Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/22/2002• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2002 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Commissioners Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich and Tucker - Commissioner Tucker arrived at 6:40 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia Temple, Planning Director Dan Ohl, Deputy City Attorney Rich Edmonton, Transportation /Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Todd Weber, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary Minutes: Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to approve the minutes of August 8, 2002 as amended. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Gifford, Selich Noes: None Excused: Tucker Public Comments: Posting of the Agenda: The Planning Commission agenda was posted on Friday, August 16, 2002. Minutes Approved None Posting of Agenda • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2002 from 08/08/2002) 611 E. Balboa Blvd. Request for Use Permit No. 2002 -013 to establish an Alcoholic Beverage Outlet (ABO) with Type 20 and Type 42 licenses to permit both retail wine sales and limited, ancillary on -site consumption and wine tasting. The project also includes a request for a waiver of the off street parking requirements. Ms. Temple reported that the applicant requested that this item be continued to September 5, 2002. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to continue this item to September 5, 2002. Ayes: Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich Noes: None Excused: Tucker xxx SUBJECT: Capri Blu Ristorante • 1617 Westcliff Drive Request for a Use Permit to allow an Eating and Drinking Establishment and to authorize the sale of alcoholic beverages for on -site consumption pursuant to the Alcoholic Beverage Outlet Ordinance (ABO) located within the Westcliff area. The application also includes a request for a parking waiver. Ms. Temple noted that the applicant presented a revised floor plan to staff shortly before this evening's meeting with the intent to reduce the net public area so as to further reduce the requested parking waiver. We will be providing some recalculated numbers, but we do not have a hand out for review. Staff then distributed a copy of the latest floor plan. James Campbell, Senior Planner noted: • The original staff report was based upon the floor plan attached to the report. • That floor plan had a net public area of ±1,600 square feet. • The revised floor plan (distributed to the Planning Commission) shows the primary expansion of the kitchen area and better clarifies the net public area. • The bar area is delineated more accurately and there are better square footage calculations for the floor plan. • One change necessary is that the entry area as well as a portion of the area called waiter /service area would actually be net public area. • The total net public area as calculated is 1,439 square feet and the total net public area for parking purposes Is 1,229 square feet, which includes the INDEX PA2002 -074 Continued to 09/05/2002 Item 2 PA2002 -117 Approved . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2002 outdoor patio credit based on 25% of the net public area. • The Code required parking for this tenant would be 41 spaces using the 1/30 ratio, 31 spaces for the 1140 ratio and 25 spaces for the 1/50 ratio. • There would still be a deficiency of 23 spaces utilizing the 1/30 ratio, 13 spaces utilizing the 1140 ratio and 7 spaces utilizing the 1/50 ratio. • This type of restaurant, based upon the applicant's statements and staff's understanding of the operational characteristic should be 1140 ratio. That would create a parking deficiency of 13 spaces. • The applicant has been refining his floor plan and reducing the net public area due to the concern of the lack of parking during the lunch time hour. • Staff is recommending that this restaurant not be opened during the noon hour due to the parking shortfall and the potential impacts to the abutting properties. • The applicant has prepared a parking analysis that indicates the noon parking is fairly congested. Given the previous size of the restaurant, it might fail at that hour, hence the recommendation not to open during the noon hour. • Alcoholic beverages are proposed to be served at this restaurant; the analysis related to the ABO is in the staff report. Public comment was opened. • Giuseppe Vitiello, owner of Capri Blu Ristorante commented: • The project was intended to serve lunch and dinner. The lunch business is a vital part of the business plan that we worked out for this location. • There is a parking deficiency but I don't think our business will be full house everyday. • We will have a lot of walk -in business. • A patio outside when there is good weather will be busy, but when it is cold or rainy, we will lose that seating because patrons will not be seated out there. • The parking study showed that there was adequate parking. At Commission inquiry staff noted that the Coastal Commission had imposed a partial closure limitation on other restaurants. From an enforcement point of view, it could work where there are separate rooms allowing for a clear and distinct delineation made of the open area. With an open floor plan such as this, even if we impose the requirement and they used a 'velvet rail' technique, it is hard to actually turn people away when they walk in and see empty tables. This floor plan does present that more 'open concept'. Some of the reductions that have assisted getting closer to the parking numbers are strategies to clearly identify areas that the waiters use only and those we believe are very readily enforceable. Ms. Temple noted that on the new revised floor plan the applicant is indicating a small area as a private dining area with apparently some ability to close some 'accordion' doors. That may be a way to further reduce the daytime net public area. Discussion followed on similar area restrictions for a few area restaurants. to INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2002 Chairperson Laser asked the applicant if he had a problem with a condition of having the private dining area not open at the lunch hour. Mr. Vifiello answered that his concept was to get the whole restaurant open because this type of restaurant is a sit down lunch with a full liquor license. It will not be a quick turnover. It might take an hour and fifteen minutes to have lunch. We can shut down that area if that is what it will take, however the whole area being open will not generate that much traffic in the restaurant. We have about 600 square feet inside remaining for dining that will seat about 50 people, another 20-30 people outside. If that is the alternative, we can shut it down with velvet curtains. There is some additional parking on Sherington Place that could be used. Chairperson Kiser noted that the parking area is very busy during the day. Referring to the floor plan, then asked about the entrances. Mr. Vitiello then explained the floor plan: • Service areas. • Employee areas. • Outdoor seating area. • Outdoor service /garden - no tables, no seating. The area is gated on either side per the ABC requirements. Private dining area. Mr. Campbell added that this floor plan was presented to staff five minutes prior to tonight's meeting. New computations were made as it does reduce the net public, however, there has been no discussion with the applicant on the use of the interior spaces based upon the new floor plan. Ms. Temple noted that the applicant had indicated in the initial meeting of the Development Review Committee that this corridor area needed to remain open and passable for other occupants of the building. There may be some problems with the ABC requirements and whether this outdoor service /garden is net public area. We might want to look at the ABC requirements further so that staff knows how to condition this properly. Mr. Vitiello explained that this outdoor service /garden is to be used for the servers to access the patio because the ABC requires that if the server comes out with a tray full of drinks, he can not go through an area that is not covered as part of our restaurant. No seating is intended for patrons in this area. The bar area is intended for the main waiting area. Steve Gaffney, architect, noted: • The original plan did not have the kitchen design. • We have worked with the Building and Fire Departments coming up with the total number of occupants for exiting reasons and bathroom fixture count. • The issue of the outdoor dining in the original area was that it was large and had quite a few occupants for the occupancy load. A INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2002 • The plan was to restrict the outdoor seating area to 500 feet. • In crossing the outdoor service /garden area to get to the outdoor seating, the ABC required fencing on either side of the 'corridor'. • The intent is not to have any diners or any patrons in that garden area. • It is a public garden area and anybody can come there whether it is used as access to the restaurant or not. • The issue is that we have to control who is going in there from an ABC standpoint. • No seating or tables will be in that area and it will be decorated with potted plants and can be used for egress area. • If you have a drink in your hands, you are either Inside the restaurant or in the 500 square foot dining area on the other side. • It is a common public area and not a private area. • We have worked out both with Fire and Building Departments issues of the occupancy count and ADA compliance. • We are re- building the restrooms. • We have not changed the building area; we have reclassified what we are calling the different areas. • The private dining area inside can be closed while there is dining on the outside patio area and on a non -sunny or cold day, the outdoor dining patio can be closed. Either way there will be a reduction in the number of patrons there at noon. • We did actual parking counts that showed a larger number of occupants and showed a deficiency between 11 and noon. • We can monitor the situation and after the first three months of operation, we can update that study to reflect what is really happening out there. We could then come back and change or reduce any restrictions you may place on this application. • The outdoor service /garden area is a common area. The reason for the gates is due to the ABC restrictions. Ms. Wood asked about the outdoor service /garden area, which is required by the ABC to be fenced off, is that required to be an open circulation area by the landlord? Mr. Gaffney answered no; there is access to public area without using this outdoor service /garden area. It does give access from the parking on the right hand side of the building to that area without having to go around, but it is not an egress issue from a life safety standpoint. Members of the public would be able to walk through that area and this is an acceptable condition to the ABC. At Commission inquiry he noted further: • Bar seating is stools. • There are no tables in that area. Gary Rettig, D. C. landlord of the building noted that it has been a goal to get a restaurant to replace the previous restaurant. In talking to some of the other tenants, this is very desirable to our area. A restaurant such as this will be enthusiastically greeted. The majority of the lunch trade will be walk -in because of INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2002 the surrounding businesses. As a member of the community I support having them open for lunch. At Commission inquiry, he noted that the other tenants only concern was the smell of spaghetti sauce cooking. Commissioner McDaniel, noting his experience as a banker with a restaurant moving in, stated that the parking situation is atrocious at lunchtime. You have talked to your other tenants and they are okay with this? Dr. Rettig noted that most of his tenants are closed at lunchtime. The only one not closed is the hair salon. Everyone I have talked to has been enthusiastic about this restaurant coming in. Commissioner Tucker also noted his concern of the parking. When I go there at lunchtime, it is crowded and seems crowded all the time. I wonder where everyone is going to go? Dr. Rettig noted and clarified that his building seems to get a bigger hit before and after lunch. Our specific area that is made up of about 144 parking spaces doesn't get the noontime impact up to this point that the rest of the shopping center gets. The banks on the corner are not part of the same parking arrangement, but there is nothing to restrict shared parking. If parking becomes a problem from the restaurant, an agreement will be worked out so as not to interfere with the other tenants. Public comment was closed. Commissioner McDaniel noted his concern of the parking: • People who are looking at lunchtime for spaces, park everywhere with little or no concern for the office people who are there. • The people who are in those buildings use their lunch time not only to go for lunch themselves, but they use that time to run errands. When they come back they are looking for a place to park because they have to go back to work. That is a major concern. • The other tenants in the building have adequate parking spaces for the people and I find this very unfair not to take those people into consideration with the override. • I think that staff's recommendation at 3 o'clock on is the best resolution, because most people are done with their errands, have a parking space and whatever spaces are left are not being vied for. 1 am looking at conditioning the hours, everything else I am fine with. 1 would suggest giving this six months to see how it works and the applicant could come back with a review and we could possibly make some changes at that time. Ms. Temple, at Commission inquiry, noted that valet parking had not been discussed with the owner or the applicant. It would be something that we would have to work closely with the property owner because a valet arrangement requires a certain part of the parking lot to be set aside for a single tenant as the INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 22. 2002 other tenants would not be subject to the valet plan. It could be a potential solution. Additionally, If It were used as actual parking for this restaurant as opposed to a means to approve the waiver that has been requested, it would require an off-site parking agreement of some sort. Commissioner Gifford noted that this restaurant is needed for public convenience and enjoyment in this area. That whole area seems to function as an integrated space. I believe some of the patrons would come for the food and then leave. There is a lot of integration with other shops in the area. One patron arriving with one car patronizes a number of the businesses. It also seems that it is not a destination center, but the people who patronize it know how to move through the site and find parking. At the last meeting, there was an item that the Planning Commission appeared ready to waive up to seven parking spaces for a business in the middle of Balboa Peninsula, which has truly overwhelming parking problems. I am very happy to approve this without any restrictions on lunch as that is an essential part of the business. I think the private dining area should remain open because there is no other acceptable area to have business /party lunches. Chairperson Kiser asked staff if this was to be approved tonight, is it possible to condition it for a follow -up traffic study commissioned by the City in an appropriate time in the future to see if there are any problems? Ms. Temple answered that the Commission has required 're- review' requirements. One alternative would be to require that the use permit come back for a review in six months after the restaurant goes into operation. At that time staff could look at it and the Commission could determine whether some additional efforts in that area are warranted as opposed to requiring them to spend the money. If there is no problem, then the Planning Commission could find that the waiver was appropriate. Commissioner Tucker asked: • Do we need the condition that specifies that all employees park on site? For the daytime we could strike this condition. • Rather than bring the whole permit back, I would restrict the use of the private dining during the lunch time hour. The applicant can come back to us if he believes that there is no parking problem with an update of the parking study that justifies the removal of that restriction. • He then asked for and received the new calculations of the deficiencies from staff. • By restricting the private dining area then at 1 per 40 the deficiency would be down to 9 spaces. Ms. Temple answered: • It is a standard condition. However, there is on- street parking on Sherington that could be used. Our concern would be the extent to which the employees becoming used to parking there would Impact the apartment tenants nearby. INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2002 Commissioner Agajanian noted; The restaurant would be a good contribution to the City, especially in that location. 1 have problems with the parking and agree that we could approve this with the restriction of no lunch service initially. We can come back later and go ahead and remove the criteria for no lunch if it proves to be no problem, This would be easier than approving the lunch service and in six months down the road finding that perhaps the parking is very bad. It would be hard to say to the applicant that he could not have lunch service. In terms of restricting the private dining area, that is too small an impact. Four spaces of the 13 deficient is too small to support this as an alternate solution. I would approve this tonight with condition 5 to limit the lunch with the possibility of reconsideration. Commissioner McDaniel noted his agreement with the previous statements adding it is unfair to the other tenants who have complied with the parking. It is for the applicant to prove there will not be a negative impact. From recent personal experience, adding a restaurant can make it difficult for those people looking for parking spaces. Chairperson Kiser noted that this is an Important use but is concerned about the parking along the street. There is quite a bit of congestion. I would vote for this application but only if there was a condition that in this area through the mid day either the out door seating or the private dining area would be closed. Secondly, that we have a condition that nine months after the restaurant opens, the Planning Director would review parking out front and that the use permit could be further conditioned at that time if warranted. The only other suggestion would be to, as discussed earlier, move the western ABC fence as far as possible to the east, and allow service to the outdoor patio but reduce that outdoor patio area, and that there would be no seating or tables or service of any kind in the area that is referred to as outdoor service /garden. At Commission inquiry, staff noted that the square footage of that outdoor dining area in excess of 25% of the interior net public area is considered for parking, which is 390 square feet or 10 parking spaces. Commissioner Tucker noted that we are down to a small variance and if the applicant wants to come in and change something later, he can. We are pretty close to being where we need to be. I am supportive of this application with that change. Commissioner Selich noted he agrees with Commissioner Tucker. I am familiar with what goes on at this site as my dentist is there. The restaurant is not going to cause any problem. On moving the fence over, that would create a less • desirable space. It would be a nicer space if it was left open with landscaping INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2002 I suggest leaving the fence where it is. Chairperson Kiser noted this should come back not for just the parking study numbers, but if experience shows that if there is a problem it could be taken care of. Commissioner Agajanian stated he would agree with closing the outdoor seating area during lunch. This would alleviate the lunchtime parking deficiency. Commissioner McDaniel noted his support of bringing this application back with some real data but he is not going to vote for this if there is not some way to have this reviewed again. Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to adopt Resolution No. 1570, approving the requested Use Permit No. 2002 -025 (PA2002 -117) with changes to some conditions: • Remove condition b requiring all employees shall park on -site. • Add a condition specifying there will be no table /chairs and no service by the restaurant in the area between the indoor dining area and the terrace. • Add a condition that the private dining room be closed at lunch. • Add a condition that the Planning Director in nine months review the parking situation and either recommend further restrictive action or no . action should be taken or that the condition with respect to the private dining room being closed at lunch be removed. Chairperson Kiser noted: • The applicant offered to have either the inside private dining area or the outdoor seating closed during lunch during inclement weather. Public comment was opened. Mr. Gaffney agreed that the idea would be to have the flexibility. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Gifford noted she would amend her motion to include the alternative. Ms. Temple clarified: • Condition one shall read, 'The development shall be in substantial conformance with the plot plan dated July 23, 2002, and the floor plan received on August 22, 2002, as approved by the Planning Commission. • A new condition with regard to the new area, 'The area labeled outdoor service /garden shall not be used for seating, waiting or any form of food or beverage service. • Condition 5, the hours of operation shall be from 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. dairy except as limited by other conditions. • A new condition that, the private dining area or the outdoor seating area on the plan shall be closed off and not used from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at INIVIO f City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2002 the election of the applicant. Eliminate condition b. The maker of the motion agreed. Commissioner Tucker asked that the word be changed to site plan instead of plot plan because that is what the document is called and strike the reference to elevations in condition 1. The maker of the motion agreed. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Noes: Agajanian SUBJECT: Poag Residence 3210 Seaview Avenue Variance to exceed allowable floor area to establish a 1,857 sq. ff. maximum floor area, for a lot with zero floor area permitted. Included is a Modification for setback: 1 foot Into the side yard opposite the alley (roof eaves an additional 18 Inches); 17 feet into the front yard facing Seaview (roof eaves an additional 18 inches); 7 feet into the rear yard (additional 11 inch encroachment for the chimney). Chairperson Kiser asked for and received an explanation of the wording of the resolution in Section 3 a. Staff answered that this portion was discussed as part of the analysis and does not need to be carried forward into the findings. It was agreed that it is to be stricken from the resolution. Commissioner Selich noted that one of the plans showed the adjacent residence as application pending. What application is that, and the analysis was based on reasonable setbacks, do we have any instances of other half lots where we have gone beyond the reasonable setback analsysis for approvals? Mr. Campbell answered that application was submitted approximately two weeks ago and is a variance for floor area and modification of the rear yard setback. It is similar to this application and will probably be presented to the Planning Commission in October. Ms. Temple answered: • Reasonable setback mode of analysis has only been used the last couple of years. There was one on Balboa Island that was the rear half of a single lot and there may have been others where the analysis was done more on the building to land ratio style as opposed to the reasonable setbacks. There was some moderation to what that number would represent. I don't 10 INDEX Item 3 PA2002 -088 Approved • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2002 E think it was of the magnitude of this request; they have been more in the 100 square foot range. Commissioner Tucker asked if the lot was 30 by 55 feet instead of 30 by 59 feet? He was answered that it is 30 by 55 feet. The two lots together are 30 by 118 square feet. Another way to look at this is to look at what the footage would be allowed on a 30 by 118 feet lot and multiply it by a percentage of that area so that when the two lots are built you would end up with basically the same amount of mass. Commissioenr McDaniel asked if the garage door makes a difference in the floor area ratio. Mr. Campbell answered that the original intent was to provide a two car carport so that it would not count towards the gross floor area hence you would have more Interior space. By definition the entire carport is defined as gross floor area. We do have an exception for one of the spaces so it would reduce the total gross for calculating floor area limit. One space could be developed and converted into a garage as designed and most likely would. Ms. Temple added that on a recent application on Dahlia, the Commission required all garage spaces to be enclosed and granted additional floor area for that purpose. Public comment was opened. Andrew Goetz of 250 Newport Center architect for the project noted the following: • The lot area was based on 30 by 118 square feet with a 20 foot front yard setback that allows for 3,348 square feet. Half of this gross area is what I am applying for the back piece and the remainder for the front piece. • The plan I have submitted comes to 1,674 square feet. • The area defined by the carport is comprised of one car space at 10 by 20 square feet hence the floor area in the staff report is indicative of that extra 200 square feet. • The actual structure itself is 1,674 square feet and the massing of the architecture parameters of the house are well designed for the particular street scene. • The open carport area does not count towards floor area. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Tucker noted a similar application on a small lot and discussed the odd lot ramifications. Commissioner McDaniel noted his concern that a real garage with a door on it is a much better application than having a carport. I believe staff is right that we need to enclose this as a garage with a door as there is plenty of square footage on the lot to make this a nice home. 11 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2002 Ms. Temple clarified that for a single- family dwelling the Code requires two parking spaces, one of which must be covered; It doesn't have to be enclosed, it must be covered. That space by Code is required to be calculated within the gross floor area. The second space, so long as It is open on two sides, does not by Code need to be calculated in the floor area unless it actually is enclosed. One of these two carport spaces is counted per Code; the other is not because of the design, that is the differential, There is a range of options: enclose one of the spaces that counts already but then you would have to deal with the square footage differential that was discussed in the staff report as to the comparable analysis presented. There were two aspects of the recommendation. One that the overall gross floor area as defined by the Code be reduced the 200 square feet and the other was that the carports be re-clesigned to meet the minimum depth and width requirements in order to assure they were accessible for full size vehicles as requested by the Public Works Department. Chairperson Kiser clarified that two carports could be built on a home but that one of them automatically counts towards the floor area calculation. Commissioner Selich noted his support of staff's position on the carports and added: • Important to have good access out to the alley. • In terms of reducing the square footage, sometimes these lots are so small. • The plan for this house has minimal sized rooms and to remove space would be detrimental. • The exterior elevation is well done and well designed. • I support the extra 200 square feet and staff's recommendation of taking 10 inches out of the powder room, laundry room and /or the kitchen. Chairperson IGser noted: • The parking spaces need to be enlarged per the staff report. • I am okay with the additional square footage as there will only be a one - unit family living there. • It may be a density bonus for a small lot; I don't think this will cause a 'floodgate' as there are not that many similar lots in the City. • I suggest that we require that one of the parking spaces be enclosed with a garage door to make it a more attractive project. • The setback from Seaview will be the some as the home on the site now. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple stated: • It will require an additional approximate six inches to achieve the full width of carport and garage because of the wall. • It adds some additional square footage because of the thickness of the wall that will push into the laundry/powder and /or kitchen rooms. Mr. Campbell added that the square footage (1,857) cited in the report accounts for converting one space to a garage. The six inches required next to a parking space abutting an obstruction as well as the wall space has been accounted for. However, it does push the wall further into the laundry/powder and /or kitchen areas . the equivalent of six inches plus the wall space if it remains as designed today. If 12 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2002 you put a door on the face of a carport and leave one side open, then by definition it would be gross floor area. Commissioner McDaniel answered that if we give them gross floor area so that the carport can be enclosed, I am okay with that. Commissioner Kiser then asked for a vote on the issue of enclosing the one carport: Commissioner Agajanian - indifferent Commissioner McDaniel - enclose Commissioner Gifford - open, problematic with floor area issue Commissioner Selich - open Commissioner Tucker - open, problematic with floor area issue, need to be consistent and no justification Topics of consistency with similar size lots /reasonable setback analysis /allowing additional square footage /viable project/mansionization were then discussed. Commissioner Tucker stated he would not support a variance which allowed floor areas beyond what a reasonable setback would provide. Chairperson Kiser summed up that there is support of the project with the parking spaces increased in size as recommended in the staff report but without the . reduction in square footage of floor area that is suggested in the staff report. Ms. Temple clarified the discussion of the potential of enclosing, or not, one of the two parking spaces with establishing the floor area not to exceed the 1857 square feet, which Is without the 201 square foot reduction. The Code would allow the applicant, at their discretion, to elect to either enclose one of the parking spaces or not. Do you want to specify one way or the other? If you do nothing by way of added conditions, then the Code would allow the applicant to decide one way or the other to enclose one of the parking spaces, they could not enclose both of them. Otherwise, if you wish both spaces to remain carports you would have to impose that as a condition. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to adopt Resolution No. 1571, approving the requested Variance No. 2002 -004 and Modification No. 2002 -055 (PA2002 -088) with the additional condition that the carport be enlarged per the recommendations In the staff report and 1,857 square feet. Chairperson Kiser noted a change to condition one, shall not exceed 1,857. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich Noes: Agajanian, Tucker • 13 iTFITU . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2002 SUBJECT: Real Estate Signs A request to amend Zoning Code Chapter 20.67, Signs, to allow the addition of a single 'rider' sign and a single ' brochue box' per property in conjunction with an approved temporary real estate sign. Ms. Temple stated that because this item was not property specific, it Is a code amendment, in addition to our normal advertising; we placed a display ad at 1/8 page size in the Daily Pilot to try and get the concerns of any interested parties before you. Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to adopt Resolution number next in line approving the requested PA2002 -128 for CA2002 -004. Commissioner Gifford stated that the brochure boxes are a source of a tremendous amount of litter and is therefore, not in favor of approving this Item. • Chairperson Kiser stated that the size for the rider sign is too large. I am not for increasing the size for real estate for sale signs at all. They are adequate size. There will always be pressure from the brokerage community to increase the size of these signs. Rider signs say, 'In Escrow' or 'Sold'. Understanding that we cannot regulate the text on these, if we increase the size by 94 square inches that is almost a 50% increase in the size of the total real estate sign. They could put any text they want on the rider. I question the need for the rider to begin with. If it is in escrow, what does that say? You contact the real estate agent anyway because sales do fall out of escrow. If it says sold, I question why the sign is still there. The answer is, it is still advertising for the broker. My impression is that increasing the size of these signs allows more broker advertising throughout our beautiful city on any home that happens to be sold. I would not increase the size of these signs at all. I think the brochure box has a use of communicating information that is somewhat convenient, however, both the litter aspect and the ability of the company to put text on the side of the brochure box increases the size of the signs quite a bit. The present size is adequate. The brokerage community is putting the rider signs on, even though It Is not allowed. That makes me concerned. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple stated that if this item is denied it goes no further unless a Councilmember calls it up for review or an interested member of the public appeals It. This came to us as a letter written by the Orange Coast Association of Realtors to the Mayor who forwarded it to the Code Enforcement and the City Attorney's office for a code amendment. Our code enforcement personnel enforce this issue. The illegal signs are removed and if they appear too often, they receive a notice of violation and then go through the citation process. Discussion followed on the timeline of the enforcement process and fines. 14 INDEX Item 4 PA2002 -128 Denied • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2002 Commissioner McDaniel stated that a bigger sign is not going to increase the ability for the realtors to do any more than what they do now. I would not be in favor of this item. Commissioner Gifford asked if there was a consistent number of times that there has to be a violation prior to the start of the enforcement process? Is the enforcement against individual sales people or is it against a brokerage company? Ms. Temple answered that we get more aggressive in seeing the same realtor having the same violation. We start out with the seven -day turnaround then ramp up to the daily citation if the signs continue to appear. It is usually against the brokerage company. The open house signs are allowed. Commissioner Tucker revised his motion to have the rider be 54 square inches and the brochure box 120 square inches. I prefer to have the brochure box information available without having the obligation to go inside a home that is for sale. Commissioner Selich noted his support of the motion. • Ayes: Agajanian, Selich, Tucker Noes: McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford Motion failed. x�x ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood noted that at the last Council meeting of August 13th a budget amendment of $50,000 to re- appropriate funds for the Balboa Peninsula Sign Amortization and Incentive Program was authorized; the Pacific Bay Homes appeal of the denial was withdrawn by the applicant, but the City Council chose to send the matter back to the Planning Commission to define the parameters for these uses; Hoag Hospital PC amendment excluding some areas from floor area due to State requirements was approved; another code amendment was initiated to adopt design guidelines with a review process for Balboa Village. b) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - no meeting. c) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - no meeting. . d) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal 15 INDEX Additional Business • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2002 Plan Update Committee - Commissioner Selich noted that the first two draft chapters were reviewed. e) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. 5 Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. g) Status report on Planning Commission requests - none. h) Project status - Commissioner Selich asked about the timeline for the Sign Ordinance. i) Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Gifford asked to be excused from the meeting of September 19th. ADJOURNMENT: 9:15 P.M. SHANT AGAJANIAN, SECRETARY is CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • 16 INDEX Adjournment