Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItems B, 1, 2_CorrespondenceAdditional Materials Received Mosher Comments for Items B, 1 and 2 Dec. 23, 2013, Zoning Administrator Agenda Comments Comments submitted by: Jim Mosher (jimmosher(a�yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548 -6229) Suggested corrections to passages in italics are shown in s&&eou underline format. Item B: Minutes of December 12, 2013 Page 2, paragraph 4 from end: "He also testified that the existing smaller sized signage above the south entry is already readable from Newport Center Drive and that the large smaller existing sign is simply blocked by trees from some angles. Thus, the increase in size to the smaller sign would not help much." Page 3, Item 3, last paragraph: "The Rannin Planned Community development standards allowed a maximum size and height of this sign type and the proposed monument signs are smaller than what are allowed." Item 1. Macy's Sign Modification Permit (PA2013 -207) 1. As indicated in my oral testimony at the December 12 hearing, the signs that already exist over the south and east entries appear to violate the Fashion Island sign standards in the PC -56 Planned Community Development Plan since they are readily visible from Newport Center Drive, and only one wall sign visible from the public rights of way is allowed on each building elevation. 2. As also indicated, the problem that is being addressed (confusion regarding where the entrances are, created by existing large wall signs in wrong location), and the need for a modification permit, would seem to be avoided simply by relocating the single allowed large wall sign to a position over the entrance. In my opinion a single sign could be mounted high up on the entryway pillars, like a permanent banner. 3. If a modification permit is granted to allow signs over the entryway facades, in addition to the large existing signs (said to be in confusing locations), I am unable to see why two different sizes of the same design are being proposed, with the sign over the south entry larger than the sign over the east entry. 4. The bullet point on page 2 of the staff report saying "the top of the proposed wall sign on the east elevation has been lowered to a height that is 1 -foot 4- inches above the main entrance doors to the building" is difficult to correlate with the simulations of the south and east entries provided in Attachment ZA 5, which indicate the bottom of both new entryway sign backgrounds will start 6 feet above the entry doors. The tops of the proposed sign backgrounds appear to be 13 to 15 feet above the doors. 5. If the 1 -foot 6 -inch dimension for the existing entry signs quoted in the resolution in Facts in Support of Finding A -2 corresponds to the proposed new 6 feet 10 inches and 6 feet 3/4 inches dimensions cited in Conditions of Approval #5 and #6, then the proposed increase in letter height for these signs is 4.55X and 4.04X, corresponding to an Additional Materials Received Mosher Comments for Items B, 1 and 2 December 23, 2013 Zoning Administrator agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2 increase of sign area of 20.7X and 16.3X. While I would agree that the existing entry signs (apparently added without a modification permit and in violation of PC -56) seem small and out of scale with the building, the proposed increase seems excessive to me. 6. Condition of Approval #2 seems a less precisely worded version of Condition #12. 1 would suggest deleting #2. Item 2. Bari Studio Minor Use Permit (PA2013 -230) 1. Facts in Support of Finding C.3 says the project "is oriented towards the parking lot away from the residential uses." The orientation of the project plans provided in Attachment ZA 6 is difficult to follow, and the statement may be correct with respect to the entry areas (which I think are shown to the left) but I have the impression that Exercise Studios A & B are designed to have windows (on the right) looking out over San Joaquin Hills Road towards Big Canyon. It is unclear if they are large enough to be readily visible from there. 2. Facts in Support of Finding D.1, at the end of the fourth line, refers to the overall project area as a "shopping center." My impression is it is not a shopping center. 3. Facts in Support of Finding D.1 concludes by saying "the Director may reduce parking requirements when a parking lot is upgraded for ADA compliance." Has the Director in fact done that? Or does Attachment ZA 4 mean the Director has delegated the authority to make this decision to an Assistant Planner? 4. Regarding Condition of Approval #9, which limits the use "to a maximum of three employees and 24 patrons," I have no personal familiarity with fitness centers, but my understanding is that patrons often work out with "personal trainers." Is this ratio of 3 employees to 24 patrons adequate? Or are trainers not regarded as employees? If not, are trainers counted towards the 24 patrons allowed? 5. One might also note that Condition 9 could be read to say there is no limit on the number of occupants outside the hours stated. I would suggest rephrasing it to say: "9. The use shall be limited to the business hours of 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. with a maximum of three employees and 24 patrons at any time." 6. In Condition 11, to clarify the concern about noise outside the unit, it might be preferable: "The operator of the facility shall be responsible for the control of noise generated Gn bv the subject faErli use. ..." 7. The suite numbers shown on the first sheet of the "Tenant Improvement Drawings" in Attachment ZA 6, and repeated in the "Parking Summary" on handwritten page 20, differ substantially from the tenant addresses shown on the City's GIS map (including not only a different arrangement of the numbers within the building, but a "2115" where the GIS shows "2123 "). Do the GIS designations need to be corrected?