Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/09/1995COMMISSIONERS • 9� ��CT Pr i Mo Ay Ab CTTP OF NEWPORT BEACH REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE City Council Chambers DIATF: March 9P 1995 MINUTES ROLL CALL I INDEX esent * * * * * * * * * * * * * * A All Commissioners were present. t � ■ EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Bob Burnham, City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager John Douglas, Principal Planner W. William Ward, Senior Planner Rich Edmonston, City Traffic Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary 1 s sas Minutes of of Febru�23.1995 M Minutes r COMMISSIONERS %Na 00 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 9, 1995 ROLL INDEX CALL General Plan Amendment No. 94 -1(F) (Continued Public Hearing l Item mo.1 Request to consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the GPA 94 -1 (F General Plan for Pacific View Memorial Park, adding clarifying up 3518 language which specifies that the existing 50,000 square foot development cap shall include administrative offices, support SPR 69 facilities, mausoleums and garden crypts. Additional language is also proposed which specifies that all future mausoleum and garden crypt cont to 4/20//99 5 structures shall be constructed only within the building envelopes authorized by the site plan approved in conjunction with Use Permit No. 3518 and provided further, that the building bulk or floor area shall not exceed that which was shown on the site plan presented to the City Council on March 28, 1994. The proposed amendment will also consider an increase in square footage of mausoleums and support facilities in excess of 50,000 square feet; and the acceptance of an ' environmental document. AND B. Use Permit No. 3518 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to approve a master plan of development for the ultimate build -out of the Pacific View Memorial Park, located on property in the R -3 -B and Unclassified Districts. The proposal includes: the establishment of four additional building sites which will be developed with fixture community mausoleum and garden crypt facilities; one building site for the future construction of family mausoleums facilities; the construction of a future maintenance building, a future garage and sales facilities; and the location of future road construction as part of the interior vehicular circulation of the park. The proposal also includes a request to permit the continued use of a temporary building to be used in conjunction with the continuing sales activities. AND ' -2 COMMISSIONERS �9�T s�t290 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 9, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX Site Plan Review No. 69 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to establish grade on each of the proposed mausoleum and garden crypt building sites within the Pacific View Memorial Park property. LOCATION: Portions of Block 96 and 97, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 3500 Pacific View Drive, at the southeasterly terminus of Pacific View Drive, adjacent to the Harbor View Hills Planned Community. ZONES: R -3 -B and U APPLICANT: Pacific View Memorial Park, Glendale OWNER: Pierce Brothers, Houston, Texas Chairman Gifford stated that she reviewed the tape of the previous subject public hearing on February 23, 1995; that she visited the subject site with members of the planning staff, Commissioner Adams and Commissioner Kranzley, that she met with or has spoken with Mr. Karl Wolf, Mr. Leonard Fish, and Mr. David Neish; and that she viewed the cemetery from the home of Mr. Wolf. Mrs. Jane Hitzelberger, 11 Carmel Bay Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to express her opposition to the subject expansion. Mrs. Hitzelberger expressed her concerns that Pacific View Memorial Park is owned and operated by an out -of -state corporation, and she explained why home values and the property owners' quality of life would be affected by the expansion. Mrs. Hitzelberger rebuked the supplemental staff report dated February 23, 1995, that was written in response to Mr. I-litzelberger's letter dated February 17, 1995. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mrs. Mtzelberger replied that she had discussions with Mr. Bauer, the previous General Manager of Pacific View Memorial Park. There was a -3- COMMISSIONERS • 9�lir ��AOaO 17- 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 9, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX model of Pacific View Memorial Park that was on display at the time she spoke with Mr. Bauer, and he did not indicate there would be further building sites for additional mausoleums in the cemetery. Mr. Gene Lee, 9 Carmel Bay Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to express his opposition to the proposed expansion. Mr. Lee explained that his home is adjacent to the existing mausoleum and his home would be directly behind where the proposed mausoleum would be built. Mr. Lee stated that when he purchased his property that it was his opinion that the City's General Plan would protect the property owners from future expansion. He questioned how the most recent expansion of the cemetery was accomplished without notification to the property owners, and why was the expansion allowed to be so close to the property line. Mr. Lee stated that for over one year the residents experienced constant construction noise; chain link fences that blocked their ocean view; heavy machinery that shook their homes; dust from the construction blowing into their homes; and debris from construction. Mr. Lee stated that the proposed expansion would subject the residents to many more years of the foregoing disruptions. Mr. Lee stated that Mr. David Hayward's appraisal of his property as stated in the appraisals of real property surrounding the park that was distributed to the Planning Commission at the February 23, 1995, Planning Commission meeting, indicates that his property would decrease by twenty percent, or $191,000 as a result of the Pacific View Memorial Park expansion plan. Mr. Lee stated that a more reasonable expansion would be to construct the mausoleums adjacent to the Big Canyon Reservoir. The expansion would occur away from the surrounding homes so that the adverse impact on their environment, quality of life, and property values would be minimal. Mrs. Joyce Olson, realtor, and property owner of 9 Monterey Circle, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Olson stated that when her family purchased four plots in the cemetery they were informed that the cemetery would have headstones only. Mrs. Olson conducted a survey of what the current trend is with regard to burials, and she opined that the current trend is cremation and burial at sea; ' -4- COMMISSIONERS r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 9, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX therefore, she questioned if mausoleums are a necessity. Mrs. Olson referred to the study of property values in the area surrounding the park prepared for the February 23, 1995, Planning Commission meeting by Tarantello and Associates, and she distributed a flyer to the Planning Commission indicating the real estate activity on Spyglass Hill since 1991. Mrs. Olson explained that Mr. David Hayward of the Hayward Appraisal Company appraised the value of the property at 1 Monterey Circle to be $1,060,000, the Olsons fisted the property at $1,150,000 in March, 1994 , and the property was sold on September 8, 1994 for $905,000 or $245,000 less than the original listing price. Mrs. Olson pointed out that Mr. Tarantello is not a MAI appraiser. Commissioner Pomeroy asked Mrs. Olson if it was her opinion that there would be no impact on property value if Exhibit "C ", the scaled down project as proposed by the homeowners representatives of the Ad Hoc Committee, would be approved as opposed to Exhibit "A ", the proposal submitted by the applicant? Mr. Paul Hitzelberger, 11 Carmel Bay Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission and he spoke on behalf of Mrs. Olson. He responded that the homeowners support Exhibit "C" in the Planning Commission staff report and it is their opinion that property values would not be affected if Exhibit "C" would be approved. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Adams, James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that Mr. Tarantello's services were paid for by Pacific View Memorial Park; however, the initial contact was made by the Planning Department. Mr. Tarantello has worked with the Planning Department on various projects during the past 10 to 15 years. Ms. Margaret Butt, Corona del Mar, appeared before the Planning Commission, and she expressed her approval of Pacific View Memorial Park, and beauty of the cemetery. In reference to previous comments, she pointed out that burials are an individual choice, and that Pacific View Memorial Park should not be blamed for the decline in property values. Ms. Butt requested that the residents and the applicant come to a courteous compromise. 1 -5- COMMISSIONERS • %WN%105*0� 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 9 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX Ms. Helen Kieron, 3201 - 4th Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission to question the credibility of Pacific View Memorial Park, and their maintenance and operation policies since her family purchased four plots at the cemetery in 1979. Mr. Robert Lee, 1901 Yacht Enchantress, appeared before the Planning Commission to oppose the expansion of the cemetery. He said that the cemetery would be an expansion of a business in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Don Renner, Mission Viejo, real estate broker, appeared before the Planning Commission as a plot owner in the cemetery. He said that the field of appraisal is not an exact science, and that it is a personal conclusion drawn from known facts and usually by only one person in the case of single family homes. Mr. Renner explained that because the cemetery is totally unique, he was not aware of any known facts where 1 any appraiser would substantiate the stating of an actual percentage of r price movement. He disagreed with the property owners who stated that the homes within the interior of the tract would suffer because of the adverse factor at the border of the tract. The noise factor is in the name of progress, and if it would be a period from thirty to fifty years before cemetery buildout than there would be temporary noise with long periods of peaceful tranquillity. Mr. Renner concluded that since the predominant nature of a cemetery is quiet, the homeowner whose house is out of sight of the park and will not be able to see any of the new development will not be affected in any way by the expansion of the park. He commented that the cemetery's existence was there and was known since the first buyer moved in. The majority of the signatures of the petition that was submitted at the February 23, 1995, Planning Commission meeting, should be disqualified. Conversely, the first buyers of the homes that have had such a fabulous view paid a hefty lot premium because of the lot's location, and that premium was passed on from buyer to buyer. The homes along the ridge are the only ones being affected by future development, but mostly because of their views. The homeowners feel that their values will decrease; however, the views that the homeowners have is a panoramic ocean view and he questioned how much of the panoramic view would be destroyed if the 1 -6- 4 COMMISSIONERS �I\IQPOT150� 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 9. 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX proposed expansion would be approved. He said that the change would be the downward view because they would be viewing rooftops from the mausoleum court at the bottom fringe of their views. By the time the cemetery is built out many of the homes in Spyglass Hill will be sold many times and the lot premium would have been factored in the sale. The existing homes will be extensively remodeled or torn down and new custom homes built in their place. The lots will still have a spectacular panoramic view that makes purchasers pay such enormous premiums to own. He placed doubt that there would be a price drop in property values other than what presently exists in the present down - market. He said not to blame Pacific View Memorial Park for what the market dictates. Mr. Paul Hitzelberger reappeared before the Planning Commission and he commented that he was advised by the County Assessor's Office that the Assessor's Office would consider the impact that the cemetery would have on the Spyglass Hill properties. Mr. Max Jack, 7 Monterey Circle, appeared before the Planning Commission. He discussed the property values of Pacific View Memorial Park and the residential property owners; the close proximity of the cemetery to the residential neighborhood; that the cemetery could expand in an area that would not impact the residents; and that the expansion would be a blight on the area forever. Mr. Richard Luehrs, President of the Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce, appeared before the Planning Commission. He spoke in support of Pacific View Memorial Park, and the preservation of property rights. He said that the Chamber of Commerce is not interested in where the property is domiciled in terms of its ownership rights, but that the rights of Newport Beach are protected, and that the Planning Commission's decision will uphold the long - standing tradition in Newport Beach. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Luehrs stated that he was representing the Chamber of Commerce. The issue was discussed with the Executive Committee ' 7 COMMISSIONERS .9°� 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 9, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX who is allowed to make decisions on behalf of the Board of Directors. The recommendation is predicated on a long- standing position in support of private property rights and for individual property owners. Ms. Carey Powell, 2803 South Fairview, Santa Ana, appeared before the Planning Commission. She expressed her support of Pacific View Memorial Park, and she pointed out that Pacific View Memorial Park should only be considered a place to remember family members and loved ones. She stated that the cemetery provides a service that is needed by several cities, and not just for Newport Beach. Memorialization should be a freedom of choice whether it be ground, mausoleum, or cremation. Ms. Powell commented that her property has depreciated, and she has not been able to sell her home because of the economy in California. Pacific View Memorial Park should not be blamed for the depreciation of the homeowners property. Ms. Judith Lloyd, 46 Mission Bay Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to oppose the proposed expansion. She said that the expansion would remove the solitude and gentleness that a memorial interment provides. Land values will be affected by the expansion, and she expressed her concerns regarding the proposed 30 foot setback between the mausoleums and their residential lots. Mr. David March, 1 Twin Lakes Circle, appeared before the Planning Commission at the request of Commissioner Ridgeway. Commissioner Ridgeway commented that when he visited with Mr. March at his residence during the week of February 27, 1995, that Mr. March informed him that when he purchased his home approximately 10 years ago and that Mr. Vibert, the owner of Pacific View Memorial Park, stated that mausoleums would be built some time in the future. Mr. March discussed his concern that the buffer zone could be changed to his property line, and at that time Mr. Vibert informed Mr. March that the original buffer zone of 95 feet to 115 feet would be maintained if development would occur in the fixture. The nearest existing mausoleum to the properties adjacent to Building Site "E" is 110 feet from the slump stone wall to the property line. -8 COMMISSIONERS •9 ��cT 0%4-§ 0 4 r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Ms. Sandra Fix, 11 Skysail Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. Ms. Fix said that she was the original property owner at 7 Cannel Bay Drive, and she discussed her previous conversations with Mr. Vibert. When she purchased her property, 125 feet to 165 feet existed between the wall that was the perimeter of the adjacent properties and the end of the buffer zone that was used for landscaping; however, the bank has been cut away and 30 feet currently exists between the buffer zone and the properties on Carmel Bay Drive. Ms. Fix addressed the depreciated property values and the current appraisals in the area. Ms. Fix referred to a letter that she submitted to the Planning Commission that is attached to the February 23, 1995, staff report, from Mr. Vibert to Mr. William Burke, 1 Carmel Bay Drive, dated June 16, 1975. Mr. Don Olson, 9 Monterey Circle, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Olson commented that he purchased his Spyglass Hill property in 1981, and Mr. Vibert assured the Olsons that no mausoleums would be developed adjacent to Monterey Circle. Mr. Olson discussed the model that the cemetery displayed for the public. Mr. Moayeri, 15 Carmel Bay Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. When he purchased his property in 1983 he was informed by realtors that Pacific View Memorial Park was near total expansion. He pointed out that property values would be affected in the area because of the proposed expansion. Mr. Bill Buchan, 29 Carmel Bay Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Buchan rebuked comments that were previously made in support of Pacific View Memorial Park. Mr. Buchan stated that the approval of Exhibit "C" in the Planning Commission staff report would allow a significant increase in Pacific View Memorial Park's revenues, and it would satisfy the homeowners. Mr. Leonard Fish, 2 Twin Lakes Circle, appeared before the Planning Commission. Chairman Gifford referred to the numerous letters and faxes that Mr. Fish wrote to the Planning Commission prior to the subject public hearings. Mr. Fish stated that the majority of the Spyglass Hill homeowners request that the Planning Commission not ' -9- 4 L COMMISSIONERS 9� %kw\9�0-ls CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 9. 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX take action on the subject expansion until the applicant presents a Corporate Officer with accountability, and he asked that the applicant respond to his fax dated March 6, 1995, requesting answers to 23 questions concerning the cemetery. Mr. Fish commended the aesthetics of the existing Pacific View Memorial Park, and he emphasized that what makes the cemetery unique is the expansive lawns and the lack of concrete mass buildings dotting the landscape. 1W Fish discussed the maximum 50,000 square feet that was established for Pacific View Memorial Park when the General Plan was updated in 1988., and the proposed use permit. He said that the residents would live adjacent to a lawn cemetery with adequate buffer zones; however, the residents will not reside adjacent to a "mausoleum city". He requested a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and to not accept the Negative Declaration. Mr. Fish addressed the Pacific View Memorial Park's requests for sod roofs and for a grading permit for a road. He ' addressed his concerns regarding the existing property owner, the change of property ownership, and in what State was the property deeded. Mr. Tarantello is not an appraiser; however, the homeowners' appraiser, Mr. Hayward, is an MAI. Mr. Fish discussed the economic analysis that was provided by staff to Mr. Fish, and he compared the income that the City would obtain from the cemetery as opposed to income from a sales tax that the City would receive from a large retail department store chain. Mr. Fish stated that three cemeteries in the area have mausoleums, and he determined that there is not the same need for mausoleums today as there was several years ago; however, the number of cremations has increased in recent years. Mr. Fish presented an expansion plan that the homeowners may consider, and he requested that an agreed to plan be recorded. A graphic illustrated the entire property with the existing and proposed infrastructure and mausoleums. The Pacific View Memorial Park Homeowner Compromise as recommended in Exhibit "C" in the Planning Commission staff report was revised with the following conditions: the homeowners support the administrative support buildings with the exception that a sales room is not a cemetery use; that additional mausoleums located in Building Site "A" would total -10- COMMISSIONERS • � qi�v .c� F9t <�F�9a 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH •MINUTES March 9, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 22,000 square feet of ground area, double story; support a screened mausoleum in Building Site "C "; request a 100 foot buffer for burials throughout with a 125 foot buffer adjacent to parcels 6 through 9 indicated on the technical site plan submitted by the applicant; no roads within 200 feet of the homes; no family mausoleums; and no mausoleum structures inside Building Sites "E" and "G ". In response to a question posed by Commissioner Di Sano with respect to Exhibit "C ", Mr. Fish explained that the aforementioned revised conditions were originally proposed and included in the February 23, 1995, staff report. In response to questions posed by Chairman Gifford, Mr. Fish replied that he does not have a copy of the aforementioned Grant Deed; however, on August 25, 1994, a Grant Deed was transferred to Emmerson Mortuaries, a subsidiary of SIC, an Iowa Corporation. Mr. Hewicker explained that the aforementioned fax submitted by Mr. Fish to the Planning Department was forwarded to the applicant on March 7, 1995. Mr. H. Ross Miller, Spyglass Ridge Board Member, and a member of the Ad Hoc Committee, appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on behalf of the Spyglass Ridge Homeowner Association, and he stated that the Association supports the aforementioned revised Exhibit "C" in the Planning Commission staff report. Mr. Miller stated that the Hayward Appraisal Company provided percentages of how much the properties would depreciate if the expansion would be approved. He requested that an EIR be prepared, and he objected to the City's method of public notification.. Mr. Steve Schacht, General Manager of Pacific View Memorial Park appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that the cemetery wants to provide the public with any manner or method of entombment that they desire. Pacific View Memorial Park has attempted to find compromises that would be beneficial to the cemetery and to the homeowners inasmuch as they intend to be in the community for a long time. -11- COMMISSIONERS ���9y�099 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES W,r.. L n l nnc ROLL CALL 1'1 Vll ➢, 1170 INDEX Mr. David Neish, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Pacific View Memorial Park, Mr. Neish stated that as a result of the February 23, 1995, public hearing, the applicant considered increasing the setbacks; intensify the landscaping; phasing the buildout; and to maintain the capacity of Pacific View Memorial Park. Mr. Neish presented the following alternative plan to the original plan that was introduced to the Planning Commission at the February 23, 1995, public hearing. To allow the applicant time to set up the alternative plan, the Planning Commission recessed at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened at 9:35 p.m. Mr. Neish explained that Building Site "G" is proposed from Sunset Court on the easterly property line of the cemetery to the northern boundary of the property. In Building Site "G" there is a proposed 12,000 square foot crypt wall and five pairs of mausoleum space in the subject original plan; however, the alternative plan has two crypt walls I and three mausoleum facilities in Building Site "G ". The alternative plan lowers the grade of the pad elevation of the three mausoleums with the original plan by over five feet. The court yard areas in the alternative plan are larger than the original plan. In reference to the roof top of the crypt space, the alternative plan has a more sensitive rooftop design in the crypt wall areas. Mr. Neish explained that by lowering the pads and cutting into the hillside, the fill from the area would be removed to make another area higher so as to reduce the impacts of the crypts and mausoleum structures for view purposes. The alternative plan increases the setback from the property line to where the crypts occur to 60 feet and to where the mausoleums occur up to 75 feet, for an average setback in Building Site "G" of approximately 66 feet as compared to the original 30 foot setback. Pacific View Memorial Park would not inter bodies within the setback area. There would be a net reduction in the capacity in the alternative plan of 500 spaces. Mr. Neish stated that Building Site "G" would be divided into five sub areas in Phase I. When the .first mausoleum structure would be constructed the cemetery would provide landscaping up to the 75 foot setback area, and they would commit to landscaping a 30 foot wide -12- 4 COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ➢5 --- L n lnne ROLL CALL 1vlfN fill 7, 177J INDEX area for the entire length of the property from sub -area "A" to the northerly property line. He stated that the reason the cemetery would not be able to provide landscaping to the 75 foot wide area is because the grading for the future projects would impact the area. Pacific View Memorial Park anticipates that the first facility from the time it would be marketed, constructed, and completed would be three years. It is anticipated that to complete the development of Building Site "G" in Phase I it would take from ten to fifteen years. Mr. Neish addressed Phase II - Building Site "E '. The existing plan has a 30 foot wide setback area where bodies would not be interred. The alternative plan has a 60 foot wide setback, and there would be two mausoleum structures. The increased setback would reduce interment to 118. The third alternative for the area would have a setback of 45 feet. It would provide sections in front of Mr. March's property (i.e. Area 12 on the submitted plans) of 30, 45, and 60 foot ' wide setback areas. The alternative plan would create a situation where three structures would be built into the slope, and the fill would be removed to allow the property owner to look over the area. He said that Phase II would commence 10 to 15 years into the future. The new mausoleum areas would extend closer to the road because of the alternative plan's 60 foot and 75 foot setback areas. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Neish referred to Phase III, which is Building Site "A ", located along the westerly property line of the site adjacent to the Big Canyon Reservoir. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Adams, Mr. Neish stated that the courtyard uses in Building Site "G ", would be community mausoleum areas typical to the area in the existing mausoleum where there are small burials. IW Neish further explained that the crypt walls would have pitched roofs and tile on both sides of the structure. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, A& Neish explained that the square footage would increase, but the over -all crypt area would decrease. There is an over -all reduction of space in the capacity between the alternative plan and the original plan. In the -13- COMMISSIONERS 0 E`�9� 2d�p,90 r� 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 9, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX original plan the increase in the square footage in Building Site "G" is 25,200 square feet, i.e., a 12,000 square foot crypt wall and a 13,200 square foot mausoleum space. In the alternative plan there are 44,100 square feet in Building Site "E ". There is an increase in square footage of 11,200 square feet, and in the small third alternative in Building Site "B" there is a square foot increase of 3,000 square feet. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Adams, Mr. Neish stated that the number of ground interments would be reduced. In Building Site "G" there would be a reduction of 500 interments and in Building Site "E", Alternative A there would be reduction of 112 interments and in Alternative B a reduction of 320 interments. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway and Commissioner Adams, Mr. Neish stated that in the original proposal in Building Site "G" the total interment rights was 10,100 interments. In the alternative plan with the 60 foot to 75 foot setback areas there / would be 9,600 interment rights in the crypt and mausoleum areas. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Adams, Mr.Neish explained that the applicant intends to landscape the land behind Palm Court and Sunset Court to the residential area. No ground interments are intended for that area. Chairman Gifford addressed the courtyard areas, and she asked if the same number of small mausoleums to be used for small above ground burials are included in the original plan and the alternative plan? Mr. Neish concurred that the numbers would not change in either plan. Commissioner Brown asked what would the length of time be to construct a mausoleum and a crypt wall? Mr. Neish responded that the intent would be that the mausoleums would be built within eight to twelve months from beginning to end of construction. A crypt wall could be built from three to four months. Commissioner Ridgeway and Mr. Neish discussed Pacific View Memorial Park's policy with respect to when mausoleua construction begins. Mr. ' -14- COMMISSIONERS 9 ROLL CALL • r �J CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 9, 1995 Neish explained that the cemetery pre -sells approximately 75% of the mausoleum before construction commences. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the mausoleums are the structures that the homeowners object to; therefore, it would be unnecessary to build the mausoleums if there is not a need for them. He commented that the homeowners would probably rather have construction noise over a longer period of time if in the end they would never have a mausoleum built in front of their property. Mr. Schacht reappeared before the Planning Commission. He said that the normal procedure is to design the project, develop sales maps, and when approximately 65 to 75 percent of that building would be sold then the cemetery would commence construction or construction would commence five years from the date of the first sale. He said that it is something that cannot be determined because needs and trends change, and currently there is a demand for mausoleum space. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Brown, Mr. Schacht concurred that under the majority of circumstances that any phase could be built in approximately eight months. There would be breaks in between construction because if the buildings are not sold then the cemetery would not build the mausoleums. Commissioner Brown suggested that phasing could be done to minimize the number of actual construction periods. Mr. Schacht indicated that the suggestion could be taken under consideration. Commissioner Pomeroy suggested a condition stating that there would be three years between construction because that would be the very lowest of the cemetery's projections. Mr. Schacht concurred with the recommended condition. Commissioner Pomeroy explained that the residents would be assured that there would be a minimum time when construction would not occur. In response to questions posed by Conunissioner Ridgeway, Director Hewicker explained that if the cemetery does not meet conditions of -15- INDEX COMMISSIONERS •` ROLL CALL • • MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH approval then the use perink could be called back for review to problem. Commissioner Adams addressed the most recent mausoleum structure, and he expressed his concern regarding the aesthetics of the structure. The roof does not conform with the existing structures, and the proposed structures would have a completely different architectural style. He suggested a condition to improve the existing new structure so as to be more consistent with the proposed structures, and that the slope behind the existing structure be eliminated and a screening be provided to mitigate the view impairment. Mr. Schacht responded that the cemetery is reviewing additional screening for the roofs and additional landscaping on the structure. The roofs of the proposed structures would reflect the original themes and they would have more attractive roofs. Commissioner Adams addressed the cut in the slope behind the existing structure, and he expressed his concern regarding the aesthetics. He suggested a retaining wall so it could be backfilled similar to the proposed structures. Mr. Neish concurred with Commissioner Ridgeway that the pad elevation of the finished floor as indicated in the alternative plan is five feet lower than the original proposal, and the roof height would be five feet lower than the original proposal. Director Hewicker and Mr. Neish discussed the comparisons of the original pad elevation and the proposed pad elevation. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he previously suggested to Pacific View Memorial Park that an engineer lower the pad elevations to mitigate the building height. He suggested a condition that would specify the pad elevations of the finished floor and roof heights be reduced five feet. Mr. Schacht and Mr. Neish concurred with the suggestion. Discussion ensued between the applicants and the Planning Commission concerning the aforementioned suggested conditions. Commissioner Brown commented that in Building Site "G" the slope between the back of the cnbwall and the property owner should remain as gentle as possible in consideration of the aforementioned constraints. Mr. Mike Green, Clark and Green Associates, Landscape Architects, appeared before the Planning Commission to respond to the Planning Commission's questions concerning ground and crypt burials. He explained that based on the 50,000 square foot limitation of the cemetery that there are 16,000 to 18,000 total interments, land burials, and crypt -16- INDEX COMMISSIONERS F�92�o,9y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES As - -L 11 Innr ROLL CALL I 1r1M V1l J, 1JJJ INDEX spaces within the cemetery. Of the 16,000 to 18,000 interments, about 2,000 would be crypt spaces based on the 11,000 square feet remaining of the 50,000 square feet. Discussion ensued between the Planning Commission and Mr. Green regarding the foregoing. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Adams, W. Green explained that in Building Site "A ", that the total additional interments in the original 30 foot setback would be 27,200. 12,200 of the interments would be crypt or mausoleum space with the remainder in land burials. In the alternative plan with a 60 foot to 75 foot setback, the total interments would be 26,600, a net reduction of approximately 600 interments. There would be an increase in the crypt spaces to 16,200, and there would be a decrease in the land burials from 15,000 to 10,400. W. Green addressed Building Site "G ". He stated that if the cemetery went to the property line that there would be approximately 14,000 land burials in the original 30 foot wide setback plan. Commissioner Adams and W. Green determined that if the cemetery took all of the mausoleum entitlement into Building Site "G" there would be 2,000 interments, and approximately 9,000 to 10,000 ground interments could be put in the remaining land. In the original proposal of a 30 foot wide setback, Mr. Green explained that there would be approximately 3,800 to 3,900 mausoleum and crypt spaces, and approximately 6,200 in land burials. In the alternative plan there would be approximately 6,400 to 6,500 mausoleum spaces, and the ground burial spaces would be reduced by 3,100 or 3,200 spaces. Commissioner Adams compared the impacts of the existing entitlement to the impacts of the proposed plans whereby he concluded that there are clear impacts of ground interments and mausoleums. Commissioner Adams objected to the mausoleums in the courtyard areas, and he asked if the applicant would consider ground interments in the open space areas, and eliminate the family burial grounds. Mr. Schacht responded that the cemetery is complying with what the public is requesting, and he pointed out that the cemetery has eliminated many monuments from the original plan. COMMISSIONERS L CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 9. 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Brown addressed Building Site "E" adjacent to 1W Dave March's property, and he stated that the structures that were constructed above ground were not screened. Palm Court was a sensitively designed building, and he pointed out that the eaves shelter the vertical wall spaces where the markers are located. He concluded that there is a method to use grading techniques that would enhance the property adjacent to the homes. Discussion ensued between Commissioner Brown, Mr. Green, and Mr. Schacht concerning the proposed plan on the aforementioned property. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Schacht replied that Pacific View Memorial Park is a Pierce Brothers Company which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Service Corporation, International. Emmerson Company is also a Pierce Brothers Company. ' In response to a question posed by Commissioner Kranzley, Mr. Schacht replied that the approximate average cost in Building Site "G" would be $7,000 to $7,500 for a ground internment space, and $5,000 to $6,000 for a single mausoleum space. Commissioner Adams stated that significant issues that were not discussed were the size and styles of the family mausoleums in Building Site "D ", and additional mitigation for development in Building Site "E ". Following a discussion by the Planning Commission and staff the Planting Commission presented the following suggestions for conditions. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the three major issues by the homeowners are: (1) the impact on the property owners views. (2) Property values. In Building Site "C" there would be no impact on property values, and in Building Site "A" there would be a significant impact on property values. (3) Peaceful enjoyment of property rights is an issue because of the closeness of the buildings to the homeowners property. He said that his desire would be to accomplish those concerns as opposed to how many people are going to be buried in the cemetery which is not the key issue. It does not matter if Pacific View Memorial Park is a -18- COMMISSIONERS 4 r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES xx h 9 1995 ROLL CALL c INDEX Texas Corporation; however, it is essential that a use permit control the project so there would never be a potential for a 30 foot cut into the slope for a mausoleum as currently exists, and if there had been a use permit that would not have occurred. He agreed with the design considerations. Commissioner Pomeroy suggested a condition be added to lower the building pad five feet over the original plan, and to lower the roof plan five feet over the original plan, at a minimum. Add a condition to landscape the entire 30 feet when the first building in Building Site "A" (Phase M) is completed. Add a condition stating that there would be no construction less than three years from when a building would be constructed. Add a condition that no large family mausoleums would be visible from the residential area. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the proposed plan is not exactly what the residents requested; however, it was inconceivable that a private businessman would expect the residents adjacent to his property to design his project.. The landscaping and berm is going to have a very significant improvement on the mass of the buildings and how the buildings appear, and he commended the applicant. He anticipated that if the setbacks would be increased that one trade -off would be that the applicant would not lose the profit opportunity, i.e. mausoleum space. He said that by moving the buildings down in height and improving the berm and landscaping, that it would be mitigated satisfactorily to the residents. The 60 foot to 75 foot wide setback area is a huge improvement over the 30 foot wide setback, and if the scale of the buildings is appropriate, the landscaping is adequate, and lowered, it would be a substantial step towards not having an impact on property values. Commissioner Di Sano concurred with the over -all aforementioned statements by Commissioner Pomeroy. Property rights are involved not only of the residents, but Pacific View Memorial Park, and of the people that make a conscious decision to inter a person in the cemetery. He recommended that the homeowners make compromises with Pacific View Memorial Park. He said that people who do not own the Pacific View Memorial Park property cannot plan the property alone. Conunissioner Brown stated that Pacific View Memorial Park provides a public service, and the cemetery pre -dated all of the homes in the area. He ' -19- COMMISSIONERS • \131 90y 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES xre t a rnnc ROLL CALL INDEX addressed the 1988 General Plan and The Irvine Company Deed Restriction when the Spyglass HII residential sites were conveyed back to The Irvine Company. He addressed the General Plan, and he pointed out the applicant had not provided a Master Plan of the property to the City. In reference to the deed restriction, he stated that the fact that The Irvine Company put a 430 foot MSL height restriction on any building within 125 feet of the east property line would make one assume that a building would be constructed on the property, and the restriction was put on there to protect views. He determined that there were plans beyond 1968 -69, when Palm Court was on the property, to build more mausoleums. The key to compatibility is to how well the cemetery is screened and buffered, and he commented on how well the homeowners have landscaped sections of the cemetery property. Commissioner Brown commented that the mausoleums have been on cemetery property for 25 years adjacent to Spyglass hill homes. He objected with the new development plan; however, well- ' designed structures with an adequate setback and landscaping would be appropriate. He calculated that based on an average 3,500 square foot home, the proposed FAR, that 39 homes could be built on the property if it were not built in the style of mausolea. Commissioner Brown suggested the following conditions be considered: a setback along the east property line should be memorialized appropriately, and tied to a site plan, particularly if it varies between 60 and 75 feet. All land behind the existing mausoleum must be open space and not used for burials. To address the setback area along the northerly property line, there would be ground interments. He concurred with the proposed landscape condition. A blanket condition should be required that the new structures shall not have flat roofs, and all of the buildings should conform with the architectural style of the Palm Court complex. In reference to Building Site 'IN,, he stated that the last building on the easterly end of the property may have a view impact on the residents in Sea View, and he suggested that the building be moved to the south. In reference to Exhibit "A ", Use Permit No. 3518, the family mausoleums shall be constrained to only Building Site "D" because there is an earthen berm immediately to the east edge of the site, a road on the opposite side, and with screening the mausoleums could be hidden. He opposed the large family mausoleums anywhere else ` -20- COMMISSIONERS • \io90 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ik)r„,a, o iooc ROLL CALL —[]—FFU lYl 1l % 1 %%J INDEX on the site. Commissioner Brown suggested that the applicant consider bench walls on the upper portions of the site as opposed to the three foot high family mausoleums throughout the site. In reference to the slopes and grading, he said that the slope treatment would hold irrigation and landscaping, and the applicant should provide the City with an indemnity against any kind of slope or grading impacts that occur as a result of the project. A binding agreement should be entered into with respect to the phasing, location, height, and size of all above - ground structures, types of roof construction, landscaping and sizes of landscaping, setbacks for ground interments and structures, on -going property maintenance requirements, and a commitment that the subject proposal is final. He suggested that the binding agreement be for a period of twenty years. Commissioner Brown suggested an endowment fund to provide the cemetery with an on -going maintenance program. In conclusion, he suggested that the cemetery expand within the applicant's original proposal, and to reconsider the request to increase the floor area that was subsequently proposed. Chairman Gifford commented that her concerns would be to reduce the visual impact of any structures so as to reduce the impact on the residents to an absolute minimum through the designs that are possible, and the landscaping. She stated that in exchange for the minimal residual impact there would be an improvement in the existing situation in terms of landscaping and maintenance that the residents have been living with over a period of time. There would be provisions to minimize the construction disruption so there is no prospect of continuous construction. In reference to property rights, Chairman Gifford stated that the subject case differs from many in that there would be certainty for everyone in the future. The only factor that was previously relied on was the General Plan and it was not unreasonable to put some reliance on that plan. However, the cemetery had different understandings about their limitations over the years, and perhaps some of those understandings were not unreasonable. The cemetery is asking for something from the City that it is presently not entitled to, and it is reasonable to expect that if it is going to achieve that, there would be some things that need to be accommodated in terms of other people's interests. ' -21- COMMISSIONERS 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH •MINUTES Mamh 9 1Q91; ROLL CALL INDEX Chairman Gifford suggested that any dialogue that is going to ensue from this period forward among the cemetery, the residents, and the Planning Department, that it is time to discard issues that do not have a very specific focus on achieving the objective of resolving the situation She said that it was not helpfiil to have further input on the State of Incorporation, the number of bodies that are going to be buried is not relevant, the rate of sales and how that might impact construction is relevant, the amount of money that Pacific View Memorial Park is going to make and their past credibility is going to be addressed by putting certainty and enforcement provisions into the conditions. She encouraged all of the parties to remain focused on the issues that bear directly on the resolution of the problem. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Kranzley regarding Exhibit "A ", Condition No. 19, Use Permit No. 3518, Director Hewicker explained why the condition states that the Modifications Committee would review the request to extend the temporary building if it was the desire of the cemetery. Commissioner Kranzley commented that it is in the City's favor that Pacific View Memorial Park is a wealthy company inasmuch as the City is pushing on some of the issues, and a small organization would find it difficult to comply with some of the conditions. He concurred with the Planning Commission's previous comments regarding restrictions and conditions because it is important that property rights be respected. Commissioner Adams suggested a condition stating that family ground interment areas be prohibited from Building Site "E '. He was opposed to any plan that contains any family mausoleum structures, and he emphasized that he would not support any plan that has the structures. The structures would be inconsistent with the established use of the cemetery. There are two distinct components in the cemetery: the wide open grassy areas and mausoleum structures. He opposed the family plot areas and the three foot high walls. He said that introducing above ground mausoleum structures would be inappropriate. The development of the family ground interment areas in the "V' shaped areas in the new proposal should be placed so they physically cannot be seen from the homes above. If that means that they can only be twenty feet from the road, then that would be as far as they -22- COMMISSIONERS 0' T �9` -F�90 C r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 9 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX would extend. The family ground interment areas are most appropriate in the "U" shaped areas because they would be hidden from the open feeling of the cemetery . He requested a condition indicating that the newest structure be retrofitted to be consistent with the proposed structures. He recommended a limited number of interments for the areas because the impacts of the development are directly associated with the number of interments and type. He suggested that the number of interments be recorded in writing in each of the areas, and that the decision made by the Planning Commission take the numbers into account. The tabulations should include the entitled number of interments under the existing entitlement so the Planning Commission can compare the potential number of interments and the proposed. He referred to previous testimony indicating that in Building Site "G" there would be a reduction in the number of interments. The applicant should have the opportunity to build all of the buildings within a given period; however, he recommended a reasonable amount of time between construction. There should be a condition indicating the duration of construction so as not to burden the residents during the construction phase. Commissioner Adams addressed the two mausoleum structures in Building Site `B ". He said that from the topography he could not determine how the two structures would fit, and he indicated that he would prefer to see the hillside limited to ground interments similar to the open areas. Commissioner Pomeroy suggested if there would be a condition indicating the number of interments that it be the total number, and that it include a maximum of mausolea space in the event the cemetery would choose to have more ground burials. Commissioner Adams stated that it was not his intent to hold the cemetery to a specific split, but there should be some idea of what is being proposed. Commissioner Brown suggested a minimum setback area for the benefit of the buffer, landscaping, and grading for the ground interments. Commissioner Adams suggested limiting Area "11" on the interment area plan be limited to ground interments and developed in the same manner as in the open areas. ' -23- COMMISSIONERS `s 9 F• � � 9 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 9 7995 ROLL CALL INDEX Chairman Gifford addressed the courtyard areas with the low walls and the small size monuments/mausoleums. The areas that do not affect the surrounding residents in terns of their view impact, etc. are issues between Pacific View Memorial Park and the cemetery's customers. Commissioner Ridgeway concurred with the Planning Commission's previous comments. He opposes design review, however, the applicant finds themselves in binding arbitration and he pointed out that during the Ad Hoc Committee meetings there were no compromises. He suggested that the applicant clear some of the area in front of the March and Fish properties on the basis that if one person is unhappy then it could "upset the entire apple cart" for everyone. He addressed the homeowners and applicant's property rights, and there should be mutual consideration given to both sides. The Planning Commission is attempting to maintain the viewscape without interrupting the homeowners lives or property values. ' Commissioner Ridgeway suggested that the homeowners and the applicant reach a reasonable compromise, and that Pacific View Memorial Park should go a little bit further. Commissioner Adams addressed design review. He stated that the most recent mausoleum is evidence of what can happen without conditions that the Planning Commission now has the opportunity to impose. He said that the City could potentially receive a guarantee that many of the things that have happened will cease. He opposes the large mausoleums because the structures could be seen from many areas outside of the cemetery. In response to Director Hewicker's comments that the City cannot regulate the number of ground interments, Commissioner Adams stated that it was his intent that the staff report for the next public hearing should tabulate the existing entitlement and the proposed amount of interments for every areas so a decision could be made on those differences. Motion was made to continue General Plan Amendment No. 94 -1(F), Use Permit No. 3518, and Site Plan Review No. 69 to the April 20, 1995, Planning Commission meeting. ' -24- COMMISSIONERS MC Al MC 4 Iii *011*\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES March 9, 1995 ROLL INDEX CALL Mr. Schacht reappeared before the Planning Commission, and he concurred with the continuance to April 20, 1995. He suggested that if there would be a time frame on construction that it would not be three years before they would start the next phase of the mausoleum. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the next phase could commence any time, and thereafter it would be three years. ,tion * Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. .l Ayes ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Add' 1 Busines ,tion * Motion was made and voted on to excuse Commissioner Adams from the ' Ayes April 6, 1995, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Adams " Excused r►* ADJOURNMENT: 11:45 P.M. Adjourn GAROLD ADAMS, SECRETARY NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION ' -25-