The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04/20/1995COMMISSIONERS Pr( Mo, Ap Ab; 14 9i G�`y9 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: Anri190 1995 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX :sent * * * * * * All Commissioners were present. EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney William R Laycock, Current Planning Manager W. William Ward, Senior Planner John Douglas, Principal Planner Don Webb, Public Works Director ' Dee Edwards, Secretary : *s Minutes of April 20, 1995 Minutes of 4/20/' Commissioner Ridgeway requested that his vote regarding Item No. 6, St. James Episcopal Church, be corrected to indicate that he was absent during the proceedings. Lion * Motion was made and voted on to approve the corrected April 20, 1995, as * * * * * Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. stain * *t Public Comments: Public Comments Commissioner Ridgeway commended the architecture and compatibility of the new McDonald's Restaurant on the Balboa Peninsula. 1 COMMISSIONERS Mo Al 4 T X99 �F�90 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES -e ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Leonard Fish rebutted portions of the March 9, 1995, Planning Commission Minutes concerning Pacific View Memorial Park * *# Postim of the Agenda: Posting of the James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Commission Agenda Agenda was posted on Friday, April 14, 1995, in front of City Hall. Request for Continuance Request for Director Hewicker stated that the applicant, Britta K. Pulliam, requested Continuan that Item No. 6, Use Permit No. 2045 (Amended), property located at 109 -111 Palm Street, Gringa's Grill, be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 4, 1995, to provide additional time to resolve f concerns regarding the in -lieu parking requirement. tion Motion was made and voted on to continue Item No. 6 to the May 4, 1 Ayes 1995, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Traffic Study No. 102 (Public Hearing) Item No.1 Request to approve a traffic study so as to allow the construction of a Ts 102 retail commercial project which contains 27,000 square feet of retail development. Approved LOCATION: Parcel 1, Parcel Map 7743 (Resubdivision No. 483) located at 4545 MacArthur Boulevard, on the northwesterly corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Corinthian Way, in the Newport Place Planned Community. ZONE: P -C r -2- -e C Mo Al: MINUTES �F�q X09 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Anril 7(1 1 Q95 ROLL CALL INDEX APPLICANT: Sanderson/ J. Ray Development, Irvine OWNER: Larken, Inc., Arlington, Texas William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, recommended that Condition No. 3, Exhibit "A', be deleted from the findings and conditions inasmuch as the condition does not apply to the subject application. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway regarding traffic mitigation and the projected traffic count at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road, Don Webb, Public Works Director, replied that the traffic projection at the foregoing intersection is an additional .005 and he explained the City's policy for an ICU (Intersection Capacity Utilization) if 1 percent is not exceeded. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jay Sanderson, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. He ' concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", as amended. In reference to Condition No. 2, Exhibit "A ", Mr. Sanderson requested that the floor area ratio be increased from 27,000 square feet to 27,948. Mr. Webb explained that based on the allowable 109 peak how trips when the Planning Commission approved General Plan Amendment No. 90 -3(A) on October 4, 1990, the development would be limited to 27,948 square feet. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. tion Motion was made and voted on to approve Traffic Study No. 102, subject L Ayes to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", to amend Condition No. 2 to read "...up to 27,948 square feet.", and to delete Condition No. 3. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the morning and afternoon peak how -3 MINUTES •9iO� Gi ��99��F90 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH A_-:1 �A 1ACIC 4 ROLL CALL INDEX traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Council Policy L-18. 2. That the Traffic study indicates that the traffic projected one year after project completion, during any a.m. /p.m. 2,.5 hour peak traffic period on each leg of each critical intersection, would have no adverse short-term traffic impact . 3. That although there will be a slight increase of 0.005 at MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road, no significant traffic impact is expected. CONDITIONS: 1. That subsequent development plans shall be compatible with the land uses evaluated in Traffic Study No. 102. Any subsequent proposed development deemed by the City Traffic Engineer to be ' outside scope of Traffic Study No. 102 shall be subject to a new traffic study. 2. If subsequent site development plans fnr parcel 2(Site 5) indicate a floor area ratio in excess of 27,948 sq.ft., additional traffic studies shall be required to demonstrate the adequacy of the circulation system to accommodate the proposed development. If such studies indicate that improvements are required to mitigate the traffic impacts of the project, such improvements may be made a condition of project approval. rr• Use Permit No. 3429 (Amended)_(Reviewj (Continued Discussion) Item No. UP3429A Request to amend a previously approved use permit that permitted the construction of a hand car wash and detailing facility which also included the sale and dispensing of gasoline, on property located in the RSC-H District. Said approval also allowed a portion of the proposed building to No ::Actin: Taken exceed the 26 foot basic height limit in the 2665 Foot Height Limitation District. The proposed amendment involves a request to allow the retail sales of auto accessories, fresh flowers, soft drinks and pre - prepared food -4- COMMISSIONERS C 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX items in conjunction with the car wash use. The proposed amendment also includes a request to approve an off-site parking agreement for employee and additional overflow parking. LOCATION: Parcel 1, Parcel Map 28240, 41 (Resubdivision No. 988), located at 1200 West Coast Highway (car wash site); and Lots 37 and 38, Tract No. 1210, located at 1100 West Coast Highway (off - site parking lot), on the northerly side of West Coast Highway, across from the Balboa Bay Club. ZONE: RSC -H APPLICANT: Warren Levy, Newport Beach OWNER Golden Empire Trading Company, Corona del Mar James Hewicker, Planning Director, referred to the comments in the staff report regarding employee parking, and he stated that he has observed employees parking in the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church parking lot. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Director Hewicker replied that there is not a formal off -sits parking agreement where the City is a third party. The church parking lot was designed to be a temporary solution to the parking problem until the car wash completed its negotiations following the sale of the property to the immediate west of the car wash site, at which time a portion of that property will be used for employee parking. When the negotiations are completed there will be a formal agreement between the City, the car wash, and the owner of the boat sales property. Mr. Jerry King, J. A. King and Associates, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. King stated that the retractable awning was removed from the adjoining restaurant property, and the owners of the property have constructed a one course block separation between the properties. Mr. King stated that approximately seven employees park in the church parking lot, and several employees ride bicycles and buses. He said that there is no definite time when escrow will close on the adjacent property to the west of the car wash site. 1 -5- COMMISSIONERS Plot Al 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX In response to questions posed by Commissioner Adams, Mr. King replied that negotiations are only being considered with the property owner on the west side of the subject property, and the intent of the agreement is to provide only on -site employee parking. The existing area that is being used for detailing will continue to be used for detailing because of the egress/ingress circulation system onto the property. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Brown, Chairman Gifford explained that concerns regarding the outdoor speakers and the landscaping have been remedied. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the discussion was closed at this time. * Commissioner Pomeroy addressed the conditions in the use permit that :ion have successfully been corrected by the applicant. Motion was made to ' take No Action on Use Permit No. 3429. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Director Hewicker stated that the use permit would come back to the Planning Commission when the off -site parking agreement is submitted to the City for approval, unless there would be concerns regarding the current off-site employee parking arrangement at which time the issue would need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission again. Ayes Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. *ss Use Permit No. 1413 LA ended) (Public Heari ne) Request to amend a previously approved use permit that permitted the establishment of an animal hospital on the subject property. The proposed amendment involves a request to expand the facility so as to provide additional kennels and administrative space, on property located in the APF -H District. ' -6 COMMISSIONERS Mo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES e.,a on iooa ROLL INDEX CALL I LOCATION: Parcel 6, Parcel Map 25 -1 (Resubdivision No. 260) I Item No. 3 located at 1333 Avocado Avenue, on the northwesterly side of Avocado Avenue, U UP1413A southeasterly of San Miguel Drive, in Block 200 of Newport Center. A Approved ZONE: APF -H APPLICANT: James Rich, Newport Beach OWNER: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Paul Ruffing, architect, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Ruffmg concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". COMMISSIONERS is �- f Al: 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Ridgeway responded that he has observed that the tum -over of parldng spaces in front of the animal hospital is very rapid. L Ayes Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. That the proposed application is support service in nature and as such, is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That adequate parking exists on -site and in the common parking lot to the west of the subject property for the proposed development, inasmuch as the Good Earth Restaurant will be demolished in conjunction with the Edwards Theatre expansion, and the theater expansion does not involve an increase in weekday matinee seating. 3. That the change in the operational characteristics of the subject I facility will not have any significant environmental impact. 4. That the expansion of the animal hospital will be insulated in such a manner as to restrict animal noises to the interior of the facility. 5. That the approval of Use Permit No. 1413 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace morals comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the expanded animal hospital shall be insulated in such a manner as to restrict animal noises to the interior of the facility. ' -8 COMMISSIONERS •�F �ti"o 9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 99 <�90 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That air conditioning shall be installed and operable at all times. Exterior doors and windows shall be kept closed. 4. That a building permit for the proposed expansion shall not be issued until the demolition of the Good Earth Restaurant has commenced. 5. That animals may be boarded overnight inside the facility. 6. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 7. That this use permit shall expire if not exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. ss* Use Permit No. 1581 (Amended). (Public Hearin¢) item No.. Request to amend a previously approved use permit so as to change the UP1561A operational characteristic of an existing restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages, live entertainment, dancing and valet parking, on Approved property located in the commercial area of the Cannery Village - McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. The proposed amendment involves a request to increase the "net public area" of the restaurant by adding an outdoor dining area on the street side of the building. The proposal also includes: a request to expand the restaurant parking lot onto the adjoining property; the approval of an off -site parking agreement for the expanded parking; and the approval of a transfer of development rights from the off -site parking area to the restaurant site. LOCATION: Parcel 1, Parcel Map 57 -25 (Resubdivision No. 375) located at 2406 Newport Boulevard ' -9- 4 COMMISSIONERS 4 4 F99 ��gDO -�G CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES A --'I �^ 1nMC ROLL CALL INDEX (restaurant site); and Lots 12 and 13, and the northerly extensions thereot.Block 223, Section A, Newport Beach, located at 2410 Newport Boulevard (off-site parking lot), on the easterly side of Newport Boulevard, southerly of 26th Street, on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: SP-6 APPLICANT: Ken Poole (Hooter's Restaurant), Newport Beach OWNER: Steve James, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, addressed staffs suggestion that the development standards relative to walls and a portion of the landscaping be waived due to the existing developed nature of the restaurant site. He explained that there is a structure on the property line in the area where the expanded parking lot would occur so it would be redundant to request the ' applicant to add a wall on the west side of the parking lot. The Zoning Code requires that a minimum of 10 percent of the site be devoted to landscaping. The applicant submitted plans illustrating where there would be two landscaped areas on the off-site parking lot, located on either side of the driveway adjacent to Newport Boulevard for a total of 332.5 square feet. There is an access easement on the bay side of the off-site parking lot which has 500 square feet for a total of 832.5 square feet; therefore, the applicant would be required to provide an additional 157.5 square feet of landscaping in the off-site parking lot. If the Planning Commission would not consider the access easement as part of the landscape requirement, then the applicant would be required to provide an additional 657.5 square feet of landscaping on the off -site parking lot to meet Ordinance requirements. The design of the parking lot currently provides eight parking spaces in excess of those that would be required in order to provide parking based upon one parking space for each 40 square feet of "net public area". If the applicant would be required to provide the additional 157.5 square feet of landscaping there is a possibility that one parking space would need to be deleted. If 657.5 square feet of additional landscaping is required then approximately five parking spaces would be eliminated. ' -10- COMMISSIONERS • 9��s9��E�90 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Brown, Chairman Gifford stated that on September 6, 1973, the Planning Commission approved Condition No. 5, requesting that a landscape plan be approved by the Planning Director. Commissioner Kmanzley recommended that at least 157.5 square feet of additional landscaping be planted on the adjoining property, and instead of shrubbery that the landscaping consist of trees and planters so as to improve the appearance of the two properties. Chairman Gifford commented that if the applicant met the landscape standards on the off -site parking lot, the applicant would have an excess of three parking spaces over the City's standards. Director Hewicker stated that parking has always been a concern at the subject property. When the Red Onion Restaurant was approved in 1972 the number of required parking spaces was based on the number of seats as opposed to "net public area ". He said that popular restaurants typically ' need more parking spaces than are required by the Planning Corrunission. Director Hewicker concurred with Chairman Gifford that the number of parking spaces is currently based on square footage and not on the number of seats. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Kan Poole, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Poole concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "N'. In response to Mr. Poole's questions regarding his request to reduce the fee that would be involved with the transfer of development rights, Director Hewicker stated that the applicant would be given credit for the traffic generation characteristics of the building that was demolished by the applicant on the adjoining property. Mr. Poole agreed that landscaping needs to be improved on the property; however, in order to comply with the number of required parking spaces he was not able to add additional landscaping. In reference to the footnote in the staff report concerning the surrender of the nonconforming status of the property, Mr. Poole requested that the existing use permit be maintained after the 12 year lease expires for the off - site parking lot so as not to lose the existing uses. Chairman Gifford stated that the applicant could not maintain the benefit of transfer of development ' -11- COMMISSIONERS •9A11* 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX rights once there is no longer a lease on the property from which the development rights were transferred. In response to a question posed by Chairman Gifford, Mr. Poole stated that he would not have a problem with the 10 percent landscaping standard on the off-site parking lot as previously discussed. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Adams, Mr. Poole concurred that there would only be complimentary valet parking, and that he would not oppose a condition stating that all valet parking would be complimentary. Commissioner Ridgeway and Commissioner Di Sano stated that it is feasible that such a condition could become null and void in the future inasmuch as the EPA may impose some type of fees on all parking in commercial areas. Commissioner Adams stated that if parking would be charged that it is possible that the patrons would park elsewhere and it would put parking demands on other parts of the Balboa Peninsula. In reference to the proposed design of the off-site parking lot, Commissioner Brown concurred with Commissioner Adams' comments ' concerning complimentary valet parking. Mr. John Loomis, 2821 Newport Boulevard, architect, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Loomis stated that the applicant worked with the City Traffic Engineer to design a valet parking plan, and he determined that it is feasible to augment a landscaping plan without losing parking spaces. He said that perimeter landscaping would be possible to soften the parking lot. Mr. Loomis agreed that some parking spaces would be lost if 10 percent landscaping would be. required. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Loomis replied that 5 percent landscaping would be advisable in order to satisfy all of the concerns. The Planning Commission and Mr. Loomis discussed the two foot strip on the existing property, the valet parking plan, a landscaping plan, and the access easement on the bay front. Mr. Loomis addressed Condition No. 3, Exhibit 'W'. He requested that the condition be amended to state that if in the firture that the off-site parking agreement is terminated that the covered deck would be removed, ' -12- COMMISSIONERS • 9� �"pvc'2 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I INDEX and that the existing approval prior to the subject use permit would remain in force. Director Hewicker stated that the condition requests that if the parking would be lost for the deck, that the deck would have to be removed. If the applicant lost the tr=4a of the development rights between the adjacent property and the subject site then the applicant would have to locate a site where they could transfer development rights from or remove the deck. Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney, commented that the provisions in the Municipal Code regarding nonconforming uses state that if the use would be conforming then it is not possible to go back to the nonconforming use. Ms. Clauson suggested that the footnote in the staff report could be deleted, and the covenant as required in Condition No. 3, would address the termination of the use of the ability to transfer the development rights. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, W. Loomis explained that the proposal includes a covered one -story deck, one foot above grade. Hooter's Restaurants have outdoor decks at their entrances COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9 L MINUTES !I nn Innr ROLL CALL s INDEX s' comment that the middle driveway could be closed during the time the auxiliary parking lot is used, and it would provide an area for more landscaping. The two remaining driveways would be used as "in" and "out" driveways. Commissioner Adams suggested that if the middle driveway would be removed and replaced with a sidewalk that landscaping could be planted in that area. Mr. Tom Hyans, 217 - 19th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission to express his concerns regarding the proposed outdoor patio. He requested that the outdoor patio be enclosed because of his concerns regarding the noise that would be emitting from the restaurant to the adjoining residential areas. Mr. Laith Ezzet, 2700 Newport Boulevard, member of the Board of Directors of the 28th Street Marina, appeared before the Planning Commission. He expressed his support of the Hooter's Restaurant chain, COMMISSIONERS 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Ridgeway expressed a concern that the noise from the restaurant would be transmitted to the 28th Street Marina residents. Mr. Loomis stated that noise is a concern of the applicant, and the restaurant has a desire to be a good neighbor. He referred to Condition No. 17, Exhibit "A', stating that if there would be a determination that the restaurant is detrimental to the neighborhood that the use permit could be called back to the Planning Commission for review. Mr. Loomis emphasized that the establishment is considered to be a restaurant and not a bar. Commissioner Ridgeway addressed the close proximity of the restaurant to the 28th Street Marina, Commissioner Pomeroy commented that it is feasible that a sound wall with plexi -glass could be constructed to control the noise transmitting from the deck In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding suggested Condition No. 19, Mr. Poole replied that he would agree to change the outdoor dining area from 11:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Mr. Poole disagreed with Commissioner Pomeroy's suggestion concerning the installation of plexi-glass inasmuch as the intent is for an open porch ' design.. In response to a question posed by Chairman Gifford, Mr. Poole replied that there is no live entertainment, but the restaurant has a permit for entertainment. He pointed out that speakers are throughout the building, and the intent is to have speakers in the outdoor area. In response to comments by Commissioner Di Sano, Mr. Poole replied that there have been no police complaints since the establishment opened. Commissioner Kranzley addressed Condition No. 11, Exhibit "A', and he pointed out that no outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the proposed operation. W. Laycock stated that no outdoor speaker would be allowed in the outdoor deck area, as well as on the existing second floor balcony. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that residents throughout the City have concerns regarding outdoor paging systems. -15- COMMISSIONERS Q.9 Al 4 9iA�G� 9 ��F90 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL ' INDEX There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Ms. Clauson suggested that Condition No. 3, Exhibit "A ", be modified to state That a covenant or other suitable, legally binding agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney... The amendment would allow the City Attorney's Office to review the agreement. :ion Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 1581 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", and amended as follows: that Condition No. 3 be modified as requested, that suggested Condition No. 19 shall state That the use of the outdoor dining area located on the ground floor level, shall be limited between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. daily, as agreed to by the applicant. Add conditions stating that landscaping on the off -site parking lot shall be at 5 percent, that the middle driveway closed of and that valet parking be complimentary. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Adams, Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he would agree to a condition that would maximize the landscaping without eliminating a parking space. Following a discussion by the Planning Commission and staff to approve total allowable square footage of landscaping on the two parcels as opposed to only a percentage on the off -site parking lot, and to maximize the parking on the premises, Commissioner Adams suggested approximately 900 square feet of landscaping be required on the two parcels. The maker of the motion amended his motion to add a condition that approximately 900 square feet of landscaping would be installed on the two parcels, including a portion of the landscaping to be located adjacent to Newport Boulevard and inside the parking lot. 1 Ayes Motion was voted on as amended. MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. ' -16- COMMISSIONERS f 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ♦ -_:1 �^ In^r ROLL CALL ' INDEX 2. The proposed addition of an exterior dining use will not have any significant environmental impact, inasmuch as there is adequate parking on -site and on the off -site parking lot to meet City requirements. 3. That off -site parking area is located so as to be useful to the restaurant use in addition to the on -site parking. 4. That the waiver of development standards as they pertain to walls and a portion of the landscaping will not be detrimental to the adjoining properties. S. That the proposed transfer of development intensity is consistent with the Land Use Elements of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 6. That the transfer of development intensity will result in a more efficient use of land and an increase in public visual open space inasmuch as the amount of development which would otherwise be permitted on Lots 12 and 13, is being reduced. 7. That the transfer of development intensity will result in a net benefit to the aesthetics of the area 8. That the increased development on the site does not create abrupt changes in scale between the proposed development and development in the surrounding area masmnch as the existing building is not being increased in size. 9. That the proposed uses and structures are compatible with the surrounding area 10. That the increased development on the increased site will not result in significant impairment of public views than currently exists. 11. That the increased site is physically suitable for the development proposed taking into consideration existing on -site characteristics. -17- COMMISSIONERS 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 15,11eliyl�b?.� -41 10 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 12. That the transfer of development intensity will not result in a net negative impact on the circulation system. 13. That the projections of traffic to be generated by the proposed project utilize standard traffic generation rates generally applied to a use of the type proposed per City Council Policy S-1. 14. That the proposed uses and physical improvements are such that the approved project would not readily lend themselves to conversion to higher traffic generating uses as restricted by covenant agreement. 15. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 16. That the transfer of development intensity will eliminate the existing nonconforming FAR of the subject property and any future ' development associated with the subject property. 17. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 18. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 19. That the dedication of lateral or vertical public access easements, as required by Section 20.63.045 L of the Municipal Code, are not appropriate in conjunction with the subject application, given the temporary nature of the improvements proposed on the vacant lot (proposed off -site parking lot), and the existing physical characteristics of the subject restaurant site and adequate public access to the bay already exists, inasmuch as the street end of 26th Street is located approximately 20 to 55 feet from the off - site parking lot site. 20. That the approval of Use Permit No. 1581 (Amended) to allow the expansion of the area devoted to dining and the proposed transfer ' -18- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES •. A � , ROLL CALL I INDEX of development intensity will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working m the neighborhood, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevation, except as noted below. 2. That all previous applicable conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 1581 (Amended) shall remain in force. 3. That a covenant or other suitable, legally binding agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney shall be recorded against the decreased site assuring that all of the requirements of Section 20.07.070 7, will be met by the current and future property owners. Said covenant or agreement may include provisions for its future termination at such time as the development on the restaurant parcel is removed or at such time as the floor area devoted to the subject outdoor deck is removed. 4. That a minimum of one parking space for each 40 square feet of "net public area" (i.e. 74 spaces) shall be provided for the expanded restaurant facility. 5. That a minimum of 36 parking spaces shall be provided on -site for the proposed restaurant facility . The off-site parking lot and driveway shall be graded and paved as required by the City Grading Engineer with asphalt, concrete, or other street surfacing material of a permanent nature. The parking spaces shall be marked with approved traffic markers or painted white lines not less than 4 inches wide, as approved by the City Traffic Engineer. COMMISSIONERS 9 \Mxi0O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I� I MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 6. That prior to issuance of building permits for the construction of the outdoor dining area, an off -site parking agreement shall be approved by the City Council, guaranteeing that a minimum of 38 additional parking spaces small be provided on the off-site parking lot for the proposed facility in accordance with Section 20.30.035 D of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 7. That the on -site and off -site valet parking, vehicular circulation, pedestrian circulation systems and signage be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 8. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 9. That the development standards as they pertain to walls and a ' portion of the landscaping shall be waived. 10. That the entire site, including the off -site parking lot, shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner at all times. 11. That no outdoor loudspeaker or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the proposed operation. 12. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed outdoor dining . 13. That a Live Entertainment Permit issued by the Revenue Manager shall be obtained in accordance with Chapter 5 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, if live entertainment will be provided. 14. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as required by the Building Department. Said parking space shall be used solely for handicapped self - parking and shall be identified by one handicapped sign on a post. -20- COMMISSIONERS 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 15. That the shrubbery in the proposed planters and existing planters adjacent to Newport Boulevard be replanted or trimmed and maintained to provide sight distance in conformance with City Std. 110 -L and as approved by the Public Works Department. 16. That if required by Code, the automatic fire sprinkler system shall be modified to protect the proposed outdoor dining area. 17. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 18. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 t months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 19. That the use of the outdoor dining area located on the ground floor level, shall be limited between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. daily. 20. That approximately 900 square feet of landscaping shall be installed on the two parcels, and that the landscaping shall be located adjacent to Newport Boulevard and dispersed throughout the parking lots. Trees shall be included in a landscape plan, to be approved by the Planning Department. 21. That the middle driveway shall be removed, and replaced with a curb and sidewalk. 22. That valet parking shall be complimentary. ' -21- COMMISSIONERS 4 4 T F99��`9a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL INDEX CALL The Planning Commission recessed at 9:30 p.m.and reconvened at 9:40 p.m. Use Permit No. 1758 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Item No. Request to amend a previously approved use permit which allowed the U111758A establishment of a private club with on -sale alcoholic beverages, live entertainment, dancing and off -site parking with a full-time valet parking Approved service on property located in the RSC -H District. The proposed amendment is a request to expand the hours of operation of the club so as to allow a 12:00 noon opening on Saturday, Sunday and holidays whereas the existing hours of operation are limited from 6:30 p.m. to 2:00 am daily LOCATION: Parcel 1, Parcel Map 6043 (Resubdivision No. 433) (private club site), located at 3388 Via Lido, ' on the northeasterly side of Via Lido, between Via Oporto and Via Malaga; Lot 1 and a portion of Lot 2, Tract No. 1117, (off-site parking lot no. 1) located at 3421 -3505 Via Oporto, on the southwesterly side of Via Oporto, between Via Lido and Central Avenue; and Lots 22 -30, Block 530, Lancaster s Addition (off-site parking lot no. 2), located at 500 -516 32nd Street, on the southeasterly corner of Villa Way and 32nd Street in Central Newport. ZONE: RSC -H APPLICANT: Club H2O, Inc. (The Atlantis Club), Newport Beach OWNER: Marvin Engineering, dba Lido Marina Village, Newport Beach -22- 5 • �F99ti�o90 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4 4 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Brown addressed the distance between the subject site and Parking Site No. 2, and the monitoring of the parldng lot. William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, explained that the subject off-site parking lot, located at the southeasterly comer of 32nd Street and Villa Way would be used by the valets. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. James Raven, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission Mr Raven referred to Condition No. 5, Exhibit "A", and he stated that the Coastal Commission waived the review process in 1993 because the requested one hour change of operation was not significant. Mr. Raven concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". He commented that he has access to all of the required number of parking spaces, and he has a letter from Lido Marina Village indicating that he has access to the parking lot. He commented that the intent of the proposal is to provide live entertainment on Sunday afternoons. Commissioner Ridgeway commented that Condition No. 5 could be modified to state That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval or waiver.. for clarification. Mr. Pat Galvin, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Via Lido Plaza to object to the change in the hours of operation, because of the parking impact that the adjacent bars and nightclubs in Lido Marina Village have on the Via Lido Plaza parking lot. The expanded hours are during the most important times of the day for the Via Lido Plaza merchants. He supported only the establishment's request to be allowed to provide live entertainment for 4 -1/2 hours on Sunday afternoons as opposed to the 13 hours of additional time requested in the proposal. Commissioner Pomeroy commented that City Hall parking is not fully utilized on week -end days. Commissioner Ridgeway also commented that there is additional parking available in the area. In response to Commissioner Brown's comment that the busiest day for the Via Lido Plaza merchants is Saturday, Mr. Raven reappeared before the Planning Commission. He commented that parking is available for the establishment during the requested hours on Saturdays. The intent of the ' -23- COMMISSIONERS 4 m Al 4 \A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES •, A , � , ROLL CALL INDEX request is for the club to be able to have wedding receptions and parties during the day on Saturdays and Holidays, and not be limited to only Sunday afternoons. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Brown, Mr. Raven replied that the valets are contracted by a professional parking service. He said that the establishment has been a good neighbor in the community, and that his record will show that all of the conditions have been complied with that were set forth by the City and the ABC. Mr. Raven pointed out that when he contacted Mr. Galvin's office one month ago, his staff indicated that they had no problems or complaints concerning the nightclub. Mr. Raven summarized the parking arrangements that he has with parking lots in the immediate area, and he emphasized that the nightclub can legally provide parking for all of the establishment's customers. Bill Ward, Senior Planner, stated that the Restaurant Review Committee reviewed the subject proposal, including the Police Department. The Police Department representative stated that he personally observed that ' the subject nightclub does not use the Via Lido Plaza parking lot. In response to comments by Chairman Gifford, Mr. Raven replied that the majority of the nightclub's patrons use the $3.00 valet parking service. Commissioner Ridgeway suggested that the establishment advise patrons attending Saturday afternoon receptions to use the valet parking service, and he reminded the Planning Commission that the proposal is only a request to expand the hours of operation from 12:00 noon on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. Commissioner Brown suggested that the staff and Planning Commission review the parking impact in the Via Lido area. tion * Motion was made and voted on. to approve Use Permit No. 1758 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", and to 1 Ayes amend Condition No. 5 to state ..Coastal Commission approval or waiver.., and to add Condition No. 8 stating that all special occasion parties would be advised of valet parking. MOTION CARRIED. ' -24- COMMISSIONERS •9�< \1W1\R0 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES w_a nn inns ROLL CALL INDEX Fin in s: 1. That the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have a significant environmental impact. 3. The existing parldng areas are located so as to be useful to the nightclub. 4. The use of the proposed parking areas will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area 5. That the applicam's current lease with Lido Marina Village provides the same number of parking spaces during the day on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays as is currently provided during the ' nighttime operation of the facility. 6. The approval of Use Permit No. 1758 (Amended) will not under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Conditions: 1. That the proposed project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved parking lot plans and floor plan, except as noted below. 2. That all previously applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 1758 and 1758 (Amended) shall be fulfilled unless otherwise provided in this approval. -25- COMMISSIONERS 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That the hours of operation of the nightclub shall be limited between 6:30 p.m. and 2:00 am Monday through Friday and 12:00 noon and 2:00 a.m. Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. 4. That a minimum of 71 parking spaces, either on -site or on the approved off-site locations, shall be provided for the expanded hours of operation of the nightclub use. The earlier opening of the private club on Saturday, Sunday, and holidays shall be discontinued if the applicant loses the right to use any of the on -site or off -site parking spaces approved in conjunction with this application unless suitable replacement parking is provided at a location approved by the Planning Commission. 5. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval or waiver of this application prior to the opening of the nightclub at 12:00 noon on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. 6. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of ' approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Pemrit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 7. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 8. That all special occasion parties shall be notified that valet parking is available. ss* -26- COMMISSIONERS • 9�`c`i 9��9 v 4 Moi Al] 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL INDEX CALL Use Permit No. 2045 (Amended) (Public Hearing) item No.6 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted the UP2045A establishment of a full service restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages and live entertainment on property located in the SP -8 (RSC) District. con / 9 a to 5/4/95 The proposed amendment involves a request to delete a previously imposed dated November 4, 1993, that was addressed to Mr. Covington, Director of Operations of the Fritz Dudas Company signed by Stephen Paul Poliska condition that prohibits the opening of the restaurant before 5:00 p.m. daily between June 1st and Labor Day so as to allow the restaurant to open at 6:00 a.m. daily, all year round. LOCATION: Parcel 1, Parcel Map 189/17 -18 (Resubdivision No. 713), located at 109 -111 Palm Street, on the southwesterly corner of Palm Street and East Balboa Boulevard, in the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan. ' ZONE: SP -8 APPLICANT: Britta K. Pulliam (Gringa's Grill), Newport Beach OWNER: 4 Sails, A General Partnership, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant requested that this matter be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 4, 1995. :ion Motion was made and voted on to continue Use Permit No. 2045 . Ayes (Amended) to the May 4, 1995, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. ' -27- COMMISSIONERS 9' A ¢ G+T 0 �F9�y1 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL INDEX CALL Use Permit No. 3040 (Amended) (Public Hearinal Item No.7 Request to amend a previously approved use permit which allowed the UP3040A conversion of a take-out Haagen -Dazs ice cream shop with incidental seating to a M service restaurant with table service and alcoholic Approved beverages, on property located in the Mariners Mile Specific Plan Area. The previous approval also included the waiver of a portion of the required off-street parking spaces. The proposed amendment involves a request to expand the "net public area" of the restaurant on the first floor and by converting a second floor commercial space into a lounge(waiting area that will be used after 6:00 p.m.. The proposal also includes: a request to convert a Base FAR use (commercial) to a Reduced FAR use (restaurant) in accordance with the provisions of Section 20.07.044 of the Municipal Code; and the waiver of a portion of the additional required parking spaces. LOCATION: A portion of Lot A, Tract No. 919, located at 2400 West Coast Highway, on the northerly side of West ' Coast Highway, easterly of Tustin Avenue, in Mariners Mile. ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: John S. Jasper, (Jackshrimp Restaurant), Newport Beach OWNER Susan Cuse, Inc., Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. John Jasper, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission He referred to Condition No. 3, Exhibit "A ", regarding the second floor lounge area, and he stated that the condition was imposed because of a traffic concern; however, it did not apply to Saturdays and Sundays. William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, replied that staff had no objections with the requests to change Condition No. 3 to state except for Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays -28- COMMISSIONERS Mo Al 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX in response to questions posed by Commissioner Brown, Mr. Jasper stated that the existing plastic tent is used during undesirable conditions so as to be able to use the patio area. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. tion Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Pemrit No. 3040, subject 1 Ayes to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", and to modify Condition No. 3 to state ..except for Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays MOTION CARRIED. FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed restaurant expansion is consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That adequate parking is available on -site and in the nearby Mariner's Mile Municipal Parking Lot to accommodate the proposed expansion facility and the other uses existing on the subject property. 4. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to a portion of the required parking spaces (16 spaces), traffic circulation, landscaping, parking lot illumination, utilities and walls surrounding the restaurant site will not be detrimental to adjoining properties given the developed characteristics of the existing facility. 5. It has been demonstrated that the peak hour traffic to be generated by the proposed restaurant will not exceed that generated by the existing uses in the development, as determined in accordance with City Council Policy S -1. ' -29- 4 f MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9L L �fp • _ : nn - nnc ROLL CALL e INDEX 6. The projections of traffic to be generated utilize standard traffic generation rates generally applied to a use of the type proposed, per City Council Policy S -1. 7. The structure on the site was constructed prior to October 25, 1988, consistent with the policies and ordinances in effect at the time of construction. 8. The subject restaurant and other building tenants will be restricted to the uses and operational characteristics upon which the traffic equivalency was based. Relevant operational characteristics include, but are not limited to, hours of operation of on -site businesses, provision of valet parking, off -site parking, and net public area of restaurants. 9. The proposed restaurant expansion and physical improvements are such that the approved project would not readily lend itself ' to conversion to a higher traffic generating use. 10. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3040 (Amended) will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevation, except as noted below. 2. That the outdoor dining area shall be limited to a maximum "net public area" of 260± square feet, the interior dining area be limited to a maximum "net public area" of 577+ square feet and the second floor lounge area be limited to a maximum "net public area" of 602± square feet, with the total "net public area" not to exceed a maximum of 1,439 square feet. -30- COMMISSIONERS 4 r L CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES A.--I nn 1nnQ ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That the second floor lounge area shall be limited to use after 6:00 p.m., except for Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. 4. That the development standards pertaining to a portion of the required parking spaces (16 spaces), traffic circulation, landscaping, parking lot illumination, utilities and walls surrounding the restaurant site are waived. 5. That all previously applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3040 (Amended) shall remain in effect as a part of this approval. 6. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of building permits for the tenant improvements or implementation of the proposed expansion associated with this approval. 7. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to the use permit, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this use permit, cause injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of the community. 8. That this use permit shall expire if not exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. A General Plan Amendment No. 94- 1CF1(Continued Public Hearin -W Request to consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan for Pacific View Memorial Park, so as to establish a new development allocation of a maximum of 30,000 square feet of administrative offices and support facilities, 126,700 square feet of community mausoleum and garden crypts, and 12,000 square feet of family ' -31- MINUTES • ¢iFy9y��909 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH A...41 ')A 100C 4 4 ROLL r INDEX CALL mausoleums (or equivalent building bulk restrictions). Additional language is also proposed which specifies that all future mausoleum and Item No.8 garden crypt structures shall be constructed only within the building envelopes authorized by the site plan approved in conjunction with Use GPA 94 -1F Permit No. 3518; and the acceptance of an environmental document. DA 7 INITIATED BY: The City ofNewport Beach UP3518 AND SPR 69 B Development Agreement No. 7 (Public Hearing) Cont ' d to 5/4/95 Request to approve a development agreement for the proposed build -out of the Pacific View Memorial Park. AND ' C. 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 future 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 D. 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. -32- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL A April 20, i995 INDEX 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 Hulls Planned Community. ZONES: R -3 -B and U APPLICANT: Pacific View Memorial Park, Glendale OWNER: Pierce Brothers, Houston, Texas James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that he had received a copy of the April 12, 1995, letter from Pacific View Memorial Park to Paul Hitzelberger and David March. He said that subsequent to the March 9, 1995, Planning Commission meeting a series of meetings were held COMMISSIONERS a 9�`�99�y��° 4 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Building Site "E ": A setback was established at 84 feet from the easterly property line, and a crypt wall would be proposed 16 feet in depth which would provide an overall setback of 100 feet for any interment use in the cemetery from the homes located on Cannel Bay Drive and Twin Lakes Circle. The 84 foot setback area would be fully landscaped and benned, and there would be no ground interments proposed in the area. There is a reduction in the size of the previously proposed structures so as to reduce the total structure interment space by 1,640 square feet. The landscaping is intended to fully screen the structures from the homes in Spyglass ifill and to be in place upon the completion of the grading of Site "IT', and it would screen the construction of the mausoleum structures and a proposed new mausoleum in designated Area' I-1". Building Site "G': The site to the north of the existing row of mausoleum structures. A variable setback was agreed upon which ranges in depth from 80-1/2 feet to 60 feet moving northerly on the site. The setback decreases in depth depending upon the vertical separation of the site and ' the homes on Carmel Bay Drive. The site will be developed with three mausoleums and two crypt walls with a reduction of approximately 11,976 square feet from the original plan that was proposed by the cemetery. There are no ground interments planned, proposed, or allowed in the setback area between the mausoleums, crypt walls, and the homes on Cannel Bay Drive. Building Site "If': The mausoleum structure would be 12,000 square feet, and it is intended to be `single- loaded'. The crypt faces would be on the road side of the structure, and the other three sides would be surrounded by earth and landscaping. The total reduction of total interment space in the revised plan as opposed to the plan that was proposed on March 9, 1995, is approximately 8,250 square feet. He suggested that the Planning Commission focus on the following issues during the subject public hearing: A Flat vs. Sloping roofs on mausoleum and crypt walls. He said that there is no longer a proposal being advanced which would suggest that the roofs be flat. Direction was given at the -34- 1 COMMISSIONERS •9��9�� °9a 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES A--:1 7fl IQQC ROLL CALL INDEX March 9, 1995, Planning Commission meeting to encourage the construction of pitched roofs and overhangs so as to provide screening of the crypt faces. B. Grading and landscaping above the 430 foot contour. There is a restriction on the development of the cemetery property in the strip of land adjacent to the Spyglass 10 homes for a depth of 125 feet that prohibits any changes in grade or installation of landscaping or trees or condition of property that would exceed the 430 foot contour. There were proposals that were reflected on the sections that show the use of screening techniques that exceed the 430 foot contour. The issue was discussed with the Assistant City Attorney with respect to implementing any screening or landscaping above the 430 foot contour. It was suggested by several of the Spyglass hill homeowners that if the land were bermed and landscaped up to a height that would not exceed the elevation of the adjoining home pad that it would be an acceptable solution. C. Planning Commission review of working landscape and irrigation plans ' that would be submitted by the cemetery. It is the position of several homeowners that they would like to see the technical landscape and irrigation plan prior to approval of the discretionary permits that go with the application. The general process is to require the plans prior to the time that a Building Permit is issued, or some time during the phasing of construction. D. Retrofit of Sunset Court with a sloping roof. Director Hewicker said that the cemetery considered additional landscaping and roof treatment that may be acceptable to retrofit the Phase I construction of Sunset Court. Commissioner Pomeroy addressed the proposed landscape plan. He stated that there should be some type of vehicle for the Planning Commission to put into the Development Agreement. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Kranzley, Director Hewicker replied that the Development Agreement should be reviewed at least on an annual basis. -35- COMMISSIONERS •9°c' �-pvcT ' 4 r L MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Brown addressed the irrigation and landscaping plans. He said that the applicant could provide a conceptual landscape plan that would include the number, location, and a variety of species that staff and the Planning Commission could review prior to the issuance of Building Permits. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Brown, Director Hewicker replied that all of the community mausoleums and any structure over three feet in height would require a Building Permit. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Adams regarding Area 11 adjacent to the Seaview residential area, Director Hewicker replied that ground interments are proposed for the area. Commissioner Adams suggested that the area be designated for ground interments so there would not be a misconception of what would occur in Area 11. Commissioner Adams stated that the technical site plan does not indicate what is proposed for Area 11. Commissioner Kranzley and Chairman Gifford cited the numerous meetings they had with the homeowners, the cemetery's representatives, and staff members. Mr. David Neish appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Pacific View Memorial Park. He stated that subsequent to the meetings between representatives of the cemetery and the homeowners, that the cemetery and homeowners signed off on a technical site plan. In reference to Director Hewicker's presentation, Mr. Neish responded that (A) the cemetery's preference would be Sat roofs; however, they would not object if the sloped roofs would be approved by the Planning Commission. (B) He said that the cemetery does not philosophically oppose landscape encroachments above the 430 foot contour, but technically there are doubts that it can be done. (C) The working drawing landscape and irrigation plans would take several months. (D) The cemetery agreed with the representatives of the homeowners to do the following: plant 30 - 15 gallon shrubs on the slopes directly behind Sunset Court; provide 10 - 24 inch box -size trees in the turf courtyard area of Sunset Court, and colored or ornamental rock will be added to the roof of Sunset Court. Mr. Paul Hitzelberger, I I Carmel Bay Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. He addressed the numerous meetings the homeowners had ' -36- COMMISSIONERS •9�F9`�$�90 4 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX with the representatives of Pacific View Memorial Park to reach an agreement, and the individual meetings with the homeowners. Messrs. Don Olson, Leonard Fish, and Karl Wolf have devoted much time to the effort, and David March and Mr. F tzelberger worked on the site plan concept with the cemetery's representatives Steve Schacht and Mike Green. He stated that he was in agreement in concept with the site plan; however, it is vital that the conditions including the landscaping and Development Agreement are resolved so that a vote can be taken on the entire package, including correcting Sunset Court. He said that there is general support by the homeowners concerning the 430 foot easement and how it affects grading and landscaping. Ail Building Site "G" pads are above the 430 foot contour and the current grading and landscaping behind Lots 18, 19, 20, and 21 are above the homeowner pads at 434 feet to 435.7 feet. He said that if it is necessary to uphold the 430 foot contour then it would mean lowering the landscaping and grading in back of the lots by at least 7 feet, and it would open up the view of Sunset Court and the new buildings. The 430 foot easement was included for homeowner protection, and it should not be used as a negative against their views. The support of the site plan is predicated on Pacific View Memorial Park `s commitment that roofs and mausoleums would not impact homeowner view due to the grading and full landscape plan. The homeowner's support of the concept plan is predicated on the foregoing statement. Because of the 430 foot contour it may be necessary to request flat roofs. Prior to finalizing the buffer zone in Building Site "G ", Mr. Iliitzelberger presented the names of homeowners who gave their general support to the Site Plan concept. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Iditzelberger stated that the 430 foot contour should be raised to homeowner pad height in Building Site "G ". He said that his pad height is 435.7 feet. Mr. David March, 1 Twin Lakes Circle, Lot No. 7, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to Commissioner Ridgeway's previous questions, Mr. March stated that homeowner pad heights start at 430 feet on the south end and the pads are increased to 439 feet on the north end of Spyglass Hill. He agreed with the concept plan; however, the plan depends on landscaping inasmuch as it would soften and screen the project. '-37- COMMISSIONERS 0 F�9�90 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Brown suggested that individually each property owner could benchmark his property both vertically and horizontally, and the Pacific View Memorial Park as the adjoining property owner would have to buy into it. Mr. Allen Abschez, legal counsel for Pacific View Memorial Park, appeared before the Planning Commission. He said that the covenant question benefits each home in the tract that was sold to The Irvine Company in 1972, and it would require a release from every homeowner. Commissioner Brown asked what if Pacific View Memorial Park gave the homeowners an easement that benefited them, and Mr. Abschez replied that it would be a burden on the Pacific View Memorial Park property. Mr. Don Olson, 9 Monterey Circle, appeared before the Planning Commission. He read a letter dated April 20, 1995, to the Planning Commission concerning the site plan. He stated that the majority of the homeowners are in favor of the site plan; however, there are three parts that need to be addressed before final approval is considered: the site plan; a development agreement; and a set of conditions and requirements that could be included in the Development Agreement. He recommended that ' additional drawings be submitted indicating that no buildings will be visible from homes backing up to the cemetery. He said that his tentative approval is based on the fact that the homeowners would not see mausoleum structures from any homes facing the cemetery. Mr. H. Ross Miller, 1627 Bay Cliff Circle, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Spyglass Ridge Community Association. Mr. Miller stated that a portion of the mausoleum in Building Site "H" would be seen by the Spyglass Ridge residents, and the residents object to the family mausoleums in Building site "D ". Mr. Miller expressed concerns regarding the landscaping and the impact that the trees could have on the homeowners views. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Miller stated that he would not object to the mausoleum in Building Site "Fr' if the building would be completely hidden. Mr. Gene Lee, 9 Carmel Bay Drive, Lot No. 19, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Lee expressed his support of the direction that has been taken between the homeowners and Pacific View Memorial Park.. Mr. Lee supported the pad level as it currently exists, and he requested that grass be used as landscaping adjacent to his home to protect his view. ' -38- COMMISSIONERS •9i 'O 'i' G'�, 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX A& Bill Buchan, 29 Carmel Bay Drive, Lot No. 28, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he supported the compromised plan between the homeowners and Pacific View Memorial Park. His homeowner pad is 438 -1/2 feet; therefore, he would not benefit from the grading and landscaping of the 430 foot contour. He stated that the cemetery property adjacent to his property only has weeds; therefore, he requested that a maintenance landscaping condition be placed on the development, and he fiuther requested that an undeveloped area adjacent to his property be immediately sodded and maintained. Commissioner Ridgeway asked if Pacific View Memorial Park satisfactorily landscaped the area in front of his home, and if they would deed over five feet the width of the property, would he accept the future violation from the community behind his property? Mr. Buchan said that he would have difficulty with the legal responsibility for the slope, and if there would be slippage who would be charged? He said that he would love the idea, but the hill adjacent to his lot previously had slippage. Mr. Buchan replied that if he would be suitably indemnified there would be no problem. Mr. Eddie Allen, 21 Carmel Bay Drive, Lot No. 24, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Allen discussed the compromise that was made between the homeowners and Pacific View Memorial Park. He stated that the homeowners agree with the concept providing that none of the homeowners on Carmel Bay Drive see the mausoleums from any angle.. He pointed out that the drawing of his lot on the plan is incorrect inasmuch as the lot drops down, and it does not slope as the plan indicates. Mr. Karl WoK property owner of 17 Carmel Bay Drive, Lot No. 22, appeared before the Planning Commission. He opposed the proposed mausoleums in Building Site "G" because they would adversely affect the use of the adjacent properties. He recommended that the buffer zone be moved in back of the buildings adjacent to his property from 85 feet to 100 feet, and he said that the easement of record cannot be waived. Mr. Wolf opposed family mausoleums and huge tombstones. He emphasized that the plan and Development Agreement should not be acted upon separately. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Kranzley, Mr. Wolf replied that he would object to the family mausoleums because they would change the character of the park -like setting. • -39- COMMISSIONERS I 9 ��F 0 y r 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX Mr. Leonard Fish, 2 Twin Lakes Circle, Lot No. 8, appeared before the Planning Commission He stag that the only method to cover up mausoleums is by landscaping, and to state that landscaping could be done later is an impossible situation Mr. Fish stated that he did not object in concept to the technical site plan. If there would be landscaping shown and if there would be adequate conditions the project could go through. However, if the Planning Commission would approve a 168,000 square foot increase without a landscape plan and conditions it would be unrealistic. Ms. Carol Miller, 19 Camiel Bay Drive, Lot No. 23, appeared before the Planning Commission. She stated that many homeowners oppose the cemetery, and she pointed out that the largest mausoleum is adjacent to her property. She requested that a written document be submitted to the homeowners for their legal counsel to review, and she stated that inasmuch as she is very allergic to landscaping that she would like to select the landscaping that would be planted adjacent to her property. In response to a question posed by Mrs. Mller, Director Hewicker replied that the project would not be reviewed by the Coastal Commission because the property is not in the Coastal Zone. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Kranzley, Mrs. Miller stated that she would not oppose the mausoleum if she could not see it and if she could select the landscaping. Ms. Sandy Fix, 11 Skysail Way, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the President of Spyglass Ifill Community Association. She stated that the block wall is the property of the Community Association and there has to be an easement or access for the Community Association workers to maintain the wall. It was their understanding that there was a 6 foot easement. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Brown, Director Hewicker replied that he was not aware of a recorded easement. Mr. Don Olson, reappeared before the Planning Commission, and he pointed out that the Spyglass MR Community Association owns a strip of property adjacent to Monterey Circle on the outside of the fence. Mr. Robert Lee, 1901 Yacht Entrantress, appeared before the Planting Commission. He commented that the numerous plans that are stated as -40- COMMISSIONERS . 9 4 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX attachments on the staff report are not attached. Director Hewicker explained that the Planning Commission and Pacific View Memorial Park Ad Hoc Committee received the plans and they are not attached to every staff report. Mr. Lee requested that landscaping be planted in Building Site "A ", and that the homeowners have an opportunity to review the landscape plan before the Planning Commission takes final action. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Brown, Mr. Lee stated that it was his opinion that a buffer was adjacent to the Seaview community Mr. Max Jack, 7 Monterey Circle, appeared before the Planning Commission. He commented that the proposed project is too big and too visible. The size and style of buildings, the location, and the setbacks are vital to the project. Mr. David Neish reappeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Pacific View Memorial Park Mr. Neish stated that in a previously submitted proposal the homeowners would not have been able to see 100 percent of the mausoleums. The trade -off is that when the setback was increased and the mausoleums were moved further away from the properties, unless the 430 foot contour could have been penetrated, it is practically impossible to totally 100 percent screen all of the mausoleums. The homeowners may see a little bit of the structures, and in some cases they may be totally screened, but he wanted to emphasize that the cemetery cannot commit to totally screen the mausoleums with the setback that is proposed. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that with conceptual landscape plans and conditions, a definition of a conceptual landscape plan, and the types of planting that is going to occur and where it is going to occur, that most of the concerns of the homeowners can be addressed. He said that the homeowners should be able to see and review conceptual landscaping plans that would describe the types of plants that would planted and how it would happen. Each homeowner could write a notarized statement allowing that they would not have a problem penetrating the 430 foot height line and the cemetery could plant shrubs that could grow up above the 430 foot line. In response to Mr. H. Ross Miller's concerns regarding the mausoleum that is proposed in Building Site "H", Commissioner Pomeroy stated that it would appear that landscaping could screen the new ' -41- COMMISSIONERS 4 4 �9 <y�F°90 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES A X n IAnc ROLL CALL INDEX mausoleum that has been proposed. He suggested that a condition be inserted in the Development Agreement that would accomplish that. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Kranzley, Mr. Neish replied that the proposed mausoleum in Building Site "H" would not be constructed in Phase 1. One corrunitment that the cemetery has is that the entire buffer area would be graded and landscaped with the first increment of development of anything on the project site. Commissioner Ridgeway recommended that the cemetery provide a concept landscape plan that would include the number and types of plant material, and size of plants. In response to a question posed by Chairman Gifford, Mr. Neish replied that the cemetery intends to provide a conceptual landscape plan. He suggested that the Planning Commission continue the project to the May 4, 1995, Planning Commission meeting and if the requested documentation cannot meet the deadline then Director Hewicker would have the ability to continue the item to May 18,1995. ' Mrs. Joyce Olson, 9 Monterey Circle, appeared before the Planning Commission. She questioned how the proposed mausoleum in the middle of the cemetery would be blocked from everyone's view with landscaping and the homeowners views would still be maintained. Commissioner Pomeroy referred to the technical site plan in concept that was previously discussed by Director Hewicker at the beginning of the public hearing. He said that he would (A) insist upon sloping roofs; (B) remove the grading and landscaping above the 430 contour because it is a legal issue that cannot be solved but it can be solved practically; (C) that it would be inappropriate to ask for working drawings but the detail conceptual drawings specifying types of plants, quantity of plants, size and location would be something that the Planning Commission could address properly and the homeowners could review; (D) a compromise could be reached between the homeowners and the applicant to plant 30 -15 gallon trees, 10 -24 inch box size trees, color the roof with ornamental rock as a retrofit of Sunset Court and remove the sloping roof. In response to a comment by Commissioner Di Sano, Commissioner Pomeroy explained that the foregoing comments would be incorporated in the Technical Site Plan in concept. Following a discussion by Ms. Clauson, Commissioner ' -42- 4 4 COMMISSIONERS \N F�9` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Brown and Commissioner Pomeroy, Chairman Gifford suggested that the Planning Commission direct the planning staff to prepare a final package to vote on around the technical site plan Commissioner Kranzley stated that the intent is to provide a plan that is workable for the parties involved to reach a final agreement. He stated that the proposed plan addresses the concerns of the homeowners and addresses the need of Pacific View Memorial Park. Commissioner Brown commended Chairman Gifford and Commissioner Kranzley for the time that they spent meeting with the homeowners concerning the project. The proposed plan is an improvement, and he approved the removal of the mausoleum in Building Site "A ". In reference to Building Site "D" he said that he had some reservations with respect to the family mausoleums but the site, because of the way that it sits, is appropriate; however, it is necessary for the cemetery to do a good job with the landscaping on all sides. He said that the key is landscaping and the ability to create a foreground landscape condition that addresses the issue. He expressed a concern with respect to the 430 foot contour limit, and he expressed a desire that there is a way to address the concern. The placement of the mausoleum in Building Site 'IT is appropriate, and if there would be good roof treatment then it would blend in with the grade completely. In reference to Mr. Bachan's previous concerns regarding the undeveloped land adjoining his property, Commissioner Brown suggested that the cemetery consider hydroseed mix for the vacant land. He supported sloping roofs of good concrete tile. In addition to Commissioner Pomeroy's recommendations concerning the conceptual landscape plan, Commissioner Brown suggested that in each of the major type categories that in each tree, shrub, groundcover, etc. that there are choices available. In reference to the Sunset Court retrofit, he recommended palm trees inasmuch as they would give more height to bring the mass of the structure down, and they would give more than a 24 inch box tree. Commissioner Adams stated that he did not have a feeling for what the true impacts of the proposal are in comparison to status quo. During the previous meeting he requested a quantification of interments by area that can be done in current entitlement and that are proposed. The Planning ' -43- COMMISSIONERS 4 9z r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES n_..a nn innc ROLL CALL INDEX Commission would be able to understand the difference in the use intensity in each of the areas. The information would assess the impacts of the project. The family mausolea structure in Building Site "D" are inappropriate for the site inasmuch as they do not conform to any of the established uses. He regretted that he previously stated that he would oppose a plan that would include them because it would defeat the progress that was made in other areas of the site He expressed a concern regarding the 430 foot contour limit height, and the fact that landscape exceeding that height being so heavily relied on. Commissioner Adams stated that he supports the aforementioned A, B, C, and D, including the sloping roof. The decorative rock on the existing Sunset Court is insufficient and it should be retrofitted with a sloping roof to match the rest of the development. Commissioner Di Sano suggested that staff use the technical site plan in concept in consort with the comments made by the Planning Commissioners and that would be satisfactory. ' Commissioner Ridgeway concurred with previous comments. In reference to (C), he stated that an irrigation plan is not necessary. He agreed with Commissioner Adams that Sunset Court retrofit should have a sloping roof. He supported the concept plan subject to all of the objections made previously which address the landscape plan. Chairman Gifford commended the problem solving attitude that became apparent recently, the civility, the hard work, and the effort everyone made to work together to solve the problems to make the concept possible. She concurred with the sloping roofs, and if the 430 foot easement runs in favor of each individual parcel in the tract then it is possible that there could be some grave difficulties. Ms. Clauson stated that generally the City does not get involved in enforcing private agreements between parties. She reviewed the 1970 agreement that sets up the granting of the easement but she has not seen a subsequent document. She stated that the City Attorney's Office would meet with the homeowners and Pacific View Memorial Park to discuss the matter fiuther. =ion * Commissioner Pomeroy made a motion that the Planning Commission direct the staff to use the technical site plan in concept provided to the ' -44- COMMISSIONERS Al: IM Al: 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL INDEX CALL Planning Commission; prepare a Development Agreement and conditions for Pacific View Memorial Park that include sloping roofs on mausoleums and crypt walls; and a conceptual landscape plan that includes type, size, quantity, and location of specimens in all of the affected buffer areas. That the retrofit of Sunset Court in accordance with the agreement reached between Pacific View Memorial Park and the homeowners include 30 - 15 gallon plants; 10 - 24 inch box size trees; and ornamental colored rock on the roof. That all of the documentation be available seven days prior to the Planning Commission meeting. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Adams with respect to (D) the sloping roof in Sunset Court, the maker of the motion stated that he was in support of the compromise L Ayes solution reached because the sloping roof would increase the height of the building. The motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. :ion Motion was made and voted on to continue the public hearing to the Planning Commission meeting of May 4, 1995, for review of Development L Ayes Agreement No. 7; General Plan Amendment No. 94 -1(F); Use Permit No. 3518; and Site Plan Review No. 69. The Planning Director be given the ' opportunity to defer the date if the material is not provided in time to meet the required deadline. MOTION CARRIED. Amendment No. 820 CPublic Hearing) Item No. 9 Request to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as A 620 to permit a zero foot rear yard setback adjacent to alleys with widths of (Res 1368) 20 feet or more. Approved INITIATED BY: The City ofNewport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. There being no one to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Brown agreed with the Fire Department that mandatory roll- up garage doors be required. -45- COMMISSIONERS Mo Al MC Al 4 1r F�iy9 ��9o�Y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES A _.d1 nn f nnc ROLL INDEX CALL tion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Amendment No. 820, 1 Ayes recommending to the City Council Resolution No. 1388, including roll -up garage doors. MOTION CARRIED. sss ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Add ' 1 Busines There was no verbal report from the Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee. EDC sss tion Motion was made and voted on to excuse Commissioner Pomeroy from Pomeroy 1 Ayes the Planning Commission meeting of May 4, 1995. MOTION CARRIED. excused ss* Chairman Gifford recommended that future Planning Commission Agendas BppAC ' include a report from the Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee. ADJOURNMENT: 12:18 a.m. Adjourn sss GAROLD ADAMS, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION ' -46- s