Cod Amendment for the requirements for parking standards ft condominium conversions was discussed in detail. Ste recommended a requirement for a condominium conversions existing units that could be allowed only when the current code fc parking was met within the project. She noted the discussion i detail. The City Council introduced the change leaving it at the cod in existence at the time the unit was constructed for two -fami properties and for current code for all others. It will be coming bac for second reading and final action. The question of the duplexes w be coming back to the Planning Commission at the August 41 meeting. The other item was a discussion regarding scheduling f( the public hearing of the St. Andrew's Church expansion project whic was set for August 9th for the opening of the public hearing wii adjournment to August 11th; that will be the only item on the agenda. b) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Econom Development Committee - none. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the Plan Update Committee - no meeting. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Lo Coastal Plan Certification Committee - Chairperson Toerge report that there were meetings June 27th and 30th in an effort to review 1 comments that were responses from the Coastal Commission tl were responses to our original submission of our LCP. Staff currently coordinating biological responses and the next meeting not yet scheduled. Ms. Temple noted that there is a schedul Coastal Commission meeting on August 11th. Discussion followed. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Zoninc Committee - Chairperson Toerge noted the last meeting was June 29th and they are charged to make the code easier to understand. Topics of discussion were building heights and how they are . f determined, and how to make proper grade determinations Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on a file : //H:1Plancomm120051070705.htm 08/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 07/07/2005 Page 19 of 19 subsequent meeting - Chairperson Toerge appealed the condomink • conversion at 701 Begonia. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on future agenda for action and staff report - none. 0 0 Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - Ms. Temple stated that on -going projects have been placed on the additiona business. The last remaining big item was the Sign Code and of the two items left it is unlikely to have staff resources in the near future. Unless something new comes up, you will not be seeing any furthe updates. Project status - Our Lady Queen of Angels is a complete applicati and is in environmental review. Commissioner Tucker reported ti the Marina park project next meeting on July 19th will be the last the presentations. All of those land use scenarios will be forwarded Council for determination. Ms. Temple noted that an initial stu process has been completed for the retail application at Dover a PCH. Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Tucker will be on July 21st as will Commissioner Henn, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNI file : //H.Tlancomm120051070705.htm 08119/2005