Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14 - NB-1 - General Plan Screening GPS-16-05 for Pro - 11/15/2016CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 15, 2016 ITEM NUMBER: NB -1 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN SCREENING GPS -16-05 FOR PROPOSED SELF -STORAGE FACILITY AT 390 FORD ROAD AND 1957 NEWPORT BVLD. WITH A 1.50 FAR INCLUDING BASEMENT FLOOR AREA DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 2016 FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: MINOO ASHABI, PRINCIPAL PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MINOO ASHABI, PRINCIPAL PLANNER (714) 754-5610, minoo.ashabi(&costamesaca.gov RECOMMENDATION Accept or deny General Plan amendment request for processing to increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for three parcels located within the "General Commercial" General Plan land use designation from 0.75 for very low trip generator use to 1.50 FAR. REQUEST The applicant is proposing to construct a self -storage facility on three parcels on the north and side side of Ford Road on the west side of Newport Blvd. The proposal includes two two-story buildings with full basements. The land use designation for these parcels is General Commercial and the applicant is proposing the following: • An increase to the allowable FAR for a very -low traffic category from 0.75 FAR to 1.50 FAR for two story above ground structures with basements. BACKGROUND The project site includes three parcels on the north and south side of Ford Road. The parcels are currently occupied by a public storage and a RV storage and supply facility (Orange Coast Trailer Supply and Mini Storage and RV). The site is bounded by Sandpiper Motel and Rolling Homes Mobile Home Park to the north and the Travel Lodge to the south. On October 24, 1994, the Planning Commission approved the current structure which includes a one-story 4,188 SF structure at the corner (manager's office) and use of 60 shipping containers as public storage on the 1957 Newport Blvd. site (Attachment 7). The approved development is as follows: • Total building square footage including 60 shipping containers — 10,840 SF (0.23 FAR) On December 4, 2007, the City Council denied a General Plan Screening request (GPS -07-04) for development of the site with a two-story above ground self -storage building (including a basement) with a 1.31 FAR (40,188 SF). Refer to Attachment 6 for details. The denial was based on the extent of deviation from the FAR standard (75% deviation) and the incompatibility of the proposed intensity with the surrounding uses. Project Site and Proposal The proposed project site contains three parcels (APNs: 419-212-05, 419-211-05, and 419-212-04) for a total of 62,289 square feet (1.43 -acre). The proposal includes two two-story buildings (with basements) on two separate sites with the following development intensities: Address Site Area Building Area Proposed FAR 390 Ford Road 32,238 SF 23,850 SF 1.46 23,100 SF FAR w/o basement: (basement) 0.74 Total: 46,950 SF 1957 Newport 30,051 SF 22,200 SF 1.50 Blvd. 22,800 SF FAR w/o basement: (basement) 0.74 Total: 45,000 SF The buildings will be used as a public storage facility designed with front elevations that appear similar to office buildings with large storefronts on the ground level and upper level windows. Access to the buildings will be provided from the entries facing west. Each building has a loading area in front and surface parking for the patrons. The building at the south side of Ford Road will include the office and check-in area for customers and the building to the north includes only storage units. No security fences or gate is proposed. Proposed Development Both sites currently take access from Ford Road that will remain the same with the proposed development. The proposed project will be subject to the following parking requirement: • Two (2) covered parking spaces adjacent to the manager's quarters, if applicable. • One (1) parking space for every two hundred (200) storage cubicles or fraction thereof shall be located adjacent to the project office. A minimum of two (2) such spaces shall be provided. A total of 36 parking spaces are proposed on both sites including two ADA stall on the southerly site. Both sites have spaces for trash enclosures that are independently accessible by the customers. The buildings will need to meet the required setback of 20 feet along Newport Blvd. The building on the south is currently 20 feet from the right-of- way on Newport Blvd and 14 feet from Ford Road. The following summarizes the trip generation of the proposed project in comparison with the current General Plan FAR: General Plan Potential Build AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Total Avg. And FAR out Trips Trips Daily Trips General FAR Commercial 10.3 18,687 SF 130 1117 11,269 Existing Land 10,840 SF 2 3 27 Uses Proposed 1.45 and 1.50 13 24 230 Storage FAR Facilities 91,950 SF ANA / YS/ S General Plan Amendment Screening Criteria City Council Policy 500-2 sets forth the criteria to evaluate General Plan amendment requests. Council takes action on whether or not a proposal should be accepted for processing by using these criteria as guidance. The Policy establishes a procedure for processing privately initiated General Plan amendments (Attachment 2). The policy also acknowledges these criteria are only guidelines and City Council may accept an application which does not meet the criteria if it finds there are overriding reasons to do so. A project summary sheet is attached for the screening request. This summary sheet provides the following information: • General Plan Land Use Map and Aerial Photograph • Potential Project Description, Land Use and Traffic Evaluation • Justification for approval or rejection of application for further processing Additionally, acceptance of a proposal for screening is not a commitment to approve the General Plan amendment. This action represents that Council would like to consider the request for processing, and subsequently explore alternatives prior to making a final decision on amending the General Plan. The following includes a list of items that need additional considerations: • Proposed Use — The proposed public warehouse facility will not create the mixed use and pedestrian oriented uses envisioned in the General Plan on major corridors. The proposed use is passive in nature and will not contribute to vibrancy of the area. • Building Design — Although the building has been designed to appear as an office building additional architectural enhancement at the corners is needed, especially the southerly corner since the proposed landscape area is less than 20 feet and the building's corner is closest to the intersection of Newport Blvd. and Ford Road. Proposed FAR — The proposed 1.50 FAR is a 100% increase to the allowable 0.75 FAR. The project site is irregular with long and narrow dimensions; however, the proposed buildings are maximizing the development capacity on the site without consideration of the neighboring properties. ALTERNATIVES In addition to providing general feedback on the proposed project, City Council would need to take action on the General Plan amendment screening request. Accept processing of the General Plan Amendment request. This will require amending the General Plan to allow a higher FAR for this site than allowed by the General Plan land use designation. 2. Deny General Plan Amendment request from further processing. If the application is denied, the property owner could redevelop the site at the allowable intensities allowed by the General Plan. FISCAL REVIEW Fiscal review is not required for this item. However, staff provided a preliminary fiscal analysis comparing the allowable commercial uses in comparison with the proposed land land use. CONCLUSION Staff believes the proposed development is an improvement to the current status of the site; however, the proposed FAR is far exceeding the allowable very low FAR for the site. In addition, the proposed mass and scale of the buildings need to be modified to better fit the neighboring properties. Wider setbacks along the north and Newport Blvd. will improve this condition, which could result in a smaller footprint of the buildings and lower FAR. MINOO ASHABI, AIA Principal Planner JAY TREVINO, AICP Economic and Development Services Director / Consultant Attachments: 1. Summary Sheet 2. Council policy 500-2 3. Vicinity Map 4. General Plan Map 5. Zoning Map 6. GPS Staff Report and Minutes 7. Resolution of Approval — Storage Containers 8. Submitted plans cc: Sharon Sutton 891 Joann Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 David Donovan 2101 Indian Spring Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 Mathew Nelson Gresham Savage Nolan & Tilden, PC 550 East Hospitality Lane, Suite 300 San Bernardino, CA 92408-4205 GPS -16-05 1957 - Newport Blvd. and 390 Ford Road TRAFFIC EVALUATION of ATTACHMENT 1 GENERAL PLAN Screening Request The project site contains three parcels and 1.43- acre in area. The site is in the General Commercial land use designation developed with a 4,188 square foot two-story office/storage building, 60 storage containers and surface parking. The request is to amend the General Plan to allow a higher FAR for public warehouse use. The site is divided by Ford Road and is currently used for public storage and RV storage. Each of the sites to the north and south of Ford Road include a vehicular access. A preliminary trip generation concluded that the proposed project is expected to result in 230 Average Daily Trips, which is an increase of 203 ADTs compared to the existing development. General Plan Potential Build out AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Total Avg. And FAR Trips Trips Daily Trips General 0.3 FAR 30 117 1,269 Commercial 18,687 SF Existing Land Uses 10,840 SF 2 3 27 Proposed Storage 1.45 and 1.50 FAR 13 24 230 Facilities 91,950 SF PROJECT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH GOALS OF THE GENERAL PLAN The project satisfies the General Plan Acceptance Screening Criteria since the preliminary trip generation assessment concluded that the project resulted in a reduction of average daily trips and is not expected to significantly impact any roadways in the area. The proposed project is expected to result in 230 Average Daily Trips, 1,039 ADTs fewer than allowable FAR for commercial development buildout and 203 ADTs more than the existing development. However, the General Plan policies noted below are not supportive of a significant increase to FAR and the proximity of the proposed use to sensitive uses. 1) Land Use Policy LU -6.13 — This policy encourages new development along major corridors that are pedestrian oriented and includes a mixture of retail/service, residential, and office uses. The building site is located along a major corridor; however, the proposed use and design is not a mixed use, nor provide pedestrian oriented uses. T('__1._ 2) Land Use Policy LU -5.10 – The proposed FAR is not consistent with this policy that states building densities/intensities for proposed new development projects shall not exceed the trip budget for applicable land use classifications, as identified in the Land Use Element. Building intensities for proposed new development projects shall not exceed the applicable floor area standards, except for the following conditions: (a) Limited deviations from the graduated floor -area ratio standards for the commercial and industrial land use designations may be approved through a discretionary review process. No deviation shall exceed a 0.05 increase in the FAR in the moderate traffic category, and no deviation shall be allowed in the very low, low, and high traffic categories. Deviations from the FAR standards shall not cause the daily trip generation for the property to be exceeded when compared to the existing daily trip generation for the site without the proposed project or maximum allowable traffic generation for the Moderate Traffic FAR category, whichever is greater. The policy also indicates that additional criteria for approving deviations from the FAR standards may be established by policy of the City Council. 3) Land Use Policy LU -3.1 – The proposed buildings are not consistent with this policy that states development should be protecting existing stabilized residential neighborhoods, including mobile home parks (and manufactured housing parks), from the encroachment of incompatible or potentially disruptive land uses and/or activities. The proposed two-story building is proposed at 6 feet from the northerly property line abutting the mobile home park. 4) Land Use Policy LU -2.7 – Even though the buildings are not more than two stories, the policy requires that the construction of tall buildings such structures will not adversely impact surrounding developments and deprive existing land uses of adequate light, air, privacy, and solar access. The proposed two-story building is 6 feet from the neighboring mobile home park, which will have a negative impact on the quality of life for the mobile home park residents. 9— ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL POLICY POLICY EFFECTIVE SUBJECT NUMBER DATE PAGE PROCESSING OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 500-2 11/3/86 I -of 2 Rev. 8/1/94 Background The General Plan constitutes the official policy of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa with regard to physical development of the City. The City Council may, at its option, amend the General Plan or any element thereof. On August 2, 1982, the City Council enacted Resolution 82-65 adopting "General Plan Administration and Implementation Policies and Procedures". These procedures provided that regularly scheduled General Plan review hearings would be held at the first Planning Commission meeting in February, June, and October. Since that date, State Law has been amended to allow elements of the General Plan to be amended four, rather than three, times during any calendar year. Due to the increased workload on Staff, Planning Commission and City Council resulting from the review of General Plan Amendment applications, the City Council wishes to review the type and number of such applications prior to acceptance for processing. Purpose It is the purpose of this policy to: 1. Establish dates for the hearing of General Plan Amendments. 2. Establish guidelines to assist the City Council in providing direction to Staff with regard to processing privately initiated General Plan Amendment applications. Policy Privately initiated General Plan Amendment applications shall be heard at the first Planning Commission meetings in February, June, and October. A fourth date for the hearing of General Plan Amendment applications may be assigned by the City Council at its discretion for either privately initiated or City initiated General Plan Amendments. The City Council shall review applications for amendments to the General Plan and shall direct Staff to either proceed with processing of the applications or to return all materials to the applicant and refund the application fee. A list of applications, including the name of applicant, location of CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL POLICY POLICY EFFECTIVE SUBJECT NUMBER DATE PAGE PROCESSING OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 500-2 11/3/86 Rev. 8/1/94 2' of 2 property, and request shall be submitted to the City Council by the Planning Staff in sufficient time to be heard by the City Council at the second Council meeting following the application deadline. The following criteria shall be used as guidelines for the City Council to determine which applications will be accepted for processing. An application should be accepted if: • A General Plan Amendment is necessary to resolve inconsistency between General Plan designation and zoning. • A General Plan Amendment is necessary to provide a uniform land use designation on a single parcel or development site. • A General Plan Amendment would result in decreased traffic impacts from the property. An application for amendment to the General Plan should not be considered if: • The request applies to a single small lot or a small area, especially if the change would make the property inconsistent with surrounding properties. • The property is located in the Redevelopment Area (requires action by the Redevelopment Agency to amend the redevelopment plan). No General Plan Amendment shall be accepted which would increase the overall, City-wide development cap. However, General Plan Amendments which would result in development exchanges or transfers, may be considered. As these are simply guidelines, the Council may deviate from them if there are other important reasons for accepting or rejecting a particular application. ATTACHMENT 3 0 ,Wj Pk F Z ��c � u � ;� Q � .'�-i s_, * �r ;' :f�a, ��4 � ,l,�d` f 4 "ti. • BERNARD ST x IL, 0,J h1 -a fir.- � T j _�oe, At J4'1 ".� 41 e416^.eft F" a • ._>n.a _..... • 111 lCr % EL Address AFreeway .1 F,ovn„y ■1 _.,,r; Street Small Roads Mvw SECONDARY Names Addressf t Hydralagy Nwrpart©LVD Street �� � Points /Y`'' Centerlines (cont) (cont) Channels ,_._ 1 C - http://srv16/parcelview/Print/printview.aspx 10/27/2016 ATTACHMENT 4 http://srv16/parcelview/Print/printview.aspx — I 1 10/27/2016 ATTACHMENT 5 I i r �• T � — iii ♦ �► ♦ }1r • � / — 4 ii•i10� i ♦ i +• j ray r� >' %ff i+ +iii: •E`er hib M i ti� i iii 195 ♦♦ ♦� .�, !� d� N ,,�+�♦♦ ♦ ��♦{ �� _ rib ..�s�'� _ - a y a BERNARD 5T a.r' s � �• rte, �� -r �, a I ' ♦ �' - C !� `D !mss Gi`s♦�` Q, � l PDC siy + 4rQ! ♦ � � h;`>f .... f r� � R2-A9D .� ♦♦ t�'i + �. � i_ .i !fir � ti♦ ♦ 192D� 1935'' r 1355 t -� Address Roads Newport BLVD StreetE]City Small 7'" # Names Boundary Collects �y Premary Address Freeway !� �+ SECONDARY Street Water Wa Points �` Centerlines y5 .I Freeway A Hydrology Zoning !' (cont) Channels ft% Parcel Lines (cont) 1L- http://sry 16/parcelview/Print/printview.aspx 10/27/2016 ATTACHMENT 6 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 4, 2007 ITEM NUMBER: SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN SCREENING REQUEST FOR THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES: (1) GPS -07-04 -1957 NEWPORT BOULEVARD (2) GPS -07-05 - 440 FAIR DRIVE (3) GPS -07-06 - 320 EAST 18" STREET DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2007 FROM: PLANNING DIVISION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION BY: REBECCA ROBBINS, ASSISTANT PLANNER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: REBECCA ROBBINS, ASSISTANT PLANNER (714) 754-5609 RECOMMENDATION (1) Deny further processing of General Pian screening for GPS -07-04 at 1957 Newport Boulevard. (2) Deny further processing of General Plan screening for GPS -07-05 at 440 Fair Drive. (3) Approve for processing of General Plan screening for GPS -07-06 at 320 East 18t Street. ANALYSIS The General Plan screening requests are briefly summarized below: Application Address Request GPS -07-04 1957 Newport Boulevard Request from Starving Scholars Storage for a site- specific FAR of 1.31 in the General Commercial land use to accommodate a 40,188 square -foot mini - warehouse facility (including manager's residence and office , GPS -07-05 440 Fair Drive Request from D'Alessio Investments to change the land -use designation of a 1.66 -acre site from Neighborhood Commercial to General Commercial and a site-specific FAR of 0,57 to accommodate a mixed- use development. Proposed are 11 live/work units and preservation of the existing 20,745 square -foot commercial buildin , 6PS-07-06 320 East 18 Street Request from Newport Investment Strategies to change the land -use designation of a 0.13 -acre site from Public Institutional to Medium Density Residential for a residential nrninCt. _I3 Project Summary Sheet A one-page, project summary sheet is attached for each of the screening requests. This summary sheet provides the following information: • General Plan Land Use Map and Aerial Photograph • Project Description, Land Use, and Traffic Evaluation • Justification for approval or rejection of application for further processing Traffic Analysis Required While a preliminary traffic evaluation was completed for the screening request, a detailed traffic analysis with the project -specific environmental review will be required at the time of project submittal. General Plan Screening Criteria City Council Policy 500-2 establishes a procedure for processing privately initiated General Plan amendments. This procedure involves a City Council screening of these requests prior to their acceptance for formal processing. The policy includes three (3) criteria for accepting requests and two (2) criteria for rejecting requests. The acceptance criteria are as follows: 1. A General Plan amendment is necessary to resolve inconsistency between the General Plan designation and zoning of a parcel. 2. A General Plan amendment is necessary to provide a uniform land -use designation on a single parcel. 3. A General Plan amendment would result in decreased traffic impacts from the property. The criteria for rejecting an application are as follows: I. The request applies to a single small lot or a small area, especially if the change would make the property inconsistent with surrounding properties. 2. The property is located in the Redevelopment Area and requires action by the Redevelopment Agency to amend the Redevelopment Plan. In addition to the above criteria, the policy also states that no request shall be accepted that would increase the overall, citywide development cap. It does, however, allow amendments that would result in development exchanges or transfers to be considered. The policy also acknowledges these criteria are only guidelines and City Council may accept an application which does not meet the criteria if it finds there are overriding reasons to do so. 1-4 ALTERNATIVES The City Council has the following actions available for consideration: As recommended by staff: Deny GPS -07-04 1957 Newport Boulevard Den GPS -07-05 440 Fair Drive and Accept GPS -07-06 320 East 18,nStreet b separate motions. Denial of a specific screening request would maintain the existing land -use designations and corresponding land -use regulations. The proposed requests recommended for denial are considered inconsistent with the General Plan. 2. Approve or Denv any specific screening request Pursuant to Council Policy 500- 2, Council may acknowledge that the General Plan screening criteria are only guidelines and that City Council may accept an application that does not meet the criteria based on other considerations. FISCAL REVIEW Fiscal review is not required for this item. LEGAL REVIEW Legal review is not required for this item. CONCLUSION Staff believes that the screening requests for (1) GPS -07-04 at 1957 Newport Boulevard and (2) GPS -07-05 at 440 Fair Drive fail to meet the central objectives of the General Plan. Thus, justifications for denial of these two applications are provided in the attached summary sheets. Staff recommends acceptance of the screening request for GPS -07-06 at 320 East 18`h Street. Based on a preliminary traffic and land -use analysis, staff believes that the screening request merits further consideration through the General Plan amendment process. Acceptance of the screening request does not set precedent for approval nor constitute the approval of a development project. The approval of a screening request strictly allows the applicant to further research/develop the proposal and provide City Council with an opportunity to review the relative merits of the proposed request in greater detail prior to final action. REBECCA ROBBINS Assistant Planner �Ar 4ONDD. , AICP Deputy City Mgr. - Dev. Svs. Director M Attachments: 1. 9957 Newport Boulevard (summary Sheet, Site Photos, Applicant Letter) 2. 440 Fair Drive (Summary Sheet, Site Photos, Applicant Letter) 3. 320 East 18ff Street (Summary Sheet, Site Photos, Applicant Letter) cc: City Manager Assistant City Manager City Attorney Public Services Director Transportation Svs. Mgr, Associate Engineer City Clerk Staff (4) File (2) David Donovan 1957 Newport Blvd. Costa Mesa, CA 92627 The Sheldon Group 901 Dove Street, Suite 140 Newport Beach, CA 92660 D'Alessio Investments 440 Fair Drive, Suite F Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phil Schwartz 31872 San Juan Creek Circle San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Newport Investment Strategies 620 Newport Center Dr., Suite 400 Newport Beach, CA 92660 —1(0— ATTACH]4tENT lA GPS-07-04—Starving Scholars Storage 1957 Newport Boulevard BACKGROUND The 0.7 -acre property at 1957 Newport Boulevard is located in the General Commercial land use designation. The existing Starving Scholars mini -storage property contains a 4,188 square -foot manager's residence/office and 60 shipping containers. These storage containers total approximately 8,052 square -feet of storage area and were originally approved in 1996. (Site photos and Proposed Site Plan, Attachments 1B and 1C.) GENERAL PLAN SCREENING REQUEST The General Plan screening request involves replacement of the 60 shipping containers with a three-level, 36,000 square foot mini -storage building. The proposed building will be a two-story building with basement level (three levels total). Each level will be approximately 12,000 sq.ft. The existing manager's residence/office building is proposed to remain in place. This General Plan amendment request is for a site -speck 1.31 floor -area -ratio (FAR) in the General Commercial land use designation (0.75 FAR allowed, 1.31 FAR proposed). The request exceeds the General Plan FAR limits by 75 percent for a mini -storage use. The current General Commercial General Plan designation allows a maximum 22,950 square -foot mini -storage building on the site. The proposal is for a building that is 75% larger than the General Plan limits. The applicant is requesting an exception to the FAR limits for the mini -storage building, and such an exception may only be approved pursuant to a General Plan amendment, Development Review and Conditional Use Permit. (Applicant Letter, Attachment 1D). TRAFFIC EVALUATION result in increased traffic compared to the existing General Plan conditions. General General Plan allows a Maximum Commercial 0.75 FAR (22,950 sq.ft. building) 3 6 57 Land Use Proposed General Plan Amendment 6 10 100 Project Request involves a 1.31 FAR 40,188 sq.ft. building) Net Increase in Traffic +3 1 +4 7 +43 JUSTIFICA77ONS FOR DENIAL Staff recommends denial of this application from further processing based on the following reasons: 1. Proect is In direct conflict with General Plan Objective LU -1E. This objective describes limitations to deviations from FAR standards. Specifically, this objective indicates that "no deviation shall be allowed in the very -low" traffic categories. The request is for a +75% deviation in the FAR standard in the "very - low" traffic category. This major departure from the FAR standard conflicts with the General Plan. 2. Pro'ect is inconsistent with General Plan Obective LU -1C. This objective relates to promoting land use patterns contributing to community/neighborhood identity. Newport Boulevard is a major thoroughfare in the City. Commercial and residential developments represent the prevailing land use pattern, and planning documents for revitalization have been approved in the surrounding area to the north of the property (Newport Boulevard Specific Plan) and to the west Westside Urban Plans). The expansion of mini -storage facilities along Newport Boulevard is inconsistent with this General Plan objective, as well as surrounding revitalization efforts which encourage land use diversity. 3. Prolect fails to meet the General Plan acceptance screentna criteria There is a basis for denial of the Proposed request under the General Plan screening criteria. Specifically, denial is based on the fact that the proposed change applies only to a small area, and the change would make the property incompatible with surrounding properties. (penial Criteria 91, General Plan Screening). The property to the south contains a hotel, and the properties to the west contain residential uses, The scale of the proposed mini -storage building and increased intensity of the self -storage use are considered incompatible with the surrounding uses. -1-7- ATTACHMENT 1B Site Photographs of Starving Scholars Storage Containers —`9— Views of Storage Facility from Newport Blvd. & Ford -. P— w. �sjsn7�oo_s�ar�n ym men mAm$ OX moi * > j M Do 00) wp >a ym 0 a L•.] Mq 9 E-02-07 T1:$mi3 AM o - 2 -2o- 8-02-07 2®— I 5i m || § q Vin$ OD >M »�§-M°° 'Hill l� - 2i2 $ Ue; � ATTACHMENT ID Starving Scholars Moving & Mini Storage 1957 Newport Blvd. Costa Mesa, CA92627 Tel: (949) 631-3379: Or (949) 646-8815 August 1, 2007 City of Costa Mesa Department of Development Services 77 Fair Dr. Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 To Whom It May Concern, We at Starving Scholars Moving & Mini Storage, wish to continue and complete our Mini Storage complex at 1957 Newport Boulevard, in Costa Mesa. We plan to build in two additional phases a storage building 54'10" wide and 216' long and 30' high, behind our existing office and resident manager's quarters. We are planning one floor underground and two floors above ground totaling 36,000 square feet. Since we have ship container units at present we are requesting that, during the construction of the first phase of the complex we move twenty-three (23) of them across the street to 1963 Newport Boulevard, where we presently park our trucks. A firewall will separate phase one from phase two. Upon completion of phase one all existing customers will be moved into the first phase structure. As phase two begins all remaining container units on 1957 Newport Boulevard will be removed from the property. Currently our 120 customers generate 3.5 site visits per day on average and the proposed development will only generate ten (10) site visits per day for a daily increase of only 6.5 units on average. We hope that this negligible traffic generation will allow us to exceed the 0.75 FAR that is currently required by the General Plan. 22 Our facility is located on a corner lot with 350' of street parking. We plan to service all our existing customers during our building process but allowing no one in the construction areas at any time until completion of the project. Our facility is completely walled and secure from the general public. We presently have two driveways and are planning a third all of which are located on Ford Road more than 75 feet from Newport Boulevard. This project will once again be owner -builder with a construction manager and an architect that is well experienced in mini storage development and whose office is located only 150 yards from the site. Security will be on the construction site during all hours of construction 7:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. We look forward to working with the City and developing a state of the art facility. We plan a building design to match the landscaping which is already in place. The proposed building will reflect the existing architecture on the site including smooth plaster walls, bronze tinted glass and curved metal roofing. Starving Scholars Moving & Mini Storage is also prepared to develop the property across Ford Road at 1963 Newport Boulevard in whatever type of economically feasible commercial development is acceptable to the City of Costa Mesa. However, development of the property at 1963 Newport Boulevard is contingent upon the completion of an economically successful project at 1957 Newport Boulevard. Thank you. Sincerely, C�4� b-yf- l `z- David Donovan Owner Starving Scholars Moving and & Mini Storage Noes: None. Absent: None. 2. From the meeting of November 20 2007 second reading and adoption of Ordinance 07-20 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA CALIFORNIA AMENDING CHAPTER I OF TITLE 19 OF THE COSTA MESA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO STATE -ISSUED FRANCHISES AND THE PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENTAL CHANNEL ACCESS FACILITY FEE. MOTION: Adopt Ordinance No. 07-20, read by title only, and waived further reading. Moved by Mayor Allan Mansoor, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Eric Bever. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Mayor Allan Mansoor, Mayor Pro Tem Eric Bever, Council Member Linda Dixon, Council Member Katrina Foley, Council Member Wendy Leece Noes: None. Absent: None. IX. NEW BUSINESS General Plan Screening Requests: (a). GPS -07-04 for 1957 Newport Boulevard. (b). GPS -07-05 for 440 Fair Drive. (c). GPS -07-06 for 320 East 18th Street. Assistant Planner Rebecca Robbins briefly summarized the staff report, presented each General Plan requests, and responded to questions from the City Council. Rick Coleman, Costa Mesa, Architect representing the applicant for GPS - 07 -04 stated that the owner would like to expand the business and maximize the building. He described the proposed building and noted the increase in the floor -area -ratio (FAR), building height, and the use of solar power. David Donavan, applicant for GPS -07-04, 1957 Newport Boulevard, presented his vision and goals for the future pointing out his ownership of properties on both sides of Ford Road. He responded to questions from the Council and requested their support. Mike Geck, Resident Property Manager, commented on the calculation of the amount of daily traffic and reported that the facility --4 averages 3.5 visits per day noting a small impact to traffic in the area. In reference to questions from the Council, the Director of Development Services clarified the process of amending the general plan and advised of other possible uses other than a self -storage use. Rick Coleman, Architect, explained the reason for the request for an increase in the FAR is due to the unique size and shape of the property. MOTION: Deny GPS -07-04 screening request for processing. Moved by Council Member Linda Dixon, seconded by Mayor Allan Mansoor. The Mayor expressed reservation on the proposed third level but indicated his support for revitalization. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Mayor Allan Mansoor, Mayor Pro Tem Eric Bever, Council Member Linda Dixon, Council Member Katrina Foley, Council Member Wendy Leece Noes: None. Absent: None. The Assistant Planner presented the screening request for GPS -07-05 for 440 Fair Drive. She along with the Director of Development Services responded to questions from the Council. Discussion ensued among the Council and staff relating to the land use designation, parking issues, traffic volume, and clarification on the zoning code for general commercial and neighborhood commercial use. Mayor Pro Tem Bever indicated that he would like the proposed project as either residential use or commercial use. Greg McCalferty, representing the applicant for GPS -07-05, conveyed to Council the applicant's intent to upgrade the property and requested their support to proceed forward with their request. The Mayor commented that he would like to see positive changes in the property that would be beneficial to the surrounding neighbors and to see a reduction in traffic. Denis Biladeau, DK & Associates, questioned the estimate on the average daily trips and advised the applicant's interest in a general office use. He stated that he would like to meet with City staff to develop a number for the average daily trips generated and to proceed forward on their proposal. Discussion ensued among the Council, Director of Development Services, 2'S ATTACHMENT 7 li0 RESOLUTION NO. PC -94-(9 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA APPROVING IN PART PLANNING ACTION PA -94-54. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA HERESY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Elaina Michelle Coyne, authorized agent for David Victor Donovan, with respect to real property located at 1957 Newport Boulevard, requesting a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor storage of containers to be used as a public storage facility, and a Variance from street side landscape setback requirements and wall height requirements in the C2 zone; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 24, 1994. BE IT RESOLVED that, based on the evidence in the record and the findings contained in Exhibit "A", and subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit "B", the Planning Commission hereby APPROVES the Conditional Use Permit and DENIES the Variance from street side landscaping setback requirements and wall height requirement for Planning Action PA -94-54 with respect to the property described above. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Costa Mesa Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon operation of the business or activity in the manner described in the Staff report for Planning Action PA -94- 54 and upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions contained in Exhibit "B". Should any material change occur in the operation, or should the applicant fail to comply with the Conditions of Approval, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of October, 1994. C airman, bosta Mes Planning Commission -2(0- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE } I, Perry Valantine, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Costa Mesa, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City of Costa Mesa Planning Commission held on October 24, 1994, by the following votes: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Davenport, Cowan, Korando NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Dixon, Palme ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None Secreta , Costa Mesa PlanniA Commission EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS APDL. PA -94-54 A. The information presented substantially complies with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-347 in that the proposed mini storage facility is substantially compatible with developments in the same general area; granting the Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public or other properties or improvements within the immediate vicinity in that the use will not generate any noise, the property will be adequately screened, and asphalt paving will be provided even though the use is a temporary one. Granting the Conditional Use Permit will not allow a use, density or intensity which is not in accordance with the General Plan designation for the property. B. The information presented does not substantially comply with Costa Mesa Municipal Code Section 13-346 in that no special circumstances applicable to the property exist to justify granting the Variance from street side landscape and wall height requirements. Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would not deprive the property owner of privileges enjoyed by owners of other property in the vicinity under identical zoning classification. Specifically, there are no physical lot limitations to prevent provision of required street side landscaping requirements. The landscaping, in Staff's opinion, will improve the appearance of the property and soften the visual impact of an 8 -foot wall. In addition, providing Code required landscaping will eliminate the need for the Variance from fence height requirements. Although Staff would like to see an 8 -foot high wall constructed to screen the storage containers on the property, the wall should be placed outside of the setback area. Providing a 6 -foot high wall is inadequate bacause it does not screen the storage containers, and there is insufficient justification to allow an 8 -foot wall at the location proposed by the applicant. C. The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the CEQA Guidelines, and the City environmental procedures, and has been found to be exempt from CEQA. D. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with Article 22 1/2, Transportation System Management of Title 13, of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code in the development project's traffic impacts will be mitigated by the payment of traffic impact fees. EXHIBIT "B" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL APDL. PA -94-54 Ping.1. An 8 -foot high masonry or wood stucco wall shall be constructed at the required setback line along Newport Boulevard and the Ford Road frontages of the property, and 8 -foot high masonry block wall along the property's rear lot line adjacent to the alley. 2. Bricks designed for vehicular traffic or P.C.C. paving shall be provided for a depth of 20 feet behind the property line at the two driveways at the entrances to the site. 3. Approval of the Planning Commission action is valid for one year and will expire at the end of that period unless building permits are obtained or the applicant applies for and is granted an extension of time. 4. A 101 x 600 or 201 X 601 trailer shall be erected witnin 90 days of the placement of the storage containers. 5. Storage containers shall not be stacked nor placed in areas that would impede on-site circulation 6. All storage shall fit into the containers. There shall be no storage outside of the containers nor anywhere else on the property. 7. No container shall project above the 8 -foot high fence. 8. The two parking spaces adjacent to the manager's quarters shall be covered spaces. Two additional open parking spaces shall be required and located under the direction of Planning staff. Required covered parking spaces shall be paved with P.C.C. Open parking spaces shall be paved with P.C.C. or asphalt. 9. Material for gates shall be opaque and not constructed of chain link or solid wood and shall be installed under the direction of the Planning Division Staff. 10. The required landscaping, screen wall, public improve- ments and on-site improvements shall be completed prior to the placement of the containers. 11. The rear solid block wall shall not encroach into the ultimate right-of-way for the alley. CODE REQUIREMENTS The following list of Federal, State, and local laws. applicable to the project has been compiled by Staff for the applicant's reference. Ping. 1. All contractors and subcontractors must have valid business licenses to do business in the City of Costa Mesa. Final occupancy and utility releases will not be granted, and final inspections will not be granted until all such licenses have been obtained. 0 3. 4. 6. 7. Comm. 8. Svs. Bldg. 9. Eng. 10. 11. 'a 0 APPL. PA -94-54 Parking stalls shall be double -striped in accordance with City standards. All on-site utility services (Edison and Telephone) shall be installed underground or provisions made for future undergrounding, if it is impractical at this time. Developer is hereby advised that all utilities such as gas meters, electrical meters, telephone pedestal --mounted terminal boxes, surface-mountedelectrical transformers, fire hydrants, or any other potential obstructions, shall not be located within the approved parking and/or turn - radius area. If approved by the Planning Division, said facilities may be installed underground in a vault having an approved traffic lid. All such facilities located above -ground shall meet with the approval of the Planning Division and serving utility. Two (2) sets of detailed landscape/irrigation plans per the requirements set forth in Costa Mesa Municipal Code Sections 13-263 through 13-266, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of any building permits. The two approved sets shall be attached to the two final building plan sets. Drought resistant vegetation together with a water conserving irrigation system shall be utilized. Land- scaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan prior to release of utilities. All landscaped areas shall be separated from paved vehicular areas by 611 high continuous Portland cement concrete curbing. Permits shall be obtained for all signs, including banners and other special event signing, according to the provisions of the Costa Mesa Sign Ordinance. Street trees in the front setback shall meet with the approval of the Community Services Department. Street trees shall be Pyrus Calleryana Aristocrat, 15 - gallon minimum size, spaced at 301 on center. Comply with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code as to design and construction. At the time of development submit for approval an off- site Plan to the Engineering Division and Grading Plan to the Building Department that shows Sewer, Water, Existing Parkway Improvements and the limits of work on the site, and hydrology calculations, both prepared by a Civil Engineer or Architect. Site Access approval must be obtained prior to Building or Engineering Permits being issued by City of Costa Mesa. Pay Offsite Plan Check fee. An approved Offsite Plan shall be required prior to Engineering/Utility Permits being issued by the City of Costa Mesa. A Site Access permit and deposit of $500.00 will be required by the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, prior to the start of any on- or off -site work, which may Tran. 19. "0 21. Fire 22. 0 . 0 ADPL. PA -94-54 be necessary during construction for street sweeping. Maintain the public right-of-way in a "wet -down" condi- tion to the degree necessary to prevent excessive dust and periodically remove any spillage from the public right-of-way by sweeping or sprinkling. Haul routes must be approved by City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, prior to approval of the Site Access Permit. Submit required cash deposit to guarantee construction of offsite street improvements at time of permit. Cash deposit to be determined by City Engineer. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct P.C.C. Commercial sidewalk per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Offsite Plan, including four (4) feet clear around obstructions in the sidewalk. Obtain a permit from the City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, at the time of development and then construct P.C. C. driveway approach per City of Costa Mesa Standards as shown on the Offsite Plan. Location and dimensions are subject to the approval of the Transportation Services Manager. Per requirements of Real Property, City of Costa Mesa, Engineering Division, submit legal description for a new area of dedication, plat of new dedication area, both prepared by a Civil Engineer, and Title Report Update of Subject Property. Private on-site drainage facilities and parkway culverts or drains will not be maintained by the City of Costa Mesa; they shall be maintained by the owner or developer of the property. Private lateral connections to City storm drains will require a Hold Harmless Agreement prior to issuance of permit. Fulfill mitigation of off-site traffic impacts at the time of issuance of Building Permit by submitting to the Planning Division the required Traffic Impact Fee pursuant to the prevailing schedule of charges adopted by the City Council. The Traffic Impact Fee is calculated based upon the average daily trip generation rate of .28/13.72 trip ends per storage unit/office space for the proposed mini storage/office use and includes a credit for any existing use. At the current rate of $228 per trip end the Traffic Impact Fee is estimated as $6,881.04. Construct commercial driveway approach(es) at location(s) specified on submitted site plan. Submit Development Plan to the Transportation Services Manager for review and approval of driveway approaches and internal circulation prior to issuance of building permits. Provide fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A to be located within 75 feet of travel distance from all areas. Extinguishers may be ofa type rated 2A, 1OBC as these extinguishers are suitable for all types of fires and are less expensive. -3 �_ APPL. PA -94-54 23. Provide address numerals which conform to Fire Department standards with respect to size 12" and location. 24. Provide pedestrian gate in fence beyond parking area but near lease area building. PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO. -7.c,, _ SITE LOCATION 1957 Newport JBou evard APPLICATION NO. PA• -94-54 AP # 419-27.1-05 MANDATORY ACTION DATE Feb. ,24, 1995, APPLICANT David_Victor Donovan AUTHORIZED AGENT _Elaina M. Coyne caner o ocor ADDRESS 1.3[)0 Adams Ave ., 9 15G ADDRESS 48x5 Paseo de Vega 00.qta MpAa�CA 925.26 Irvine, CA 92715 Gabriel Elliott Applicant is reminded that all ordinances and regulations PREPARED BY Associate Planner i/ governing the use of the land or building(s) to which this appli- cation pertains must be complied with whether specified herein or not. DATE PREPARED _September 22, 1994 LAST UPDATE October 20, 1994 REQUEST: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: FINAL COMMISSION ACTION: October 24, 1994 APPLICANT NOTIFIED DATE October 7.7, 1,9,94_ CITY OF COSTA MESA, 77 FAIR DRIVE, COSTA MESA, CA 92628-1200 Rev, 1191 (714) 754-5245 PLANNING ACTION SUMMARY - COMMERCIALIINDUSTRIAL Location: 1957 Newport Blvd. Application: PA -94-54 t.- SUBJECT : SUBJECT PROPERTY: SURROUNDING PROPERTYs Zone. C2 _ North: C2 acr. Ford/RV storg. General Plan: General _ Commercial South: 02157 -unit motel Lot Dimensions: Irregular East Nen ort Boulevard Lot Area: 30,600 sq. ft..., West R2fMulti-family/Resid. Existing Development: -Vacant it • r � r c•;� Development Standard Code Rs uirement ProposedlProvided Lot Size Lot Width 60 ft. 96 ft. Lot Area 12.00.0 sq. ft. 30,600 sq_ ft. Floor Area Ratio (.40 Traffic FAR) Building Height Interior Landscaping Setbacks Front Side (left/right) Rear Parking Standard Size Compact Handicapped TOTAL 12,840 sq. ft. _10,840 sq. ft.* 2 stories/30 ft. _1 story/10 ft __ 175 sq. ft. None 20 ft. 0 ft. 1 15 ft. 0 ft. 3 1 20 ft. 4 ft. / 7 ft. 0 ft. 2 2 Driveway Width 26 ft.. Existing,,,,._ NA = Not Applicable or No Requirement CEQA Status: Exam t Final Action: Planni.ng Commission *including 60 containers and trailer. ADPL. PA -94-54 PAGE 3 I, DESCRIPTION A. subject Property, surrounding Property, Request See Planning Action Summary. B. Background On March 9, 1987, the Planning commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for the outdoor sale and display of flowers on the subject site that had an existing commercial building. The property was also being used as a storage/debris collection area for items such as gazebos, latticed panels, benches, tables, wood planks, decorative dowels, and miscellaneous discarded items. The property was owned by Caltrans and recently auctioned to the highest bidder. It is currently vacant. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Contrary to the submitted building elevation for the proposed project indicating a two-story structure, the applicant has indicated that a one-story building will be constructed in conjunction with this approval. The applicant has also indicated to Staff that the concept of the storage containers is a temporary one (5 -year period). Eventually, the containers will be replaced with a commercial building. III. PLANNING STAFF ANALYSIS The request consists of the placement of forty -.eight 8.' x 20' metal storage containers, a 10' x 60' trailer at the back of the property (adjacent to the alley) to be used as on-site residence for a caretaker, and a 1,200 sq. ft. office/lease building fronting Newport Boulevard. An eight -foot high block wall or PVC fence will be constructed along the Ford Street frontage of the property to screen the containers. The 11 - foot high building fronting Newport Boulevard will serve as a screen along that frontage. The Variance from street side landscape setback requirements (15 feet required; 7 feet proposed) stems from the fact that Code requires 15 feet of landscaping along the entire 360 feet Ford Road frontage. The applicant is proposing 15 feet of landscaping to the point of the driveway opening (approximately 205 feet), and 7 feet of landscaping from that point to the alley (approximately 115 feet). A Variance is also being sought to construct an 8 -foot high perimeter APDL. PA -94-54 PAGE 4 wall/fence within the 15 -foot setback. Code allows for 6 -foot high walls within the setback. A Variance is not needed for the portion of the wall that will be behind the setback line. The applicant is justifying the landscape setback Variance by the need to provide adequate access from the alley for trailers depositing storage containers to the property. Providing the full 15 feet of landscaping along the Ford Road frontage from Newport Boulevard to the alley would affect maneuverability of the moving vans entering the property from the alley. The fence height Variance will not be necessary if the 15 feet of landscaping is provided along the entire Ford Road frontage because fences not within a setback area can achieve a height equal to that allowed in the zone (30 feet). In assessing the merits of this project, aesthetics are a significant consideration. Staff feels that the project will not be detrimental to properties or other improvements in the vicinity because of the proposed landscaping and screening wall. In addition to the 8 -foot high fence or wall, Staff will ask for a paved driveway from the alley to the easterly edge of the Ford Road driveway and a solid opaque wall along the alley. Staff does not feel that the proposed use will generate noise or traffic nor adversely impact the nearby Redevelopment Project area. Adequate parking (five spaces for the front building and two for the trailer) is provided per Code. In granting a Variance, findings must be made that, due to special circumstances applicable to the property, strict application of the Zoning Code will deprive the property owner of privileges enjoyed by owners of the property in the vicinity under identical zoning classification. In this particular case, Staff finds that the fence height Variance is not necessary if the fence is not located within a setback area. As for the landscape Variance, Staff draws attention to the curving shape of the lot as it approaches the alley. The need to provide truck access to the site necessitates providing an alley driveway close to the Ford Road/alley intersection for easy maneuverability of long wheel base vehicles. Providing the full 15 feet of landscaping all the way to the alley on Ford Road will create some difficulty for those vehicles. APPL. PA -94-54 PAGE 5 Whatever the difficulty encountered is not unsurmountable. Relocating some of the containers will provide enough room for the landscaping and enough aisle width for access. The 10 foot X 60 foot trailer could also be moved back a foot (3 feet from property line in compliance with uniform Building Code requirements). Staff would also consider tapering the width of the plants from ±7 feet to 15 .feet at the alley to allow truck access from the alley. IV. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve Conditional Use Permit, deny Variance from street side landscaped setback requirement, and withdraw Variance from fence height requirement by adoption of Planning Commission resolution, subject to Findings contained in Exhibit "A", and Conditions attached as Exhibit 11B". V. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 26 1994 The item was continued to the meeting of October 10, 1994, at the request of the applicant. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 10 1994 At the request of the applicant, the item was continued to the meeting of October 24, 1994. VII. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 24, 1994 The applicant submitted a plan modifying the original proposal. The following represents the new modifications: 1. The proposed office/lease building fronting Newport Boulevard has been eliminated and an 8 -foot high, wood stucco fence is proposed to screen the containers. 2. An 8 -foot high concrete block wall is proposed along the back property line adjacent to the alley. 3. The alley driveway as well as the single Ford Road driveway have been eliminated and replaced with the two existing 40 -foot wide driveways along Ford Road. 4. The number of containers have been increased from 48 to 60. The arrangement of the containers has also been changed. 5. The 600. sq. ft. trailer has been relocated from its originally proposed location (adjacent to the alley) to about midlot adjacent to the south side property line. — 3q__-- ADPL. PA -94-54 PAGE 6 6.. A uniform 7 -foot side landscaped area is being proposed along Ford Road rather than the original proposal of the required 15 feet of landscaping from front property line to midlot, and 7 feet thereafter. The applicant claims that providing the 15 feet of landscaping along Ford Road represents a hardship and an excessive "taking" of his property, hence the Variance request to provide 7 feet of landscaping along that street frontage. He also claims that his lot is narrow and deep; the lot is about 96 feet wide and about 320 feet deep. Per Section 13-210 of the Municipal Code, the minimum lot area for a C2 zoned property is 12,000 sq. ft., and the minimum lot width is 60 feet. The subject lot is wider and deeper than a typical C2 lot. The 20 -foot setback along Newport Boulevard and the 15 -foot setback along Ford Road represent 22% of the lot area. In a typical 60 -foot wide and 200 -foot deep C2 lot; the required front and street side setbacks represent 33% of the lot size. The proposed 7 -foot landscaped side setback and proposed front setback represent 15% of the lot area. Staff does not see the special circumstances relating to this property to justify the Variance from street side landscaped setback requirements. Per Section 13-853 of the Municipal Code, a minimum of two parking spaces is required for a storage facility in addition to two covered parking spaces adjacent to the manager's quarters. The resubmitted plans show two open parking spaces adjacent to the manager's quarters and no other parking spaces. As a Condition of Approval, the two parking spaces adjacent to the manager's office will be required to be covered, and two additional open parking spaces will be required. Staff will require paving from the entrance driveway up to the length of the first row of containers. VIII.PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve Conditional Use Permit, deny Variances from street side landscaped setback requirement, and fence height requirement by adoption of Planning Commission resolution, subject to Findings contained in Exhibit "A", and Conditions attached as Exhibit "B". CITY OF COSTA MESA 4 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92625 (714) 7545245 0 0 I 111M I ! 1. Project Location: 1.957 Newoort Blvd., Costa Mesa, California 92627 2. Describe Project and Request(s) This project consists of a containerized mini- -,f-=aqo= business with Appraximatel�z 5n units storage of personal household goods in compliance with Sec. 13-853 and Sec 13-854 of Code. The .project shall include one (1) mobile home (10'_;50') to be used as a living site of the resident manager in com- pliance with Sec, 13-855 of Code and one building (201 x 60') as illus- trated �e oVser()srhfoon?b3. If application i©For tttiogarUsrmi(tsofifnrConitioaemi s, answer llwigDescri how the proposed use is substantially compatible with uses permitted in the same general area and how the proposed use would not be materially detrimental to other properties within the same area. Z - - — Lts. . ■ • • r • compatible with Sec. 13-851 definition of mini -warehouses and have ext -Prior finiSh These units axe portable but not wheeled. They will not be materially detrimental to the neighborhood since the neighboring property has storage for recreational vehicles, boats, and other wheeled storage. This project is similar to one approved by the City of Costa If �11sc�&4?srforVaaiaathfRsJ o�,�rdminisMtARVI j�stAcc6T(s}a�swer 10 fJ%5r cng 94= t=ee et prbpertyoi s specie s a , Ca . circumstances, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, that justify the Variance or Administrative Adjustment request in that strict application of the Zoning Ordinance deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity under identical zoning classification. yaria nce 01: To construct an eight (&) foot decorative block or PVC fence rather thn six (6) foot wall specified in sec. 13-.853. This will require additional expense, nse, but will enhance the astheLc ap earance of the propt�r#y Vari anrP #2.- Due t -o lot rddi Us at bottom of Ford Rd., (at- slimy en rAnce) P the- pro= rty is narrowed to the Qgint that access by property -access from Newport Blvd., entrance and exit is planned on Ford Rd. This requires a 172 foot drive in place of 15 foot landscape set -back from the 40' ,lea-ao foot rolling gate to the alley BARANOF H 0 L fl C N G S Extra Storage COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA I RV 16-01 OS -00 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 08.29.2016 architecture planning interiors branding I civil ATTACHMENT 2 -STORY STORAGE + I BASEMENT I 46,950 SF 1 ��• .. I \\ \ EASEMENT jp - \ ; \ SITE 1 \ TI ' ------------------------ �u1L00i521EACtiLlT1f--------------------- ---------------------- ------------------- 1 1 }:---- .-- �zs:t ssz-rL-----L ------am----- I __ __ _������_ __.______-f65 FLIiifT-- - ----�..-_--._______='t=-aSssszz=�_ ` FORD ROAD / L 1 -------- -- ------ _ i / .•� J- _--- BUILDING SET BACK LINE I i 1 , ! 1 1\ ® sr � I OFFT E 1 , • OFFICE SITE 2 .I 1 `\� LINE OF BASEM E`Nf-22,8005E � 11 \ - _ 2 -STORY STORAGE + BASEMENT 45,000 SF PROJECT DATA SITE AREA: 1.43 AC (62,289 SF) Site 1 - 32,238 SF Site 2 - 30,051 SF FAR .74 FAR does not include basement SF BUILDING AREA: 91,950 SF Site 1 - 46,950 SF 2 -story - 23,850 S F Basement - 23,100 S F Site 2 - 45,000 SF 2 -story - 22,200 SF Basement- 22,800 SF PARKING PROVIDED: 36 STALLS Minimum parking required - 1 Stall/200 Units + 2 Stalls for office Conceptual Site Plan B A n A �� OL COSTA MESA STORAGE %,ARF MA,COMB _I -i[ l III ", l� 1957 9, 1959 fVewport Blvd, -390 Ford Rd • 1 1 171 .tr I �} 11 IryN ISI f � 3 ear, I n 7 tm 4 I - . rf' K x ' Spa � : , �,..�•� i � EKEra � Siar�9� �r 171 .tr I �} 11 IryN ISI f � 3 ear, I n 7 tm 4 I 11■ 1 E. -j - •-- - :. .. '- a a4 � ... � %-. +�- �-� r �..� ,-. :.. • yam' -' 9�. a.