Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes 09/0412003 • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • 0 Planning Commission Minutes September 4, 2003 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 17 file : //H:\Plancomm\2003PC\0904.HTM 09/17/2003 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker - all present STAFF PRESENT: Patricia Temple, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, May 2, 2003. CONSENT CALENDAR MINUTES of the adjourned and regular meeting of August 21, 2003. ITEM NO. 1 Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker, and voted on to approve the Approved minutes of August 21, 2003. Ayes: Eaton, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: Cole a >x HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: Fleming's Prime Steakhouse (PA2003 -182) ITEM NO.2 455 Newport Center Drive PA2003 -182 file : //H:\Plancomm\2003PC\0904.HTM 09/17/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 09/04/2003 Page 2 of 17 Request for a Use Permit pursuant to the Alcoholic Beverage Outlet (ABO) Approved Ordinance to authorize the sale of alcoholic beverages for on -site consumption (Type 47: beer, wine and spirits) within an expanded area at an existing restaurant within Fashion Island. Public comment was opened. Lisa Lemenston, operating partner of Fleming's Prime Steakhouse noted she agrees to, and understands, the findings and conditions. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to approve an amendment to Use Permit No. 2003 -028 by adopting the revised and new conditions contained within exhibit. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None SUBJECT: Autore Residence (PA2003 -119) ITEM NO.3 2204 West Ocean Front PA2003 -119 Request to enclose an open stairway on an existing non - conforming, Approved multiple - family residential structure located within a commercial district. Public comment was opened. Umberto Autore, applicant noted that he agrees to the conditions. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve Use Permit No. 2003 -019 by adopting resolution and conditions contained in Exhibit No. 1. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker Noes: None Absent: None bstain: None SUBJECT: The Bluffs Retail Center Sign Program (PA2003 -170) ITEM NO.4 1303 Bison Avenue PA2003 -170 Request to amend the Sign Program for the Bluffs Retail Center to increase Approved the sign area for tenant identification wall signs. file : //H:\Plancomm\2003PC\0904.HTM 09/17/2003 • n U Planning Commission Minutes 09/04/2003 At Commission inquiry, staff noted: • The existing Code states maximum of 3 wall signs with each havii an area not exceeding 40% of the building finished wall area up to maximum of 200 square feet. • The Planned Community text has a provision that a sign program I prepared and approved by the Modifications Committee. This enti shopping center project came to the Planning Commission ai included a sign program at the time of approval. • Request is to allow signage on any exposed side of the building; ei units, awnings, etc. Public comment was opened. Marty Potts, MPA, Inc., 567 San Nicholas Dr., management consultant the Irvine Company, applicant, stated: • Agrees with the findings and conditions in the staff report. • The intent is not to have 600 square feet of signage per single ten: building and agrees each single tenant building to have only 2 • square feet signage in the aggregate. At Commission inquiry, he noted: • The end units will have 50 square feet signage per store frc elevation. • Signs on the rear elevations of the 300 and 100 building are se from MacArthur Blvd., and the San Joaquin Hills Transportati corridor. • Changes are due to architectural elements expansion, and readabi of the signage. Public comment was closed. iff noted that the additional condition based on the applicant's willinE limit the signage by Bison, the signage as proposed, will not be trictive than allowed by the Zoning Code. :ion was made by Commissioner Toerge to approve the Site Plan iew No. 2003 -009 subject to the findings and conditions of approval and changes made tonight. • Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser Noes: None Page 3 of 17 file: //H:\Planconun\2003PC \0904.HTM 09/17/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 09/04/2003 Absent:/ None abstain: None Maggie Moo's Ice Cream (PA2003 -140) 302 Marine Avenue peal of the approval of a Use Permit by the Planning Director permitting establishment of a take out service, limited food use specializing in the of ice cream and deserts. Connoly, operator of'Sugar'n' Spice', 310 Marine Ave., appellant, the following: • The proposed use will contribute to a disproportionate number of take- out establishments in the area. (She read a dictionary definition of disproportionate.) • The 'take -out establishment' is in reality an 'Ice Cream Corporate Franchise'. • Referencing the vicinity map, delineated the number of existing ice cream shops to the relationship of the approved Ice Cream Corporate Franchise. • Noted the addresses of the shops, 302, 310 and 318 Marine Avenue that constitute 1/3 of the amount of shops on Marine Avenue thereby creating an undue hardship on the existing shops. • Referencing her exhibit, she noted the square footage comparisons o 300 block of Marine Avenue (3 ice cream shops), South Coast Plaza (1 ice cream shop), Fashion Island Plaza (2 ice cream shops) an( Corona del Mar (1 ice cream shop). • Parking - this area is presently overburdened by congestion, delivery vehicles and double parking. This use permit has been issued with n( parking spaces available for anyone; owners, operators, managers, employees and/or customers. • Impact of three ice cream shops so close in proximity creates a disproportionate number; impact of same type of food and same menu; impact of loss of income; impact of sales /lease of business value. • Negative impacts of customer service queues, controlling litter, spills, stains, controlling back entrance for employees use only, controlling illegal parking, etc., controlling customer pickup in back and before 10:00 a.m., controlling open 10:00 a.m. and closing 10:00 p.m. time. Public comment was opened. rion Stricker, DeAnza Bayside Village, worker at the Sugar'n' Spice, ed her agreement with the previous speaker adding that the parking will even more congested. Mudd, applicant, noted that his wife will be the operator of the store Page 4 of 17 ITEM NO.5 PA2003 -140 Denied file : //H:\Plancomm\2003PC \0904.HTM 09/17/2003 C� C� 0 Planning Commission Minutes 09/04/2003 • and will have homemade ice cream and smoothies as primary products and he noted that he intends not to sell frozen bananas. He hopes to be a good neighbor in the community. As long as this is not an identical product or food store, this store will enhance everyone's business and asked that this appeal be denied. comment was closed. Commission inquiry, staff noted: • The Code contains no criteria for establishing a disproportionate amount of take -out establishments. • The Code talks about a disproportionate number of eating and drinking establishments or take -out establishments, but does not discuss any particular type in terms of their relative proportion. • In considering this request, staff recognized that on Marine Avenue and Balboa Island there have always been a very high number of various sorts of food service establishments, both take -out and more formal sit in dining, and staff did not feel that the addition of this particular business would result in any disproportion significantly different than what has historically occurred on Marine Avenue. • Condition 7 is crafted to make sure that the operation of the business stays within the more retail definition of the City's Code. This is done in order to determine that the project does not require any additional parking than any other retail use in the area. No additional seating or stand up counter space can be added without approval of the Planning Director. on was made by Commissioner Selich to uphold and affirm rmination of the Planning Director to approve Use Permit No. 2003 deny the appeal. He noted that this will not create a disproportic ber of establishments on Marine Avenue. iissioner Tucker noted that the Planning Commission is a land and does not regulate loss of income or business value. ended the presentation made by the appellant. Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and Tucker Noes:1 None Absent: None kbstain:l None Larry and Jackie Dodd Residence (PA2003 -072) 254 Poppy Avenue Request to establish grade pursuant to Section 20.65.030.8.3 in order remodel an existing single family residence by adding a second floor a roof deck located in Corona del Mar. Page 5 of 17 ITEM NO.6 PA2003 -072 Approved file: //H:\Plancomm\2003PC10904.HTM 09/17/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 09/04/2003 Page 6 of 17 iior Planner James Campbell highlighted the staff report referencing )to presentation noting the following: • Request to establish the grade approximately at the finished fic level of the house above the garage. • The height of the structure would then be measured from tt particular point if this application was approved. • City measures height from natural grade. • The Code empowers the Planning Department the ability determine that grade based upon the features of the property. • In this case we find that the site has been significantly altered. . Staff conducted a field survey of the property and staff believes tf the existing grade of the side yards between the adjacent properties natural grade. . Several findings need to be made for the application one of which that the natural grade is 'inappropriate or unworkable for the purpo of measuring height, as noted in the August 7th staff report. • Staff does not feel there is sufficient evidence to make these findinc which led staff to recommend denial of the project. • The applicant has had an engineer prepare a report as discussed the staff report of 09/07/2003. • The engineer's report did not contain any new information to chan staffs recommendation of denial. • The City has approved two establishments of grade on this street the past. • Photographs of neighboring homes were viewed and discussed. . Some of the houses were remodeled recently and the orig construction was done when the height limit was 35 feet, so some non - conforming. The remodeling of the subject lot was done ur the current 24 foot height limit. . The Code gives guidance to use the grades that are out there tode The applicant has not met the burden of establishing the facts support the findings to establish the grade at a different level. issioner Selich noted the reliance of the angle or degree of the s from the property on the Poppy side down to Hazel. Why did file: / /H:\Plancomm\2003PC \0904.HTM 09/17/2003 • 0 Planning Commission Minutes 09/04/2003 (consider that as the primary criteria as opposed to what the elevation is from the Poppy side of the property. Campbell answered that staff used both, looking at the grades on )site side throughout the property. The property is not flat and rn we do not know exactly where the transition was or what the oric les are. The Code provides guidance to look at the grades that we that is the basis upon which we made the recommendation. imissioner Tucker asked if the property to the south, which seer per, would have more of a plateau than the grade slanted down towa el versus the subject property, which is flatter; we are going to ha different points with the properties next door where we measure from. Campbell answered yes, in essence that is what the grade in the Is show today. Commissioner Tucker noted that the measurement is being made from t different properties on either side that have approximately 10 fE difference. What is the level of discretion that the Planning Commissi has? Looking at the Code section it says, in a case where natural grade finished grade is, in the judgment of the Planning Commissi( inappropriate or unworkable for the purpose of measuring the height. H • much discretion does the Commission have to determine something inappropriate? Clauson answered this is a preliminary statement and at the bott a are listed certain findings that have to be made to establish grade osed by the applicant. The discretion is within finding evidence )ort each one of those findings so that each of those findings can e. It was staffs determination that finding A could not be made. l :ept is that you establish grade when you are unable to establish gra i natural conditions. The other concept is that there is something ab natural grade that is unworkable. Campbell noted that there was probably some alteration on the subj >erty; however, the Code gives us guidance to use existing contoL ting elevations that are seen today and use our best judgment. T )erty is a difficult one to build a home on and given paramet iblishing a grade at what might be considered an appropriate locati d be exercised. If you measure the height from all four sides, you 1 a house that will be difficult to design and construct and may lead gn constraints. An aerial photo dated 1947 of the subject prope wing the lot next door as vacant was introduced. Commissioner Tucker noted the Code states, 'under no circumstances st height be measured from excavated surfaces such as basements or w • cellars.... which have been used to artificially lower the ground surface. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Campbell noted that staff is recommending Page 7 of 17 file : //H:\Plancomm\2003PC \0904.HTM 09/17/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 09/04/2003 the dash lines on Exhibit No. 2 of the August 7th staff report and u e as the natural grade to measure the height from. It would be differ( the left to the right of the lot because the slope of the lot is from left as shown today. ommissioner Kiser noted that the street above Poppy is 114 feet; tt reet below Hazel is 100 feet making a drop of approximately 14 foot. Or fficulty for the applicant would be the slope of the lot is higher on one sid the grade was established based on the highest grade you observed, the would be based on the property side facing Hazel. Staff agreed. 107 :et would be the grade relying on staffs analysis, and the applicant roposing 112 feet, to which staff agreed. Temple stated that we deal with properties that slope side to side on )ular basis and we do not make any adjustments to what we consider tl tural grade to be any fixed number in relationship to the existing conditic the lot. It does make designing homes more difficult. Using this stratel u would see a huge number of requests for establishment of grade on sis of either an average elevation of the lot or the highest side of the k cause it would make it easier to design a house. , ommissioner Kiser clarified that his comments were only to get SOME lumbers on the table for maybe the benefit of the Commission to star hinking about what we have to resolve tonight. Given that we have some liscretion I was hearing from staff that there may have well been gradinc lone between the homes on left and right of the applicant's property. As iad looked at the properties, I didn't see anything that would make me :onclude that absolutely that was the grade that was natural. I believe here was grading done on both sides of this fully developed street. I an concerned basing it on what is observed as the grade between the twc comes. Even if we took the highest, we are still at 107.5 and I am trying tc igure out where the applicant got 112 other than just arbitrarily choosinc he finished floor area of the floor above the garage. I don't see the ustification for that other than that was a convenient number for the applicant and that in fact they could build a project they wanted to with that. Ne are going to have to figure something out. He asked what kind o nodifications on the property would require the detached studio to ;onform. What would give us the ability to require the applicant to brine :hat structure in conformance when there is a major remodel being done of :he property? What is the disconnect between remodeling the particula ion- conforming structure versus a major remodel of another structure of :he property. Would a major remodel of another structure on a propert, aver require a non - conforming separate structure to be brought inti Temple stated that as noted, there is a three foot side to s rence. We deal with a lot of projects where there may be 6 inch b difference. The structure is non - conforming both to side and front y acks. It is approximately one foot from Poppy and one foot from yard. The required setbacks are ten feet on Poppy and three feet Page 8 of 17 file : //H:\Plancomm\2003PC\0904.HTM 09/17/2003 n LJ • Planning Commission Minutes 09/04/2003 the side yard. The building and could very well need to be conforming. is quite old as it does appear in the 1947 ph( be totally reconstructed in order to be made Campbell added that altering the main residence wouldn't trigger ai uirements on the studio. If you were working on the non - conformi ilf, the studio would be subject to the Code requirements. You cou ke certain amounts of structural alterations pursuant to the Code with a Permit or Modification Permit; you couldn't replace the entire structur< a structures are separate and the applicant isn't proposing to do anythir that studio structure at this time, and the City cannot require tt iconformity to be abated. At Commission inquiry, staff expounded the findings. • That the proposed grade being requested by the applicant reasonable and comparable with the grades of surrounding properh and that the establishment of such grade will not be detrimental to t health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of perso residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurio to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the gene welfare of the City. The grades to the right as shown on t photograph are not comparable to what the applicant has selected. would be comparable and similar to the grades to the property on t left and down the street. Because it was not consistent to the grade • the right, staff did not feel this finding could be made. This was has on the elevations of the grades between the two properties. • That the proposed grade and related development will not result in t loss of any public views and shall be consistent with the exiti character of the neighborhood. There is no public view so this findi could be made, however, the proposed grades and construction wor be comparable to the property on one side but is arguat comparable to the property on the other side. • That the existing grade on the subject property is inappropriate a. unworkable for the purpose of measuring height We don't feel t grade is unreasonable for the purposed of measuring height. Ms. Clauson noted that staff has determined that the natural grade can worked with as an appropriate grade and can be used, but the Commissi, can determine otherwise. That the proposed grade being requested by the applicant necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial prope rights of the applicant. Mr. Campbell noted that in this particular ca the applicant does enjoy a substantial property right given the exist property and the improvements that are there using what s • considers to be the natural grade. A second level addition could made to the property in staffs opinion, therefore, staff felt this find Page 9 of 17 file : / /H:\PlanCOmm\2003PC \0904.HTM 09/17/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 09/04/2003 could not be made. The existing grade does create impediments design but does not prohibit construction of a fairly sizeable resider that one could consider comparable to the area. imissioner Tucker noted that if the applicant took the whole struc moved it towards Poppy and had a garage down below with steps, >e would be on another level you could build a two story house. and level would be stepped back further away from Hazel and you c i a deck out there and on top of the garage. Mr. Larry Dodd, 254 Poppy, applicant and resident of the property noted: . Our view has been blocked by a house that has been built across from us at 234 Hazel. We feel it is important to remodel our house. He distributed pictures of the views before and after the newes remodel. . The existing grade that staff is using is unworkable because we not build the second story. . The rest of the findings can be made in our favor. . Best way to see the grades is to refer to the staff report with the 11 foot grade on the south side of the property is the grade that exis and is the original grade. . When we first remodeled our house, that was the grade when came in Poppy. . All the utilities were put under ground on Poppy and Hazel; at that time we re- structured the slope on the north side. We have installed sprinkler systems and have cut the slope down to a certain extent to get around the property. • We have the street plans from the City that show that the grade wa significantly higher on Hazel all the way up and going back to Poppy. • The staff report is using 109.7 is on the adjacent property, not c ours. • I ask that you accept the fact that the 112 is the existing grade. • A case can be made for all the findings for my case. • We have the right to build a second story on the property to presen the value of our property. • There are twenty houses between my property and the ocean th have been built with two stories. Page 10 of 17 file: //H:\Plancomm\2003PC \0904.HTM 09/17/2003 • • 0 Planning Commission Minutes 09/04/2003 • Commissioner Kiser noted that there is no right to a view in Califo today. I am pointing this out for the record. Additionally, the existing gr as unworkable for measuring the height because you could not build i project the way you want to, that is not what the finding goes to. It is unworkability for the purpose of measuring the height. The 112 foot gr that you want to establish, I look forward to more explanation of that. Commission inquiry, Mr. Campbell noted that a second story could be It over roughly one half the existing structure towards Poppy. If the dio at the rear near Poppy was torn down, the whole structure could be Shed back and a much larger project could be built on that side of the lot. Page I 1 of 17 file : //H:\Plancomm\2003PC\0904.HTM 09/17/2003 Drew Mahers, of Mahers and Associates, Civil Engineers, 19 Spectrum Point Drive, Lake Forest, speaking for the applicant noted: • Referring to Figure 6, staff has indicated the grade to be used as 107.9 elevation. • The grades at the comers of the house are 112.15, 111.85, 112.41 and 104.5. • The house slopes down 8 feet and that is what makes if unworkable to construct a two -story project, using that elevation. . . Our research shows that there was some area that was flat at one time along that street over to where Hazel is and a dramatic slope. • We took existing street improvement plans that showed the existing grade at the time the curbs were built for these streets. • We can not tell what the grade was but the grade there now is not what used to be. • The proposed grade is comparable to the surrounding properties within the neighborhood. • You can not design any room with a ceiling that requires making up 8 feet from one corner to the other utilizing the footprint that is there now. • Even demolishing the entire house, the elevations on the existing property are such that you are still at an elevation of 112. You get to that elevation of 104 in one comer is impossible. • The side yard on Coast Highway is 3 feet and is the only portion of the site that the elevation is down. • • It would be restrictive to this property owner to not allow him the rghi to improve his property by building a second story to be consistent Page I 1 of 17 file : //H:\Plancomm\2003PC\0904.HTM 09/17/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 09/04/2003 with the surrounding properties in the neighborhood. nmissioner Tucker noted that all these findings in the establishment ie presupposes that we can determine what the natural grade is. I e sure that we are in agreement as to what the natural grade is. It is tr they are over 110 feet now, but we have no idea what the grades we xe the structure was built. Staff is trying to figure out what the natu ie was. The question is, do we even agree with the assessment as it natural grade is. I think we have to determine what natural grade )re we get to the point as to whether it is unworkable or not. r. Mahers added that we are not able to establish what the natural g as. Therefore, that is why it calls for the establishment of grade and what we are asking you to do. comment was closed. Ms. Clauson stated that before you get to the findings, the Plannii Commission does have to determine that the natural grade is inappropria or unworkable. Also, you first have to look at what the natural grade w established to be. Once you figure out what that natural grade is, then yl would look at whether it was appropriate or unworkable then you would through the findings to establish what the grade would be. The direction the Planning Department is to exercise its best efforts to determine t location of grade for the purpose of measuring height. They have provid you with their best efforts and you have also been provided a survey by t applicant with their best efforts. Staff believes that the survey actua supported staffs determination on what the natural grade was. If t Commission disagrees, they would have to determine that the natural gra as established by the Planning Department is unworkable a ioner Selich asked if there was something in the Code that if Director makes a determination that it is appealable to Commission? Ms. Clauson answered yes. Clauson continued that the Planning Commission could determine did not establish natural grade. imissioner Selich stated he did not know what the natural grade wa: neither side has presented compelling evidence one way or the other. ,ing at the existing site I see 180 square feet driving this whole thing. nissioner Tucker noted that maybe there is no establishment of grade ss that we are involved with and if we have the authority to say here is we think the natural grade is, and our determination wins, then we get to the next step. Do we have the authority to say we don't agree? e do we fit in? Clauson stated that under Section B.1, in your evaluation of Page 12 of 17 file : //H:\Plancomm\2003PC \0904.HTM 09/17/2003 • • �J P lJ • Planning Commission Minutes 09/04/2003 esentation of what natural grade is do you have the ability under that iy that natural grade is different. If you say natural grade is different th renders the rest of the conversation is moot. Traber, ETA at 20351 Irvine Avenue, design engineer noted: . Issues with grade differential. Establishment of grade should be based on the where the grade prior to the valley was created between the homes. ;cussion followed on the elevations and grades depicted on Exhibit 2 August 7, 2003 report; height of the side wall of the garage of the hog to the finished floor. McDonald, 320 Hazel Dr., real estate agent, noted her support of Mon was made by Commissioner Selich to find elevation 112.15 to correct existing /natural grade and to determine that the Planni apartments' determination of grade was found incorrect for the reaso it there has been so much alterations over the years, there has not be bstantial evidence presented by either side where the natural grade w wasn't. The fact that out of this entire property only 181 square feet ing substantially below the 112 feet level. It seems reasonable to to 112.15 as the prevailing grade of the property. This will allow t ntinuation of the predominant development pattern of this area. Clauson stated the motion is appropriate. Tucker noted his agreement with the motion adding ti )uid be challenging address this issue. denial. to reach those findings. I think this is the proper Cole asked for and received an explanation of the Eaton expressed his support of the motion. son McDaniel stated he was not in support of the motion. decisions on grades will bring a lot of requests for things this may set a precedent. mmissioner Kiser stated he too was not in support of the motion becau the 112 feet part. It is a very difficult lot due to the probable alteration grades both left and right of the home and because there is very little on and staff did the best they could do. I see no strong support for ti )posal to establish the grade at 112 feet. The height of the street ppy is 114 feet and the height of the street level at Hazel is 100 feet, ti file: //H:\Plancomm\2003PC\0904.HTM Page 13 of 17 09/17/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 09/04/2003 Page 14 of 17 ly question is what happened between those two streets with the natural • We years ago. I have trouble believing that the grade under the primary rtion of the proposed project, which is at the Hazel side, is only two feet low the grade level of Poppy, and 12 feet above the grade level of the jacent Hazel Street. I can't go so far as to believe that unless there was series of bluffs. I would like to support the motion to get out of the tablishment of grade as the findings to make that are difficult, but I can t support 112 feet. l would support discussion of something lower than at. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Selich, and Tucker Noes: McDaniel, Kiser bsent: None )stain: None EJECT: McDonald's Restaurant Reconstruction (PA2001 -155) ITEM NO.7 700 W. Coast Highway PA2001 -155 B Permit No. 2001 -029 and Development Plan No. 2002 -001 to Approved evelop the existing McDonald's restaurant at 700 W. Coast Highway in riner's Mile. The existing 3.045 sq. ft. restaurant will be demolished and new 3,174 sq. ft. restaurant building will be constructed with a onfigured drive -thru. The application also requests a modification of luired parking. • Campbell stated that the applicant sent correspondence outlining the jipment that will be on the roof and the efforts to screen it. A copy had an distributed to the Commission. An additional condition was added erring to the maintenance /replacement of the awnings. Campbell noted: • Option 2 with patio style wood trimmed screening structures on the roof are depicted on the latest exhibit. • Changes resulted as noted in the staff report are the parapet is increased by about 6 inches and the roof screens have been lowered. • The combination of these changes does reduce the visibility of the screens from Coast Highway. • The fifth side architecture and the screening of the roof top equipment are expressed in the Mariner's Mile Design Guidelines as guidelines and are not absolute standards. blic comment was opened. • . Don War, project manager of the McDonald's Corporation noted: file: //H:\Planconun\2003PC \0904.HTM 09/17/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 09/04/2003 IThe roof exhibit depicts more rest room exhaust fans. . The screening can be lowered somewhat to the height of the parapet. ommissioner Tucker asked if staff had reached a conclusion on the - acticality or possibility of a five -sided elevation? If it is not practical, what asked staff to do was to have the applicant provide an inventory of the -oposed roof equipment and how they were to be screened. If we can't it a whole structure on the roof, then we need to do our best to screen as such as we can. On the view line of site, I was concerned about the view om the cars on the highway. I think a condition could be added stating iat the applicant work with the Planning Director to lower the screens to ie maximum extent practical. % Campbell stated that the Design Guidelines do talk about a five -si chitecture. It would be preferable to put a roof that would enhance 'erall site and development. It can be done and has been done on o isinesses in the area (he cited a few examples). It can be done, iatever area you put this equipment in will likely have to be mechanic anted. Can it be done, yes, it may be costly. But it is theoretically pos: our opinion. Mr. Ikler noted: • • Have made changes to the building, can paint the equipment and ro the same; however, some equipment can not be enclosed inside roof structure. • The grease vents have to vent to the air. • Providing a full louvered roof is problematic to maintenance of the ro equipment. • The building is only 3,100 feet with a lot of equipment on the sm roof space. • The elevations proposed are acceptable to us and we hope they a to the Planning Commission as well. • We have put forth good effort on this building. Public comment was closed. A brief discussion ensued. The following conditions were added to tl resolution with the applicant's agreement: I. Condition 1 - Change date of C2 to 0312612003. . Condition 40 -...the area shall drain directly.... Page 15 of 17 file : //H:\Plancomm\2003PC\0904.HTM 09/17/2003 Planning Commission Minutes 09/04/2003 Condition 43 - new, The business operator shall regularly clean awnings on the exterior of the building. Awnings shall replaced when they become noticeably faded or when cleans fails to be effective. Condition 44 - new, The applicant shall work with the Plann Department to lower the roof top equipment screens as much possible and the screen structures shall be designed in the m effective manner to screen the view of the equipment from homes above. on was made by Commissioner Kiser to approve Use Permit No. 2001 and Development Plan 2002 -001 with the findings in the staff report an litions of approval as amended and corrected. mmissioner Selich noted he would not support the motion as there are mber of design solutions that could be accomplished to fully enclose rtially enclose with a pitched roof. When I voted for the Mariner's M :sign Guidelines it was with the intent to treat the roofs as fi ;hitectural element, which means that we do something other than built roofs and mechanical equipment exposed to a great degree as there re. There is a lot of equipment with the fast food establishment in a sm ilding, but there are solutions out there. The applicant has stated in I ter that he did not want to spend the money on it and that it was t pensive. I commend the elevation on the sides of the buildings, it is od project other than the roof, but that is a big part of it. It does not me )se guidelines. McDaniel and noted his support of the motion. Tucker noted his support of the motion. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Kiser and Tucker Noes: Selich 3sent: None stain None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a. City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted that at the Council r of August 26th, the Local Coastal Amendment for 1150 G Avenue was approved. b. Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - EDC had a presentation, and supported, on the South Coast Shipyard site and is a mixed use project that will be coming before the Planning Commission. Page 16 of 17 ADDITIONAL BUSINESS file: //H:\Plancomm\2003PC \0904.HTM 09/17/2003 • 1J Planning Commission Minutes 09/04/2003 c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the Gene Plan Update Committee - no meeting. d. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Lo( Coastal Plan Update Committee - Commissioner Toerge reported tt they reviewed the Coastal Commission's response to the dr submittal of the CLUP. The next meeting is September 9th at 9:30 review City departmental and other committee responses. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report at a subsequent meeting - none. f. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on future agenda for action and staff report - none. g. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - Item 7 will removed; the modification permit findings is scheduled to have outreach program and will be heard by the Planning Commission October.. h. Project status - Commissioner Kiser volunteered to work on t steering committee for the Sign Code comprehensive update. i. Requests for excused absences - none. ADJOURNMENT: 9:20 p.m. • MICHAEL TOERGE, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 0 Page 17 of 17 file : / /H:\Plancomm12003PC10904.HTM 09/17/2003