Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 • Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 2003 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Page 1 of 13 file : //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \0821.htm 04/05/2003 INDEX ROLL CALL: Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker - Commissioner Cole was excused. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 PA„ S ►� Minutes SUBJECT: Minutes of4 W7, 2003 SUBJECT: Parking Determination ITEM NO. 2 Use Permit No. Request for Planning Commission to make the determination of 1412 substantial conformance for the existing parking plans for Park Newport pursuant to Use Permit 1412. Discussion item. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve the consent calendar. Ayes: Eaton, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker CONSENT Noes: one CALENDAR file : //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \0821.htm 04/05/2003 • u E Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 Page 2 of 13 Absent: Cole Approved Abstain: Tucker and Toerge from Item No. 1 POSTING OF POSTING OF THE AGENDA: THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, August 15, 2003. HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: The Bluffs Retail Center Sign Program (PA2003 -170) ITEM NO. 3 1303 Bison Avenue PA2003 -170 Request to amend the Sign Program for The Bluffs Retail Center to increase the sign area for tenant identification wall signs. Continued to Ms. Temple reported that the applicant has requested this item be 09/04/2003 continued to September 4, 2003. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to continue this item to September 4, 2003. Ayes: Eaton, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker Noes: None Absent: Cale Abstain: None SUBJECT: McDonald's Restaurant Reconstruction (PA2001- ITEM NO. 4 155) PA2001 -155 700 W. Coast Highway Continued to Use Permit and Development Plan to redevelop the existing McDonald's 09/04/2003 restaurant at 700 W. Coast Highway in Mariner's Mile. The existing 3,045 sq. ft. restaurant will be demolished and a new 3,174 sq. ft. restaurant building will be constructed with a reconfigured drive -thru. The application also requests a modification of required parking. Senior Planner, James Campbell noted the following: • Item was last heard December 2002; applicant was directed to make substantial changes to comply with the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and framework. • Applicant has made changes. • Staff recommends approval of the application. • No letters of opposition have been received. file : //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \0821.htm 09/05/2003 • • Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 The roof design was changed to comply with Zone requirement that the roof be screened and present a fifth architecture. Applicant has two different proposed options. Referring to a slide presentation, he noted: 9 ➢ First option — truss like structure with screens, comprised corrugated metal panels; a color board was presented; screen does not cover the entire roof due to the need ventilation for mechanical equipment on the roof; elevat drawings were shown and explained. Staff recommends 1 design option. Second option — trellis like patio structure that would sit atop twc portions of the roof area and does not cover as much of the roo as the first option. Staff does not recommend this design. Elevation drawings were shown with large parapet and the design was discussed. ➢ Building color was an issue. Th grays /off white and blue with the limited to the signage. colors have been revised red and yellow corporate c The site plan was discussed — noted conflicts of drive -thru; increase setback of the building and more landscaping along the street are now provided. The applicant has flipped the building around on the site. The previous dual order board system has been moved to provide a bigger setback along the front building. The drive -thru has the same counter clockwise direction. A parking space has been lost resulting in a total of 30 parking spaces. The restaurant seating has been reduced from 56 to 50 seats. The queue is smaller and the applicant has performed a study the existing location. The study shows there would be a modf amount of time where the vehicles might stack up in excess what the supply might be. The report relies on the queue extend along the parking area, which might create vehi conflicts in the parking area. Staff has developed two conditions to create a clear zone area well as to station employees in the parking lot to direct traffic such a way as to keep the cars flowing so there is no backing up the driveway. The revised landscape plan does have the features that Commission is looking for, but it is not in strict compliance with file : //H:1Plancomm12003PC10821.htm Page 3 of 13 09/05/2003 n U Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 applicable requirements as they do not use the proper species of l trees. Staff recommends that it be amended to comply with Strategic Vision of the framework as well as the Zoning Code. • Photographs of the site are available for review. Commission inquiry, Mr. Campbell noted: 3 exhaust vents that are not shown on the roof plan are r( by three boxes on the north elevation side and do not through the roof. Landscape issue — the Mariner's Mile Design framework calls for four foot wide linear feature of Washingtonia robusta palm, plant( on 18 feet on center with a hedge of Texas privet running along tt entire frontage of the property. It is intended to be at the back the sidewalk. The applicant's plan has the hedge row at the back the landscape planter against the parking area with oth, landscaping materials in front of it. The proposed plan uses tt existing Queen palms to be re- planted on site. Staff believes that linear feature is being created along the front of the proper consistent with the intent of the Code, but the Queen palms shou be used in other landscape areas and Washingtonia robusta pal trees used along the front of the property. Staff has propose conditions to comply with the required species. imissioner Selich noted that the concept was a much narrov scape area between the sidewalk and the parking lot than there is situation. The hedge situation is probably the right solution but t hingtonia palms should be planted according to the specifications design framework. The tree statement is something we want -re to as part of the design guidelines going down the highway. imissioner Kiser, referring to the site plan, clarified that the probl( the site circulation is the back up of cars from the order board that c c only 5 -6 cars. There might be a conflict where cars could end (ing in the parking lot and across the entry. Has it been considered rse the flow of the cars? With the order board in back, it seems ti d solve this one issue. Campbell noted the conflict is possible and would be something that ds to be avoided. Staff and the applicant have not looked at reversing flow. However, the floor plan of the restaurant is set up in that fashion it would need a re- design of the prototype floor plan. The applicant elaborate on what the affects might be. •Commissioner Tucker noted concerns of what the roof screen looks like what the building looks like. In looking at the elevations, the roof design driven by the few residents who live above. The decision seems to I Page 4 of 13 file : //H:\Plancomm\2003PC \0821.htm 09/05/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 (driven by the desire to have greater screening and I am not so sure that shouldn't be driven by what it is going to look like from the street as Ion • as we have adequate screening. I am curious to know why the site ws 0 0 Campbell answered that each elevation is driven by the perspective is looking at it and at Commission request, presented a slide depicti building in its present state. comment was opened. Solon, 4 Castellina Drive, noted the following: Owns three McDonalds in Newport Beach and has owned operated restaurants for thirty years. It is a challenge to get the cars off the property more than on to property. The old site plan shows that after a car was served, the probl was getting out onto the highway. The concern is that cars can't served as long as the car in front of it can not get away from window. As for being able to stack more cars, the problem N getting the cars off site. • The new site plan gives a better opportunity to get cars off the and is further away from the traffic signal at Dover creating a le gap allowing for the customer to exit on to the highway. It queue 6 cars with the car at the order board. • Marking the pavement in the on -site drive isle leading from the driveway for the drive -lane is a good idea and functionally will work. • Having employees directing cars is a real challenge and would expensive. What we will have is a camera system monitoring drive -thru lane so a manager on site will see what is happening. • The peak queuing now in the whole drive -thru lane from the orda board back is five, from the pick up window all the way back is ten. • We are looking at a pre - ordering system software package. • Drive -thru directional signs are depicted on the site plan. • The cashier window being opened is driven by volume as it the queue board more efficient. • Trash receptacles are located at the end of the drive -thru lane file : //H:\Plancomm\2003PC \0821.htm Page 5 of 13 09/05/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 Page 6 of 13 perhaps could also be placed at another area along the far driveway. Don Ikler, construction manager for the McDonald's, noted the following: • The top of the parapet will be approximately at the same location w the top of the existing red roof. The proposed parapet wil adequately screen the mechanical equipment from the ground anc increasing the height of the parapet will not be necessary. Fron above, the only way to screen the equipment on the roof is with the two screen options proposed. • In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Tucker, incre; the height of the parapet would reduce the visibility of screening elements. • The proposal for a plain corrugated metal roof in option 1 is a more obtrusive and when it weathers, it will become dull gray a subdued. The concept is trying to achieve a 'cannery' look. concept of option 2 was to make the screening elements m subdued. Commissioner Kiser noted that the proposal for a plain corrugated rr roof in option 1, did you mean for the metal to disappear? Is the idea •it won't be noticed after a while? 1 don't think it will look good when metal is shiny. If option 1 was changed to make the metal disapi more, it would be more acceptable. rtmissioner 5elich noted that his suggestion on the roof would be a rc tcture that would be integrated with the design of the building that cot either a hip or gable roof structure. Within that roof structure you cot )rporate open elements, slats, louvers, etc. to provide for adequ< itilation. I read the letter from your mechanical engineer who states tt been designed to the best of your ability and that cert< intenance /service availability code required clearances and air A uirements with the various pieces of equipment are needed. He stat is the best that can be done. I find the letter lacking in specificity ns of how many square feet of ventilation space is needed for tl tipment, etc. I am not convinced that you have come up with the be ;ign that fits in with technically what is possible. Mr. Ikler answered the problem is, that based on the building code requirements just around the units, it is such a small structure that the distances between each unit requires the units to be placed as is, Additionally, there has to be enough cross flow to allow breathing of the HVAC units; even with the exhaust vents, they have to protrude through tc get enough ventilation. We had to leave it open on the sides, just slats i; •not enough. It is to have pure ventilation for the plumbing, HVAC and al the units. The slats would constrict the amount of air that is going across. Without that air flow the units will be constricted and the building code: file : //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \0821.htm 09/05/2003 E n U Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 not be met. oner Selich asked if anyone on staff had verified this. answered no. Ikler added that the building plan checkers can verify this. Additionally ing at other buildings in the area, this situation appears to be unique. nmissioner Eaton noted his concern of the bright metal on the i :ening. He asked if the applicant could get either pre- oxidized ited materials. He was answered that they would look into erring to the elevation of option 2, he asked what the material was four posts in the corners. He was answered that the proposal was ited corrugated metal. Commission inquiry, Mr. Solon added: • Deliveries will be made during business hours. • Motorized dollies take pallets down the sidewalk to the door. • He asked if there was a site issue with the building flipped the it is in the new site plan. m answered that a lot of new construction involving bringing the to the back of the homes above is going on and will progress McDaniel asked about the trees. He noted that robusta species is going to be part of the landscaping. Ikler noted that they had hoped to use the trees on site; however, species will be fine. Referring to Condition 10, he asked al firing the entry. Campbell noted that the dining room is being operated up to 11: and then the parking lot would be secured so people could not pa would have to use the drive -thru lane. -ring to the exhibit, Mr. Solon noted that the people could not use -thru if the parking area was closed off with chains. He noted drive thru the chains; it becomes an insurance issue and a wing a brief discussion, the Commission decided to eliminate the L mce so that the condition now reads, `Hours of operation shall 5:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. with the dining room closed between 11: and 2:00 a.m. daily.' file : //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \0821.htm Page 7 of 13 09/05/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 Page 8 of 13 Mr. Ikler continued • Condition 19 — the existing sewer easement services the neighbor; above the establishment. It does not service the restaurant itself. Why is it conditioned that the restaurant replace the line at thei expense? The City already has the right to come in thru the curren easement. . Campbell noted that this condition came from the Utilities Department. eir primary concern is that with the age of the line, if it had to be (laced at a later date, it could possibly compromise the foundation of the ilding from the previous plan. Additionally, a lot of work is being done the retaining wall and during that construction, the Utilities departmen wght this would be a perfect opportunity to get the line replaced. >ioner Kiser asked if the condition could be revised to say, `.. by the Utilities and Public Works Departments.' Staff agreed. Commissioner Tucker clarified that there is a sewer easement across tl McDonald's property for the residences up above. That easement gran he City rights to come in and service, repair or replace that line. It is public line that serves the neighborhood above. What would happen if v did not require this line be replaced now but subsequently it becan necessary for the City to exercise the rights to come in. It would be dug t and the site would be disrupted. What happens to the retaining wall? A he retaining wall footings going to be changed? I question whether it the applicant's responsibility to replace the sewer line itself. Ms. Clauson, Assistant City Attorney added that another option would be that during the construction phase, it would be a good time to replace the line rather than later after all the work has been done. The minimum is the Utilities and Public Works Departments would require an agreement from the property owner that if they're encroaching or going over our easement with the structure that has to be removed when the City has to get in and do the work that it would be the applicant's cost to replace whatever would need to be removed. Generally speaking, when the City has utility easements they look at solid wall construction and other types of structures that go over or impact the ability to access the utility underneath. The opportunity to get a replacement done at the same time as the new construction is important, or if there is not the ability to do it now, I can understand the desire to have an agreement so that the applicant is not later coming back to the City and saying that you had to break through my wall to fix the sewer line. Generally, that is the way the City works, if you have to break through a structure that is put over an easement and/or access, it is the owner's responsibility to replace that structure. If it is a requirement that the applicant do it according to some •City standard, it does not need to be made a condition of approval by the Planning Commission. It will have to be dealt with. Ikler added that it could be worded that we agree to work with the file:I/H:\Plancomm\2003PC\0821.htm 09/05/2003 E 0 • Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 construction to facilitate any changes that need to be done to line. imissioner Kiser noted that the condition should read something like applicant shall replace the existing sewer main that crosses the sct property if required by Utilities and Public Works Departments.' rtunately, we don't know what the easement says and it is going tc .nd on what the requirements of the present easement are. Thel a parking lot, curbs and gutters over it now and the applicant is ng another retaining wall and there are probably some legal issue: need to be discussed. For purposes of us getting this finished, I don' we need to do that unless we can not revise that condition. Temple noted that if the Commission wishes to keep the concept applicant replacing the line, I think it is hard to not eliminate t uirement for them to replace it which implies that they also pay for iving the language that the applicant shall replace, and then later on t Aicant could come to the City and asks for some kind of relief. iissioner Kiser recommended elimination of the condition or at type of middle ground. Temple noted staff will look into the nexus for this condition. Ikler then referred to condition 38, a camera will be mounted to 1 problems in the drive -thru area as opposed to personnel being to direct traffic. Edmonston noted that this condition is very similar to one that is or .ir existing use permit and stems from times in the past when traffic di( Iularly queue out onto Coast Highway at lunch time. I am not aware o it happening in the recent past and maybe it won't happen in the future wever, the City needs to have some protection. The applicant is goinc know on the day to day operation if there is going to be a problem o I. If it happens once every six months, nobody is going to get excited. t if it happens two or three days a week then that is the issue that we trying to forestall. I recommend that no change be made. Ikler agreed with the Commission that condition 38 stays as stated. . Tucker asked about having periodic cleaning of the awnings a >lacement when they become unduly stained. That is a feature a ise things wear down over time and we want the building to stay crisp appearance. The applicant had no objection and agreed. Comment was closed. Toerge noted that he: file : //H: \Plancomm \2003PC \0821.htm Page 9 of 13 09/05/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 Prefers Option 2 — not build the 'wings' and incorporate sor painting of the roof with a consistent color to blend with the balan of the roof to have a better looking building from t street/sidewalk/and City residents; there is no public views of t top of the building; relative to the sewer issue, the potenl disruption to the business for repair of that sewer after t restaurant is re- opened, might be more damaging than the cost put it in, but I also don't believe that it should be your requirement pay for it as it is a public sewer and should be paid by the publ regarding the queue study from behind the order board, it does r look like there is ever 5 cars or more behind in the existing situati< so I don't know if this traffic issue will be an issue there. r Kiser asked about the Mariner's Mile with option 2. Campbell answered that the issue about screening from the roof is eline in this case both in the Zoning Code and the Mariner's Mi ign Framework. Option 1 provided enhanced screening, hence ti mmendation for approval. I think you could find option 2 `ormance with the guidelines because it does screen some of the ro Commissioner Tucker asked about the visibility of the vertical eleme •over the drive -thru window on the north elevation from Coast Highway. am not sure what good it is doing and I don't want to see it from the Coe Highwav side. . Ikler answered that it would be hard to see. We could use the sar ver elements as in the previous options, or, stucco the back of it to fini or, we could eliminate. the tower or reduce the height, that is not Tucker added that option 2 is a better ✓ation than the other option 1. Commissioner Selich stated he did not care for either option and does no support the application. The applicant has not done a good faith attemp to meet the Mariner's Mile guidelines. Neither option fits within those guidelines. If it is technically infeasible to not be able to come up with e better solution on treating the roof then this, then we ought to eliminate that part of the design guidelines because we are going to have the same problem with all the buildings coming up and down the area. They are al going to want to do flat roofs with mechanical equipment atop them. One of two things, either the guidelines are impractical and should be revised or, there should be a better solution than we have here. The evidence tha •has been presented does not convince me that it is impossible to design e roof that does the job and meets all the requirements in the mechanica engineer's letter, although, there has not been enough detail informatior presented to say that he is right or wrong, there is no quantitative data. Page 10 of 13 file : //H:\Plancomm \2003PC \0821.htm 09/05/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 Page 11 of 13 The elevations look good and are in the theme of the Mariner's Mile .framework, but where the problem is now to integrate the roof structure to shield all the mechanical equipment into a building that was never designed to have that kind of a roof in the first place. Maybe that is where they are having the problem. There has been no serious attempt to put a fifth elevation on this building roof. If the rest of the Commission is inclined to support it, we need to go back and re -visit those design guidelines and recommend that aspect be removed. There is a big difference between treating it as a fifth elevation element and screening mechanical equipment. There are a lot of ways to screen mechanical equipment, i.e., painting, etc. Commissioner Tucker noted that a building of this size, with the amount of mechanical equipment, may be potentially a different situation than a typical retail, office building where indeed, you don't necessarily need to have as much equipment on the roof. To satisfy that concern, maybe we should take another couple of weeks and have the applicant look at what the feasibility is of actually coming up with a better screening plan. Perhaps they can satisfy staff they have done all they can as a practical matter because of the Code difficulties. There is only so far we can go. I don't want to discourage the applicant because what they have today would be great to have replaced. I am willing to bend on the guidelines if I have some level of comfort that we have tried. Commissioner Eaton noted that this is somewhat a unique use of a very small building with a lot of HVAC and exhausting equipment. I wouldn'I want to lose the fifth dimension on the more conventional office and retail building, so I agree with continuing this item. immissioner Kiser noted that option 1 could be revised. It makes look at this more closely. McDaniel asked the applicant if he would accept War noted: • The mechanical engineer said the roof element is just not possible. • This building is a unique situation with the amount of equipment the roof. • Agrees to a continuance and will ask the advice of a mechanical engineer. Mr. Solon noted his concerns about option 1 and noted his preference f, •option 2 and stated this elevation can be made better. None of th equipment is visible from the street without any screening. He agreed to file : //H:\Plancomm \2003PC \0821.htm 09/05/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 Page 12 of 13 Commissioner Tucker noted the following: • Concerned with how the wood truss scheme will end up looking like with option 1; look at the tower element and come back with ant additional screening that you can if it turns out as a technica matter that we can just not fit a fifth elevation on this particula building. Don Ikler clarified for the next meeting the issues of: • Mechanical equipment on the top of the roof. • Trellis on option 2. 1 • Corrugated metal on option 2. • North elevation needs changes. Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to continue this matter to September 4th to allow the applicant more time to look at option 2. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up — Ms. Temple noted that at the City Council meeting of August 12th, there was a presentation on the Corona del Mar Visioning Plan at the Study Session; and adopted the Housing Element. 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 - no meeting. d. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Update Committee — no meeting. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting — none. • 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 fil e: //H: \Plancomm\2003PC \0821.htm 09/05/2003 Ayes: Eaton, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker No None Absent: Cole . Abstain: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up — Ms. Temple noted that at the City Council meeting of August 12th, there was a presentation on the Corona del Mar Visioning Plan at the Study Session; and adopted the Housing Element. 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 - no meeting. d. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Update Committee — no meeting. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting — none. • 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 fil e: //H: \Plancomm\2003PC \0821.htm 09/05/2003 L� E 0 Planning Commission Minutes 07/21/2003 reported that regarding mural regulations, a kick off meeting was h with the consultant and staff to make sure that all issues addressed and any changes in State Law are met; regard modification permit findings, the language is in final draft and inter - departmental review with the hearing scheduled after an c reach with architects in the community. Mr. Edmonston preserr a brief summary report on the right of way dedications as reques by Commissioner Selich h. Project status — A scoping meeting was held on the St And Church EIR process. for excused absences — none. Page 13 of 13 ADJOURNMENT: 8:15 p.m. I ADJOURNMENT MICHAEL TOERGE, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION file : //H:\Plancomm\2003PC \0821.htm 09/05/2003