Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGugasian Property (PA2003-174)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item: 4 October 23, 2003 TO: Planning Commission FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3210 icampbell(u7city. newport- beach. ca. us SUBJECT: The Leo Gugasian Center (PA2003 -174) Development Plan No. 2003 -002 & Use Permit No. 2003 -026 900 -1040 W. Coast Highway APPLICANT: Leo Gugasian 1100 W. Coast Highway Newport Beach, CA 92663 ISSUE: Should the Planning Commission grant approval of the Development Plan application requested by the Leo Gugasian to redevelop 900 -1040 W. Coast Highway in the Mariner's Mile Area as proposed by the applicant? Additionally, should the Commission grant a Use Permit to modify parking requirements to allow the development to proceed while providing fewer parking spaces than required by the Zoning Ordinance? Finally, should the Commission grant a Use Permit for a vehicle sales facility to be operated at the site? RECOMMENDATION: Hold a public hearing and continue the project with direction to a future date to review a reduced intensity plan. DISCUSSION: Project Description: The applicant proposes to redevelop two commercial properties by demolishing approximately 17,000 square feet of commercial space in 3 buildings and constructing three new buildings with approximately 23,800 square feet. The two properties total approximately 1.62 acres. Each of the three proposed buildings will be two stories. Existing uses to be displaced include vehicle sales and service uses, retail, office, The Leo Gugasian Center October 13, 2003 Page 2 personal improvement uses and a small restaurant. Proposed uses will be vehicle sales, retail and office uses. The only portion of the site to remain will be the 12,005 square foot building presently occupied by West Marine. The project includes the development of an eighty six (84) space parking lot with lighting and ornamental landscaping. The project includes grading consisting of approximately 2,000 cubic yards of over excavation and re- compaction. The project will not require significant excavation of the bluff. As noted, the project site is made up of two properties that will be merged once the applicant restructures the financing of the parcels. The applicant plans to phase the construction in that Buildings #1 & #2 will be constructed immediately upon the conclusion of the demolition of the two buildings on the western lot. Building #3 is planned to be constructed after substantial completion of the first phase. The proposed vehicle sales facility does not propose maintenance of any kind and vehicle display is not proposed within required parking areas. The conceptual landscape plan shows patterned, colored concrete driveway approaches. The applicant has prepared plans and a colored rendering of the proposed project (Exhibit Nos. 1 & 2 respectively). Vicinity Map The Leo Gugasian Center October 13, 2003 Page 3 The following tables provide many relevant project statistics: Building Summary Building #1 Building #2 Building #3 Gross Floor Area GFA : 11,322 sq. ft. 6,487 sq. ft. 5,997 sq. ft. Footprint. 7,870 sq. ft. 2,968 sq. ft. 2,723 sq. ft. Height: 26 feet 26 feet 26 feet Use: Vehicle sales Retail or office Retail or office Setback from Coast Highway: 17 feet 95 feet 105 feet Project Area Area (sq. ft.) Existing GFA: 29,041 Area to be demolished: 17,036 Area new construction: 23,805 Proposed GFA: 35,810 Lot Area: 70,775 Project Parking Spaces Vehicle sales: 12 Retail or office: 98 Total required: 110 Total provided: 84 Parking deficit: 26 Surrounding lands uses are: Marine commercial and restaurants to the east Residential uses to the north Balboa Bay Club and residential uses to the south Automobile sales and service to the west Analysis: General Plan Land Use Element The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for Retail and Service Commercial uses. The project consists of retail, office and vehicle sales uses all consistent with the land use designation. The site is limited to a maximum of 0.5 floor area ratio (FAR). The current plan proposes 35,810 gross square feet, which exceeds the maximum by 422.5 square feet. The applicant plans to reduce building #3 by this amount to meet the FAR limitation. The Leo Gugasian Center October 13, 2003 Page 4 General Plan Circulation Element The Circulation Element calls for the widening of Coast Highway to 6 lanes in this area, which would require a dedication of 12 feet from the project site. Chapter 13.05 (section 13.05.010.A.) of the Municipal Code requires, as a condition to receiving a building permit, the dedication and improvement of any adjacent street designated as a "significant link" in the City's circulation system. This portion of East Coast Highway is designated as a "significant link." However, Section 13.05.010.B. of the Municipal Code, states that the dedication and improvement of property is not required when the property fronts a State Highway when there are no buildings or structures on any portion of the property within the area to be improved pursuant to the Circulation Element's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and that any additional (Zoning Code) setbacks are provided unless all of the following conditions exist: 1. The proposed project contributes to the need to widen the adjacent roadway to master plan standards and; 2. The project would generate more than three hundred (300) average daily trips; and; 3. The proposed project exceeds twenty -five thousand (25,000) square feet of additional gross floor area. The potential dedication area is a 12 -foot strip of land running the entire length of the East Coast Highway frontage of the property. Building #1 is setback 17 feet and the existing West Marine building is setback 12 feet and other structures are further setback. The only improvement proposed within the 12 -foot future dedication area is the first row of parking being setback between 4 to 8 feet. No additional structure setbacks are required per the Zoning Code. The Public Works Department anticipates that the project as designed by the applicant will generate approximately 245 new trips to the site. The project increases the gross floor area by roughly 6,800 square feet. Based upon these factors, staff has determined that the proposed project does not require the dedication, widening and improvements to East Coast Highway as it meets current and future setbacks and the three conditions listed above are not met. Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework This policy document, adopted in October of 2000, contains guidelines for the public and private improvements within the Mariner's Mile area. In order to approve a Development Plan application, the Commission must find the project consistent with the Strategic Vision and Design Framework and applicable ordinances and policies as required by Section 20.42.060. Staff has evaluated the proposed project against these guidelines and finds that the project generally complies; however, the project does not comply with two goals: "5 sided" architecture and landscaping. The primary goal of the Design Framework is to encourage high quality designs that are responsive and sensitive to their surroundings. Additionally, specific landscaping and signage guidelines are identified and the use of nautical materials is encouraged. The following discussion relates to the major topics covered by the guidelines: The Leo Gugasian Center October 13, 2003 Page 5 a. Architecture — Responsible and sensitive designs should "fit in" to their surroundings. The proposed building design can be found to "fit in" with the two abutting developments being Newport Autosport and West Marine in that they are similar buildings in terms of design, height and mass. Quoting from the Design Framework, "roofs and roof elements should respond to views from above and free standing buildings should be designed as "5- sided" (walls + roof)." The three proposed buildings are all two stories with a parapet at the perimeter of a flat built up roof. The applicant proposes to gravel the roof in a color to match the wall exterior. Additionally, the applicant proposes to have all roof top mechanical equipment to be treated or painted to match the roof color. The applicant is proposing to treat the roof in a way similar to Newport Autosport building just west of the project site. The applicant submitted a color photograph of the building's roof as an example of how the roofs of the proposed buildings will look (Exhibit No. 3). In that photograph, roof -top mechanical equipment is not shown, but it is located closer to the northern edge of the building away from Coast Highway. This position assists to minimize the visibility of the equipment from above and ensures that the equipment will not be visible from Coast Highway. No roof top equipment is proposed for buildings #2 and #3 and only one HVAC unit is proposed for the roof of building #1. The Design Framework provides no direction or indication of what is meant by having a 5h side of architecture. It might mean that a pitched roof is desirable and the proposed flat roof is roof is not desirable, and therefore, inconsistent with the policy. It also can be argued that the proposed design is meant to have an "invisible" 5'" side of architecture when viewed from the ground level. Based upon the photograph, limited roof -top equipment and their proposed location and the description of how the applicant plans to treat the roof; the roof should respond more positively to views f rom a bove than a typical commercial built -up roof. Lastly, the proposed building design with a flat roof does "fit in" with the two adjacent buildings (Newport Autosport and West Marine). In conclusion, the proposed project may or may not meet the policy. b. Color and Materials Palette — The Mariner's Mile Design Framework establishes a basic color system where the base building color is neutral and is 90% of the building. Contrasting trim elements, being light or dark, are to be no more than 10% of a building and accent elements with bright colors being up to 5% of the exterior of the building. The majority of the exterior of the building is a neutral ivory color with vertical bands of white as a contrast color. The exterior windows will provide further contrast, b ut dark. T he a pplicant d id n of i dentify t he c olor o f t he g lass o r w indow mullions. Accent colors are not present; however, signage will act as an accent. The Design Framework encourages the use of high quality building materials or other details of a nautical nature. The project does not propose the use of nautical features, but the Design Framework also recognizes this stretch of Mariner's Mile as The Leo Gugasian Center October 13, 2003 Page 6 auto - oriented, which a large part of the project is. Staff has no objection to the proposed color palette. c. Landscaping — The Design Framework establishes specific landscape requirements that have been incorporated within the Zoning Code, which makes compliance with the standards mandatory. Three primary elements are required: 1) a minimum 4 -foot wide hedge and palm row at the back of the sidewalk across the site from east to west with a specific palette of species; 2) interior parking lot landscaping; and 3) bluff landscaping. The hedge and palm row is probably the single most important feature established by the Design Framework as it will provide a unifying design element for the Mariner's Mile overtime. The conceptual landscape plan prepared includes a Ligustrum Japonicum hedge and palm row; however, the hedge does not extend the full length of the property and the spacing is too large. The hedge and palm row is also not located at the back of the sidewalk but rather at the front edge of the parking area. The plan includes the minimum number of Washingfonia Robusta palm tress spaced as required. The plan also has a healthy number of interior parking lot trees in accordance with minimum standards. Staff believes that the conceptual landscape plan is consistent with requirements with a few minor adjustments that will be implemented at the plan check stage should the project receive approval. d. Signs - The Design Framework establishes specific sign guidelines, which were also incorporated within the Zoning Code making compliance with the standards mandatory. The only sign shown in the project plans is a sign and logo on the building wall of Building #1 for the proposed Maserati dealership. The plan does not show sufficient d etail to determine whether o r not the signs comply; however the applicant plans to comply with all applicable sign regulations. A condition of approval requiring full compliance with all applicable sign regulations of the Zoning Code should be required. e. Lighting — The Design Framework states that "lighting should be purposeful and respectful." Lighting must be contained on the site using down lighting wherever possible, and incorporate shielding. Parking lot lights cannot be taller than 20 feet and "walpak" type fixtures are prohibited, as they create harsh glare for residents and drivers. Although a specific lighting plan has not been prepared at this time, the applicant has indicated they will comply with these guidelines. Conditions of approval that address lighting to ensure compliance with these guidelines and standards should be applied. f. Walls — The Design Framework specifies the use of split -faced block, textured concrete or crib -wall systems with landscaping for retaining walls. The only walls that will be visible to the public will be those retaining walls between the buildings. The applicant has not indicated what material will be used, and therefore, staff recommends that a condition of approval be included requiring compliance with the Design Framework and Zoning Code. I The Leo Gugasian Center October 13, 2003 Page 7 g. Lot consolidation and site access — The Design Framework encourages lot consolidation and the elimination of drive approaches where feasible to reduce potential vehicle conflicts. The s ite i s comprised of two I ots which will b e merged after the applicant has an opportunity to rectify differing financial burdens affecting each lot. The site presently has 5 driveway access points and the proposed site plan will have two access points which will be located for optimal access to the modified parking lot. The consolidation of the two lots and elimination of 3 drive approaches assists the City in implementing the policy of reducing driveways to Coast Highway to enhance vehicle and pedestrian safety. Zoning Code The zoning of the property is RSC -MM (Retail and Service Commercial — Mariners Mile Overlay). Retail and office uses are permitted uses and vehicle sales is permitted subject to a Use Permit. The project complies with setback standards (none) and building height (26 feet), but does not comply with the 0.5 FAR nor does it comply with the minimum number of required parking spaces. As noted previously, the applicant proposes to reduce building #3 to comply with the FAR. a. Parking — The proposed site plan provides 84 parking spaces and 110 parking spaces are required. With the reduction of 423 spare feet as required to meet the FAR standard, a total of 108 parking spaces will be required. This leaves the site deficient 24 parking spaces. The applicant has requested a parking modification to allow the project to be developed without providing 108 spaces. One of the following findings must be made to approve the requested partial parking waiver: 1. A municipal parking facility is so located as to be useful in connection with the proposed use or uses on the sites; 2. The site is subject to two or more uses and the maximum parking requirements for such uses do not occur simultaneously- 3. A parking management plan for the site has been approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 20.66.100(6); or 4. The Planning Commission makes the following findings: a. The parking demand will be less than the requirement in Section 20.66.030. b. The probable long -term occupancy of the building or structure, based on its design, will not generate additional parking demand. There are no facts to support items 1, 2, & 3, in staff's opinion. No municipal parking lot is located in .the area. The three proposed uses (vehicle sales, retail and office) will occur simultaneously and the hours and days of operation will roughly coincide with each other. No parking management plan has been suggested other than unregulated self - parking. Staff cannot conceive of a parking management method to The Leo Gugasian Center October 13, 2003 Page 8 reduce demand or increase supply that would effectively work for retail and office uses. In regards to the 4th finding, the proposed vehicle sales use is expected to be low volume and of high value. This factor would tend to reduce parking demands. The amount of required parking attributable to the vehicle sales use is 12 spaces. Assuming that parking demand is 50% of that, 6 spaces might be waived. With the project falling 24 spaces short and 6 spaces theoretically waived, staff would expect an 18 space shortage at a minimum. The second part of finding #4 is that the probable long term occupancy of the buildings and structures, based upon design, will not lend themselves to higher parking demanding uses. The proposed design would not prohibit the conversion of building #1 to retail or office uses which would require more parking than provided for, and therefore, this part of the finding is not supported. The Traffic Engineer does not support the granting of the parking reduction. A parking shortage would only become worse if Coast Highway were widened per the Circulation Element. The proposed buildings do not pose an impediment to widening; however the site would lose 20 spaces at a minimum. Staff recommends that building #3 be eliminated and replaced with parking to alleviate a parking shortfall. The location of that possible parking lot would be helpful in that it would serve existing and proposed retail uses better than the proposed site plan. Staff has laid out a parking area where building #3 is proposed and believes that 15 additional parking stalls can be designed while increasing the width of building #2 by 32 feet. This dimension was selected as it is the width of half of the retail /office space proposed within building #2 and it seemed logical to increase this building in logical increments. This hypothetical plan would increase the gross floor area a nd lease area of building #2 by approximately 2,175 square feet making it approximately 8,665 gross square feet. With the elimination of building #3 and the increase in building #2, required parking would decrease by parking by 16 spaces. With the 15 additional spaces this hypothetical plan would generate, the project would meet parking requirements. In conclusion, staff recommends that building #3 be eliminated and replaced with parking that meets applicable design standards while permitting building #2 to be enlarged such that the entire project meets minimum parking requirements. b. Development Plan Findings — In order to approve a Development Plan, the City must find that the project is consistent with the Mariner's mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework and any applicable ordinances and policies. As noted in the previous sections, the project is not fully consistent with all applicable ordinances and policies. Should the reduced project recommendation be implemented, staff believes that the reduced project can be designed in full compliance with applicable ordinances and policies. The only policy that remains unresolved is the "5 sided" architectural guideline. Should the Planning Commission accept the proposed design, staff sees no impediment to the approval of the Development Plan application subject to suggested conditions. The Leo Gugasian Center October 13, 2003 Page 9 c. Use Permit Findings — In order to approve a Use Permit for the reduction in parking and vehicle sales use, the following findings must be made: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city. 3. That the proposed use will comply with the provisions of this code, including any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The objectives of the Zoning Code are to promote the public health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of the community. As noted in the previous section of this report, the proposed project does not provide sufficient parking to support itself and is inconsistent with parking standards. Facts to support a parking reduction are not evident to staff. Project approval as proposed by the applicant would constitute a detriment to the community as it would create a site without sufficient parking. This would lead to increased demand for street parking and might lead patrons to park on other private properties. These factors do not promote the economic vitality of the area and could likely lead to parking nuisances or disputes. Staff believes that project approval would be inconsistent with the intent of the City's parking requirement. However, staff has identified a modified project that alleviates the parking deficiency. Should this modified project be approved, staff supports the project for the following reasons: 1. The reduced intensity project would comply with parking. 2. The project would conform to the maximum floor area ratio. 3. The project complies with the General Plan land use designation. 4. The project is largely consistent with the Mariners Mile Strategic Vision Design Framework and consistent with the Zoning Code. a. The project consolidates two properties and eliminates 3 driveways. b. Landscape standards will be met. c. Outdoor display of vehicles will not be occurring in the parking areas. d. Site lighting will not be excessive due to conditioned compliance with applicable standards. 1 The Leo Gugasian Center October 13, 2003 Page 10 e. The roofs will respond better from views from above as opposed to traditional built -up roofs. f. Roof -top mechanical equipment is limited and will blend in with roofing materials and will not be visible from Coast Highway. g. Signs and other site development standards will be in accordance with the Design Framework and Zoning Code. 5. Uses are not expected to be outside of normal business hours. 6. The proposed vehicle sales facility would not perform maintenance. 7. Anticipated traffic increases are below applicable thresholds for further study (i.e. less than significant effect). 8. The proposed development will improve the aesthetic quality of the site when compared to the existing development. Environmental Review: Staff believes that the project qualifies for a Class 3 categorical exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act, which permits the limited number of new structures. In urbanized areas, up to 4 buildings with up to 10,000 square feet would qualify provided that the site is not environmentally sensitive. The site is fully developed and no environmental resources are known to exist at the site. The project involves the demolition of 3 buildings and the construction of up to three 3 buildings with a net increase of approximately 6,800 square feet. Traffic increases are also below the 300 space threshold for the preparation of a traffic study. In conclusion, these factors support the determination that the project will not have a significant effect to the environment and that the Class 3 categorical exemption is appropriate. Public Notice: A public notice was prepared in accordance with the Municipal Code and was made available more than 10 days in advance of this hearing. It was published in the Daily Pilot, posted at the site and mailed to property owners and nearby homeowners associations as required by Section 20.91.030 of the Municipal Code. Conclusion: Staff believes that the findings for approval of the Development Plan and Use Permit and can be made provided that the project is reduced in intensity as discussed previously in this report. Staff does not recommend approval of the parking reduction as the sufficient facts to support the reduction are not evident at this time. Staff recommends that the Commission direct the applicant to redesign the project described in this report or to explore other design alternatives. Should the Commission determine that a pitched roof is necessary to find the project consistent with the "5 sided" architectural guideline of the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework, The Leo Gugasian Center October 13, 2003 Page 11 staff suggests that the applicant be directed to redesign the buildings with sloping roofs. Should the Commission be unconvinced as to the quality of the project as depicted in the exhibits, the Commission can direct the preparation of color and materials boards and/or additional colored elevations. Alternatives: The Planning Commission has the option to deny the project should the Commission be unable to make the affirmative findings for approval of the proposed or reduced intensity project as discussed. Findings for denial are attached as Exhibit No. 4. Prepared by: Submitted by: V� AL, mes W. Cayfipbell Sharon Z. Wood Senior Planner Assistant City KVfiager Attachments: 1. Project plans (site plan, floor plans, elevation drawings, landscape plans) 2. Project rendering. 3. Photograph of proposed roof treatment. 4. Findings for denial. 11 l' >•'- MIMI 1N3NId013A3Q 3115 df102IiJ +J�1711SIdOJ iJ`J2LT.SIId —L �!—. — ....-�._. 11 l' 'ya Nayee atloaYVY xyey]Ie tvYaa '• ooal —YOs N .R.LN30 NVISVOnE) 03l WE la axa 01 an as IV 1 0 9 A NN o0 a W S 0 aaaS 4� 6 I -- --- ---- ------ - - - - -- -- ■ ®1g ;l ME Nigul It !-�-Ig ----- ■ 17 111 -- ------ --- MOO 'M OOM- 006 Ct) rAMH I 831N30 NVievona 031 Ni A a W d 0 7 Z A 2 0 q v I a a 2N K 00 0 2 9 0 d 0 U d I -- --- ---- ------ - - - - -- -- ■ ®1g ;l ME Nigul It !-�-Ig ----- ■ 17 111 9L4Y -09L (41L1 IS ®Fd 6pa ® ®�V_�9 ®tld' aeLa v� vrelrn.ry ttvn xos 'o 'a 96tld UY tl V � eu�tip�g �41Mw7 'Yi tliYee ! Otl.B. A \.tl41tl lBBO> l OY01 -406 331N30 Nvievo o P 9 P IIII sONlatln9 Irloaarexoa aasoa oaa !4 A � € 1 3� Hill I €x nN m -6 V. "9 �3k3v158a1W�6F A M H Iswoo 'M OOM-006 v f I . . . I . . 0001 -DD• UMN30 NVISvono i ............. .. . .... ................. . .. . .. .......... ... .................... ........... ........ ..... .......... �'AM H ISVOO 'M oaot- 006 . 1 1 -.- --.. U31IN30 INVISVEM 031 3111 as 5 0 d . H d .�wsn 000 4 - ® ®6 ° M sn nau ,� xoe e •a A raN xl .b x .®.. +r u ... s .... . .... UMN33 Nvivono OM 3ai aovas 90 r. s o a. 0 a 5 NAad a s oa oaa it im.1 - / a / 3 @e dt fell" k \� DN1JNV7J �ODM%^ �R | � !, � I q�> i � I 7� )� 5 $ | , // | ! i �•! ! § §�!� | i ; h) | / | | ! ]§ | • � ! ƒ (a _,. k \� DN1JNV7J �ODM%^ �R | � !, � I q�> i � I 7� )� 5 $ | , // >r: 7 i I f r � r T L 00 i = U hZ ca — U cFa 3� o � °00 o F Q °a D FINDINGS FOR DENIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 2003 -002 & USE PERMIT NO. 2003 -026 1. The proposed project is inconsistent with the Mariners Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework for the following reasons: a. The building design does not provide "5- sided" architecture in that it does not include an architecturally compatible roof. b. The proposed project, as described in the application, staff report and depicted by the plans does not provide sufficient quality of design. c. The landscape plan does not provide the hedge and palm row as specified. d. The site plan provides a row of parking with 20 spaces within the future 12 -foot dedication area and will be eliminated should Coast Highway be widened; therefore, the development will does not fit in. with future conditions. 2. The proposed project exceeds the maximum allowable gross square footage allowable by the General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Code (0.5FAR). 3. The proposed parking reduction is will be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the: general welfare of the city for the following reasons: a. The required findings for a parking reduction are not met. No municipal parking lot is located in the vicinity to be useful to the project. The site will be subject to simultaneous commercial u sage by a variety of retail and office tenant with similar hours and days of operation. Parking demand is likely to be near the parking required by the Zoning Code. The design of the buildings would lend itself to other uses (general retail or office) that would generate additional parking demands. b. Approval of the project without providing the minimum spaces would lead to parking shortages, off -site parking on nearby private lots and increased usage of street parking. These results are contrary to the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code and General Plan to promote the economic vitality of commercial areas. c. Should Coast Highway be widened in the future, the site will loose approximately 20 parking stalls, which would exacerbate parking shortages.