Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes-01-19-06Tanning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 F L 4 11 Page 1 of V 101"61&&A57I*1 f i cNtu9:I Planning Commission Minutes January 19, 2006 0 Reguiar Meeting - n:au p.m. INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn - all present. STAFF PRESENT: Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attomey Rich Edmonston, Transportation and Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Brandon Nichols, Assistant Planner Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Executive Secretary David Lepo, Hogle Ireland, consultant planner PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None OSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA he Planning Commission Agenda was posted on January 13, 2006 CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of January 5, 2006 ITEM N 1 Minutee s Approved Motion was made by Chairperson Toerge to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None ITEM NO.2 OBJECT: Sheldon Residence PA2005 -225 14 Old Course Drive Approved Appeal of the approval of Modification Permit No. 2005 -103 (PA2005 -225) for a 1400 ncroachment of a detached accessory structure within a required rear yard setback. The plicant requests a 5 -foot encroachment within a required 10 -foot rear yard setback as original) posed within the application. Mr. Brandon Nichols gave an overview of the staff report concluding that in staffs opinion there is o practical difficulty associated with the property and therefore no hardship results from requiring ! 1e: //H:\P1ancomm\2006 \01192006.htm 02 /10 /200t Tanning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 standard 10 -foot rear setback. Commission inquiry, Mr. Nichols stated that the determination made by the Zon iinistrator was based upon the information that was provided at the Modification hearing. of the appeal staff did an in -depth analysis of the lot characteristics compared to others in imunity. Based on that information staff determined that the first finding could not be made. Carmel, architect who worked on the design of the subject proposal noted: . Shape of the lot is five sided, . Fitting in this extra structure along with a swimming pool and other improvements, it to be in the 10 -foot setback. . Property backs up to a greenbelt and a street with another greenbelt, and the house is 150 feet away. . No impact on any neighbors by this encroachment. Steve Sheldon, applicant, presented three letters of support from neighbors, his ngs and then noted: . Rear property line is not straight. . Proposed structure varies as far as to the amount of encroachment. . Backyard is designed for family use with a cook center and pool as well as the structure. . Neighbors prefer to have the pool house back against the wall because of the way they into the property. . Will plant trees and screen the pool house from neighbors and will maintain that at the roof line. . Other pool houses in One Ford Road have been granted this same encroachment. . He then made a presentation depicting where modifications have been granted in neighborhood for accessory uses. His lot is a custom lot on a little over 114 acre. . He then presented possible findings for the Commission to use in order to grant encroachment. ssioner Cole asked if the applicant had looked at a re- design to shift the angle of the amount of space lost and height of the house. Sheldon answered that he would lose space in the rear (about 20 - 25 feet). The pool ght is about 14 feet and 6 inches with a wood burning fireplace chimney of 18 feet. He would modify the chimney to make it smaller. comment was opened. ile: //H APlancomm\200610 1 1 92006.htm Page 2 of 1( 02/10/200( 'lanning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 t Hart, citizen, spoke as Chairman of the Architecture Committee of the Homeowner; )ciation. He noted they have reviewed the plans and believe they are fine. There has been e :w process and a sign -off with the neighbors around this home and impacted by the project. association is fine with the encroachment. comment closed. Tucker asked what the purpose is to have a rear yard setback. Temple answered that setback yards assure adequate separation between structures is /common areas in order to preserve light and air. imissioner Tucker noted that in this case there aren't any structures that would benefit setback, would it make any difference with a separation if the building was set all the to the property line? It doesn't seem like there is anybody there. Temple answered to another home, you are correct. itinuing, Commission Tucker noted that behind the property line is a common area lot Iscaping that is seen by people in the next development over. The houses in Belcourt >ss the street from where this particular house is. I understand the purposes of the setba in this particular case I'm having a hard time how the benefits of the setback are adver cted by the location of the structure. )le answered that staffs rational on this really has to do with the fact that all improvements could be designed in a conforming fashion if changes were made. Tucker stated that if this case had come before, this application would have a. Temple answered when you reference the barbecue and fireplaces, things that were )se are small structures. This proposal is a very substantial sized building and is very d our opinion. iissioner Tucker noted he agrees and if there was anybody around them it would have challenge. However, in this particular case there is nobody around it. We probably shor had a new finding in the requirements that gave us the latitude in situations where tt filar setback serves no purpose in this type of situation where there is nobody around. Temple noted that for this Planned Community, where the lots are generally large, years e regular Zoning Code allowed lesser setbacks for accessory structures; however, that went way side. Many of the arguments in this particular application made by the applicant, perN Homeowners Association might consider suggesting to the City that they amend the Planr nmunity, or areas of the Planned Community, that would address the circumstance for of accessory structure, would be to us the better solution because they are actually Chang r regulations to address the unique characteristics of their community. rirperson Toerge noted the original request was for a 5 foot encroachment into the 10 >ack for the perimeter wall of the structure, and an additional 2 feet encroachment reds setback 3 feet for the eaves. Staff answered yes. Continuing, he noted the Zc ninistrator made that finding. Given the lack of impact on adjacencies he is conflicted e ideology of this policy and the practicality that there doesn't seem to be an impact. ;sioner Henn noted there is large mature landscaping along the back property line the Belcourt areas. This residence is not visible to homes across the street. 3tion would not defeat the intent of the Code here. Page 3 of It ile: //H:\Plancomm\2006 \01192006.htm 02/10/200! Tanning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 Hawkins asked if Belcourt had objected to this project. Hart answered they have not spoken to Belcourt at all as it is not their responsibility to ide of their association. ssioner McDaniel asked about the agreement of trees to be planted. Is there something to document this? . Temple answered you would have to add a condition to maintain the landscaping as the approved site plan. imissioner Hawkins noted that there will be a lot of wasted space with the required setback back. Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to grant the appeal for the approval lification Permit No. 2005 -103 for a 5 foot encroachment of a detached accessory structu in the required rear yard setback together with the eave encroachment of 2 feet. TI iscaping as depicted on the site plan together with a reduced fireplace chimney structure minimum extent required by the Building Code for a gas fireplace is to be conditioned. Sheldon noted he has agreed to the landscaping on the site plan and to maintain it to iht of the roof which is 14 feet. mmissioner McDaniel noted he is not in support of the motion because there is plenty of n this lot to accommodate the proposed structure as is. There is an opportunity available to )licant without this modification. Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel None None Sober Living by the Sea 2811 Villa Way Page 4 of 1( ITEM NO.3 PA2005 -136 jest for approval of Use Permit No. 2005 -031 to allow a substance abuse counseling center. Continue to application also requests the approval of an Off -Site Parking Agreement and a Modification 02/09/2006 iit to allow the construction and use of an off -site parking lot located at 2807 Lafayette me, accommodating 12 employee parking spaces, two pair of which will be in tandem guration. Additionally, a parking waiver of 43 spaces is requested in association with the use. mission Henn recused himself from this deliberating on this item. overview of the staff report was given by Jaime Murillo. He noted the reason for this s for a use permit, an off -site parking agreement and a waiver of the remaining 42 ces based on the finding that the parking demand is less than what the Code ,ause of the operational characteristics. missioner Tucker noted that the matter before the Commission has to do with the type of it is, which affects the amount of parking that is required. Staff answered yes and ival of a club facility and parking that is associated with that. tissioner Tucker noted it is an issue of a club or not a club and not based on the use that d within the community. Therefore, people should not give us testimony of the great wor club, that is really not relevant. Deputy City Attorney answered that the primary focus is on the parking and of a club. ile : //H:\Plancomm\2006 \01192006.htm 02/10/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 tairman Toerge noted that there is not a clear cut classification for this use. One alternative classify it as medical establishment. Temple noted that there are medical offices that hold meetings of this size; however, it be consistent with the Code to classify this as a medical use. It is not a hospital as p not stay over night. issioner Hawkins, referring to Section 20.05.030 Sub Section B - residential care lir shared living quarters for 6 or fewer persons with physical or mental impairments ntially limit one or more of such persons major life activities. This classification incl homes, sober living environments, etc. He asked why staff eliminated this residential and what does sober living mean? Temple answered that use classification was recently adopted and added specifically for ip recovery homes in residential areas. Harp added that this use in residential is not designed for assembly uses. Sober living is ip home of people who have had an addiction to alcohol and they are living together in fence of 6 or fewer people. This statute is intended to allow them to live together as ai it family would. There are state laws that prohibit the City from treating these homes differe i any other homes within the City. ussion continued on residential care facilities, commercial area uses, parking regulations. Tucker asked if the use permit was not allowed, what are their choices? Temple answered that the applicant has a choice of another commercial location or t 1 move out into houses. They would have to comply with the Building and Fire Codes pancy. An assembly use on a residential property is no different than a party. Harp noted his agreement. ilic comment was opened. mis O'Neil, representing the applicant, noted: • This is an assembly with no medical treatments and is therefore a club that requires a permit for this particular location in the Cannery Village Specific Plan. • Sober Living by the Sea could also operate without an assembly; however, they need a permit for the assembly area. . This facility has operated for the past 7 years and it was brought to the attention of tt operators and owners of the facility that they needed a use permit as a result of a fii inspection that occurred in furtherance of licensing requirements by the State of California. . They are applying for a use permit and there is no attempt to circumvent the law. . The staff report is comprehensive about the operating characteristics of the facility. . Waiver of 42 parking spaces is appropriate due to the proximity of the Municipal lot. . He then made several references to the staff report. Page 5 of 1( ile: //H:\Plancomm\2006 \01192006.htm 02/10/200( 'tanning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 • This facility has been a good neighbor and distributed a letter of support from the of Commerce. . He noted that they have read and understand all the findings and conditions within the staff report. Commission inquiry he added: • The clients are restricted from using a car to travel to the facility and are to use a bike the duration of their treatment; the clients agree to a curfew which is at 10:00 p.m., and drug testing. • There are no out patient services planned for this project. • The evening sessions include lectures, computer studies, education and are handled different stages as the client proceeds through the program. . The facility operates vans for clients' use . The majority of clients enroll in this program and are not related to any requirements of court system. Wright, director, noted: . Clients attend on a voluntary basis or through an intervention process. . College program is offered. • Clients are transported in vans. • Clients are prohibited from the use of cars in the 90 day primary residential program. Toerge noted this is a land use decision and encouraged participants to be brief. Weeda, business owner in the Cannery Village area, referenced and distributed a letter • Does this meet the land use and the intent? It has elements of a social club and a hospital. • Minimum standard should be based on the hospital use. • This project does not fit within the Cannery Village Specific Plan. • This area is changing to residential mixed use that is pedestrian friendly with visitor retail commercial. . This does not meet the criteria of the land use guidelines and you must hold the standard with equal application to surrounding properties. . Parking is not adequate and no waiver should be allowed. • Basic use of medical office use would be a standard of 35 cars and they have provided 13. Page 6 of 1( i1e : //H:T1ancomm\2006 \01192006.htm 02110 /200( Tanning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 . The Coastal Commission has the overriding authority. . Development and use permits are opportunities for the Planning Commission to bring conforming uses into conformance. . This needs to go to the Coastal Commission, and the Planning Commission and Council do not have the authority to grant this waiver due to the intensification or alter of the use, which clearly this does. . He asked that this application be denied and or that it be required to go before the Commission. Commission inquiry, Mr. Weeda added: The proper thing is to find out what is allowed there in that space. They can administration and adding parking is a positive thing and should have been done sooner. . Moderate group meetings so that they are smaller or have them off site. finer Tucker noted that having the applicant appear to the Coastal Commission is that we have the ability to require. Temple added that Coastal Development permits are required for new development. ilopment is happening with this project and is a re -use of an already developed property. Jard that would require a Coastal Development permit is not met. a brief discussion, Mr. Harp advised against adding a condition regarding m action. ice Low, resident, referring to his submitted letter, noted that this project should not have ssification of a social club. They have been here for 7 years without a permit. They have eement with the Newport Club to do their group counseling there. Whars wrong with that alternative? If you go to the web site you get a clear indication of what type of business the :s are in. It says they are state licensed, drug testing is done and reports are sent in. it Allen, applicant, noted when he discussed this project with the City he was told tinseling was allowed. He asked the Fire Dept and Building Dept. for inspections. Sober L the Sea has been in the community for over 20 years and at this location for 7 years. He cussed his goals, residential treatments, one on one counseling as well as group couns 1 these are private pay clients who come to this facility. iissioner Hawkins asked about the additional certification from the State. What would in terms of numbers and what would be done? Allen answered that under State law the Department of Alcohol and Drugs certification is ntary practice. It does not increase numbers but increases accountability. The reason for tl fication is for a "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval' with certain standards ormance. He explained the standards and differences. Staid, local resident, noted his opposition to this application due to traffic, noise, and int of people in the neighborhood. stt Devalier, local resident, noted his opposition to this project due to the amount of rked, confrontations with people, intimidation and noise and concern about the safety of pi Cannery Village. He asked that the parking waiver not be granted and that the Commi: Page 7 of It ile: //H:\Plancomm\2006 \01192006.htm 02/10/200( 'tanning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 to establish standards. At Commission inquiry, he noted he has not registered ints with the local Police Department. Dobbie, business owner in Cannery Village, noted he has never had a problem with Sob, by the Sea people. It is a high crime area due to the many bars and restaurants in tF but not due to the Sober Living or the Newport Club. This operation has been going on for and has been good neighbor. They offer good services and have not intensified their use. iissioner Tucker noted this is a land use issue with a parking waiver, a club type use other use, and the modification for tandem parking. Cardos, local resident, works next to the Sober Living and reported that she has never lem with their parking or bicycles being out of place. )e Reese, local resident, distributed a hand out and asked that it be read by ammissioners. He noted that staff has not done enough research and that the State does gulate the facility now. The staff reports are different and you need to see that you have all Formation you need before coming to a decision tonight. He noted he filed a parking compl K months ago about the commercial vans in the parking lot. Granting this application would precedent for the future. nissioner Tucker clarified his perception on this issue and how a business mind works. H( d the Commission does not have a good choice and that it is something that is regulated b) and Federal and that the City has to live with. ianie Rosanelli, local resident, noted that the number of parking spaces is not enough. s will be more retaillresidential with redevelopment in the area and asked where additions are going to be parked. She noted this is not the right place for this use and asked tha rig spaces not be given away. Liskin, local resident, noted that the residents should come first, visitors, then businesses. s and alcohol scare people. He asked that a good quality of life be provided for the loca Mosen, local property owner, noted he would not move into an area within five grants, micro brewery. is Helfand, local resident, discussed personal history of addiction treatment. He testified was no car use by clients of the facility and random drug testing. Andros, local resident, noted: . Discrepancies between staff reports. . Sober Living web site states that there is outpatient service in three separate locations. . States it is licensed by the State of California. . According to Dunn and Bradstreet - they are identified as a specialty hospital, real agency, manager specialty outpatient clinic. . As residents, we are asking that you look at the use. They serve a purpose for community, which is their goal. . We are concerned with the zoning and there is a medical zone that allows for this use. Page 8 of 1( ile: //H:\Plancomm\2006 \01192006.htm 02/10/200( 'tanning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 Page 9 of It . Not all of the information is being presented accurately. sioner Tucker noted that there is a condition that states that the out - patient previously operated shall be prohibited. Person, representing the applicant, noted: . At the time of the application process, he knew nothing of an outpatient program. . He, since then, discussed this issue with the Director who offered and is willing discontinue this service. comment was closed. Eaton asked Mr. Person: . Is there staff on site 24 hours a day? Mr. Person answered no staff after 10:00 p.m. . Length of the off -site parking agreement. Mr. Person answered that the room in back 2809 Villa Way is owned by the same parry as across the street. Since 2002 that srr room in the back has been on a month to month basis for a parking agreement and i landlord assures us that will continue. . How many people are counseled there at one time and what is the maximum occupancy the assembly room? Mr. Person answered that at the time the fire inspection took plac because of the single entry, we were required to limit that room to 49 people. Typica there is between 15 and 30 clients at any one time. All we are asking for is to continue; existing business that has been in place for 7 years. . Is Sober Living by the Sea planning on expanding? Mr. Person answered that there currently 72 staff members of which at this particular facility there are 16 assigned. . What is the ultimate enforcement ability with who agrees to the no car and or the curf regulations? Mr. Person answered that having a vehicle is not conducive to recovery. this is violated, they could be removed from the program. . What about the curfew? Ms. Wright answered that no clients in the 90 day residentia treatment program have a car. We have different programs. This Use Permit is for the 91 day residential treatment program and the clients are not permitted to have cars. There an other clients who come in for counseling, but they do not use the larger assembly room. When a client violates a rule we address that by either asking them to go to a differen facility, perhaps they may have to do extra 'step' work, there are a lot of different ways wE work with them to get them to correct their behavior. . How many clients do you handle a week that are not in the 90 day program? None of other clients use that entrance to that building at 2809. on Toerge asked if the resolution and conditions of approval have been read by and do they agree to them? r. Person answered they have read the resolution and agree to all the findings and conditions. Commission inquiry, he noted that the maximum number of people involved in counseling essions would be 30 people. Most of the meetings are smaller and include 10 - 15 people. The arger meetings might happen once a day. There are staggered meetings throughout the day. V ey y are operating at capacity for this facility and for the number of homes they want to maintain. it a : //14:\Plancomm\2006 \01192006.htm 02 /10 1200( 'lanning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 is no present intent to enlarge and by the conditions imposed, it puts a natural limit on it. is a problem, you have the opportunity to bring it back. The only people using the cgs are people prohibited from having a vehicle. nissioner Tucker suggested having a condition on capping the number of employees and have to be on the off -site lot at night. Person agreed to both. Eaton asked if a condition for a one year review would be acceptable? Mr. yes. mmissioner Hawkins, referring to Condition 20, eliminated the wording ... ...Condition 7, eliminate the wording, ... "can not be provided ". What is the r ,uoancv of the site as noted in Condition 30? Person agreed and noted that the Fire and Building Departments have different numbers. We s agreed to the 49 in the larger meeting room based on the Fire Department requirements. meetings have about 20 - 25 seats set up. Tucker: . Condition 20 - eliminate second sentence. . Condition 32 - is this needed? Person answered that condition 32 was required by the Police Department. We would e a special event there. nmissioner Tucker suggested, "no special events permits are allowed." for condition 32 outpatient treatment is eliminated. A condition to limit the number of employees at any would be set at 10 and add a condition for a one year review. Person agreed. on was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve Use Permit No. 2005 -031, Off-f ing Agreement No. 2005 -005 revised version issued January 18th, and Modification Per 2005 -133 (for the employee tandem parking spaces) subject to findings and conditions oval with changes (PA2005 -136). he changes are: one year review by the Planning Commission, limit number of employees 0; delete second sentence of condition 20 and the program participants shall not operate mo ehicles and the applicant shall have a policy; maximum occupancy limit per Building Co( hange on condition 22 the word consultant to consult; condition 32 no special event permits sf applicant agreed to all the amended conditions. nmissioner McDaniel noted he was not in support of this application. He noted that tf ect has been placed in this area but does not have enough parking, and the parking waiver large. He is not concerned where this might go if it moves from this area. missioner Eaton noted that with enforceable conditions regarding bicycles and the off-si ng enhancement will take care of the employees' parking. The use is problematic as there efinition that addresses what this project is and the question is what should it be classifii With the one year review, we will have the ability to look at the operation and have the abil Page 10 of 1 t ile: //fiAPlancomm\2006 \01192006.htm 02/10/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 revoke it if it is not working correctly or detrimentally. I therefore am in support of this proposal. nmissioner Hawkins noted this is a difficult choice. The resident facilities are outside of out diction and the Zoning Code has been crafted to accommodate those and it is a matter o :e and or Federal law in connection with that. This is different and is within our jurisdiction. wavier of 40 parking spaces with the findings based on available parking 285 feet away fron facility is not right. You will not find people walking a football field length. The Municipal lot is conveniently located to this site. The applicant has been reasonable with the other modifiec ditions; however, I don't believe we can fit this use with these findings at this location. I can' port the motion. iairperson Toerge noted he is compelled by three significant elements of this application. Or that there is a clear commitment for the use of bicycles; an operation that is in existence for ars with no registered complaints, and we are now going to put a one year review on it th; ies us the opportunity to collect information during this time to allow us to assess. For tho; asons, he noted his support of the motion. Harp noted that the Commission can reserve the right to modify this proposal, but they revoke it. The only way to revoke this if the applicant had violated some of the conditions. ssioner Hawkins suggested having the findings as a condition to allow the opportunity because of the violation of that condition. s. Temple suggested that another condition such as that any vehicles coming to the site that aociated with its operation that can not be accommodated in the available off -site parl ration and on site spaces must park in that lot. Then if they do not, for whatever reason, tt a violation of that condition. issioner McDaniel noted that if this use permit is approved, it goes with the land. So that what goes in that building will have the waiver of 42 parking spaces. Temple noted it would have to be a similar operation. rimissioner Cole noted he is concerned with the parking waiver. If this is classified as a cl, it would require 57 spaces. This is the opportunity for the Planning Commission, and giv public testimony of the residents and local businessmen, I don't believe just the 13 spaces ig to be enough. There is testimony that there is a parking problem there. There is enou, srtainty with the occupancy levels that they can accommodate in the room, there is a lack of tiled parking survey and, that in my opinion, is necessary in this case. We don't have tl lability of a lot of things that are important in order to make this major decisions. Without tf rmation, I am not in support of the motion. The public facility is not convenient enough a not solve potential problems that could occur even with the conditions that are hard )rce. I am open to a continuance for a more detailed parking survey. mmissioner Tucker noted the club use choice creates an issue which is the parki luirement, which in this particular case with creating those spaces on site and the conditions ;ration take care of that issue. However, the majority.of the Commission is not in favor of ti either we ask the applicant if they want to continue the matter or we vote. Toerge noted we have discussed this item thoroughly. motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to continue this item for two weeks. Temple noted that if the continuance was for a parking study to be conducted, it would not igh time. She then asked what information was needed. Cannery Village parking is used y people from within this area and to try to separate out who is from this facility is Page 11 of 1 t ile: //H:\Plancomm\2006 \01192006.htm 02/10/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 Page 12 of P lenormous task. I iissioner Cole asked if we maximize the occupancy levels of this facility, we should amount of occupancy level for parking. Temple noted during the day there is almost always convenient parking in the village. What is that the real parking problems on the street start up when all the restaurants go to their fL ational mode in the evening which starts around 5:30 or 6:00 p.m. finis O'Neil, representing the applicant, noted that if a continuance for a reasonable period could generate the type of information that is being requested we certainly would agree Because of all the uses that impact the parking in this area it is difficult to identify with 1 > and restaurants. We can give better occupancy numbers; however, no matter the figu ( are all riding bikes except for the staff and vans that pick up and drop people off. Whet) need more than 13 spaces of site, that is all we have. There are parking stickers that he n obtained and are used by consultants and employees that work there. airman Toerge noted he would not support a continuance as this is an operation that has operation for 7 years. This is the second time we have heard this and has ade )rmation. All people coming to this site as clients will be using bicycles. Commissioner Tucker noted he supports a two week continuance. It is incumbent on the applicant to provide better information. We are unable to define a scope of study, but obvious) something is bothering some of the Commissioners. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Tucker, Noes: Toerge, McDaniel Absent: None Recused: Henn HEARING ITEMS Following a ten minute recess, the meeting resumed. SUBJECT: Mariner's Mile Gateway (PA2004 -141) ITEM NO.4 100 -600 West Coast Highway PA2004 -147 Request for approval of a Use Permit, Modification Permit and Development Plan, to allow the Approved development of a 56,000 square foot shopping center and two -level subterranean parking garage. The site is approximately 2.57 acres and is currently occupied by 8 detached commercial structures that would be removed. The request includes consideration of a Use Permit to allow buildings to exceed the base height limit of 26 -feet up to a maximum height of 35 feet, a Modification Permit to allow a commercial building to encroach into the required 5 foot wide rear and abutting residential properties to the north, and a Modification Permit to allow a landscape planter to be built less than the required width of 4 feet along Coast Highway. The project als includes right -of -way dedication along Coast Highway for widening of Coast Highway adjacent to he project site, installation of a traffic signal on Coast Highway, grading, landscaping, site lighting land site walls. Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in connection with the application ove. The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that, with changes incorporated in the F with mitigation measures indicated, the subject development will not result in a significant the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Mitigated Ne >claration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or the City of the subject application. r. Campbell gave a brief overview of the staff report. Staff has a resolution with findings an onditions of approval for adoption. He noted condition 88 regarding pile driving needs to b dded. The duplicate conditions of the Mitigation Measures have been deleted and staff he file : //H:\Plancomm\2006 \01192006.htm 02/10/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 ,imbered the conditions. He noted language to be inserted into the resolution and handout that was distributed. Toerge noted that today's hearing date needs to be incorporated in the resolution. Edmonston suggested that on the proposed condition 88 eliminate ... "to provide required ks." These are related to a separate structural system not related to piling. nissioner Tucker referencing the finding on the slope behind the property, the fe needs to be addressed. He asked the applicant for his thoughts on how much le is needed to have a quality development and attract quality clients. Why do you tf 56,000 square feet in that particular location? Beiswenger, Mariner's Mile Gateway, LLC, property owner and developer, answered: :lopments need to be of a certain critical mass in order to justify improvements of the sc are being proposed here, which essentially is a retail center. It is also critical to have a rr for in a shopping center. In this case that mini anchor is going to be a drug store. T erty could not be meaningfully developed with less then 56,000 square feet. A smal :lopment would not offer the same mix or quality of users and we would have to revert idually developing the lots into fast food and other types of uses that currently exist on I way now. We know the City and community are not in favor of seeing that type ilopment on this property. nmissioner Tucker noted the Mariner's Mile framework speaks in terms of high qua] elopment. So the only way to do the high quality development is to have the project roughly scale that you are proposing? Beiswenger agreed. Toerge, referring to the plans, asked about the distance between floor plates in an parking. Beiswenger answered that the first level of subterranean would be 9 feet and 6 inches fro top of the slab to the lowest hanging point of any equipment or beam in the ceiling of the fir :I. The lower level of subterranean, should we build that, would have a lower height of about : 4 inches to the lowest clear pipe or mechanical equipment or fire sprinkler. The plat cats that there will be about 9 feet and 6 inches clear in each level. nissioner Hawkins asked in order to accomplish the goals of the project, is it possible to ngs in other ways? Is the presence of an anchor facility necessary for this project? Beiswenger answered that after reviewing various configurations, it was determined this is t siting possible to allow for the widening of Coast Highway. It is absolutely necessary for for facility and the additional leases that have been executed have a co- tenancy provis we have the drug store as an anchor to those smaller shop tenants. He answered that read, understands and agrees to the conditions. imissioner Tucker noted the language dealing with the feasibility needs to be inserted staff is working on that. Campbell referred to the handout noting the shaded text to be included in the finding on Hawkins noted that the standard was "practical," not "feasible." He read Policy Page 13 of 1( ile: //H:\Plancomm \2006101192006.htm 02/10/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 the existing General Plan. ing discussion, and that it had been determined that it was not a natural landform, it lined to replace 'feasible' with 'practical' and that further analysis was not necessary u D. The Commission agreed. Cole asked about the retaining wall and the materials used. Staff indicated would come back for review. mmissioner Hawkins suggested a change in Section 1 of the resolution concerning the find the mitigated document. He suggested adding , ".....environment after mitigation and...." oner Tucker noted on condition 24 regarding the trees, what will those trees grow in? 60, needs to mention angled parking as it is on the site plan. Campbell answered that planter pockets will have to be created with the proper drainage. sioner Hawkins noted the response to comments to CalTrans comments needed. Condition 36 should be amended to include, ... and will obtain ry... Staff agreed. tinuing Commission Hawkins noted on condition 13 replace the word reduce with add ... "or above residences ". iissioner Cole asked about condition 54, is that review and approval? Staff answered yes. tion 63 can we designate where those will be? Staff answered that the floor plans and sib will be referenced. sioner Hawkins suggested adding, ".., prior to the issuance of grading plans..." in condition 59. Staff agreed. comment was opened and closed. Commission inquiry, Mr. Beiswenger noted the changes were acceptable. tion was made by Chairperson Toerge to approve Development Plan No. 2004 -001, ( rmit No. 2004 -025 and Modification Permit No. 2005 -117 (PA2004 -141) for the property at 1 ) West Coast Highway subject to the findings and conditions as set forth in the staff report modified this evenino. Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge, Tucker and Henn None None None Widening Coast Highway between Dover Drive and Rocky Point cussion of the widening or improvement of Coast Highway between Dover Drive and nt to provide three westbound lanes as a priority project for the 2006 Capital Impro gram (CIP). . Temple reported that the City is starting the preparation process for the Capital Improvei igram. Should the Commission feel that the City should make a higher priority for a fu i- structural widening improvement on another portion of Coast Highway not in association riner's Mile Gateway, but would be just a prioritization issue for the Public Works Depart) the CIP. Do you want to make that recommendation and if so, we would bring it in the coi Page 14 of 11 ITEM NO.5 Discussion Item Only ile: //H:\P1ancomm\2006 \01192006.htm 02/10/2001 'tanning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 Page 15 of P �Cf the Capital Improvement Budget considerations. There are at least two Study Sessions on th IP and then three to four on the rest of the budget and then a public hearing. I iairman Toerge noted his concern of recommending this without a public hearing and businesses along the frontage. . Temple answered if this recommendation was made, the Council could tell the Public Wo partment to place this as a priority, then the Public Works Department would automatically outreach to inform the citizenry. missioner Tucker noted that this was a suggestion that Commissioner Eaton wanted to ha issed by the Planning Commission and is an internal matter. He asked if the right of way of McDonald's was improved through the width of that project, would that allow the Marine Gateway project impacts to be improved so that area would function better west of the tral Edmonston answered that the improvement does take a triangular piece along the frontage o )onalds to finish the transition but that using the entire frontage would not make it any better. design we have meets the standards for transitions and is significantly longer than what is e today and we are satisfied with that. nmissioner Tucker noted that the theory advanced to him was that the stack up has a lot to i the left turn movement at Riverside Drive and if there was a dual left it would shorten t e and that would do a lot to alleviate the stack up back to Dover. We have the right of way McDonald's. s. Temple noted the City has not taken the offer yet. There has been a number of creative address the 12 feet need for the future widening, through time. We know the building it t back sufficiently on the lot. rmmissioner Eaton noted that maybe there was some way for the Council to look at I sirability or feasibility of attempting to find some way to get the rest of the two lanes convert three lanes up to Rocky Point where it becomes three lanes again. The reason I suggesl it is there is a perception that this causes the congestion on Mariner's Mile. The diminution ee lanes to two is what causes the congestion. It is a perception that Green Light capitali2 every time they do a campaign. 1 thought if there was any chance that the completion of I iriner's Mile Gateway project would allow the City to do in some way an interim re- striping noving parking to be able to extend the third lane through, then that would be an advantage. rmmissioner Hawkins asked if the CIP budget would not avoid any CEQA requirements tt ch a project would have? He was answered no. Continuing, this project would be subject me CEQA compliance and there would be noticing. He then noted it is a laudable goal to c s done but this is problematic in part because of the parking problems this could create if tend it all the way beyond the Balboa Bay Club. Extending it somewhat beyond the gateway through the McDonald's property is an interesting idea. If you have the Offer of Dedication a u are not eliminating on- street parking, I think it is an excellent suggestion and I would welcor opportunity to get that portion to the Council in connection with the Capital Improveme son Toerge noted he supports the recommendation of a comprehensive review in and vehicular circulation but that we do public outreach and that we notify every owi by this. Absent this, I am not in support of this. >ioner Tucker noted that the councilmember who represents this area is aware of in. He then asked staff to report back on the McDonald's right of way and what wi if we suggested the widening. We could then send this along to Council for I ion. Discussion continued. ile : //H:\Plancomm\2006 \01192006.htm 02/10/200( Tanning Commission Minutes 01/19/2006 F_ Page 16 of 1( Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to continue this item, ask staff for a brief report on the status of the McDonald's situation at the next meeting. yes: yes: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, McDaniel and Henn oes: None sent: None None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple reported that the City Council discussed the Bayside Residential Planned Community; the Santa Barbara Condominiums and Corporate Plaza West projects were approved; reconsideration of and Arts and Cultural Resources and an Historic Resources Elements of the General Plan was made, and a budget amendment for the General Plan Update information program was continued. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Commissioner Henn stated EDC will have a sub - committee to review the draft Economic Development plan and it is expected to be done within 60 days. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee Commissioner Eaton noted there has been no meeting. ) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Certification Committee - Chairperson Toerge noted there have been no other meetings. ) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Zoning Committee - Commission Eaton noted no meeting. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none and there was a discussion of tied votes. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - none. Project status - none. Requests for excused absences - none. ADJOURNMENT: 10:50 P.M. ADJOURNMENT BARRY EATON, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION • ile: //H:\P1ancomm \2006\01192006.htm 02/10/2001