Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/23/2003Planning Commission Minutes 10/23/2003 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 2003 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 16 fil e : //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes\Prior Years\2003 \1023.htm 06/25/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker - Commissioner Kiser arrived at 6:45 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Z. Wood, Assistant City Manager Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner Chandra Slaven, Assistant Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, October 17, 2003. CONSENT CALENDAR MINUTES of the adjourned and regular meeting of September 18, 2003. ITEM NO. 1 Motion was made by Commissioner Cole, and voted on to approve the Consent Approved Calendar by the following vote: Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich and Tucker Noes: None Absent: Kiser Abstain: None HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: Birch Bayview Plaza II (PA2003 -164) ITEM NO.2 20322 Acacia Street and 20341 & 20351 Birch Street PA2003 -164 Request for a Use Permit and Traffic Study to construct three office buildings Approved totaling 46,281 square feet, including 172 parking spaces. The 2.2 acre site i located on Acacia and Birch Streets in the Santa Ana Heights area and i bounded entirely by business park offices. The applicant also requests approval o fil e : //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes\Prior Years\2003 \1023.htm 06/25/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/23/2003 Tentative Parcel Map to consolidate five existing lots into three. The ;ludes the demolition of all existing residential units and other structures. Planner Chandra Slaven gave an overview of the application noting following: . Location of project is in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area and is first project to be heard for this area since annexation. . Several applications have been proposed for three buildings totaling 46,28 square feet of business park. . Development is permitted under the zoning and is consistent with guidelines for general plan. • Issue for this project is compliance with design guidelines under the Specific Plan; however, it does comply with all the development standards within th( Specific Plan. • Exhibits of the site were reviewed on Birch Bayview Plaza I that was don( under the auspices of the County approximately two years ago. • This application was originally submitted to the County, but after th( annexation it was re- submitted to the City for the second phase. • Examples of landscape, site plan and ingress /egress access were specifie( as well as elevations and height of 37 feet plus 6 feet for screening o mechanical equipment. • Site removes the non - conforming residential uses, is a parcel map, whicl provides for lot consolidation that is a goal for the business park under th( Specific Plan, and meets the requirements and findings for project approval. • She then presented a memo containing minor revisions to the resolution noted that a letter was received from the Irvine Water Ranch on the final dal of public comments to the MND; noted a change to the tree box size from 2d inches to 36 inches; and replace conditions of approval in the MND witl those under the drainage plan and NPDES Section as they are mon effective measures and easier to enforce. • At Commission inquiry she noted the grade elevation along Birch in front o Building C is about 50 to 51 feet at the top of curb heading north. There i; approximately 2 feet between the adjacent properties. The actual buildinc pad is at 52.55 feet. The street elevations are noted on the drainage plat near the sidewalk. nmissioner Toerge asked the applicant to address how the buildings igned comply with, or serve to comply with, the massing and bulk definition Specific Plan. comment was opened. Baile of Watkins/Baile and Associates, representing the applicant, noted • Projects in the area have been designed and built with Steadfast Properties. • Referring to exhibits, he compared the proposed square footage to thi 'already built' square footage. Because of the small nature of this proposal Page 2 of 16 file : //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\Prior Years\2003 \1023.htm 06/25/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/23/2003 it is not a massing issue. • These buildings will be in the same architectural design family as original project. The exterior windows with the deep recesses along exterior elements of stairs provide relief. There are external stairs elevators that give relief to the concrete and help to alleviate massing. external glass use dematerializes the facade of the project and gives vi: interest. • He then continued to point out and explain the design elements used on proposed project and that this will become part of the Bayview Plaza 1. • At Commission inquiry, he noted that he agrees to use 36 inch box plc instead of 24 inch. • He agreed to the changes to the conditions noted earlier. mes Palda, project manager of Steadfast Property noted that the project is a development of businesses in the area and his company has worked on )jest since November of last year. He thanked the City staff, and in parti< >. Slaven, for their guidance and attention to detail during the transition pe m the County of Orange to the City of Newport Beach. comment was closed. imissioner Tucker questioned why this project was before the Planni emission. As an annexed property that came in under a County specific pie ground rules were set before we got involved. Those rules did not inclu g to the Planning Commission, it included the Planning Director's review. got to us because of the TPO. I would just as soon not see these at a s level in the future, as the Planning Director can do the job. If there is greement or if the community is unhappy, we are the next step in t :ess. Does staff believe it meets the requirements of the Specific Plan a it not come to us, would you have gone ahead and passed favorably upon t �osal that is before us tonight? Slaven answered yes. immissioner Toerge noted his concern of Building C at maximum height is )se to the street and looks like a 'box'. Upon a tour of the neighborhood, ted deep recessed windows, relief in upper corners and balconies ighboring developments. Looking at Bayview 1, there is similar architectu atment on the comers of the building and a recessed entry visible from 1 eet. In the subject project, while driving south on Birch Street, the building uated closer to the street than neighboring developments and the road cure ch that Building C will be highly visible and its mass made more appare :lative to the reciprocal drive that merges the two projects, is it customary at drive to be located within inches of a column of a building without landscapi a berm? Edmonston answered that this is a uniquely angled approach. There e benefits to a shared drive and we have worked with them to fine tune e it as functionally as possible. sioner Kiser noted he has no concern with the proximity of the buildi the street given the small size of the project. He asked about the Level (LOS) at Irvine /Bristol North being at E. This project adds an insignifice Page 3 of 16 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes \Prior Years\2003\ 1 023.htm 06/25/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/23/2003 of traffic, can anything be done to benefit that intersection? Edmonston answered no. Under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), the Council has adopted what they consider to be a level of significance and that ie .01 increase in the ICU level, and this project falls below that. The ribution they would make towards circulation system improvements is through payment of fair share fees. That is why we have a fair share fee so that Iler projects do at least make some financial contribution that will go towards way improvements. iissioner Eaton noted that basically the architecture is similar to the existing .cture. It is closer to Birch that is a secondary highway, which will get more on it. That is probably why the Santa Ana Heights group wanted the larger in the setback and it is good that we are able to accommodate those s. The driveway consolidation is an important element from a traffic point of McDaniel stated that he does not find anything objectionable to this n was made by Commissioner Kiser to approve Use Permit No. 2003 -025, tive Parcel Map No. 2003 -026, Traffic Study No. 2003 -004 and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration subject to the findings and conditions of val and as revised in our meeting. immissioner Toerge noted on the conditions of approval, change the word gate gated in condition 11; condition 79 include that no construction is allowed on indays; delete condition 84 as it duplicates 82 and condition 86 changed to ohibit trash pickup between 10.00 p.m. to 7.00 a.m. maker of the motion agreed to the additional changes. None None None Chevron Service Station (PA2003 -073) 301 East Coast Highway st to demolish an existing service station and construct a new servi with a food mart (with off -site beer and wine sales) and quick service fo The applicant also requests approval of modifications to the service stati )ment regulations pertaining to gross structural square footage, number spaces, accessory structure setbacks and landscaping. Additionally, t al of a Modification Permit for sign program is requested. McDaniel noted receipt of a letter from Marjorie Austin. Planner Gregg Ramirez gave an overview of the project, noting: Page 4 of 16 ITEM NO. 3 PA2003 -073 Continued to 12/0412003 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes \Prior Years \2003 \1023.htm 06/25/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/23/2003 . The existing gas station will be completely demolished with the removal the two canopies, all pump islands, two service bays, etc. • New project includes a 2,625 square foot food mart/quick service restau building, no service bays, single canopy with five pump islands and fueling spaces, signage, landscaping, and two access drives, one Bayside and one off East Coast Highway. • The project is consistent with the General Plan; the Zoning Code requ approval of a use permit for the service station use. . The applicant is requesting modifications from the Service Station Dea Guidelines: the size of the building to be 2,625 square feet with the fueling stations, by Code the building size is to be a maximum of 942 squ feet. They are asking for a deviation for the landscaping, 23 trees required and they are asking for 11 trees; a setback adjustment for the and water dispenser along Bayside Drive, and they are requesting apprc of a Modification Permit for a program for several signs that are permitted by Code. . The applicant is not currently selling beer and /or wine at the location, but Use Permit would include the sale of alcohol. comment was opened. :k Noduos, dealer /operator at 301 Coast Highway noted that he has bee ;rating at that location for the past five years as a gas station and mechan )p. As the industry has changed, the mechanic station has gone down ;iness and within the last two years has completely stopped. They have close bays because it was not profitable. Since that time we have operated it as station and small snack shop. We are requesting to rebuild the location with d mart and five multi -pump dispenser (MPD) gas station. He explained that th rtract with the Mobil Oil Corporation has not been renewed because they haN tided it is not profitable. Therefore, we have gone with Chevron who has give a temporary contract for fuel supply pending us going to the City to get permi rebuild the station according to their requirements. Chevron does not allo chanic shops anymore. He noted the following: . To make the project feasible we need to have a multi profit center such as store, cashier office, restrooms and a certain number of pumps. . Chevron has standard size of a store starting with 2,818 and 3,400 with six MPD. . Due to the size of the lot and the lot location we narrowed that down 2,650 with the required MPD to make it feasible. . We have done a parking study and a traffic study to make sure that requirements are met. Rodriguez, consulting project manager for the applicants, noted Page 5 of 16 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years \2003 \1023.htm 06/25/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/23/2003 . The design standards for today's gas outlet and convenience market different than what they used to be for the typical service station. . Auto service is going elsewhere due to the industry. • The market on the gas station is going towards the convenience oriente( buyer. • Gas margins are lower on the retail side and therefore puts emphasis of additional profit centers convenience store with other services inside, i.e. copiers, ATM, and food. . The square footage for buildings has therefore gone way up in compared to past designs for service bays and car washes on site. . The square footages that Chevron and the other major retailers are requirir investors to place on site, are making it more and more difficult to acquire piece of land that is large enough to suit all the design requirements. . Referring to an exhibit, he noted the existing site and the proposed site 1.3; other sites in town with the number of dispensers and comparisons ratios to apply the Code to those sites. . At Commission inquiry, he noted that the sites selected for this station the ones in the City except one that is on Newport Blvd. near 17th Street does not include the Chevron station on Coast Highway at MacArthur. was left out of the study because of the odd shape. It would be suitable development under the current development service station regulations H six dispensers and a 2,500 square foot store. However, an investor wo probably not do it without a car wash. )mmissioner Kiser noted that the study used by the applicant should include the stations within the City. Mr. Rodriguez noted: . The Commission may want to look at how the service station regulations written. . The major gas brands have store size requirements and then produced exhibit showing the required lot size. . The current lot is just over 18,000 square feet. . A typical Chevron with six MPD's and a 2,50012,800 square foot store sits 20,000/21,000 square foot lot. person McDaniel asked about the minimums, why wouldn't Chevron want someone pump gas not dependent on how big the building is? The volun 5oline is what is being sold, not potato chips. Does this project have to be n size before Chevron will give the contract, no matter how much fuel Page 6 of 16 file: //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes \Prior Years\2003 \1023.htm 06/25/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/23/2003 Rodriguez answered: . The market is going 'convenience' and to draw people in to buy gas is n primarily price driven, however, the retailer will lower that price and take small profit margin on the gas to draw people in to the other profit centers. . There are minimum requirements from Chevron and they will not write contract to redevelop a site if their minimums are not met. The minimur are store size and the volume of gas at 200,000+ gallons a month. . The client is asking for consideration for the uses he feels he must have order to meet the financial matrix and build a site that will serve convenience market for patrons. . Inside the store selling chips, sodas, crackers out of the fountains a coolers is the primary draw, but the pressure of competition drives people add other profit centers to make money such as 'Starbucks', 'Subway' 'Cold Stone' or some other kind of sandwich or real food preparation. . The convenience market is critical to this site. nissioner Tucker asked: about the building elevations, the key notes have yet on the rear and side elevation there is a 17 in a square that has i identified; how many colors of roof tiles will there be; if we wanted to go colors, can you do that; what will the window mullions look like; the g n canopy, would it be possible to have it more tile and less band? added that he has no problem with the redevelopment of the property as it is ugh property and will be a challenge to do it, but the trade off for him is that th ally needs to look terrific. I don't think that the island canopy looks terrific. h an asked about the color of the building, the color board has a darker color the iat it is really going to look like. The color needs to be the same color as ft oject next door. Is the food sign going to be black? All the references in the ke rtes, 'to match shopping center' refers to matching the Fluter center in bo aterials and quality, correct? The landscaping that is right in front of the mi art, I am concerned that a 'short-cut' path ends up being more dirt the idscape, it is not clear to me if there is going to be ground cover amongst th rubs and trees that will be in that frontage area. I would like to see a conditic at says that landscaping must be kept in a flourishing condition, which means living. Rodriguez answered that: . 17 refers to an architectural trellis made of metal; . there is one color planned and that is of the standard spanish tile color yes, they could incorporate a mixed product; . the window mullions are aluminum and green in color and referenced a tag that was distributed; . if there was an elaboration on the canopy, he suggested a cornice above Page 7 of 16 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes \Prior Years \2003 \1023.htm 06/25/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/23/2003 band or hanging down on top of the band to accentuate the roof edge; the food sign is blue faced, the color board sample shows a dark blue, the color is the same blue as on the color card; there is a color card for canopy and that blue is the same as the food sign will be; and yes, the matching references will be done as closely as possible to project next door. �mmissioner Selich noted that he was on the Commission for the service static idelines. He noted he was focusing more on the architecture and design of tl )ject; however, how are we processing this exception to the square footage as Aification and not a variance? A residential or commercial development with or area deviations are processed as variances. It seems to me to be a variant have such a great deviation. Modifications are for such minor things as setbai croachments and things of that nature. Things such as height and intensity e and square footage have always been processed by variances. nmissioner Tucker reiterated he sees no reason why the project couldn't Shopping Center. Ramirez answered that the Service Station regulations in Title 20 allow )mmission to modify or waive any of the development regulations with a re% the use permit for the service station. It is therefore, all processed under a rmit and not a variance. There is some criteria that strict compliance with 3ulations is not necessary to achieve the purpose and intent of this chapter; eject possesses compensating design and development features that of pacts associated with modification or waiver of regulations; the overall site 1 d architectural design is consistent with the City of Newport Beach De: sidelines, automobile service stations and washing. Eaton noted his concerns about the signage height. tez answered that the pole sign is not per Code and may or may not Referencing an exhibit, he noted: . Modifications to pole sign design have been discussed with staff. . He then went into detail about a stack monument sign with corners to the building and a sign cabinet position for the Subway sign. . The sign is approximately 18 feet high, and about 6 feet wide on this c the cabinet itself is about 4ft and 2 inches wide with the brick adding 16 inches. . The existing pole sign is 88 square feet, the proposed one is 72.9 feet; staff has indicated changes to 55.6 square feet, and the archi proposal with the brick is for 61.25 square feet. . The proposed architectural sign with brick is less obtrusive, slightly sho and meets the needs of the site. The removal of the interior signage for Subway and ATM would be about 5 feet. Page 8 of 16 file: //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes \Prior Years\2003 \1023.htm 06/25/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/23/2003 Page 9 of 16 Mr. Edmonston noted that the pole sign, wherever it is placed on site, would bel covered by the condition that requires it to be compliant with the City's site istance standards. I ssioner Kiser noted that if we approved something with a monuments did not work for sight distance purposes, then would it come back ig Commission for approval of the revised signage? s. Wood answered that is the way it would work if the Commission included the n as part of their approval of the entire project. Another option would be to ac the project, if the Commission is ready to this evening, and have the signage ne back separately so that staff has time to explore the sight distance issues. Commission inquiry, she added that this would only be an issue if there wa: nething in the design of the structure or the canopies that if approved, wouk icate that a sign needs to be there. Campbell added that the applicant would have the ability to propose sign is consistent with the Code should the sign Modification Permit not sioner Tucker asked if there would be 'grandfathering' if part of was approved. ff answered that the approval could be conditioned that the existing sign removed and /or replaced with something that is approved by the Comml on continued on sign size, signage for other uses, placement on and facade. 1. Noduos added that the 24 -hour operation is one of the requirements o ievron because we are next to the highway. The issue of the beer and wine, i a recommendation from us that we are asking for as a matter of survivorship. its is a convenience for the residents to stop and get gas, snacks, beer an( ne. The Subway operation operates from 8 in the morning to 8 in the evening at is the requirement. The food mart is shut down between 11 and 5. We have pass through window for gasoline only for the safety of our employees. A >mmission inquiry, he agreed to putting these in the conditions of approval. iissioner Kiser, referring to the sign noted that the food mart sign is is it necessary to be that large and could it be reduced in size? Noduos answered that it is a recommendation of Chevron, even the size )r of the building. All companies are difficult to get projects and they req Lain standards and elements that are easily identifiable. If you put restricti this, I have no objection, we will push it through Chevron and hope they ept it. iissioner Toerge noted his concern of noise when the traffic dies down. is a noise corridor opportunity between the Yankee Tavern and the smal building between your facility and Linda Isle. In the past there has beer rn with noise generated, particularly the air and water filling station locate( file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \Prior Years \2003\1023.htm 06/25/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/23/2003 Page 10 of 16 n Pacific Coast Highway. Is there anyway to re- locate that station to the othe ide of the building? I Noduos answered that as long as it does not interfere with the parking can relocate it. sioner Toerge noted that he is not suggesting that be done, but he ed about the noise generation. Additionally, is there a way to reduce t of sound the pumps make when you use a credit card? Noduos answered that he would look into the noise generated from the ng transactions, as he has to install the state of the art equipment. nsoor Vakili, operator and partner stated that if the air/water equipment is put Coast Highway it will be visible to traffic and as far as the tourist industry i want that there? issioner Toerge answered he is not interested in moving the ure at all, his only concern is with the noise generated by the air and and how it impacts on the residents. nmissioner Eaton asked about the timing of the de- contamination equipm( ig moved. Will that be happening at a different time than the reconstruction station? Vakili answered that we are currently waiting to hear from the State; as we get the clearance that we can move that equipment then we can land: t area. nne Benvenudi of Linda Isle noted her concern about the enlargement of thi ion, in particular the signage and lighting. Right now, it is very bright and whe e lights are added it will be more so. She added that the gentlemen do kee station nice and clean and were responsive to an earlier request to turn o ie of the lights late at night. The building has since been repainted and th is are very bright reflecting off that paint. I look directly at the gas station an lights shine directly into my living room. We don't want this to impact us and all those lights as a serious problem. nmissioner Tucker commented that condition 28 states that the site shall not excessively illuminated and will provide for better control of lighting than is �e now. drperson McDaniel added that the color of the walls will be muted as well, ch will reduce light reflection. jorie Austin noted that a lot of the items addressed in her letter seem to be Iressed. The signage does seem to be a little too much however, and she ed for more subtle lighting. comment was closed. Selich noted his concern of such a large deviation from the file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years\2003 \1023.htm 06/25/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/23/2003 ition Guidelines that the applicant is asking for. Virtually every site in town w, alyzed in preparation of the guidelines and we came up with what we thoug s a reasonable set of regulations from the zoning and design guidelii ndpoint. I am really reluctant to approve a facility this intense on this site. ik there should be eight fueling stations; I don't know that the building has to I to 2,000 square feet instead of 1,800 square feet; but going up to 2,600 squa t and ten stations is creating a number of problems. Parking will be a proble they will be down one parking space and looking at the site plan, there is it -of -way line for the ultimate widening of Pacific Coast Highway and a secoi 'king space gets wiped out when that takes place. I am reluctant to support tt )Iication at this size. From the design standpoint, they have done a nice j( ng to coordinate it with the project next door. I think if this goes get approve should specify the tile and all elements to be used to match the project ne )r so there is no misinterpretation on it. I agree that the air facility should I ved to the Pacific Coast Highway side; I am not in support of the propose n, as it is too big. This station is prominently located and I think a monume n is called for and the design guidelines more than meet the visibil uirements. You can't have a site that is more visible than this with the shal i configuration of the property and the way it is oriented to the highway. ndard monument sign will work well there. The size of the food mart sil ads to be reduced. Unless the project is reduced in terms of fueling statioi i size of the building, I am not going to support it. mmissioner Toerge stated he liked the compatibility of design; responsivei neighbors' concerns, and the convenient location. He stated he would )port the project as proposed for the following: . The food mart sign needs to be reduced, . The monument sign should be integrated into the project and someth more on the order of what the Code provides, such as four feet tall at square feet and if there is a need for two, so be it. . The relocation of the air and water dispenser. . Reducing the audible sounds that come from the pump equipment. . Reduce the size and scale of the building and with the reduction there be no need for a parking modification. . The lighting needs to be limited and I don't believe we have information to see how that would be done. . We should include limitation of hours of operation for the food mart Subway facilities that are incorporated in the project. conclusion, he stated he would be in support of a continuance to allow 3licant the opportunity to address some of those items and re- submit. osioner Tucker noted from experience he has a feel for what the majo ies want or don't want. It is very important that this site be re- develo site is an eyesore. We need to come up with practical solutions Page 11 of 16 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\Prior Years\2003 \1023.htm 06/25/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/23/2003 Page 12 of 16 reryone, it does not do any good to end up with what is there today and watch i np along. This applicant is willing to spend the necessary money to create e >od looking facility and I believe it is needed there in that part of town. We nee( accommodate the applicant because 1 do believe what they are saying in term; sizing and pumps is more or less necessary. Does it need to be 2,600 square et versus 2,400 square feet I don't know about that. I think it is an effort that is orth working on, I would like to see how the canopy will look. It is key to me tha e place looks nice. A monument sign is appropriate for this particular type o se, but I think there is probably 4 or 5 feet that can be knocked out of it s( stead of nearly 19 feet it can be closer to 12 or 13 feet. I am not sure how big a gn the co- brands need and I don't know if you need to have one that says ATM. think maybe just one other sign would be appropriate. I suggest that the )plicant request a continuance but we continue talking about this to give hin >me guidance. Otherwise, he may want to have us vote on it tonight and if he ants he can go to the City Council. ion was made by Commissioner Tucker to continue this item to 2003. irperson McDaniel asked the applicant if he wanted a continuance. icant agreed to a continuance to December 4th, and also agreed to a extension of time per the Permit Streamline Act to cover the time period. Alford, Senior Planner noted the following on the development of station guidelines: . The committee was very concerned about the size required for stations. . Looking at the trends of development, it steadily increased up to 20,000 40,000 square feet minimum. . Looking at recent remodels in Newport Beach and other communities, it decided the best way to handle it was on a sliding scale based on number and types of uses that would occur on the site. . The basic formula was taken by looking at the floor area ratios in the curre Zoning Code, the parking requirements and the amount of space needed each fueling station. Those were then compared to a number of existi service stations in the city. . The numbers were adjusted somewhat and ultimately finalized to what is the Code today. . The calculations were done for retail components, but also things service bays and car washing facilities. . The waiver is a safety mechanism to deal with unforeseen circumstano such as an odd shaped lot or a very small lot that did not have opportunity meet the requirements. . We wanted to have some type of mechanism where the standards could file : //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\Prior Years\2003 \1023.htm 06/2512008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/23/2003 Page 13 of 16 be waived without some sort of justification. There has to be some type provision that would offset a suggested deviation by some type compensating design, quality of project or alteration of the site plan accommodate that waiver. added that there has been no activity related to service stations for the i years within the City. Discussion continued on the former I :hairperson McDaniel noted that this site needs to be remodeled and it needs tc e profitable. What do you put in there that is big enough to service customers fo eel consumption and not have too much light for the neighborhood and still have facility that has adequate square footage to do what is needed to be profitable? am concerned about the signage, the fact we close the hours so that only fuel i., ispensed after 11:00 p.m. there will be no worry about alcohol consumption rhich was a big concern to me. We have all these ordinances in place but we aven't needed to use them for over seven years. So, what makes sense for this ite? I would be willing to support this with some changes to the way it looks. imissioner Cole noted his support of the previous comments adding it is ar :rtant location for the City. He recommends a colored exhibit for the emission to look at, the sign being shorter, and detail of the stone material. wall sign is in compliance with the existing regulations; however, it is a large lure than currently so would like something a little more subtle and dessn' a problem with the size of the building. nmissioner Eaton noted that a monument sign should be at the corner ai uld be shorter; the food mart sign should be smaller on the building; the size building should be reduced enough to meet the parking requirements. With way on site, people will park next to the building. Tucker noted the following: • Would like to see the building elevation add a note 17 that describes what it is. • Add something about the window mullions. • References to the shopping center, come up with specifications. • Monument sign needs to be redesigned the same as the adjourning shopping center. . The brow element over the entry doors, call out what that is going to made of. . Landscaping - a condition that calls out what the ground cover will be a that it needs to completely cover all the dirt in the front entry way and that landscaping will be maintained in a flourishing condition, no bare spots. . There is a condition about the lighting and that lighting needs to stay on site. file: //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes \Prior Years \2003 \1023.htm 06/25/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/23/2003 Page 14 of 16 . The applicant needs to come back with a new design for the canopy tha shows us how that looks more like a building and less a gas station (morl roof, less band element). II The building needs to be brought down enough in square footage to the need for one parking space. ,nissioner Kiser added that the applicant should look at the sign program any sign that could be reduced will be at this time. He asked for ional parking space. Selich added: . Look at the landscaping plan and have the understory plant material that of the shopping center next door to create a more integrated look. . There are four trees off Bayside Drive that are crape myrtles but palms are specified on Coast Highway side of the property. I think s trees should be used. . If the building was reduced to eliminate the deviation for the parking space, would agree to that. Toerge noted: . Project is designed at 42% over the Development Regulations with regard the building. . The five gas pumps is 25% higher than the Regulations allow. . I support reducing it down to eliminate the need for a parking modifi but also if needed to accommodate the relocation of the air and water is required, I support that as well. . I can however, support a project that exceeds the Regulations. airperson McDaniel noted he supports a 2,500 square foot building uires ten parking spaces, which is what the current site plan provides and king waiver can be dropped from the application. Selich added that he would like to see a condition that on site and not on the streets. iissioner Tucker stated he would like to see the color of the food mart as the shopping center next door as we are trying to have this be a unit McDaniel recapped the previous suggestions to the applicant. Kiser noted the conditions 21, 22, 46, 52 referring to the kitchen Should those be in there? file : //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Comrission\PC Minutes\Prior Years\2003 \1023.htm 06/25/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/23/2003 Page 15 of 16 Staff answered they will consider those as there may be some baking, etc. and may need to be left in to comply with the applicable Building or Fire Codes. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None OBJECT: Gugasian Property (PA2003 -174) ITEM NO.4 900 —1040 W. Coast Highway PA2003 -174 Development Plan for the redevelopment and construction of an existing Continued to mmercial center located in the Mariner's Mile area. The project also includes a 01/08/2004 Use Permit for the operation of a vehicle sales facility within the redeveloped nter. Three existing buildings totaling approximately 17,000 square feet will be emolished and replaced with an 11,300 square foot automobile sales building nd two retail/office buildings totaling approximately 12,500 square feet. the request also includes a parking modification to reduce the minimum number of parking spaces. Mrs. Wood reported that the applicant has requested a continuance of this item to 01/08/2004. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to continue this item to 01/08/2004. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich and Tucker Noes: None Absent: Kiser Abstain: None SUBJECT: Area 7 /Emerson Street Annexation (PA2003 -149) ITEM NO.5 PA2003 -149 General Plan amendment and pre- zoning for the territory know as 'Area 7' Continue to including West Santa Ana Heights, the Santa Ana Country Club, and the area 11/20/2003 south of Mesa Drive and the'Emerson Street Area.' Mrs. Wood reported that staff has requested a continuance of this item to 11/20/2003. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to continued this item to 11/20/2003. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Selich and Tucker Noes: None Absent: Kiser Abstain: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up - Mrs. Wood reported that at the last Council meeting of October 14th, the actions taken were to initiate two General Plan Amendments, one for the Balboa Theater and the other for the Land Us file : //Y: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes\Prior Years\2003 \1023.htm 06/25/2008 Planning Commission Minutes 10/23/2003 Map clean up for Via Oporto; approved a Professional Agreement to prep an Environmental Impact Report for the South Coast Shipyard prof considered on a call up the variance and modification permit for the Ta residence on Ocean Boulevard and modified the Commission action denying both the variance and modification permit. At the special mee on October 21st, that item was called up for reconsideration Councilmember Heffernan and will be set for hearing November 12th. then introduced Mrs. Rosalinh Ung who has joined the Planning Departr as an Associate Planner and will be working on Commission reports. b. Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Development Committee - none. c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Update Committee - no meeting. d. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal PI Update Committee - a meeting is scheduled for October 28th at 2:00 p.m. the Fire Conference room and will evaluate comments from the Econon Development Committee, comments from the Coastal Commission are al to be reviewed. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at subsequent meeting - A discussion was held regarding the rights of the Ci and the provisions for disqualification and regulations of review of plat submitted to the City. Commissioner Toerge asked for full size plans as I is having trouble with reading smaller sized plans that have bee reproduced multiple times. Commissioner Toerge stated he would like see issues on lighting, signage and retaining walls on projects along Coa Highway rather than to leave it up to subsequent approval by the Plannii Director. f. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - Commissioner Selich asked to have report on situation of dedication of right of way. Following a brie discussion, Mr. Edmonston stated he would bring a report on the historica components of this issue and rational particularly on Pacific Coast Highway. Commissioner Eaton asked that the report include a discussion of the nexus requirements for the Dolan case. g. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - none. h. Project status - The Notice of Preparation for the Marina Park EIR Scop meeting will be held October 29th; the Notice of Preparation for St. Mai Church will be sent out next week. Mrs. Wood noted that the Marina P EIR will be brought to the Planning Commission for review and certified the City Council. Action on the project itself will go directly to the voters. for excused absences - none. ADJOURNMENT: 9:1 MICHAEL TOERGE, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 16 of 16 file: //Y: \Users \PLN\Shared \Planning Commission \PC Minutes \Prior Years \2003 \1023.htm 06/25/2008