Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes 01/08/2004 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2004 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m, L Page 1 of 18 file : //H: \Plancomm\2004 \0108.htm 02/06/2004 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker - all present. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Jim Campbell, Senior Planner Jyll Ramirez, Planning Department Assistant Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Temple noted that there were several students in attendance from Newport Harbor High School Civics Class. Commissioner McDaniel welcomed them to the meeting. POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on January 2, 2004. CONSENT CALENDAR MINUTES of the adjourned and regular meeting of December 4, ITEM NO. 1 2003. Approved Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to approve the edited minutes of December 4, 2003. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Kiser, Selich and Noes:I Tucker file : //H: \Plancomm\2004 \0108.htm 02/06/2004 • • Planning Commission Minutes 01/08/2004 Absent: None Abstain: None None HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: Fair residence (PA2003 -226) 456 Mendoza Terrace Appeal of the Modifications Committee's approval of the following encroachments: 1) an exterior staircase and guardrails in the east side yard setback; 2) a second floor deck in the front yard setback adjacent to De Sola Terrace; 3) a replacement of an existing concrete block wall in the front setback on Mendoza Terrace; 4) a new concrete block retaining wall along the west side property line, portions of which will exceed the height limit; 5) and a new retaining wall and patio in the De Sola Terrace setback in conjunction with the remodel and addition to the existing single family residence. Mrs. Ung affirmed that: . a letter had been received from Mr. Dennis O'Neil with a list of supporters of the application, which has been forwarded to the Commissioners; . a fax letter from Chris and Tad Sullivan of Seaward Rd. in support the appeal; and . a black binder supplied by the applicant that includes a composite of all the supporters with the signatures, addresses and telephone numbers; . the recommendation by staff is that the appeal be denied and the Modification Committee decision be upheld to approve the permit subject to the plans submitted and dated 11/05/2003. Ms. Temple added for clarification that there is a set of plans in the group of exhibits submitted by the applicant in the hard binder and that represented the original plan that showed the facilities related to the second dwelling unit. We want to make it clear that in no way are we approving that through the inclusion of that in this public record. Public comment was opened. Jerry Fair, owner, noted the following: . Had not been prepared for the Modification Committee hearing. • Residents since last summer. • Former home was awarded several times for gardening done by his file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \0108.htm Page 2 of 18 ITEM NO.2 PA2003 -226 Approved 02/06/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 01/08/2004 wife. • The lot is between two streets; the upper lot on Mendoza Terrace is 20 feet higher than the lower lot on De Sofa Terrace. • The last 15 feet towards the rear of the property drops over ten feet. • It is a high visibility lot. • We would like to use more of this part of the unusable lot for planting a garden. • By building this garden off our tea room, it will be very attractive. • The goal is to build a garden that the community can enjoy. • The booklet presented tonight has 47 different households that support our request and a total of 71 signatures of local neighbors who support our request. Commissioner Eaton asked: • The primary difference is the height of the retaining wall, whether there is one fairly high retaining wall or two broken up into shorter segments. • If the modification appeal is approved, would you agree to a condition that required landscaping that was high enough to screen and soften that high retaining wall. He was answered yes. • If it is not approved, the guard rails would be made out of what material? He was answered that cable would be used as a protective guardrail. Craig Shultz, of Laidlaw Schultz Architects, architect for the applicant, noted the following: • The applicants want to capitalize on the existing structure and bring it up to date, and utilize the views of the ocean and golf course. • They also want to capitalize on the outdoor space as the wife is an avid gardener and wants to create a garden in the lower level of the lot. • The lot is a 'thru' lot connecting De Sola on the lower level and Mendoza on the upper level and has a sharp fall off on the bottom 1/2 of the lot, therefore we are proposing a terraced approach. • The design was presented to the Modifications Committee. • Ultimately, the two tier scheme we presented failed; a four tiered scheme was ultimately approved. • The applicants felt that the four tier scheme is inadequate as it leaves no useable garden space at that lower level, is less sensitive to the neighbors and created taller overall mass to the Page 3 of 18 file: //H: \Plancomm\2004 \0108.htm 02/06/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 01/08/2004 down hill neighbors. • The proposal is not a granting of special privilege, but a modest design, which draws from the context of the neighborhood. • Similar modifications have been granted in the neighborhood. • We have presented over 71 signatures of surrounding neighbors in support of this proposal. • A similar result at 416 Mendoza was granted in 1979. (He then read the findings) • At Commission inquiry he answered that glass is problematic and needs to be kept clean, and, plantings would start to block their views of the ocean. The following people spoke in support of the application for reasons of attractiveness, good use of the property, terrace approach would be interesting; 15 foot setback on DeSola is not necessary as the frontage is on Mendoza, have seen the plans and agree with them, enhance values of surrounding properties, no safety or view issues are present, many other homes have 5 -6 foot walls and /or slopes that come to the street, garden is a passion for Mrs. Fair. • Eleanor Lumpston, neighbor, • Jim Wayne, neighbor . Curt Heaton, neighbor • Patty McDonald, Real Estate Agent • Rita Hatuni, neighbor • Garrett Smith, architect and neighbor Blythe Fair, applicant, referred to picture in the soft cover black booklet that showed the court yard at their last house. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Toerge noted: • Uniqueness of the lot that is street to street with a significant slope to it. • The 2 tier design appears less massive than the 4 tier design. • Sensitive to the overwhelming support of the neighbors for this proposal. • Not relative is the precedence that some speakers have noted, all projects stand on their own merit. • I support the applicant and the appeal. Commissioner Selich noted his agreements with Commissionei Toerge. Page 4 of 18 file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0108.htm 02/06/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 01/08/2004 At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted the following: . Some level of modification was granted for this particular proposal. . The concepts for tiering fences that are allowed in Corona del Mar generally was used and they were adapted to a design that would give the applicant most of what they desired. . Staffs concern was that we are seeing a growing trend for yard reclamation projects where people are buying houses on very steep slopes and then requesting very large retaining walls in order to reclaim a greater portion of flat yard. Although that is not a very significant concern in this particular case. Commissioner Tucker noted that it would not create a great precedent because of the size of walls and the manner in which this is going to be done. Even if this does change ownership, we have a condition that the upper wall needs to be screened by landscaping and that should take care of long term concerns. The record needs to reflect that we don't pay attention to precedence, each property is unique. Commissioner Kiser noted his support of the applicant noting: • Agrees with the additional condition regarding landscaping to be maintained. 0 . This modification is only for a retaining wall and in total scale would not look much different from what the Modifications Committee approved if we didn't change it. • The support of the neighborhood. • This is not a precedent as each property is looked at on its own merits. • This property is unique. Commissioner Cole noted his support of the applicant's request foi same reasons as previously stated. Commissioner Eaton noted his support of the application with the additional condition with the screening of the higher retaining wall. The conditions as approved by the Modifications Committee shoulc be brought forward into this approval as they apply. Chairperson McDaniel noted he is not in support of the application: • There is adequate space to do what is being proposed. • This will set a precedent for the entire neighborhood. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge to approve the appeal o Modification Permit No. 2003 -094 and the plans presented for a twc wall configuration by the applicant tonight as modified with the adder file: //H: \Plancomm\2004 \0108.htm Page 5 of 18 02/06/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 01/08/2004 condition that the landscape be installed that would otherwise serve to block the views from DeAnza of the second retaining wall. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple noted that in this particular case, we will include the revised findings and conditions that would match the action of the Commission as part of the minutes tonight. The Commission will then have the opportunity to review for consistency. FINDINGS: 1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan designate the site for "Single- Family Detached' residential use. The existing residential structure is consistent with this designation. The walls, decks and staircase structures are accessory to the primary use. 2. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). 3. The modification to the Zoning Code as proposed would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and is a logical use of the property that would be precluded by strict application of the zoning 0 requirements for this District for the following reasons: The area of the required 15 -foot view/front yard setback adjacent to De Sola Terrace slopes down with a steep slope thereby limits the amount of usable deck or yard area. By allowing a retaining wall and raised deck to encroach 11 feet 6 inches into the 15 -foot setback, more usable deck space can be captured, while still preserving the open yard area and maintaining the characteristics of the neighborhood. The 2 -foot 6 -inch encroachment into the 6 -foot easterly side yard setback with a new exterior staircase is minor in nature and will still provide adequate means of access along the side yard. Due to the sloping topography of the subject property, the new block retaining wall to be located on the west side property line will exceed the 6 -foot maximum height limit for approximately 33 linear feet along a property line that is 94.39 feet in length. This is a minor encroachment into the side yard setback. 4. The modification to the Zoning Code as proposed will not be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood or increase any detrimental effect of the existing use for the following reasons: Page 6 of 18 file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0108.htm 02/06/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 01/08/2004 • The block wall located in the front setback adjacent to Mendoza Terrace is replacing an existing wall in the same location and is a minor encroachment that has not resulted in a negative impact on the neighborhood. • The encroachments into the east side yard setback with an exterior staircase and the west side yard setback with a block retaining wall will be located predominantly in the center portion of the lot. These encroachments are minor in nature and will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. • Section 20.60.030 C of the Zoning Code allows protective railings around balconies to project 6 inches into a required setback. The second floor deck that will encroach 1 foot into the 15 -foot view/front setback adjacent to De Sola Terrace is a minor encroachment. • The retaining wall and raised patio adjacent to De Sofa Terrace will be set back 3 feet 6 inches from the view/front property line and 6 feet from the side property lines to minimize the impact on the neighboring properties and to allow adequate space to accommodate landscape plantings to obscure the retaining wall. The landscaping at the lower wall as required by the Planning Commission and agreed by the applicant shall be high enough to screen and soften the vertical face of the upper retaining wall. 5. The proposed encroachments into the side and view/front yard setbacks will not affect the flow of air or light to adjoining residential properties because: • The encroachments into the view/front yard setbacks are located at the street sides of the subject property and will not impact the flow of air and light to the adjoining residential properties. • The encroachment into the west side yard setback will be set back 6 feet from the adjoining residential property, thus providing adequate space for air and light. • In the east side yard setback, the staircase will maintain a 3 -foot 6 -inch setback to the property line, alsc providing adequate space for the flow of air and light tc the adjacent residential property. CONDITIONS: • 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, as datec November 5, 2003, except as noted in the following conditions. file : //HAPlancomm\200410108.htm Page 7 of 18 02/06/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 01/08/2004 Page 8 of 18 file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0108.htm 02/06/2004 2. Anything not specifically approved by this Modification Permit is prohibited and must be addressed in a separate and subsequent Modification Permit review. 3. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and of itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a precedent for future approvals or decisions. 4. In the easterly side yard setback, the exterior staircase and guardrails (solid wall) shall not exceed 9 -feet 6- inches in height above existing natural grade. The staircase may project a maximum of 2 -feet 6- inches into the 6 -foot side yard setback and shall be set back 3 -feet 6- inches from the side property line. 5. The second floor deck, including the guardrails, may encroach a maximum of 1 foot into the 15 -foot view /front setback adjacent to De Sola Terrace. Additionally, it shall maintain a 14 -foot set back to the property line. No portion of the deck may encroach into the 6 -foot side yard setbacks. 6. In the 5 -foot front yard setback adjacent to Mendoza Terrace, a new concrete block wall may be constructed to replace the existing wall in the same location. As depicted on the approved plans, the new wall shall not exceed 4 -feet 9- inches in height above existing natural grade, and it shall not encroach more • than 3 feet into the 5 -foot setback at the westerly corner of the property. 7. A new block retaining wall may be constructed along the west side property line with portions of the wall exceeding the 6 -foot maximum height limit. As depicted on the approved plans, the portions of the wall that exceed 6 feet above existing natural grade shall consist of approximately 33 linear feet and shall be no higher than 11 feet above grade. 8. In the 15 -foot view /front yard setback adjacent to De Sola Terrace, a new retaining wall to support a raised patio may be encroached a maximum of 11 feet 6 inches into the setback and shall maintain a setback of 3 feet 6 inches to the property line. Top of the retaining wall shall be at 191.97 above sea level as depicted on the approved plans. A maximum 36 -inch high guardrail shall be permitted atop the retaining wall to comply with the Uniform Building Code requirements. No portion of the retaining wall or raised patio may be located within 6 feet of either side property line, except as conforms to the maximum height of 3 feet above existing grade as permitted by the Zoning Code. The landscape shall be installed so that the vertical face of the upper retaining wall shall be obscured by vertical or hedge plantings or creeping vines. Code Enforcement Supervisor shall schedule • an inspection 90 days after final of building permits to verify compliance with this condition of approval. Page 8 of 18 file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0108.htm 02/06/2004 EJ Planning Commission Minutes 01 /08/2004 9. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a revised copy of the plans that depict the encroachments approved by Modification Permit No. MD2003 -094 shall be submitted to the Planning Department for inclusion in the Modification Permit file. 10. A building permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of the construction. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Noes: McDaniel Absent: None Abstain: I None Toerge, Selich, Kiser and Tucker Page 9 of 18 SUBJECT: Leo Gugasian Center (PA2003 -174) ITEM NO. 3 900 -1040 West Coast Highway PA2003 -174 Development Plan and Use Permit for the redevelopment of an existing Approved commercial center and the construction and operation of a vehicle sales facility. The application includes a parking modification to reduce the minimum number of parking spaces, an off -site parking agreement for a shared parking lot on two adjacent properties, and a request to exceed the base floor area ratio by approximately 977 square feet. James Campbell, Senior Planner presented a brief history, noting: • This application had been continued from October 23, 2003 for a re- design of the plans. • Three buildings would have been removed with construction of a 23,800 square foot building for vehicle sales, retail and office space. • The issues at the October meeting were the excess floor area requested beyond Code restraints, and not providing sufficient parking. • The applicant has re- designed the project by scaling it back. The original included 3 new buildings and the revised project has only two. The project includes a use permit for the vehicle sales facility in the first building (western), which is 11,300 square feet. • Building 2 will be 6,487 square feet and will include retail and office uses. The existing buildings on the eastern lot (West Marine) will be retained. • There will be one parking lot for all the buildings. • A revised site plan shows the common parking for both properties. • A 1998 parking waiver that had been granted will still be maintained. • As mentioned, the project includes a use permit for the vehicle sales facility and staff is recommending approval based upon the design of file: / /H: \Plancomm \2004 \0108.htm 02/06/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 01/08/2004 the buildings and the fact that there will be no vehicle storage in the parking area or vehicle service; and . The project includes a Development Plan for the overall redevelopment of the project site. Staff believes that the findings can be made pursuant to the Mariners Mile Design Framework and the Code. . The project is short one parking space, the need is justifiable given the proposed uses and development. . The resolution within the packet outlines all the findings and then distributed an exhibit with noted changes to conditions 6, 7, 17, and elimination of 31. . Condition 17 addresses the reciprocal access and off -site parking agreement for the common parking facility across the two property lines. . The condition changes have been discussed with the applicant prior to the meeting. Commissioner Kiser noted that the plans listed on the conditions of approval, the site plan dated 11/24/2003 and the other floor plans, elevation drawings, roof plan and landscape plan are dated 01/08/2004. Mr. Campbell explained that those plans were in the previous staff report and were not dated. We have therefore listed them with today's date. Commissioner Eaton referred to the previous parking agreement that was for four tandem employee parking spaces, with the shift of parking from the westerly parcel to the easterly parcel with this proposed plan, those tandem spaces are no longer shown. What happened to them, and have they been implemented to date? The landscape plan shows a boxwood hedge in front of the auto dealer building, but the colored rendering depicts open display; which is it going to be? Mr. Campbell answered that the tandem spaces are within a row of parking that abuts the westerly side of West Marine and are eliminated with the new proposed site plan. 42 spaces are provided for the West Marine property within this common parking area. The rendering is for illustrative purposes only and would not be used as approval of the landscape plan. Sheet P1 shows the hedges in place and is the controlling document. There are conditions of approval that require modification of this plan to be consistent with the Mariner's Mile Design Framework. • Commissioner Tucker, noted: file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0108.htm Page 10 of 18 02/06/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 01/08/2004 • There are two separate legal parcels. . How much building area would have to be reduced in order to not be one parking space short? • The right of way on Coast Highway is per the General Plan? • If the Council views the widening of Coast Highway as something they want to address on a policy basis they will, but until they do so, it is my inclination to just move on with these projects and assume that it won't be widened. We don't know if it will get done in three years or thirty years, or ever. It seems a legitimate to move ahead with the upgrading of Mariner's Mile. Mr. Campbell answered: . 67 square feet would have to be eliminated. . If Coast Highway is widened, the parking area would have to be modified and will probably lose 20 spaces along the first row of parking fronting Coast Highway. Commissioner Tucker then referenced condition 17. The provisior states that the parking agreement shall be provided prior to any financing, which puts them in a superior position, preserving the agreement if the two parcels are separately conveyed. With the deletion of the proof of recordation of the agreement, how do wE establish that has been recorded? Ms. Clauson, Deputy Assistant Attorney, answered: • The City Attorney's office needs to actually approve the off-site parking agreement. • This agreement is a condition of approval to the off -site parkins arrangement, and will insure the City that it is superior to any financing. • The building permit will not be issued until this condition is met. A discussion ensued on the requirement for agreements. Mr. Edmonston noted, at Commission query, that the City Counci has previously established guidelines for when we can require thi dedication of right -of -way even on a street like this, where it is : Master Plan of Improvement, and they have put specific limitations of acquisition adjacent to state highways. It was done specifically ti address issues in Mariner's Mile because of the uncertainty of the • widening. Commissioner Tucker noted that the City Council has figured out file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0108.htm Page I 1 of 18 02/06/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 01/08/2004 the City is granting additional building area and then the City comes in and widens the highway, the amount of severance damages and condemnation damages might just increase because of our actions. Once again, that is a policy call whether we sit and wait to figure out when we are ever going to widen Coast Highway or whether we go ahead and if an opportunity presents itself have improvement down in the Mariner's Mile area. Hopefully, they will read the minutes and decide if this is something they want to discuss. Commissioner Kiser asked: • What justification did the applicant have for not combining the parcels in order to get over the floor area ratio problem? • Condition 23 refers to street trees, we should also reference the Mariners Mile Design Framework. Mr. Campbell answered: • The reason given for not combining the parcels at this time was due to separate financing concerns of the applicant. • Condition 23 refers to the trees within the public right -of -way. The Mariner's Mile Design Framework does not relate to the right -of -way trees. The other landscape conditions are proposed per the Mariner's Mile Design Framework. Mr. Cole asked: • Condition 15 talks about roof equipment. On the new building, are we clear that there will be a harmony of the roofs for the people above as it relates to the 'fifth side of architecture'. I want to make sure that we are clear that the roofs will be consistent with color and design. • Is the flat roof design on the new building consistent with the existing building? • Is it clear that the roof equipment is to be screened? • I suggest that the colors of the adjoining roofs match. Mr. Campbell answered: • Condition 15 refers to the new buildings. The older buildinc roofs will stay the way they are. • The new roofs shall be treated and painted to achieve the affec of the photograph, which was in the prior staff report that is the . roof of the adjacent Newport Auto Sports building. We car clarify that this condition applies to the new buildings. file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0108.htm Page 12 of 18 02/06/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 01/08/2004 . The condition incorporates anything on the roof would have to be treated in some fashion. Building 1 will have one piece of equipment on it, but the roof plans do not indicate anything on building 2. The roof will be treated with gravel surface. Commissioner Kiser noted that the sign plan will be handled through a condition that the signage be done in accordance to the applicable standards of the Mariner's Mile Overlay zone. Is it possible for it to be conditioned that the signage plan will be brought back to the Commission for approval? He was answered yes, that could be added to condition 14. James (Buzz) Person, representing the applicant, noted the following: • The applicant owns many properties in Mariner's Mile area. • Has revised plans and have discussed conditions of approval with staff and agree to them. • They are opposed to coming back to the Planning Commission for sign approval as they pertain to matters within the Code in terms of footage, size and size that is allowed. Ms. Clauson added that review of the signs is done because it is part of an approval of a site plan review or under specific guidelines development, or an exception or modification to the sign code. If the applicant has a plan to put up signs that comply with the code, the Commission has no authority to review them as to aesthetics or size. The Commission can add a condition that unless it specifically complies in all respects with the Sign Code is what is authorized, any changes would require a full review of the sign program. Commissioner Selich noted that the guidelines in the Mariner's Mile gives the Commission the ability to review signs of a discretionary application. Ms. Clauson answered if the Mariner's Mile gives that authority, then the Planning Commission has the right to review the applicant's sign program. Mr. Person noted that the applicant agrees to all the findings and conditions. He added that in terms of the equipment on the Newport Auto Sport roof, the equipment is back against the bluff and is not visible from the highway. At Commission inquiry, he noted that the applicant is aware of the superiority of the parking agreement ahead of the financing. There are two separate financial packets on these . properties, one is superior to the other. Public comment was opened. file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0108.htm Page 13 of 18 02/06/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 01/08/2004 Mr. Campbell noted that the design guidelines do not specify review • process; however, within the Zoning Ordinance it does discuss a development plan process, which is subject to the Planning Director's authority for sign approvals. That application requires a public hearing, that Development Plan is before you this evening but we do' not have the details of the signs to approve the final designs. We can bring back a review to assure that it is compliant with the design framework and the Code at a later date if the Commission wishes. Commissioner Tucker iterated that it would be the Planning Director's review. He noted that should be done by the Planning Director and sees no reason for the Planning Commission to be involved with the sign program. Commissioner Kiser stated that the design guidelines allows discretion in the approval of signage. He was answered that it is very limited discretion and only applies in the area of pole signs where a guideline exists. Commissioner Kiser stated he would like to see it come back for review as the property is such a visible one. Commissioner Tucker noted he sees no reason why the project could not be reduced by 67 square feet so that the project is not one parking space short. • Mr. Person answered that part of the problem is that a good portion of the building drawings are already done. The 67 square feet represents .27 of a parking space. It was felt between the applicant and staff that one parking space was de minimus and not important enough to cause a re- drawing of the working drawings. The applicant is opposed to the reduction of the 67 square feet. Commissioner Eaton noted that there appears to be room between the existing building and a proposed building 2, is there room to put a parking space in there? Mr. Edmonston stated that the space between the buildings would end up being perpendicular space and would not be conducive to angled stall parking. The other thing to point out is the site plan does not currently have provisions for trash enclosures and other things that the applicant will eventually have to provide for. There are still known features that have to be provided for. Commissioner Tucker stated that it was presumptuous of the applicant to start his working drawings before he had his approval but I don't think it would be that big a deal to re- capture the 67 square feet. Since it is a fraction of a space, I am not going to make ar • issue. Public comment was closed. file : //H:1P1ancomm\2 0 0410 1 0 8.htm Page 14 of 18 02/06/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 01/08/2004 Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to approve Development . Plan No. 2003 -002 and Use Permit No. 2003 -026 subject to the findings and conditions of approval within the draft resolution and with the revisions to conditions 6, 7, 17, 20 and deletion of 31. Condition 1 floor plans, elevation drawings, roof plan and landscape plan shown as dated 01/08/2004 are the ones reviewed in the prior meeting as they are applicable to the current development. The Planning Director can approve the signage and does not need to come back to the Commission for review. Condition 23 was clarified and does not need to be changed. Commissioner Toerge noted: • We do not have a landscape plan that matches the proposed' site plan. • We do have a landscape plan consistent with the old development where there was going to be new buildings on the easterly lot. Staff answered the landscape plan will be revised to reflect the current site plan. The change in the project does not really affect the landscape plan. There are planned improvements for landscaping on the eastern property. Continuing, Commissioner Toerge noted: • This project is woefully short on detail compared to the other projects we have looked at on Mariner's Mile. • There is no real design consideration for the fifth sided architecture of the roof. I saw the photograph and the textured roof. • He is very concerned to hear that the easterly buildings won't be treated at all. They are part of the project. • Would like to integrate the need to improve those roofs consistent with the westerly side at this time. • Are there any improvements to the retaining wall? We have dealt with other properties in this area where we addressed, or at least saw the retaining walls materials, colors. • Where are the nautical elements to this that the design guidelines suggest? • There is far less detail on this project than I am accustomed tc seeing. • . For these reasons, I will not be supporting this application. . Any time we assume some uniqueness of the ownership and file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0108.htm Page 15 of 18 02/06/2004 Planning Commission Minutes 01/08/2004 we create conditions around them, we may be up for a surprise. . Tying the parking recordation to an act of financing, completely ignores the possibility that the project is built without a new loan. . There should be some other trigger point in the event that the property is developed without a new loan. Ms. Clauson stated that the only concern the City has is if there is any financing that exists that the agreement is subordinated to the existing financing, or that if there is no financing, or if it is put on later, that it gets recorded before any financing. It is my understanding that it has to be recorded before the issuance of any building permits. Continuing, Commissioner Tucker noted: • Agrees with Commissioner Toerge's comments on the lack of detailed plans. • The eastern part of the project, other than a re- arrangement of some parking spaces, really isn't proposed for new development. • I have no problem with leaving the existing structures as is. • The rearrangement of the parking will be a big help and the lot will be much better in terms of circulation. Commissioner Eaton noted: • 1/4 of a space is not that big a deal. • When you get a lucrative sales tax generator in, you sometimes don't go to quite as much detail as you would otherwise. • I trust staff to be able to enforce those things that the Commission would have enforced if all the details had been in front of us. • Because it is an auto dealer, condition 2 is important because dealers tend to end up doing some service work, even if they are not supposed to. That starts to use parking spaces. • It is tempting to have more cars on display in what otherwise should be required parking spaces. • We need to make clear to the applicant and to staff that condition 2 needs to be adhered to, otherwise there will be a genuine parking problem on this site. • . Supports the application. Commissioner Cole noted: Page 16 of 18 file: //H:\Plancomm \2004 \0108.htm 02/06/2004 • 0 Planning Commission Minutes 01/08/2004 Language regarding the roof can be added that the roof equipment will only be on the westerly portion as well as a consistent color as the color on the adjacent development, (Newport Auto Sport). Commissioner Kiser noted that plans show the color, type of materials are shows consistent with the main portion of the building. Only one of the buildings has an air conditioning unit that will be screened and consistent color. Mr. Temple clarified that the color on the new buildings of the roofs will be consistent with the Newport Auto Sport building next door so the roofs adjoining one another would be consistent. If that is made a condition than the roof of the new building will be a slightly different color than the one next door. Commissioner Kiser, as the maker of the motion, agreed. Mr. Person agreed for the applicant. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker Noes: Toerge Absent: None Abstain: None xxx ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a. City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple reported that the Council passed to second reading the Landmark Building Ordinance; no action was taken on the matter of the modification permit and deferred the matter back to staff for additional study with the direction to revise the application consistent with the new Planning Commission findings with an additional trial period of three months; the applicant's appeal of the Conexant sign was approved. b. Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - none. c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - Commissioner Eaton reported that a brief overview of the follow -up of the natural vegetation survey; four nominations were made to the City Council; the first two portions of the traffic model was re- worked. d. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0108.htm Page 17 of 18 ADDITIONAL BUSINESS 02/06/2004 • • Planning Commission Minutes 01/08/2004 Page 18 of 18 Coastal Plan Update Committee - no meeting. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Commissioner Tucker noted it would be helpful to have more detail on the plans presented. A discussion ensued on the effort to work with potential applicants and the information provided for projects. Commissioner Toerge asked about the sign issue for the Auto Bistro property. A report will be brought to the Planning Commission. There will be no meeting on January 22nd due to lack of business. f. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. g. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - Ms. Temple noted that the 5th sided architecture item will be included on an agenda for discussion. h. Project status - none. i. Requests for excused absences - none. ADJOURNMENT: 8:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT MICHAEL TOERGE, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION file: //H: \Plancomm \2004 \0108.htm 02/06/2004