Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes• 11 Planning Commission Minutes 10/09/2003 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 2003 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 18 file://H:\Plancomm\2003PC\1023.htm 11/07/2003 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker - ommissioner 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 regg Ramirez, Associate Planner handra Slaven, Assistant Planner Singer 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 61INUTES of the adjourned and regular meeting of September 18, ITEM NO. 1 003. Approved Notion was made by Commissioner Cole, and voted on to approve the onsent Calendar by the following vote: Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich and Tucker Noes: None Absent: Kiser Abstain: None HEARING ITEMS OBJECT: Birch Bayview Plaza II (PA2003 -164) ITEM NO. 2 20322 Acacia Street and 20341 & 20361 Birch Street PA2003 -164 file://H:\Plancomm\2003PC\1023.htm 11/07/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 10/09/2003 Request for a Use Permit and Traffic Study to construct three offs buildings totaling 46,281 square feet, including 172 parking spaces. The acre site is located on Acacia and Birch Streets in the Santa Ana Heigl area and is bounded entirely by business park offices. The applicant al requests approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to consolidate five existing k into three. The project includes the demolition of all existing residential un and other structures. Planner Chandra Slaven gave an overview of the noting the following: • Location of project is in the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan area an is the first project to be heard for this area sinc the annexation. • Several applications have been proposed for three buildings totalin 46,281 square feet of business park. • Development is permitted under the zoning and is consistent with th guidelines for general plan. • Issue for this project is compliance with design guidelines under th Specific Plan; however, it does comply with all the developmer standards within the Specific Plan. • Exhibits of the site were reviewed on Birch Bayview Plaza I that wa . done 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 wer specified as well as elevations and height of 37 feet plus 6 feet fc screening of mechanical equipment. • Site removes the non - conforming residential uses, is a parcel mal which provides for lot consolidation that is a goal for the business par under the Specific Plan, and meets the requirements and findings fc project approval. • She then presented a memo containing minor revisions to th resolution; noted that a letter was received from the Irvine Wate Ranch on the final day of public comments to the MND; noted change to the tree box size from 24 inches to 36 inches; and replac conditions of approval in the MND with those under the drainage pla and NPDES Section as they are more effective measures and easie to enforce. • At Commission inquiry she noted the grade elevation along Birch i front of Building C is about 50 to 51 feet at the top of curb headin north. There is approximately 2 feet between the adjacer properties. The actual building pad is at 52.55 feet. The stree elevations are noted on the drainage plan near the sidewalk. • C'sigommissioner Toerge asked the applicant to address how the buildings a ned comply with, or serve to comply with, the massing and bul efinition in the Specific Plan. Page 2 of 18 Approved file : //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \1023.htm 11/07/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 10/09/2003 ", comment was opened. • ohn Baile of Watkins / Baile and Associates, representing the noted the following: 0 • Projects in the area have been designed and built with Steadf Properties. Referring to exhibits, he compared the proposed square footage the'already built' square footage. Because of the small nature of t proposal, it is not a massing issue. These buildings will be in the same architectural design family as 1 original project. The exterior windows with the deep recesses alc with exterior elements of stairs provide relief. There are exter stairs and elevators that give relief to the concrete and help alleviate massing. The external glass use dematerializes the faca of the project and gives visual interest. He then continued to point out and explain the design elements us on the proposed project and that this will become part of the Bayvi Plaza 1. At Commission inquiry, he noted that he agrees to use 36 inch t plants instead of 24 inch. He agreed to the changes to the conditions noted earlier. mes Palda, project manager of Steadfast Property noted that the proj part of a development of businesses in the area and his company I )rked on this project since November of last year. He thanked the ( iff, and in particular Ms. Slaven, for their guidance and attention to de ring the transition period from the County of Orange to the City �wport Beach. comment was closed. nmissioner Tucker questioned why this project was before the Planninc emission. As an annexed property that came in under a County specific n, the ground rules were set before we got involved. Those rules did nol ude going to the Planning Commission, it included the Planninc actor's review. It only got to us because of the TPO. I would just as in not see these at a site plan level in the future, as the Planning Director i do the job. If there is a disagreement or if the community is unhappy are the next step in the process. Does staff believe it meets the uirements of the Specific Plan and had it not come to us, would yoL Fe gone ahead and passed favorably upon the proposal that is before u: Slaven answered yes. mmissioner Toerge noted his concern of Building C at maximum so close to the street and looks like a 'box'. Upon a tour ghborhood, he noted deep recessed windows, relief in upper c file://H:\Planconim\2003PC\1023.htm Page 3 of 18 11/07/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 10/09/2003 nd balconies in neighboring developments. Looking at Bayview 1, there imilar architectural treatment on the corners of the building and a recess entry visible from the street. In the subject project, while driving south i Birch Street, the building is situated closer to the street than neighborii developments and the road curves such that Building C will be highly visit and its mass made more apparent. Relative to the reciprocal drive tl- erges the two projects, is it customary for that drive to be located witt inches of a column of a building without landscaping or a berm? Edmonston answered that this is a uniquely angled approach. T some benefits to a shared drive and we have worked with them to it to make it as functionally as possible. mmissioner Kiser noted he has no concern with the proximity of ilding towards the street given the small size of the project. He asF out the Level of Service (LOS) at Irvine/Bristol North being at E. T >ject adds an insignificant amount of traffic, can anything be done nefit that intersection? Mr. Edmonston answered no. Under the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TF he City Council has adopted what they consider to be a level of significa and that is the .01 increase in the ICU level, and this project falls be hat. The contribution they would make towards circulation sys improvements is through the payment of fair share fees. That is why have a fair share fee so that smaller projects do at least make sc financial contribution that will go towards roadway improvements. nmissioner Eaton noted that basically the architecture is similar to th sting architecture. It is closer to Birch that is a secondary highway, whic get more traffic on it. That is probably why the Santa Ana Heights grou ited the larger trees in the setback and it is good that we are able t ommodate those wishes. The driveway consolidation is an importar nent from a traffic point of view. McDaniel stated that he does not find anything objectionable project. m was made by Commissioner Kiser to approve Use Permit No. 2 Tentative Parcel Map No. 2003 -026, Traffic Study No. 2003 -004 t the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration subject to the findings itions of approval and as revised in our meeting. mmissioner Toerge noted on the conditions of approval, change the we e to gated in condition 11; condition 79 include that no construction awed on Sundays; delete condition 84 as it duplicates 82 and conditi changed to prohibit trash pickup between 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. ]The maker of the motion agreed to the additional changes. Page 4 of 18 file : //R: \Plancomm \2003PC \1023.ht n 11/07/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 10/09/2003 Page 5 of 18 Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None OBJECT: Chevron Service Station (PA2003 -073) ITEM NO.3 301 East Coast Highway PA2003 -073 lest to demolish an existing service station and construct a new service Continued to m with a food mart (with off -site beer and wine sales) and quick service 12/04/2003 outlet. The applicant also requests approval of modifications to the ce station development regulations pertaining to gross structural ire footage, number of parking spaces, accessory structure setback landscaping. Additionally, the approval of a Modification Permit for program is requested. McDaniel noted receipt of a letter from Marjorie Austin. Planner Gregg Ramirez gave an overview of the project, noting: . The existing gas station will be completely demolished with th removal of the two canopies, all pump islands, two service bays, etc. . New project includes a 2,625 square foot food mart/quick si restaurant building, no service bays, single canopy with five islands and ten fueling spaces, signage, landscaping, and access drives, one off Bayside and one off East Coast Highway. . The project is consistent with the General Plan; the Zoning requires approval of a use permit for the service station use. . The applicant is requesting modifications from the Service Static Design Guidelines: the size of the building to be 2,625 square fe with the ten fueling stations, by Code the building size is to be maximum of 942 square feet. They are asking for a deviation for tl landscaping, 23 trees are required and they are asking for 11 trees; setback adjustment for the air and water dispenser along Baysic Drive, and they are requesting approval of a Modification Permit for program for several signs that are not permitted by Code. . The applicant is not currently selling beer and /or wine at the locat' but the Use Permit would include the sale of alcohol. Public comment was opened. Nick Noduos, dealer /operator at 301 Coast Highway noted that he en operating at that location for the past five years as a gas station •echanic shop. As the industry has changed, the mechanic station one down in business and within the last two years has comple topped. They have closed the bays because it was not profitable. Si file : //H:\Plancomm \2003PC \1023.htm 11/07/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 10/09/2003 that time we have operated it as a gas station and small snack shop. V fare requesting to rebuild the location with a food mart and five multi -pur ispenser (MPD) gas station. He explained that the contract with the Mo DO Corporation has not been renewed because they have decided it is r rofitable. Therefore, we have gone with Chevron who has given us emporary contract for fuel supply pending us going to the City to c ermits to rebuild the station according to their requirements. Chevn oes not allow mechanic shops anymore. He noted the following: . To make the project feasible we need to have a multi profit cen such as a store, cashier office, restrooms and a certain number pumps. . Chevron has standard size of a store starting with 2,818 and 3 with a six MPD. . Due to the size of the lot and the lot location we narrowed that to 2,650 with the required MPD to make it feasible. We have done a parking study and a traffic study to make sure the requirements are met. Rodriguez, consulting project manager for the applicants, noted • • The design standards for today's gas outlet and convenience mark are 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 convenient oriented buyer. • Gas margins are lower on the retail side and therefore puts emphas on additional profit centers convenience store with other service inside, i.e., copiers, ATM, and food. • The square footage for buildings has therefore gone way up percentile compared to past designs for service bays and car washe on site. • The square footages that Chevron and the other major retailers ai requiring investors to place on site; are making it more and moi difficult to acquire a piece of land that is large enough to suit all V design requirements. • Referring to an exhibit, he noted the existing site and the propose site at 1.3; other sites in town with the number of dispensers ar comparisons of ratios to apply the Code to those sites. Page 6 of 18 file : / /H:1Plancomm12003PC11023.htm 11/07/2003 i Planning Commission Minutes 10/09/2003 At Commission inquiry, he noted that the sites selected for this static are the ones in the City except one that is on Newport Blvd. near 17 Street but does not include the Chevron station on Coast Highway MacArthur. It was left out of the study because of the odd shape. would be suitable for development under the current developme service station regulations with six dispensers and a 2,500 squa foot store. However, an investor would probably not do it without car wash. ,ommissioner Kiser noted that the study used by the applicant nclude all of the stations within the City. Mr. Rodriguez noted: • The Commission may want to look at how the service s regulations are written. • The major gas brands have store size requirements and produced an 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 2,500/2,800 square foot sits on 20,000/21,000 square foot lot. airperson McDaniel asked about the minimums, why wouldn't C it to have someone pump gas not dependent on how big the b The volume of gasoline is what is being sold, not potato chips. project have to be a certain size before Chevron will give the cc matter how much fuel is pumped? Rodriguez answered: . The market is going 'convenience' and to draw people in to buy gas not primarily price driven, however, the retailer will lower that pri and take a small profit margin on the gas to draw people in to tl other profit centers. . There are minimum requirements from Chevron and they will not wri a contract to redevelop a site if their minimums are not met. Tf minimums are store size and the volume of gas at 200,000+ gallons month. . The client is asking for consideration for the uses he feels he m have in order to meet the financial matrix and build a site that serve a convenience market for patrons. • I Inside the store selling chips, sodas, crackers out of the fountains anc coolers is the primary draw, but the pressure of competition drive: people to add other profit centers to make money such as 'Starbucks' file: //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \1023.htm Page 7 of 18 11/07/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 10/09/2003 'Subway' or 'Cold Stone' or some other kind of sandwich or real f preparation. . The convenience market is critical to this site. Commissioner Tucker asked: about the building elevations, the key nc I ave 16 items yet on the rear and side elevation there is a 17 in a sqL [hat has not been identified; how many colors of roof tiles will there be; it anted to go to more colors, can you do that; what will the window mulli ok like; the gas station canopy, would it be possible to have it more n less band? He added that he has no problem with the redevelopment of the property a: it is a tough property and will be a challenge to do it, but the trade off fo him is that this really needs to look terrific. I don't think that the islanc anopy looks terrific. He then asked about the color of the building, the olor board has a darker color than what it is really going to look like. The for needs to be the same color as the project next door. Is the food sigr Ding to be black? All the references in the key notes, 'to match shoppinc enter' refers to matching the Fluter center in both materials and quality orrect? The landscaping that is right in front of the mini mart, I an oncerned that a 'short-cut' path ends up being more dirt than landscape, i is not clear to me if there is going to be ground cover amongst the shrub: and trees that will be in that frontage area. I would like to see a conditior that says that landscaping must be kept in a flourishing condition, whict eans it is living. Mr. Rodriguez answered that: • 17 refers to an architectural trellis made of metal; • there is one color planned and that is of the standard spanish till color and yes, they could incorporate a mixed product; • the window mullions are aluminum and green in color and references a color tag that was distributed; • if there was an elaboration on the canopy, he suggested a corniG above the band or hanging down on top of the band to accentuate thi roof edge; • the food sign is blue faced, the color board sample shows a dark blue but the color is the same blue as on the color card; there is a colo card for the canopy and that blue is the same as the food sign will be; • and yes, the matching references will be done as closely as possibl4 to the project next door. Commissioner Selich noted that he was on the Commission for the service tation guidelines. He noted he was focusing more on the architecture any Page 8 of 18 file: //H: \Plancomm\2003PC \1023.htm 11/07/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 10/09/2003 Page 9 of 18 design of the project; however, how are we processing this exception to the square footage as a modification and not a variance? A residential o commercial development with a floor area deviations are processed ai ariances. It seems to me to be a variance to have such a great deviation. Modifications are for such minor things as setback encroachments an( things of that nature. Things such as height and intensity of use an( quare footage have always been processed by variances. issioner Tucker reiterated he sees no reason why the project the Shopping Center. . Ramirez answered that the Service Station regulations in Title 20 a Commission to modify or waive any of the development regulations + review of the use permit for the service station. It is therefore, scessed under a use permit and not a variance. There is some crit it strict compliance with the regulations is not necessary to achieve rpose and intent of this chapter; the project possesses compensa sign and development features that offset impacts associated + )dification or waiver of regulations; the overall site plan and architect sign is consistent with the City of Newport Beach Design Guidelii tomobile service stations and washing. Eaton noted his concerns about the signage height. •r. Rodriguez answered that the pole sign is not per Code and may or not be permitted. 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 comers match the building and a sign cabinet position for the Subway sign. . The sign is approximately 18 feet high, and about 6 feet wide on design; the cabinet itself is about 4ft and 2 inches wide with the I adding about 16 inches. . The existing pole sign is 88 square feet, the proposed one is square feet; staff has indicated changes to 55.6 square feet, and architectural proposal with the brick is for 61.25 square feet. . The proposed architectural sign with brick is less obtrusive, shorter and meets the needs of the site. The removal of the signage for the Subway and ATM would be about 5 feet. Mr. Edmonston noted that the pole sign, wherever it is placed on site, be covered by the condition that requires it to be compliant with the site distance standards. • Commissioner Kiser noted that if we approved something with a mon sign and it did not work for sight distance purposes, then would it file : //H:\Plancomm\2003PC \1023.htm 1110712003 Planning Commission Minutes 10/09/2003 Page 10 of 18 to Planning Commission for approval of the revised signage? Mrs. Wood answered that is the way it would work if the Commissic included the sign as part of their approval of the entire project. Anothl option would be to act on the project, if the Commission is ready to th evening, and have the signage come back separately so that staff has tirr to explore the sight distance issues. At Commission inquiry, she added th his would only be an issue if there was something in the design of tt tructure or the canopies that if approved, would indicate that a sign nee( o be there. Campbell added that the applicant would have the ability to p cage that is consistent with the Code should the sign Modification be approved. sioner Tucker asked if there would be 'grandfathering' if part of was approved. answered that the approval could be conditioned that the existing be removed and /or replaced with something that is approved by nission separately. Discussion continued on sign size, signage for other uses, placement or ite, visibility and facade. . Mr. Noduos added that the 24 -hour operation is one of the requirements o hevron because we are next to the highway. The issue of the beer an( ine, it is a recommendation from us that we are asking for as a matter o urvivorship. This is a convenience for the residents to stop and get gas packs, beer and wine. The Subway operation operates from 8 in th( orning to 8 in the evening, that is the requirement. The food mart is shu own between 11 and 5. We have a pass through window for gasoline only ar the safety of our employees. At Commission inquiry, he agreed tc putting these in the conditions of approval. missioner Kiser, referring to the sign noted that the food mart sign large, is it necessary to be that large and could it be reduced in size? Noduos answered that it is a recommendation of Chevron, even 1 and color of the building. All companies are difficult to get projects a require certain standards and elements that are easily identifiable. put restrictions on this, I have no objection, we will push it throu vron and hope they will accept it. (Commissioner Toerge noted his concern of noise when the traffic d own. There is a noise corridor opportunity between the Yankee Tavi nd the small office building between your facility and Linda Isle. In 1 • Past there has been concern with noise generated, particularly the air a ater filling station located on Pacific Coast Highway. Is there anyway Ire-locate that station to the other side of the building? file : //H:\Plancomm\2003PC \1023.htm 11/07/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 10/09/2003 Page 11 of 18 Mr. Noduos answered that as long as it does not interfere with the parkin issue we can relocate it. Commissioner Toerge noted that he is not suggesting that be done, but F is concerned about the noise generation. Additionally, is there a way 1 educe the volume of sound the pumps make when you use a credit card? Noduos answered that he would look into the noise generated from ips during transactions, as he has to install the state of the )or Vakili, operator and partner stated that if the airtwater equ in by Coast Highway it will be visible to traffic and as far as the ry do you want that there? iissioner Toerge answered he is not interested in moving the t sure at all, his only concern is with the noise generated by the air facility and how it impacts on the residents. ner Eaton asked about the timing of the de- contamina being moved. Will that be happening at a different time than ion of the station? ralandscape r. Vakili answered that we are currently waiting to hear from the State; on as we get the clearance that we can move that equipment then n that area. anne Benvenudi of Linda Isle noted her concern about the enlargeme this station, in particular the signage and lighting. Right now, it is ve ght and when more lights are added it will be more so. She added th gentlemen do keep the station nice and clean and were responsive earlier request to turn off some of the lights late at night. The buildir s since been repainted and the lights are very bright reflecting off th int. I look directly at the gas station and the lights shine directly into n ng room. We don't want this to impact us and I see all those lights as rious problem. nissioner Tucker commented that condition 28 states that the not be excessively illuminated and will provide for better control g than is there now. rperson McDaniel added that the color of the walls will be muted which will reduce light reflection. rjorie Austin noted that a lot of the items addressed in her letter seem tc addressed. The signage does seem to be a little too much however. I she asked for more subtle lighting. 0 1public comment was closed. file : //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \l023.htm 11/07/2003 r-I L J n LJ Planning Commission Minutes 10/09/2003 ommissioner Selich noted his concern of such a large deviation from tl arvice Station Guidelines that the applicant is asking for. Virtually eve to in town was analyzed in preparation of the guidelines and we came i ith what we thought was a reasonable set of regulations from the zonir A design guideline standpoint. 1 am really reluctant to approve a facili is intense on this site. I think there should be eight fueling stations; I doe row that the building has to be up to 2,000 square feet instead of 1,8( luare feet; but going up to 2,600 square feet and ten stations is creating ember of problems. Parking will be a problem as they will be down or irking space and looking at the site plan, there is a right -of -way line for tt timate widening of Pacific Coast Highway and a second parking spa( .ts wiped out when that takes place. I am reluctant to support th )pication at this size. From the design standpoint, they have done a ni( b trying to coordinate it with the project next door. I think if this goes g )proved, we should specify the tile and all elements to be used to mat( e project next door so there is no misinterpretation on it. I agree that tt r facility should be moved to the Pacific Coast Highway side; I am not ipport of the proposed sign, as it is too big. This station is prominent cated and I think a monument sign is called for and the design guidelim ore than meet the visibility requirements. You can't have a site that ore visible than this with the shape and configuration of the property at e way it is oriented to the highway. A standard monument sign will wo all there. The size of the food mart sign needs to be reduced. Unless tl oject is reduced in terms of fueling stations and size of the building, I a )t going to support it. issioner Toerge stated he liked the compatibility of de siveness to neighbors' concerns, and the convenient location. he would not support the project as proposed for the following: . The food mart sign needs to be reduced, . The monument sign should be integrated into the project something more on the order of what the Code provides, such as feet tall at 20 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 would 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 and Subway facilities that are incorporated in the project. conclusion, he stated he would be in support of a continuance to file://H:\Plancomm\2003PC\1023.htm Page 12 of 18 11/07/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 10/09/2003 applicant the opportunity to address some of those items and Commissioner Tucker noted from experience he has a feel for what th major oil companies want or don't want. It is very important that this site b re-developed as the site is an eyesore. We need to come up with practic; solutions for everyone, it does not do any good to end up with what is ther today and watch it limp along. This applicant is willing to spend th necessary money to create a good looking facility and I believe it is neede here in that part of town. We need to accommodate the applicant becaus I do believe what they are saying in terms of sizing and pumps is more c ess necessary. Does it need to be 2,600 square feet versus 2,400 squar eet I don't know about that. I think it is an effort that is worth working on, mould like to see how the canopy will look. It is key to me that the plac ooks nice. A monument sign is appropriate for this particular type of use but I think there is probably 4 or 5 feet that can be knocked out of it s nstead of nearly 19 feet it can be closer to 12 or 13 feet. I am not sure hoi ig a sign the co- brands need and I don't know if you need to have one th< ays ATM. I think maybe just one other sign would be appropriate. uggest that the applicant request a continuance but we continue talkin bout this to give him some guidance. Otherwise, he may want to have u ote on it tonight and if he wants he can go to the City Council. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to continue this item ecember 4th, 2003. hairperson McDaniel asked the applicant if he wanted a continuance. TI • pplic:ant agreed to a continuance to December 4th, and also agreed to ninety day extension of time per the Permit Streamline Act to cover the tin rick Alford, Senior Planner noted the following on the development service station guidelines: • The committee was very concerned about the size required service stations. • Looking at the trends of development, it steadily increased up 20,000 to 40,000 square feet minimum. • Looking at recent remodels in Newport Beach and other communitii it was decided the best way to handle it was on a sliding scale bas on the number and types of uses that would occur on the site. • The basic formula was taken by looking at the floor area ratios in t current Zoning Code, the parking requirements and the amount space needed at each fueling station. Those were then compared a number of existing service stations in the city. . The numbers were adjusted somewhat and ultimately finalized what is in the Code today. Page 13 of 18 file : //H:1Plancomm12003PC11023.htm 11/07/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 10/09/2003 • The calculations were done for retail components, but also things I. service bays and car washing facilities. . The waiver is a safety mechanism to deal with unforese circumstances such as an odd shaped lot or a very small lot that not have opportunity to meet the requirements. • We wanted to have some type of mechanism where the standai could not be waived without some sort of justification. There has be some type of provision that would offset a suggested deviation some type of compensating design, quality of project or alteration the site plan to accommodate that waiver, added that there has been no activity related to service stations for seven years within the City. Discussion continued on the former G hairperson McDaniel noted that this site needs to be remodeled and needs to be profitable. What do you put in there that is big enough enrice customers for fuel consumption and not have too much light for tl eighborhood and still have a facility that has adequate square footage Jo what is needed to be profitable? I am concerned about the signage, tl act we close the hours so that only fuel is dispensed after 11:00 p.m. the Nil[ be no worry about alcohol consumption, which was a big concern me. We have all these ordinances in place but we haven't needed to u hem for over seven years. So, what makes sense for this site? 1 would I filling to support this with some changes to the way it looks. )mmissioner Cole noted his support of the previous comments adding an important location for the City. He recommends a colored exhibit f > Commission to look at, the sign being shorter, and detail of the stor iterial. The wall sign is in compliance with the existing regulation wever, it is a larger structure than currently so would like something le more subtle and doesn't have a problem with the size of the building. imissioner Eaton noted that a monument sign should be at the should be shorter; the food mart sign should be smaller on the b size of the building should be reduced enough to meet the iirements. With a Subway on site, people will park next to the bu ommissioner Tucker noted the following: • Would like to see the building elevation add a note 17 that des 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 adjo Page 14 of 18 file : //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \1023.htm 11/07/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 10/09/2003 Page 15 of 18 shopping center. • . The brow element over the entry doors, call out what that is going be made of. • Landscaping - a condition that calls out what the ground cover will I and that it needs to completely cover all the dirt in the front entry w, and that all landscaping will be maintained in a flourishing conditio no bare spots. • There is a condition about the lighting and that lighting needs to st, on site. • The applicant needs to come back with a new design for the canol that shows us how that looks more like a building and less a g station (more roof, less band element). • The building needs to be brought down enough in square footage reduce the need for one parking space. Commissioner Kiser added that the applicant should look at the sic program so that any sign that could be reduced will be at this time. F asked for the additional parking space. • Commissioner Selich added: • Look at the landscaping plan and have the understory plant materi match that of the shopping center next door to create a mo integrated look. • There are four trees off Bayside Drive that are crape myrtles b queen palms are specified on Coast Highway side of the property. think all palm trees should be used. • If the building was reduced to eliminate the deviation for the parkir space, I would agree to that. Commissioner Toerge noted: • Project is designed at 42% over the Development Regulations wi regard to the building. • The five gas pumps is 25% higher than the Regulations allow. • I support reducing it down to eliminate the need for a parkir modification, but also if needed to accommodate the relocation of If air and water facility is required, I support that as well. • . I can however, support a project that exceeds the Developme file : //H:1Plancomm12003PC11023.htm 11/07/2003 • �J J Planning Commission Minutes 10/09/2003 Page 16 of 18 Regulations. Chairperson McDaniel noted he supports a 2,500 square foot building tha requires ten parking spaces, which is what the current site plan provide and the parking waiver can be dropped from the application. ommissioner Selich added that he would like to see a condition tha employees park on site and not on the streets. Commissioner Tucker stated he would like to see the color of the food marl he same as the shopping center next door as we are trying to have this be uniform look. Chairperson McDaniel recapped the previous suggestions to the applicant. Commissioner Kiser noted the conditions 21, 22, 46, 52 referring to the kitchen equipment. Should those be in there? 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 ommercial center located in the Mariner's Mile area. The project also 01108/2004 ncludes a Use Permit for the operation of a vehicle sales facility within the redeveloped center. Three existing buildings totaling approximately 17,00 quare feet will be demolished and replaced with an 11,300 square foe automobile sales building and two retail /office buildings totaling approximately 12,500 square feet. the request also includes a parking edification 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 1/08/2004. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich and Tucker Noes: None Absent: Kiser Abstain: None file://H:\Planconun\2003PC\1023.htm 11/07/2003 0 0 0 Planning Commission Minutes 10/09/2003 Page 17 of 18 file://H:\Plancomm\2003PC\1023.htm 11/07/2003 OBJECT: Area 7 /Emerson Street Annexation (PA2003 -149) ITEM NO.5 PA2003 -149 General Plan amendment and pre - zoning for the territory know as'Area Continue to including West Santa Ana Heights, the Santa Ana Country Club, and the 11/20/2003 rea south of Mesa Drive and the 'Emerson Street Area.' Mrs. Wood reported that staff has requested a continuance of this item to 11/2012003. 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 Use Map clean up for Via Oporto; approved a Professional Agreement to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the South Coast Shipyard project; considered on a call up the variance and modification permit for the Tabak residence on Ocean Boulevard and modified the Commission action by denying both the variance and modification permit. At the special meeting on October 21st, that item was called up for reconsideration by Councilmembe Heffernan and will be set for hearing November 12th, She the introduced Mrs. Rosalinh Ung who has joined the Planning Department as an Associate Planner and will be working on Commission reports. b. Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to th Economic Development Committee - none. 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 Plan Update Committee - a meeting is scheduled for October 28th at 2;00 p.m. at the Fire Conference room and will evaluate comments from the Economic Development Committee, comment from the Coastal Commission are also to be reviewed. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - A discussion was held regarding the right file://H:\Plancomm\2003PC\1023.htm 11/07/2003 I* Planning Commission Minutes 10/09/2003 of the City and the provisions for disqualification and regulations review of plans submitted to the City. Commissioner Toerge aske for full size plans as he is having trouble with reading smaller size plans that have been reproduced multiple times. Commission Toerge stated he would like to see issues on lighting, signage ar retaining walls on projects along Coast Highway rather than to leave up to subsequent approval by the Planning Director. f. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on future agenda for action and staff report - Commissioner Selich aske to have a report on situation of dedication of right of way. Following brief discussion, Mr. Edmonston stated he would bring a report on th historical components of this issue and rational particularly on Pacif Coast Highway. Commissioner Eaton asked that the report include 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 El Scoping meeting will be held October 29th; the Notice of Preparatic for St. Mark's Church will be sent out next week. Mrs. Wood note that the Marina Park EIR will be brought to the Planning Commissic for review and certified by the City Council. Action on the project itse will go directly to the voters. uests for excused absences - none. Page 18 of 18 file : //H:1Plancomm12003PC11023.htm 11/07/2003