Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/04/1995COMMISSIONERS 174 Mc Al Al CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M: DATE: May 4, 1995 MINUTES ROLL INDEX CALL esent 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 r *ss Minutes of Apri120. 1995 Minutes of 4/20/' Commissioner Adams requested that page 44 be corrected on line 6 to state .. it would defeat the progress... and on line 8 the fact that landscape exceeding Hurt height be so heavily relied OIL >tion * Motion was made and voted on to approve the amended April res * * * * * 20, 1995, Planning Commission Nfinutes. MOTION )sent CARRIED. s�* Public Comments: Public Comments No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on non - agenda items. 1 35 COMMISSIONERS • i 9,5 Mc A: 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4. 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX Posting of the Agenda: Posting of the James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Commission Agenda Agenda was posted on Friday, April 28, 1995, in front of City Hall. Request for Contimaance: Director Hewicker stated that the applicant, Robert Losey, requested that foequest Item No. 8, Variance No. 1202 regarding property located at 319 Cont. Carnation Avenue, be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 18, 1995. 3tion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Item No. 8 to the May 18, Ll Ayes 1995, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED. Use Permit No. 1806 (Amended) &blic Hearing) Item NO. UP1806A Request to amend a previously approved use permit which allowed the establishment of a restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages and out- door seating on property located in the Harbor Views Hills Planned Approved Community. The proposed amendment includes a request to change the operational characteristics so as to remove current restrictions which limits the type of live entertainment to a single piano player. The applicant wishes to provide a piano bar, an amplified guitar, an accordion player, a three piece ensemble or similar music during and after dinner in the evenings. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 119 /49 (Resubdivision No. 578) located at 2632 San Miguel Drive, on the southeasterly comer of San Miguel Drive and Ford Road, in the Harbor View Dills Planned Community. ZONE: PC APPLICANT: What's Cooking Restaurant, Newport Beach ' -2 COMMISSIONERS 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1 995 ROLL CALL INDEX The lrvqne Company, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Jorge Luhan I , applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Luhan stated that he met with representatives of the Harbor View Knoll Community Association and the Seawind Community Association concerning the subject application. As a result of the meetings with the residents he removed the request for a three piece ensemble. He requested that a 40 watt amplifier be allowed with a single guitar player, a single piano player, or a single accordion player wherein he explained that non- amplified instruments cannot be heard throughout the restaurant. The intent is to provide background music for the restaurant's patrons during the dinner hour up to 11:00 p.m. Mr. Luhan stated that he walked around the neighborhood with a decibel meter during the day and at night, and the meter readings indicate that sound from the restaurant would not have a negative impact in the area. He submitted signatures of more than 225 patrons indicating their support of the entertainment in the restaurant. He ' concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit 'W'. Mr. Richard Eaton, 2100 Port Dueness Place, Vice- President of Seawind Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. He said that the Association previously informed the restaurant that they had concerns regarding the closing hour of operation, and that the windows and doors be closed during the hours of entertainment. W. Eaton submitted a letter to the Planning Commission from the Association to Mr. Luhan expressing their concerns. Ms. Evelyn Darringer, 2707 Hillside Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. She said that residents of Harbor View Knolls had concerns regarding the expanded operation of the restaurant, and the request to provide amplified music in the residential area. Ms. Kathy Fox, 2226 Port Lerwick Place, appeared before the Planning Commission. She submitted a letter from the Seawind Community Association objecting to the request for a three piece music ensemble, and any change in the restaurant's operation. Ms. Jennifer Busby, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Hollis and Associates, the management company at Newport Frills ' -3- COMMISSIONERS 4 -�O ��99L�FLy0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4. 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX Shopping Center. She stated that the subject restaurant has been located in the shopping center for approximately twenty years, and the management company supports the establishment's efforts to improve the services the restaurant offers their customers. The management company is committed to working with the applicants to be certain that the change in operation gives positive results. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Ms. Busby replied that the neighbors could call the management company at (714) 854 -3779 if they have any concerns. Mr. Sergio Avila, a Newport Beach resident for 30 years and a restaurant owner for 20 years, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the subject application. He explained how important it is for restaurants to satisfy their neighbors inasmuch as they are the restaurants best customers. He suggested that the neighbors contact the Luhan family if they have any complaints concerning the operation.. Mr. Eric Cahn, 2200 Port Lerwick Place, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Seawind Community Association. He stated that based on the change that the restaurant made concerning the entertainment request, he did not oppose the application. He stated that the Association has a concern that the applicant submitted an application to the City without informing the Association of the actual request, and he asked that the restaurant inform the community of any changes in operation that they may consider in the future. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that based on Condition No. 6, Exhibit "A ", that the Planning Commission may bring back the use permit for review if it was determined that the operation was detrimental to the community. Chairman Gifford suggested that if the Community Associations send letters to the restaurant concerning the operation that they send a copy of the letter to the Planning Commission for filing. Mr. Luhan reappeared before the Planning Commission. In response to the aforementioned concerns, Mr. Luhan stated that the Luhans could be contacted at (714) 493 -3133. W. Luhan submitted the chart indicating the aforementioned decibel readings. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Luhan explained that the in -house stereo system of approximately 100 watts was used when the decibel readings were taken inside and outside of the premises. Commissioner Ridgeway -4 COMMISSIONERS 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX and Mr. Luhan addressed the community's concerns wit respect tot the changes in the restaurant's operation. James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that the Planning Commission approved an amendment to the use permit on April 21, 1994, to permit the restaurant's hours of operation from 7:00 am to 11:00 p.m. daily. Ms. Derringer reappeared before the Planning Commission. In response to her questions concerning the operation, Chairman Gifford explained that the intent of the application is to allow amplified music consisting of one instrument to be played during the hours of operation of the restaurant. Commissioner Brown stated that the primary use of the restaurant is for dining and not to serve liquor in accordance with the Alcoholic Beverage Control.. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. ' Commissioner Di Sano stated that based on the testimony by the applicant otion * during the public hearing, motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 1806 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that the motion be amended to modify Condition No. 3, Exhibit "A ", stating That the live entertainment shall be mended limited to a single musician, consisting of a piano player, a guitar player; or an accordion player, and the maximum amplification be limited to 40 Watts... The maker of the motion concurred with the amended motion. Commissioner Brown stated that since the restaurant was recently expanded the dining room has not been full, and the owners are attempting to create business and activity on the site. He opined they are superb operators and good neighbors. Commissioner Kranzley stated that the 11:00 p.m. closing precludes the restaurant from becoming a nightclub. The 40 watt amplifier would create background entertainment and not live dance music. 1 -5- f COMMISSIONERS .91Fy��y�FO9��b A 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX Chairman Gfford supported th a application. Sfiee raga ested ttiat tne applicant be sensitive to the neighbors based on their testimony during the public hearing. Motion was voted on, as amended. MOTION CARRIED. Li ayes FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed change in operational characteristics is consistent with the General Plan and the Harbor View Hills Planned Community Development Standards, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That the proposed five entertainment is in keeping with the existing restaurant operation and will be confined to the interior of the restaurant. ` 4. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to walls will not be detrimental to adjoining properties. 5. That the approval of Use Permit No. 1806 (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 and floor plan, except as noted below. 2. That a Live Entertainment Permit shall be approved by the City for the changes in the types of entertainment- 3. That the five entertainment shall be limited to a single musician consisting of a piano player, a guitar player, or an accordion player, and the maximum amplification be limited to 40 Watts. The sound from the ' -6- COMMISSIONERS 0 \IN PIO 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1995 ROLL INDEX CALL five entertainment shall be confined to the interior o e structure; an further that when the live entertainment is performed, all windows and doors within the restaurant shall be closed except when entering and leaving by the main entrance of the restaurant. 4. That no dancing shall be permitted in the restaurant unless the Planning Commission approves an amendment to this use permit. 5. That all previously applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 1806 (Amended) shall remain in effect as a part of this approval. 6. That the Planning Commission may add or modify conditions of approval to the use peanut, or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use peanut, 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. I7. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months of the date of approval as specified in Section 20.82.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. s ** Use Permit No. 3325 (Amended) (Public Hearing) Item No. Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted a UP3325A change in the allowable occupancy of an existing restaurant located on Approved property located in the RMC -H District. Said approval also included: a change in the operational characteristics of the restaurant so as to include a bar and dining area with background music; the establishment of a new parking requirement; the retention of a valet parking service; the establishment of operational hours from 5:00 p.m. to 2:00 am. Monday through Friday and from 9:00 am. to 2:00 a.m. on Saturday and Sunday; and the continued use of a reciprocal parking arrangement with an adjoining commercial property. The proposed amendment requests a change in the operational characteristics to change the opening hour to 11:00 am, so as to provide lunch service on a daily basis, where the lunch service is currently limited to Saturdays and Sundays only; and to waive a portion of the required offstreet parking spaces for the daytime use. ' -7 COMMISSIONERS 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX LOCATION: Lots A and B of Parcel Map 6-10 (Resubdivision No. 249) and a portion of Lot 1, Tract No. 5361, located at 333 Bayside Drive, on the southwesterly side of Bayside Drive between East Coast 9ghway and Linda Isle Drive. ZONE: RMC -H APPLICANT: Hans Prager (Yankee Tavern Restaurant), Newport Beach OWNER: Marvin Burton, Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Director, reviewed the subject application and the existing operation as previously amended and approved. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Hans ' Prager, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. He concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Ms. Leanne Benvenuti, 106 Linda Isle, appeared before the Planning Commission for a clarification of the restaurant's operation. Director Hewicker explained that the only request is that the restaurant be allowed to be open for lunch. She said that the Linda Isle Community Association had concerns that the restaurant's operation would change and the change would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. lotion Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Pemnit No. 3225 11 Aye (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. ' -8 COMMISSIONERS 174 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX FINDINGS: I. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use plan, and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 2. That the project will not have any significant environmental impact. 3. That adequate parking is available to accommodate the proposed change in the hours of operation of the restaurant. 4. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to a portion of the off-street parking (30 daytime parking spaces during the week) walls, utilities, parking lot illumination, and landscaping, will not be detrimental to adjoining properties. 5. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3325 (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 properly and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: I . That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan and floor plan. 2. That all previous applicable conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 3325 and Use Permit No. 3325 (Amended) shall be fulfilled. 3. That the hours of operation of the restaurant shall be limited between 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m., daily. 4. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the establishment of the weekday daytime operation of the restaurant. 5. That a minimum of 34 parking spaces shall be provided for the daytime operation of the subject restaurant during the week A ' -9- COMMISSIONERS 4 9,'0 c� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX minimum of one parking space fbr each 41t square eet o net public area" (62 spaces) shall be provided during the Saturday daytime operation of the restaurant, and one parking space for each 40 square feet of "net public area" (64 spaces) for all other hours of the restaurant's operation. 6. That the development standards pertaining to a portion of the required parking spaces (30 daytime parking spaces during the week) walls, utilities, parking lot illumination, and landscaping, are waived. 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, causes 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. Use Permit No. 3551 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No. Request to permit the establishment of a nautical museum in a floating UP3551 structure currently occupied by Charley Brown's Restaurant, where the related off - street parking area is located in the RMC -H District. The Approved proposed facility will include exhibit space, a meeting area, a library, a gift store and a cafe with on -sale beer and wine on the floating structure, with related off-street parking on the adjoining upland parcel. The proposal also includes a request to permit live entertainment, dancing, and alcoholic beverages for various museum functions, weddings, and other private parties. LOCATION: Lot A , Tract No. 5361, Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 93 -111 (Resubdivision No. 995) and a portion of Block 54 of Irvine's Subdivision, located at 151 -10- COMMISSIONERS 99� ��cT 9 9 - 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX hast Coast way on the sou er y side o Coast Rghway, between the Bay Bridge and Bayside Drive. ZONE: RMC APPLICANT: Newport Harbor Nautical Museum, Irvine OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach William R Laycock, Current Planning Manager, suggested that Condition No. 2, Exhibit "A ", be revised to state That the `fret public area" of the restaurant shall not exceed 2, 000 square feet and the outdoor area shall not be utilized for dining, seating, food or beverage service. Any increase in the size of the restaurant(cafe) portion of the facility shall require an amendment to this use permit. Inasmuch as Conditions No. 9 and 13 are basically the same concerning outdoor trash containers, he suggested that ' Condition No. 13 be deleted. He said that the museum requested that the hours of operation be from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and the restaurant f cafe} be open from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; however, he suggested that the Planning Commission consider the fact that under certain conditions the museum may be open later than the foregoing hours. In reference to Condition No. 23, Exhibit "A ", Mr. Laycock stated that if there would be problems concerning the museum, the Planning Commission could call up the use permit for review. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Adams, Mr. Laycock replied that the previous restaurant was permitted to be open until 2:00 a.m. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Brown concernng Condition No. 16, Exhibit "A ', regarding dancing and live entertainment, James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that the Cafe Dance Permit allows dancing in conjunction with the operation of the museum or the restaurant. Commissioner Brown, Chairman Gifford, and Director Hewicker addressed the proposed hours of operation and the neighbors' concerns regarding the museum's activities. -11- 0 9� ��9*-n r A] 14 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX e pu c eanng was op-en-ed In Gronsky, 114 - 25th Street, appeared before the Planning Commission as President of the Museum. Commissioner Pomeroy asked Mr. Gronsky if he would be agreeable with the hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and from 7:00 am. to 12:00 midnight Fridays and Saturdays. Mr. Gronsky concurred with the suggested hours of operation. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. William Blurock, 2300 Newport Boulevard, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Blurock explained that the owners of the Reuben E. Lee Restaurant have so far denied their request to use the restaurant's name. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Mr. Blurock explained that the existing museum is located on City property. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. loon * Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 3551 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "N', modifying Condition No. 2, delete Condition No. 13, and add a new Condition No. 13 stating That the hours of operation shall be from 7.00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and from 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight on Fridays and Saturdays. Comrissioner Brown concurred with the use on the subject property. Chairman Gifford complimented the museum and the accomplishments that the members made to bring the museum to the subject site. -1 Ayes Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Finding s: 1. That the proposed development is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. ' -12 COMMISSIONERS 4 4 W \iimio*\10311k�\ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX at the design of the proposed improvements Will not conthct with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 3. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. 4. That adequate off - street parking and related vehicular circulation are provided in conjunction with the existing marina office, the existing neighboring restaurant and the proposed museu n/cafe facilities. 5. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to walls, parking lot illumination, and landscaping will not be detrimental to adjoining properties, given the existing physical characteristics of the site. 6. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3551 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 site plan and floor plans. 2. That the "net public area" of the restaurant shall not exceed 2,000 square feet and the outdoor area shall not be utilized for dining, seating, food or beverage service. Any increase in the size of the restaurant/cafe portion of the facility shall require an amendment to this use permit. 3. That the sale of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted in accordance with provisions of California. Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. ' -13- COMMISSIONERS F�99 ��F90 h CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4. 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 4. That a minimum of 94 parking spaces shall be provided on -site for the proposed facility: 50 spaces (one space for each 40 sq.ft. of "net public area") during the operation of the cafe facility and 44 spaces (one space for each 250 sq.ft. of gross floor area) during the operation of the museum facility . 5. That a washout area for refuse containers be provided in such a way as to allow direct drainage into the sewer system and not into the Bay or storm drains unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 6. That grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in the restaurant where grease may be introduced into the drainage systems, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department and the Public Works Department. 7. That kitchen exhaust fans shall be designed to control smoke and odor to the satisfaction of the Building Department. ' 8. That no temporary "sandwich" signs shall be permitted, either on- site or off-site, to advertise the restaurant facility. 9. That all trash areas and mechanical equipment shall be shielded or screened from public streets and adjoining properties. 10. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 11. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self - parking. One handicapped sign on a post and one handicapped sign on the pavement shall be required for each handicapped space. 12. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. ` -14- COMMISSIONERS 4 4 Fq �F�90 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX t the hours ot operation shall be om a.m. to p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and from 7:00 am. to 12:00 midnight Fridays and Saturdays. 14. That the development standards as they pertain to walls, landscaping and parking lot illumination shall be waived. 15. That Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the implementation of the proposed museum and cafe facilities. 16. That dancing and live entertainment shall be permitted in conjunction with the museum or cafe, in accordance with a Cafe Dance Permit and Entertainment Permit issued by the Revenue Manager in accordance with Chapter 5 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 17. That all employees shall park their automobiles on -site. 18. That the noise from the proposed museum and cafe shall be confined to the interior of the structure. 19. That no amplified outdoor sound system, loudspeakers or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the facility, nor shall amplified sound be permitted to emanate from the interior of the structure. 20. That the use of air homs, whistles, bells, and other noise making equipment or devices shall be prohibited. 21. That any exterior lighting shall be designed to eliminate light and glare spillage on adjacent residential properties. 22. That the facility shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Fire Code and related handicap accessibility requirements, and shall be approved by the Building Department and the Fire Department. 23. 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 -15- COMMISSIONERS I• 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1995 ROLL INDEX CALL op on —wffich is iffe subject o amen causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 24. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Use Permit No. 3442 (Amended) (Public Hearing) item No. Request to change the operational characteristics of a previously approved UP3442A use permit which permitted the establishment of a full service restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages, valet parking, live entertainment and Approved dancing so as to allow for the use of a second floor banquet room for special events, parties, wedding receptions and similar functions. The ' request also includes the use of the outdoor dining deck on the second floor level for additional dining in conjunction with special events and on a daily basis as weather permits; and a request to waive a portion of the required offstreet parking spaces. LOCATION: A Portion of Lot 170, Block 2, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 3333 West Coast lEghway, on the southerly side of West Coast Highway, between Newport Boulevard and Riverside Avenue in Mariner's Mile. ZONE: SP -5 APPLICANT: Bistro 201, Newport Beach OWNER: Haseko -Dunn Inc., Los Angeles James Hewicker, Planning Director, referred to a letter that was written by the Police Department to the Alcoholic Beverage Control, and he commented that the Police Department's recommended conditions were incorporated in Exhibit "A ". The applicant informed the ABC that they ' -16- COMMISSIONERS • 9� 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX would observe all of e conditions recommended the Police Department. William R Laycock, Current Planning Manager, referred to Condition No. 9, Exhibit "A" concerning amplified music, and he stated that staff suggested Condition No. 9 in the staff report as an alternative condition. Don Webb, Public Works Director, stated that Condition No. 25, Exhibit "A" concerning the valet parking station was included as a result of complaints that the valet operation occasionally caused traffic to back out on to West Coast Eghway. Staff wanted to be certain that the management and the valet operators would recognize that the City would be reviewing the situation very carefully, and should there be a problem the use permit would come back to the Planning Commission for review. In response to a question posed by Chairman Gifford, Mr. Webb stated that staff did not review the condition with the applicant. ' In response to comments by Commissioner Adams regarding the use of the outdoor deck, Mr. Laycock replied that staff does not oppose the use of the outdoor deck for dining on a daily basis. During daytime hours Monday through Friday the deck would be limited to 62 guests. In response to a question posed by Chairman Gifford regarding restaurant applications, Director Hewicker explained the scenario that took place between the applicant, ABC, the Police Department, and the Restaurant Review Committee prior to bringing the application to the Planning Commission. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and W. John Sharpe, President of the corporate entity that owns Bistro 201, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Sharpe concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". He stated that he contacted the ABC regarding the concerns that were submitted to the Police Department. In response to questions posed by Chairman Gifford, Mr. Sharpe replied that two recommendations were made to the parking company concerning valet parking. He explained that two lines of automobiles, totaling 14 automobiles, would be formed under the canopy for the valet service. Mr. Sharpe further replied that the outdoor deck would be used for guests that may be attending the second floor banquet facility. Mr. Sharpe commented 17 4 COMMISSIONERS 9, o c� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX that the valet company owns parking rights to approximately 1,600 parking spaces in the Lido Medical Building and the intent is to use the parldng structure for events that would occur on the second floor, and the patrons would be shuttled between the parking stricture and the restaurant. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Kranzley concerning Mr. Sharpe's comments regarding the parking structure, Mr. Webb replied that Condition No. 25 would apply to the valet parking. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Di Sano, Mr. Sharpe did not object to Condition No. 9 as suggested in the staff report concerning amplified music. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. 3tion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3442 Ayes (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", and that Condition No. 9 be amended as stated in the staff report. MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. That the proposed application is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. That adequate parking is available for the proposed use. 3. That the proposed development will not have any significant environmental impact. 4. 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. 5. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. -18- 4 i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 6. Itiat e waiver of eve opmen ar s as tifey to w surrounding the restaurant site and a portion of the offstreet parking spaces will not be detrimental to surrounding properties. 7. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3442 (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 floor plan and site plan, except as noted below. 2. That the applicant shall provide a minimum of one parking space for 1 each 40 square feet of "net public area" (79 spaces) in conjunction with the proposed restaurant expansion during the evening, weekend and holiday operations. Events conducted on the second floor of the restaurant facility shall be limited to 62 guests during the day, Monday through Friday, unless guests are dropped off and picked up by bus. 3. That the hours of operation for the interior portion of the restaurant expansion shall be limited to the hours between 11:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 a.m. on Saturday and Sunday. The outdoor patio area shall be limited between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. daily. 4. That there shall be no bar or lounge area upon the second floor maintained for the sole purpose of sale, service or consumption of alcoholic beverages. 5. That at all times the premises are open for business, the sale and service of alcoholic beverages shall be made only in conjunction with the sale and service of food. 6. That the subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be exchanged for a public premises type license, nor operated as a public premises. The ' -19- COMMISSIONERS 4 i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX pnmazy use of e prenuses -shill e a restaurant for a s0zdown service of meals and beverages to patrons. 7. That the sale of beer and/or wine for consumption off the premises shall be prohibited. 8. That the gross quarterly sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed the gross sales of foods and meals during the same time period. The licensee shall at all times maintain records which reflect separately the gross sales of food and the gross sales of alcoholic beverages of the licensed business. Said records shall be kept no less frequently than a quarterly basis and shall be made available to the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, or the City of Newport Beach upon demand. 9. That access to the outdoor patio, when prerecorded, live and/or amplified music is being played, shall be limited to the door located on the southeasterly side of the bar located within the lounge. Noise ' generated by prerecorded music shall be confined to the interior of the structure and all windows and doors shall be closed whenever such music is being played, subject to the right of patrons and employees to enter and leave by the main entrance of the restaurant, and to access the outdoor patio area from the door located on the southeasterly side of the bar. 10. That all exterior doors and windows shall be kept closed at all times when the premises is offering entertainment, except to allow entry, emergencies and to permit deliveries. Said doors shall not consist solely of a screen door or a ventilated security door. 11. That the access to the outdoor patio area shall be restricted to the doors on the southeasterly side of the patio during all times when entertainment is being provided. 12. That no alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on any property adjacent to the licensed premises under the control of the licensee. ' -20 COMMISSIONERS 0 aliNi0imm \\ 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4. 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 13. That the parking lot of the premises shall be equipped with fighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. 14. That the fighting in the parking area of the premises shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the window area of nearby residences. 15. That there shall be no pool tables or coin - operated games maintained upon the premises at any time. 16. That at no time shall there be a fee for entranceladmittance to the premises. 17. That at no time shall there be a minimum drink requirement. 18. That no portion of the premises shall be deemed to be "private" for the ' purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages to selected patrons, except catered events that have been approved by the City of Newport Beach or the Department in advance. In no case shall the licensee recognize any form of membership cards, keys or passes which would entitle the holder entry or preferential admittance, service or exclusive use of any portion of the mentioned premises. 19. That the use of any paging system is prohibited on the patio and the use of said system within the interior of the license premises shall not be audible on the exterior of licensed building. 20. That licenses shall not offer, permit, or provide any type of entertainment except when permitted by a valid Dance and Entertainment Permit issued by the City of Newport Beach. 21. That licensees shall be no exterior advertising of any kind, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. 22. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the issuance of building permits. -21- 4 i COMMISSIONERS �\1105 *O�� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mav 4. 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 23. That the development standards regarding a portion of e offstreet parking spaces and the walls surrounding the restaurant site shall be waived. 24. That all previously applicable conditions of approval for Use Permit No. 3442 shall remain in effect. 25. That the valet parking station shall be relocated in the drive isle closest to the Bay in order to maximize the stacking area. A valet operation plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit or an occupancy permit. 26. That the valet operation shall be monitored at all times by the applicants' representatives at the site. If back -ups occur, the valet station shall be moved to permit additional storage or the incoming customers shall be directed to bypass the entry driveway. If a traffic congestion problem occurs on West Coast Ifighway related to the valet operation that is not immediately corrected, the Planning Department may recommend to the City Council the revocation of this use permit. 27. That the on -site valet parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to fiuther review by the City Traffic Engineer. 28. That additional signage shall be provided to direct exiting vehicles "Right Turn Only." 29. That prior to the initiation of any bus drop -off service, the applicant shall submit an analysis to the City Traffic Engineer which demonstrates the manner in which buses may negotiate turns in the existing parking lot, and whether or not some restriping may be required to accommodate the use of buses for the subject facility. 30. 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 pennit, 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. -22- • �F� �vyTO9Q 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1995 ROLL INDEX CALL 31. This use pernut 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. Use Permit No. 2045 (Amended) (,Continued Public Hearin ) item No. Request to amend a previously approved use permit which permitted UP2045A the establishment of a full service restaurant with on -sale alcoholic beverages and live entertainment. The proposed amendment involves a Approved request to delete a previously imposed condition that prohibits the opening of the restaurant before 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, between June 1 st and Labor Day and prior to 10:00 a.m. the rest of the year, so as to allow the restaurant to be open at 6:00 a.m. daily, all year round. The proposal also requests the deletion of a second previously imposed condition that required the purchase of 23 in -lieu parking spaces on an annual basis for the restaurant use. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 189 /17 -18 (Resubdivision No. 713), located at 109 -111 Palm Street, on the southwesterly comer of Palm Street and East Balboa Boulevard, in the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan. ZONE: SP -8 APPLICANT: Britta K. Pulliam, Newport Beach OWNER: 4 Sails, Newport Beach The Planning Commission and staff discussed the in -Geu parking requirement, and the existing moratorium on the in -lieu parking. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Adams requesting a clarification of the moratorium, James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that the reasoning behind the moratorium was that the previous City Council believed that the fees that were being charged and collected by the City were not sufficient to keep pace with the increasing value of ' -23- COMMISSIONERS W, %100110- 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX property on the Balboa Peninsula and the momes that were emg collected would never be enough for the City to be able to afford to purchase additional property for parking lots. The current City Council determined that there is enough money to purchase the property where the former Wells Fargo Bank was located to provide additional parking spaces. In response to a question posed by Conunissioner Adams, Don Webb, Public Works Director, replied that in -lieu parking fees could be used for making improvements in the Balboa Pier Municipal Parking Lot. Mr. Webb stated that the City purchased the Wells Fargo Bank property across the street from the subject property, and is in the process of developing a 38 space parking lot at a cost of approximately $1 million. The parking lot was purchased with parking fees that were generated throughout the City and not just from the Central Balboa area. Commissioner Pomeroy and staff discussed the amount of money that the City collects each year from in -lieu parking fees. Commissioner Ridgeway requested a clarification concerning the Coastal Commission fee of $7,140.00 annually to the subject property when the City's fee would be less than half that amount. He said that the City would impose a fee of $3,450.00. Director Hewicker stated that the Coastal Commission approved the fee for the subject property in 1982 following a study that the Coastal Commission staff conducted that gave them an indication of the parking rate on the Balboa Peninsula. The Coastal Commission only imposed that requirement on the subject property. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Adams regarding the in- lieu parking fee imposed by the City, Director Hewicker stated that the in- lieu parking fee was originally much less than the existing $150.00 annual fee. In response to comments by Commissioner Ridgeway concerning the subject property and the 23 in -lieu parking spaces, Director Hewicker replied that the Planning Commission has the authority to adjust the number of in -lieu parking permits that the applicant would be required to purchase. The final answer would have to be resolved by the Coastal Commission. -24- COMMISSIONERS f r CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mav 4, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Ms. Britta Pulliam, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. She presented background information concerning her involvement in the community and Britta's Restaurant on Main Street, and her interest in making the subject establishment successful. Ms. Pulliam stated that it is important that the restaurant be open for lunch on a year round basis. In reference to the in -lieu parking fees, she explained that the establishment was originally developed as a nightclub. The subject restaurant is established in the community and it is the type of family- oriented business that the residents are supporting in Central Balboa. Ms. Pulliam concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Mr. Bob Yant, 2113 Seville Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission as Vice- President of the Balboa Peninsula Point Association. Mr. Yant addressed Ms. Pulliam's integrity as a businesswoman in the community. He pointed out the number of Balboa Peninsula residents who walk to the neighboring businesses, including the subject establishment. ' Mr. Mike Fazzy owner of the subject property, appeared before the Planning Commission to express his support of the subject restaurant. Mr. Rush Hill, Chairman of the Economic Development Committee, appeared before the Planning Commission to express his support of the subject restaurant's request to modify the hours of operation and the waiver of the 23 in -lieu parking spaces. The original business, as previously stated, was a nightclub and it was a very different operation than the current establishment. The former nightclub attracted a different customer than the existing establishment which he does not consider a destination restaurant. He opposed the previously imposed in -lieu parking fees wherein he commented that the fees are damaging to the revenue of the operation, and it is damaging to the revenue of the City. To not allow the restaurant to be open year around would not be a resident - focused operation because it would be difficult to rebuild the clientele and expect a viable business. Mr. Gary Malazian, 4827 Cortland Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission as a member of the Board of Directors of the Balboa Merchants and Owners Association and the Economic Development Committee. He addressed the in -lieu parking fee regulation, and his -25- COMMISSIONERS 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX support of e subject restaurant. Cornmissioner Brown, Commissioner Ridgeway, and Chairman Gifford addressed the number of customers that either ride a bicycle or walk to the restaurant. In response to a request by Commissioner Di Sano, Mr. Rush Hill reappeared before the Planning Commission. W. Hill stated it is difficult to keep business enterprises in strong financial condition during the winter months. He addressed the availability of parking on the Balboa Peninsula during the winter months, and he questioned if parking should be an issue as it relates to economic development. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Di Sano stated that he supported a year around restaurant operation. He expressed a concern regarding the request to waive the in- lieu parking spaces, and he suggested that the applicant contact the Coastal Commission regarding their in -lieu parking requirement. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that he supported the year around operation, and he would support adjusting the in -lieu parking fee. He said that the testimony taken during the public hearing indicated that the subject restaurant is not a destination establishment and it does have high walk -in traffic. It is inappropriate to charge substantially more for one business that does not apply to the other businesses. He suggested a waiver of 13 of the 23 in -lieu parking spaces. Commissioner Ridgeway concurred with Commissioner Pomeroy. He supported the year around operation He did not understand the Coastal Commission's action and he questioned why it was not challenged. The type of user that goes to the restaurant is different than the patrons attending the previous operation. He stated that he would support an adjustment to the in -lieu parking requirement but not a total waiver wherein he pointed out that there is not a parking space associated with the subject use. Commissioner Adams supported the proposed hours of operation. He said that it would not be fair to other businesses that pay in -lieu parking fees to waive the in -lieu parking requirement or to the businesses that buy, pay for, -26- COMMISSIONERS •9°c � -pr�'T F�i,9` 'G��09ogZ 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX and maintain real pa-35rig spaces. He e ur eu lees Mo-M no be more than the other fees in the area; however, he would not support a reduction in the number of in -Heu parking spaces and he suggested that the fee be $150.00 per space per year as is the existing in -lieu fee charge. Commissioner Brown concurred with the aforementioned comments in support of the hours of operation. He suggested that the number of in -lieu parking spaces be reduced on the basis that the subject use is substantially different than the previous use when the 23 in -lieu parking spaces were originally approved, and the in -lieu fee should also be in parody with the other in -lieu fees. Commissioner Kranzley supported the proposed hours of operation. He concurred with the foregoing comments that the in -lieu parking spaces should be more in conformance with similar type operations; therefore, he recommended that the in -lieu parking requirement be 12 parking spaces at $150.00 per space per year. ' Chairman Gifford supported the proposed operating hours inasmuch as it is bad business to have inconsistent business hours, and it does not sustain the local business community. She said that another choice of a restaurant that is open for lunch supports other businesses that come into the community and establish themselves. A significant proportion of the customers walk to the restaurant, and the patrons who come to the restaurant by automobile also come to the Balboa Peninsula for another reason. The Balboa Peninsula community is similar to downtown communities where not every business is required to provide on -site parking, the parking is provided by the municipality, on the streets, and in the Municipal Parking Lots. She supported waiving the 23 in -lieu parking spaces; however, as an alternative she stated that there is a basis for a finding that the subject operation is not similar to the previous nightclub operation nor is there a basis for having a different fee. She supported a reduction in the number of in -lieu parking spaces and a reduction in the fee. Commissioner Adams commented that the previous establishment's parking requirement was based on "net public area" for a restaurant. The 23 parking spaces were calculated using one parking space for each 40 square feet of "net public area" wherein he pointed out that the subject use permit could be transferred to an operation similar to the previous -27- COMMISSIONERS • 9oc� ��2�o v �F90 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH IDl MINUTES Mav 4, 1995 ROLL CALL I INDEX nightclub. He suggested that if the number of required parking spaces would be recalculated based on one parking space for each 50 square feet of "net public area" that it would reduce the number of required parking spaces. Director Hewicker addressed the number of employees that the restaurant may be hiring and the number of parking spaces that would be needed by the employees. Commissioner Di Sano confirmed that the use permit goes with the land and not the subject restaurant, and whatever decision the Planning Commission makes concerning the operation the Planning Commission should also consider the future uses on the property. He stated that he would support 18 in -lieu parking spaces at $150.00 per space per year. otion M Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 2045 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ", and to amend Alternate Finding MINUTES * 9 Qvc` 9tid�y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH f5 < `°<0 May 4, 1995 ROLL CALL I INDEX 2. t e project not have any significant enviromn unpact. 3. That the waiver of the development standards as they pertain to parking lot illumination, circulation, walls, building setbacks, fur llandscaping and utilities, will be of no ther detriment to adjacent properties inasmuch as the site has been developed, the structure has been m existence for many years, and no physical changes are proposed; however, the continued purchase of in -lieu parking fees is appropriate in relation to other uses that are required to pay in -lieu parking fees in the area, i.e. $150.00 per space per year. 4. That adequate parking exists in the nearby Balboa Pier Municipal Parking Lot and additional parking will be provided in the future municipal parking lot to be located diagonally across the intersection of East Balboa Boulevard and Palm Street to accommodate the increased hours of operation. COMMISSIONERS • \i 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 3. That applicable conditions of approv as —previously approved by the Planning Commission in conjunction with Use Permit No. 2045 and Use Permit No. 2045 (Amended), on December 10, 1981, May 6, 1982, January 23, 1986 and June 19, 1986 and as approved by the City Council on January 11, 1982, shall remain in force. 4. That the hours of operation shall be limited between 6:00 a.m. and 12:30 a.m., Sunday through Thursday, and from 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., Fridays and Saturdays. 5. That the "net public area" of the restaurant shall not exceed 2,879 square feet throughout the subject restaurant facility including any outdoor areas devoted to dining or waiting. 6. That no temporary "sandwich" signs shall be permitted, either on- site or off-site, to advertise the restaurant facility. ' 7. That no dancing shall be permitted in the restaurant unless an amendment to this use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 8. That no outdoor sound system, loudspeakers or paging system shall be permitted in conjunction with the restaurant facility. 9. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval in conjunction with the approved development prior to implementation of the increase m the hours of the subject restaurant. 10. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval of 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. ' -30- COMMISSIONERS 9 r� Fl��y���o 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1995 ROLL INDEX CALL 11. That this use permit shaff expire unless exercised within months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. s *. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:40 p.m. and reconvened at 9:45 p.m. Use Permit 3554 (Public Hearing) Item No. Request to permit alterations and additions to an existing commercial UP3554 building that will exceed the 26 foot basic height limit in the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation District, on property located in the Retail and Service Approve' Commercial Area of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan. The proposal also includes a use permit to allow the transfer of development rights to the project site from property located at 2206 West Ocean Front and a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow: a portion of the proposed building addition, off - street parking, and a trash enclosure to encroach into the 10 foot rear yard setback adjacent to an alley, the second floor addition and a new ground floor front facade to encroach 5 feet into the required 5 foot front yard setback, a request to waive a portion of the required landscaping, and to allow a portion of the required off-street parking to utilize a tandem parking design. LOCATION: Lots 18, 19, 20 and 21, Block 22, Newport Beach Tract, located at 115 22nd Street on the westerly side of 22nd Street between West Ocean Front and West Balboa Boulevard, in the Cannery Vdlage(McFadden Square Specific Area Plan. ZONE: SP-6 APPLICANT: Rush 10, Conservator for Conservatorship of M. E. Forgit, Newport Beach OWNER: Conservatorship of M.E. Forgit, Newport Beach -31- a COMMISSIONERS 4 4 9�F9�9��90� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Mav 4. 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Rush Hill, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. He concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "t1'. He said that the concept of the project was generated during meetings with the Building, Planning, and Fire Department staffs. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Hill replied that the subject building was designated by the City as one of the historic buildings. The City designation is for the purpose of encouraging the preservation of the property, and it does not have implications of requirements and regulations, but it does make it available for interpretation by the Historic Building Code vs. the Uniform Building Code. Mr. Il'ill stated that construction could commence by the end of summer. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Di Sano addressed the preservation of historic buildings located on the Balboa Peninsula. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Di Sano, James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that the method that the City uses to address Development Standards in the older areas of the City has made it difficult to preserve the older buildings. The approach the City has taken to develop regulations is to demolish the older buildings and build new buildings and to require parking spaces based on the current parking requirements, and that is one of the reasons why the subject property has been difficult for the City to interpret the various regulations. The City needs to review the Development Standards particularly as they apply to the older buildings in the older areas of the City, and to try to find ways to allow the property owners to improve upon the properties without it becoming a financial burden. William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, explained that the new Code throughout the City in the commercial areas allows .5 times the buildable area. He suggested that the Floor Area Ratio be reviewed by the Planning Commission in the older parts of the City to encourage new buildings that may be higher than .5 times the buildable area. -32- MINUTES • 9.AS c I- coq CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 9< <° May 4, 1995 Mo Al 4 ROLL CALL INDEX mnussioner Pomeroy suggested that a regulation be established indicating that any building could be rebuilt or improved to current standards as long as the building envelope is not changed. Discussion followed between the Planning Commission and staff concerning the suggestion. Chairman Gifford suggested that the Planning Commission initiate a comprehensive review of landscape, parking, in -lieu parking, and building standards in the older commercial areas of the City that may allow more flexibility and creativity to resolve some of the issues. tion Motion was made and voted on to approve Use Permit No. 3554 subject 1 Ayes to the findings and conditions in Exhibit 'W'. MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. That the existing and proposed facility is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. ' 2. That adequate parking is proposed within the off-street parking area for the proposed commercial expansion. 3. That the proposed development will not have any significant environmental impact. 4. That the development will provide for both public physical and visual access to the bay and ocean within the limits that public safety is ensured and private property protected. 5. That the increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than would result from compliance with the basic height limit, inasmuch as the westerly 65 feet of the property will be maintained as an uncovered parking area.. 6. That the increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area within the general theme of a marine environment ' -33- COMMISSIONERS 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 1. e increased g hei wou no re m un a or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces, inasmuch as there are a variety of other commercial buildings in the vicinity with similar heights.. 8. The transfer of development intensity will result in a more efficient use of land. 9. The transfer of development intensity will result in a net benefit to the aesthetics of the area. 10 The increased development on the site does not create abrupt changes in scale between the proposed development and development in the surrounding area. 11 The increased development on the increased site will not result in significant impairment of public views. 12. The increased site is physically suitable for the development proposed taking into consideration site characteristics including, but not limited to, slopes, submerged areas, and sensitive resources. 13. The transfer of development intensity will not result in a net negative impact on the circulation system. 14. 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. 15. The proposed uses and physical improvements are such that the approved project would not readily lend themselves to conversion to higher traffic generating uses. 16. 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. -34- COMMISSIONERS • 9,A�c� �99�f90 4 CYI'Y OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 17. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.80.060 & 20.82.050 of the Municipal Code. 18. The approval of Use Permit No. 3554 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 and further, that the modification to the Zoning Code relative to the proposed front and rear yard building encroachments, the encroachment of the proposed landscape column into the rear yard setback, the encroachment of the proposed trash enclosure into the rear yard setback the waiver of a portion of the required landscaping, and the use of tandem parking spaces will not be detrimental to surrounding properties and is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That the design of the parking lot shall conform with the City's standards and further, that the parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems for the project shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 4. That all employees of the subject commercial building shall park within the on -site parking area. 5. That the required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designated within the on -site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self - parking. One handicapped sign on a post and one handicapped sign on the pavement shall be required for each -35- COMMISSIONERS 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX handicapped space. a Capp sign 90 also be Mmifled as "Van Accessible". 6. That a minimum of 20 independently accessible parking spaces and 3 tandem parking spaces shall be provided within the on -site parking lot. The tandem parking spaces shall be reserved for employees only, and appropriate signage shall be provided to restrict said parking spaces for their use. 7. That the doors of the proposed trash enclosure shall be redesigned so they do not open into the public alley. The final design of the enclosure doors shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. 8. That the owner of the subject property, who also owns the property located northeasterly of the project site (Lot 16 and 17, Block 22, Newport Beach) shall record a covenant against both properties which would stipulate that the necessary alterations ' would be made to comply with the Uniform Building Code, should the buildings be sold separately to different owners. 9. That the lighting system for the proposed project, including the off - site parking area, shall be designed in a manner so as to conceal the light source and minimize light and glare to the nearby properties. The lighting plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Electrical Engineer, with a letter from the Engineer stating that, in his opirion, this requirement has been met. 10. That the gross floor area of the proposed project shall not exceed 5,675 square feet. 11. That a portion of the required front yard landscaping shall be waived. 12. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of a covenant recorded against property located at 2206 West Ocean Front, being more particularly described as Lot 4, Block 22, Newport Beach, transferring 0.3 (937.5 sq.ft.) of its 0.5 commercial development allocation to the project site. -36- COMMISSIONERS 4 AN`��%9° CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1995 ROLL INDEX CALL 13. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of the proposed project prior to the issuance of building permits. 14. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall satisfy all related conditions and record Newport Beach Lot Line Adjustment No. 93 -6, 15. That an automatic sprinkler system shall be provided as required by the Uniform Building Code. 16. 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. ' 17. 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. Variance No. 1205 (Public Hearing) stem No. Request to permit alterations and additions to the ocean side of an existing V12O5 single family dwelling on property located in the R 1 District, which will exceed the permitted height limit in the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation Approved District. The proposed development will not exceed the height of the top of curb on Ocean Boulevard. LOCATION: Lot 13, Tract No. 1257, located at 3601 Ocean Boulevard on the southwesterly side of Ocean Boulevard, between Orchid Avenue and Poinsettia Avenue in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -1 ' -37- COMMISSIONERS r Mc A: 4 T CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX APPLICANT: lb Christian Abel, Architect, Laguna Beach OWNERS: Mr. and Mrs. John French, Corona del Mar James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that letters were received by the Planning Department from Thomas D. Peckenpaugh and Donald Stoughton expressing their opposition to the subject variance. William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, distributed photographs of the property to the Planning Commission. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Christian Abel, architect and applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. He concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A '. He distributed photographs of the subject property showing the adjacent property, the existing property, and the overlay of the drawing indicating the proposed addition. He said that the requested average height is approximately three feet above the permitted 24 foot height limit but the roof s do not extend beyond any of the existing roof structures. ' Commissioner Brown addressed the sight line of the adjacent properties. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Di Sano stated that based on Mr. Abel's comments and )tion * staff's position concerning the project, motion was made and voted on to Ll Ayes approve Variance No. 1205 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and/or uses in the same district inasmuch the majority of the subject property maintains a slope of 2:1 or greater which is significantly different than the other lots on the upland side of Ocean Boulevard. -38- COMMISSIONERS r 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1995 ROLL INDEX CALL tiat the granting o e application is necessary fur tne preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as the proposed building is of comparable or lesser height to other buildings on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard. 3. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood. Conditions: 1. That the proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plans, floor plans, elevations and section, except as noted below. 2. That the applicant shall obtain the approval of the Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months of the date of approval as specified in Section 20.82.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. ■ :s Variance No. 1202 (Continued Public Hearing) Item No. Request to permit the construction of a single family dwelling on VI202 property located in the MFR (2178) District which exceeds the allowable 1.5 times the buildable area of the site. The proposed d to to development provides the required amount of open space, but the development 5/18/95 location of the open space does not meet Ordinance requirements. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed structure to encroach 10 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback adjacent to the abandoned Carnation Avenue right - -39- COMMISSIONERS C. Ud 4 9 1�F�0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4, 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX or -way as established by Disfficting- map No. 17, and to encroach feet into the required 10 foot rear yard setbacks. Said construction also proposes to extend beyond the original lot line adjacent to the vacated portion of Carnation Avenue, so as to encroach 16 inches± with a roof overhang, and three retaining walls which encroach 3 to 12 feet into said abandoned right -of -way. The application also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to permit an entry stairway which will also extend 10 feet beyond the original lot line adjacent to the vacated portion of Carnation Avenue and will measure 4 feet above natural grade where the Zoning Code limits such construction to a maximum height of 3 feet. LOCATION: A portion of Block "D ", Corona del Mar, and a portion of Carnation Avenue (vacated), located at 319 Carnation Avenue, southerly of Bayside Drive and westerly of the midline of the vacated extension of Carnation Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: MFR (2178) APPLICANT: Robert Losey, Irvine OWNER: Same as applicant James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant requested that this item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 18, 1995, in order to allow additional time to complete the redesign and to allow the staff additional time to review the revised plans. :)tion * Motion was made and voted on to continue Variance No. 1202 to the Ll Ayes Planning Commission meeting of May 12, 1995. MOTION CARRIED. s *s ' -40- C. ,is COMMISSIONERS 9, %�, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WERE APPROVED MAY 18, 1995 AND JUNE 8, 1995 ` PAGES 41 and 42 WERE OMMITTED IN THE MINUTES COMMISSIONERS 4 4 4_1 90 \FN9a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ITQIlkiIt 14—A 100r ROLL INDEX CALL I A General Plan Amendment No 94 -1(F) (Continued Public Hearing) I Item x Request to consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the G GPA 94 General Plan for Pacific View Memorial Park, so as to establish a new development allocation of a maximu of 30,000 square feet of D Dev.Aq Z).9 •1F mt.7 ed COMMISSIONERS 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL INDEX 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. 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 James Hewicker, Planning Director, addressed the numerous documents that were previously distributed to the Planning Commission and the Pacific View Memorial Park Ad Hoc Committee prior to the subject public hearing. He stated that the language of the Development Agreement and the language of General Plan Amendment No. 94 -1(F), Use Permit No. 3518 and Site Plan Review No. 69, Exhibit "A', Findings and Conditions of Approval, would be internally consistent. He explained that the use permit runs with the land and the Development Agreement has a term limit. In addition to the Development Agreement, including the foregoing findings and conditions, the document would also list the special conditions that would implement the General Plan Amendment, Use Permit and Site Plan Review. Director Hewicker stated that as a result of concerns that were expressed during the meetings that staff had met with the applicant and homeowners in the City Attorney's Office that he has distributed a list of issues that the Planning Commission may wish to straw vote after the public hearing is closed. One issue concerning the Planning Department is the eaves and supports that extend beyond the building footprints. He stated that the ' -44- COMMISSIONERS 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES XX-..e inns ROLL CALL INDEX homeowners were concerned that the eaves and supporting columns not go beyond the footprints that were shown on the plan. The Planning Commission previously stated that they wanted sloping roofs on the crypt walls and on the mausoleum structures and eaves similar to Lagunita Court which would partially shield the crypt faces. The depth of the eaves from the crypt fare to the supporting column there is a distance of eleven feet, and from the supporting column to the end of the eave there is an additional six feet. He said that if the Planning Commission were to require that the eave be within the footprint of the crypt wall it would not be feasible to build both the eave and the crypt. He said that there has to be some recognition of the fact that the footprints that are shown on the plans that were presented to the Planning Commission represent the footprint of the mausoleum structure and a crypt wall. The eaves that the Planning Commission desires to place on the buildings would require an additional seventeen feet. Commissioner Brown stated that as each succeeding mausoleum was being built the eaves have became smaller to where they have become non - existent. There are sections of Lagunita Court on the northerly end that have no eaves, similar to Sunset Court. Director Hewicker stated that this is an issue that was raised by the homeowners concerning the square footage in the General Plan. When staff physically measured the square footage of the buildings on the ground in calculating footprints and square footage of buildings it was substantially less than what was shown to exist as existing square footage in the General Plan. The reason for that was the substantial amount of roof surface that is devoted to the eave overhangs. Director Hewicker stated that an additional issue is the minor modifications to the plan or the location of the buildings to be approved by the Planning Director. The plans before the Planning Commission are not engineered plans, and they have not been prepared to the level where there is a precise or exact location of where the buildings are going to exist on the site.There could be a possibility in coming up with some of the engineered drawings that the location of the building may vary from what is shown on the working drawings to what is shown on the plans that have been submitted to the Planning Commission. Typically the way these variations are handled is to require that the -45- COMMISSIONERS 4 4 �9 y��90 O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Xff-j 100C ROLL CALL INDEX buildings be in a location that is in substantial conformance with the plans that have been approved by the Planning Commission. Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney, stated that several of the homeowners indicated concerns when they met with the City Attorneys to review the proposed Development Agreement. The areas of concern in the Agreement involved the planning, timing, of the project and the related conditions. Secondly, there were portions that involved technical, legal, and contractual provisions of the Agreement. The planning and related conditions that the homeowners felt were not accurately reflected in the Agreement are as follows: that the buffer area will be maintained in perpetuity via an easement or another restrictive covenant so the issue concerning the buffer zone adjacent to the houses will not arise after the expiration of the Development Agreement or another time. The term of the Development Agreement to be more than twenty years. The phasing of construction to be more clearly defined in the Agreement. The homeowners' understanding was ' that Building Site "G" would be developed first, then Building Site "H", and then Building Site `B ". The Agreement now provides for twenty -four months between the development of each phase. The homeowners requested that the term should be thirty -six months. The homeowners wanted Section 4.6 to reflect that the grading and landscaping for the buffer area will be initiated upon the first Building Permit for the first phase, with grading completed in six months and installation of landscaping completed within ten weeks thereafter. The homeowners wanted language in Section 4.6 to require the screening of planting in Building Site "H" to be done within six months of the effective date of the Agreement. The homeowners objected to language in Section 4.1 which would permit the eaves, walkways, and similar architectural features to extend beyond the envelope as previously discussed. The homeowners objected to the language which allowed for minor variations in the location and configuration upon approval of the Planning Director. If the language is acceptable, Ms. Clauson suggested that the word "minor" should be included in the text of the paragraph. The homeowners requested more restrictive hours for the construction that was permitted by the City's Building Code. Currently the Building Code provides that construction cannot start ' -46- COMMISSIONERS 4 F�99'��0,90 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL I INDEX before 7:00 a.m. and the homeowners requested 8:00 a.m., and a requirement that all of the drilling and engraving be done within an enclosed area. The homeowners objected to the provisions in Section 3.2 .2 (d) which permitted the family mausolea in Building Site `B ", and staff has suggested the language "adjacent and contiguous" in Section 3.2, paragraphs 2 (c), (d), and (e). Discussion incurred regarding the landscaping above the 430 foot easement to provide the additional screening. Pacific View Memorial Park drafted language which would provide for the homeowners to obtain, if the homeowners would be able to obtain, a Court approval of the settlement to modify the existing easement. The Development Agreement should be drafted to include the conceptual landscape plan as an exhibit, as it may finally be approved by the Planning Commission, so that subsequent approvals of any technical plans would be in strict conformance with the conceptual plan. The homeowners requested that required irrigation would be placed underground. COMMISSIONERS 4 9oG`c9��9�co�o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES %X—..A i nne ROLL CALL e INDEX the language deleted, and it is the position of the City Attorney's Office that there is not a reason why the language cannot be removed. The applicant has requested that the language remain in the Development Agreement. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Brown with respect to the term of the Development Agreement, Ms. Clauson replied that all of the Development Agreements that the City has entered into thus far have been twenty-year Agreements. The Planning Commission and staff discussed the list of issues that would be addressed by straw vote decision at the end of the public hearing and would be included in the Development Agreement for recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Brown requested that in addition to the issues that were suggested by Director Hewicker that the following items be considered: the location of family mausolea and the wording requiring adjacency and contiguousness; the term of the Development Agreement; the definition of phasing; the term limits on construction; and the specific inclusion of the precise preliminary landscape plan as exhibits to the Development Agreement. Chairman Gifford suggested that the time£rame of the landscaping and the underground irrigation be included in the straw vote list. Mr. David Neish, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Pacific View Memorial Park. Mr. Neish stated that the cemetery and the homeowners have reached an agreement on the aforementioned ten issues of concern. He said that he did not receive opposition from the homeowners concerning the landscape plan. In response to a question posed by Comrissioner Adams, Mr. Neish stated that the cemetery would not oppose the landscape plan as an exhibit to the Development Agreement. Mr. Neish responded to the aforementioned ten issues that would be considered by the Planning Commission as follows: -48- COMMISSIONERS i 9�f 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES AX— n 1ooc ROLL CALL INDEX (1) Maintain the buffer areas in perpetuity. Pacific View Memorial Park has agreed with the homeowners that the cemetery will maintain and provide the buffer areas in perpetuity. (2) Complete construction of community mausoleums in Area G prior to constructing community mausoleums in others areas. The cemetery agreed with the homeowners that there would be no phasing, i.e. with the ability to create the buffer area and the landscaping at the beginning. The cemetery's intent of the first item of construction would be the second phase of Sunset Court, not in the same configuration as the existing phase of Sunset Court, but the second phase of Sunset Court. After that, the cemetery would like the flexibility of wherever another mausoleum is necessary and appropriate, and the homeowners have agreed with the request. (3) Construction intervals - 2 years vs 3 years. The cemetery and the 1 homeowners have agreed that the appropriate interval would be 2 -1 /2 years. (4) Planting of trees preceding construction of mausoleum in Area H. Pacific View Memorial Park is agreeable to the condition. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Brown, Mr. Neish responded that it would be within six months of the effective date of the agreement. Eaves and supports beyond building footprints. The cemetery and the homeowners agreed that the eaves should be permitted to extend beyond the building footprints. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr.Neish replied that no distance was agreed upon. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that the homeowners should understand that some of the attached eaves are the same width as the structure. In response to a comment by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Neish concurred that his comment concerning the homeowners is that it did not represent all of the homeowners. Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that the cemetery provide a figure or a number that would be appropriate regarding the eaves. Commissioner Kranzley stated that the concept that was addressed during the meetings between the ' -49- COMMISSIONERS 4 �F99 y��90 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 114.x, d 1 GO; ROLL INDEX CALL cemetery and the homeowners was the appearance of the buildings, and to provide specific measurements on the eaves could defeat the purpose. The concept is to continue the `old -style' mausoleum. Commissioner Brown stated that the concept of the eave over -hang is to protect the lateral view of the crypt walls that are on the outside flanks of the mausolea or in the interior of the mausolea so as not to see the plaques and crypts from the residential area. Commissioner Brown agreed with the suggestion that the eaves do not need to be longer or larger than the existing facility. Commissioner Pomeroy concurred with Commissioner Brown's comments. (6) Minor modifications to be approved by Planning Director. The cemetery agreed with the condition. The key is `substantial conformance' and `minor modifications'. There is some subjectivity, but the applicant is considering `minor modifications'. (7) Construction hours: 8:00 a.m. vs 7:00 a.m. The cemetery agreed with 8:00 a.m. and not 7:00 a.m. (8) The drilling and installation of engraved markers restricted to enclosed spaces. The cemetery has agreed to "per City Noise Ordinance". (9) Homeowners as third party beneficiary. Ms. Clauson previously addressed the issue. (10) Landscaping above 430 foot mean sea level. Mr. Neish stated that if the homeowners and the City are able to come to a resolution with respect to exceeding the 430 foot level the cemetery would not oppose that condition. (11) Term of Development Agreement. The term of Agreement is 20 years. (12) Length of construction. Commissioner Brown suggested that there be a force majeure (Acts of God) provision. Mr. Neish concurred. -50- COMMISSIONERS 0 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I INDEX (13) Landscape Plan being a part of the exhibits of the Development Agreement. Mr. Neish concurred with the condition. Mr. Neish concluded his presentation by requesting that the Planning Commission approve the subject project concluding the public hearing. The cemetery does not represent all of the homeowners, and they did not speak to every single homeowner, Commissioner Kranzley addressed the issue of no family mausolea in Building Site "E ". Chairman Gifford stated that the language had been modified to "adjacent and contiguous ". Ms. Clauson stated that during a previous meeting there were concerns that there be no family mausolea in Building Site `B ". Director Hewicker addressed the issue of drilling and installation of COMMISSIONERS • 1\%11F\R01*50o-1*\ 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 11.T. - A 100C ROLL CALL INDEX product. Mr. Neish reappeared before the Planning Commission and he replied that the landscape plan would take precedence. Mr. Paul Hitzelberger, 11 Carmel Bay Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. He addressed the meetings that the homeowners had with Pacific View Memorial Park to narrow in on an agreement. The business concepts are in general agreement by most of the homeowners. It is the homeowners understanding that the plan is the ultimate build -out of Pacific View Memorial Park, and a concern is how does that work with the twenty year definition. He said that there is not total agreement, but much has been completed that both sides of the issues can feel good about. Chairman Gifford asked Mr. Hitzelberger if he took issue with any of the applicant's comments with respect to the areas where the applicant believed there was substantial agreement. Mr. Hitzelberger responded that he took no issue. W. David March, 1 Twin Lakes Circle, appeared before the Planning Commission. He addressed the compromises that were made between the homeowners and Pacific View Memorial Park. He said that he was comfortable with the landscape plan inasmuch as it would give the homeowners significant enough screening and the overall concept would be workable. He addressed the previous discussion concerning the length and width of the eaves wherein he commented that the issue would not be a strong concern if the structure would be screened from the homeowners view. Mr. March addressed the phasing in Building Site "G" wherein he commented that he was in agreement with the agreed upon condition. Ms. Clauson, Mr. March, and Commissioner Brown discussed the language in the agreement specifying that the first phase of the buffered landscaped area is in Building Site "G" in the Sunset Court area. They further discussed the landscaped phasing in Building Sites "H" and "0. Commissioner Brown suggested that Condition No. 6, Use Permit No. 3518, regarding the phasing of landscaping in Building Sites "E" and "G", be included in the Development Agreement. W. March stated that the Development Agreement includes the aforementioned recommendation; however, Mr. March explained that the language includes Building "H" but not for Building Site `B". In response to a question posed by Ms. Clauson, -52- COMMISSIONERS 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES n r.., a 100F ROLL CALL INDEX Director Hewicker concurred that the buffer area along Building Site "E" is a part of the agreement and that it is to be installed at the same time as the permit is pulled for Building Site "G ". Mr. March concurred that the buffer would be installed at the same time. Commissioner Brown suggested that Condition No. 6 and the Development Agreement be amended to state Building Sites `B" or "IY Mr. Bill Buchan, 29 Carmel Bay Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Buchan and Commissioner Brown discussed the height of the crypt wall and the eaves. Mr. Buchan addressed the 430 foot above mean sea level landscaping wherein he suggested that the issue not be addressed inasmuch as it may be difficult to come to an agreement. In response to comments by Mr. Buchan with respect to an easement on the outside of the residential walls, Director Hewicker explained that during a previous public hearing that a homeowner indicated there was a six foot wide easement on the cemetery side of the wall that was constructed on the common property line. Director Hewicker further explained that he was not aware of a recorded easement on the cemetery property that would allow the homeowners to climb over the walls to maintain the wall. Mr. Buchan recommended that the term of the Development Agreement be from forty to fifty years. Mr. Karl Wolf, 17 Carmel Bay Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Wolf referred to his letter dated May 2, 1995, addressed to the Planning Commission wherein he made recommendations to the Development Agreement. In reference to previous comments during the public hearing, Mr. Wolf stated that the proposed eaves were not discussed with all of the homeowners. He objected to permitting any overhang on the westerly side of any buildings so as to restrict the visibility of the buildings from the adjoining residences. In reference to the landscaping around Building Site "H", Mr. Wolf explained that the drawings do not indicate landscaping on the southerly side of the cemetery whereby he commented it is from that direction that the Spyglass Ridge residents face the cemetery. He suggested that the Development Agreement -53- COMMISSIONERS 4 X499110 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX address the ultimate build -out of the cemetery for at least fifty years. He said that it would be illegal to try to nullify the referendum rights of the homeowners. In reference to the third party beneficiaries, Mr. Wolf stated that the Development Agreement was proposed to benefit the public and the homeowners, and there is an attempt by the cemetery to ignore the homeowners by indicating that they do not have third party rights. Mr. Leonard Fish, 2 Twin Lakes Circle, appeared before the Planning Commission. He addressed the progress that was made between the homeowners and Pacific View Memorial Park. He suggested that the Planning Commission not take action on the subject application after the subject public hearing is closed inasmuch as the requested permits are not consistent with the Development Agreement. He said that it is not feasible to take the Development Agreement separately. The homeowners have been consistent throughout the process; however, Pacific View Memorial Park has not. The City Council Resolution stated that the proposal would be the ultimate buildout of at least fifty years, not twenty years. The language of the buffer zone is not maintaining the landscaping of the buffer zone, it is maintaining the buffer zone plus no interments. The attorney for Spyglass Ilill Association would like to review the Development Agreement because Spyglass Hill is mentioned in the Agreement. He addressed the feasibility of the Planning Commission calling up the Development Agreement; however, he determined that the City Council could only call up the Development Agreement. Mr. Fish stated that the Planning Commission indicated that the project would be phased inasmuch as there were concerns expressed by the homeowners regarding the depreciation of their homes. Ms. Carol Miller, 19 Cannel Bay Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission. She stated that the drawings indicate that she would see the roof of the mausoleum behind her house; however, it was her opinion that the proposed plan would be revised so as not to see the building. The building is proposed to be 90 feet; however, she requested that the building be reduced to at least 80 feet with a flat roof. Ms. Miller requested that the foregoing building not be the first -54- COMMISSIONERS Al MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ROLL CALL I INDEX structure to be constructed because the construction would be detrimental to her husband's health. Mr. Neigh reappeared before the Planning Commission. In reference to the eaves and supports beyond building footprints, Mr. Neigh explained that the cemetery's architect would agree to a maximum of 8 feet. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway with respect to no interments in the buffer zone, Mr. Neigh said that the request would be included in the Development Agreement. Mr. Allan Abshez reappeared before the Planning Commission. He said that there would be a separate covenant in favor of the City that would be in perpetuity. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. COMMISSIONERS 9. T 9 m99ti��90 Al. 4 Al 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL INDEX CALL covenant granted to the City in a form to be approved by the City Attorney. Complete construction of commu�r�t mausoleums in Area G prior to constricting community mausoleums in other areas and construction intervals. In response to comments posed by Commissioner Brown concerning phasing, Ms. Clauson explained that the Development Agreement should reflect that the first phase of construction will be within Building Site "G ", and upon pulling Building Permits in Building Site "G ", the entire buffer will be graded and landscaped. It was agreed upon by the Planning Commission that the grading, landscaping, and irrigation shall be completed within six months, and then the phasing of development shall be separated by thirty months between the completion and initiation of another L Ayes phase. A straw vote regarding mausoleum development in Area G was taken, as stated. Ayes Screen planting in Building Site "H". Straw vote was taken concerning the ' planting of trees preceding construction of mausoleum in Building Site "H" per the agreement that the screening would occur within six months of the effective date of the agreement. Eaves and supports beyond building footprints. Ms. Clauson repeated the agreement that the eaves can extend beyond the envelope to a maximum of eight feet. Commissioner Brown recommended that the language concerning the subject issue reference Lagunita Court and Palm Court. He fiuther suggested that the gable ends not project further westerly than any of the gable ends of either the Palm Court or Lagunita Court complexes. The roofing materials shall be consistent with the original roofs of Palm 1 Ayes Court and Lagunita Court. Straw vote was taken on the foregoing language. Minor modifications to be approved by the Planning Director. Ms. Clauson suggested that the word "minor" be included in the text. Commissioner Brown stated that there are very specific restrictions as to the pad elevation and the height that cannot be varied. Director Hewicker pointed out that any variation would only be for lateral shifts. Chairman Gifford stated that minor modifications that would be in substantial ' -56- COMMISSIONERS 4\1%VWi*0a<R0m A] A] 4 A: 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Aff-A 1 M ROLL CALL INDEX .l Ayes conformance would be appropriate. Straw vote was taken of the foregoing issue. Construction hours, and drilling and installation of engraved markers restricted to enclosed spaces. Ms. Clauson repeated the agreement that construction would not begin before 8:00 a.m. and the drilling and installation of crypt markers would be restricted as per the language in Mitigation Measure No. 8. which requires an enclosed space if in close 1 Ayes proximity to a residential area. Straw vote was taken regarding the foregoing issues. Third M beneficiary. Ms. Clauson stated that homeowners as third party beneficiary is not a land use issue and appropriate language would be developed and presented to the City Council. Landscaping above 430 foot mean sea level. Mr. Allan Abshez stated that if the homeowners could procure a release or modification of the covenant that Pacific View Memorial Park would not oppose the modification of the Development Agreement to allow the landscaping to go above 430 feet provided that the homeowners undertake and procure the release. Straw .1 Ayes vote was voted on to include the foregoing language in the Development Agreement. Location of family mausoleums. Ms. Clauson stated that the language "contiguous and adjacent to" should be reflected in the Development Agreement, and she questioned if the Planning Commission intended to include family mausoleums in Building Site "E ". Commissioner Brown stated that the proposed Development Agreement states that family mausoleums would be permitted in Building Sites "A ", "C', "E ", "G ", and "H" wherein he questioned why Building Site "A" [located along the westerly property line of the site adjacent to the Big Canyon Reservoir] would be included because of the high visibility of the structures. Commissioner Adams stated that family mausoleums should be developed only in Building Site "D" [property located adjacent to San Joaquin Idills Road]. In response to a question posed by Chairman Gifford, Director Hewicker described from the site plan the fact that family mausoleums would be permitted in Sites "D ", "E ', "F', and "G ". Discussion ensued -57- COMMISSIONERS • �F9 ���`90 0 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES rUrw d 1 OOS ROLL CALL INDEX with respect to the size of the family mausoleums whereby Commissioner Adams only supported large family mausoleums in Building Site "D" inasmuch as they could be screened by trees. He stated that he would not oppose the structures 3 feet high or less if they would be located in the in- fill area. Bill Ward, Senior Planner, referred to the locations of the family mausoleums, and he explained that language was included in the Development Agreement that family mausolea would not be visible from the first floor elevations of the homes located on Carmel Bay Drive. The Planning Commission addressed the architecture and bulk of fimuly mausolea. Commissioner Adams emphasized his opposition concerning the incompatibility of the 12 foot by 22 foot by 15 foot type family mausolea in Pacific View Memorial Park In response to questions posed by Chairman Gifford, Mr. Steve Schacht, Pacific View Memorial Park, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that the aesthetics of Pacific View Memorial Park are important, and the intent is to have a product mix available to the public. Mr. Schacht firrther explained that a majority of the structures will consist of lower private family mausoleums. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Kranzley with respect to Building Site "A', Mr. Schacht explained that the structures would be screened with as much landscaping as possible. Commissioner Brown and Director Hewicker discussed the 12,000 square feet of family mausolea that is allowed to be constructed in Pacific View Memorial Park and the number of family mausolea that would be allowed based on the fact that the structure shall not exceed 12 feet in depth, 22 feet in width, and 15 feet in height. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Brown with respect to Building Site "D ", IW Mike Green appeared before the Planning Commission, and he stated that if all of the family mausolea would be constructed in Building Site "D ", that the area would become a short community mausolea because it would become one large building. The existing site plan shows areas for 22 family mausolea and there is room available for landscaping. In response to questions posed by Chairman Gifford, Commissioner Brown stated that family mausolea in the garden style would be acceptable in Building Sites "E ", 'T", and "G'. ' -58- COMMISSIONERS 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL ' INDEX Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that the Planning Commission not do the specific planning for the project. The 15 foot high structures are not going to exist in proliferation inasmuch as there can only be 48 buildings if they would be built to the maximum size, and he suggested that buildings of a specific height be restricted to two areas and let the smaller unobtrusive buildings be allowed throughout the cemetery . He said that his proposal would not include Building Site "A", but it would include all of the other areas. Mr. David Nash, appeared before the Planning Commission. He said that it is the desire of Pacific View Memorial Park not have restrictions as far as where the structures can be constructed. Commissioner Kranzley noted a condition states that individual family mausolea will be screened from homeowners view, and it is possible that a 14 foot structure could not be built inasmuch as it would have an impact on a homeowner's view from the first floor of his home on Carmel Bay Drive. In response to Mr. Schacht's comments with respect to the aesthetics in the ' cemetery, Commissioner Adams replied that the newest structure is not in keeping with the character and feel of the old structures and he had concerns because those structures were built in the cemetery's front yard. Mr. Leonard Fish reappeared before the Planning Commission, and in response to his comments, Director Hewicker explained that the site plan does not indicate each family mausolea and it was never presented in that fashion. The only area on the site plan that is specifically spelled out where family mausolea are allowed is in Building Site "D ". In the conditions of approval that were distributed to the Planning Commission by staf, Building Site "G" was addressed, but specifically along the westerly fronts of the buildings and in areas where they would be screened from view. Commissioner Di Sano and Commissioner Pomeroy agreed that if family mausolea would not be permitted in Building Site "A" that Building Sites "D ", "E ', "F', and "G" be the areas allowed for family mausolea. In response to questions posed by Chairman Gifford, Director Hewicker explained that any structure less than three feet in height would not require a Building Permit. Mr. Schacht reappeared before the Planning Commission. He explained that family mausoleums are buildings that ' -59- MINUTES •9A�c, ��9�2�F9Qy C= OF NEWPORT BEACH � a.r,,..n loot 4AJ Nc 4 ROLL CALL INDEX would be allowed up to 15 feet in height, and little family garden crypts above ground are not considered a building inasmuch as they are less than three feet. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that his support of family mausolea was based on the assumption that small buildings would be included in the maximum 12,000 square feet. Ms. Clauson stated that the definition of family mausolea in the Development Agreement states that "a family mausolea building shall contain one or more crypts which are owned and privately used by any individual or family." Mr. Abshez reappeared before the Planning Commission whereby he concurred with Ms. Clauson's definition of family mausolea Following a discussion between the applicant and the Planning Commission concerning the definition, Commissioner Pomeroy recommended that family mausolea be defined as an above ground crypt or building. Straw vote was taken to redefine family mausolea and to eliminate family mausolea in Building Site "A" . Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that res * * * * * Paragraph 3.2 (1) in the Development Agreement eliminate Building Site yes Length of Development Agreement Commissioner Pomeroy stated that because of the extended nature of the project that a Development Agreement is usually entered into to protect the applicant. It would appear that the public thinks that they are getting more protection from the Development Agreement, and that being the case, a good compromise would be to extend the Agreement from 20 years to 30 years. Commissioner Ridgeway requested that it be amended to have an automatic provision for a renewal after 30 years for 10 more years if the cemetery is still building. Mr. Abshez reappeared before the Planning Commission. He said that 20 years was set as this is a Master Plan for the cemetery, however, they do not know as it unfolds who is going to walk into the door and actually buy the product as it is outlined by the Master Plan.. They do not feel as a business enterprise that they can commit in an open -ended way to a Plan for the definite perpetual future and it is consistent with the City's practice in other Development Agreements not to ask for those kinds of commitments. They respectfully request that they -60- COMMISSIONERS 4 Al 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 11 . A I nnC ROLL CALL INDEX observe the 20 year limit. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that the cemetery can make application for a change. He said that there is talk of a 50 year build -out, and he felt strongly that it should be longer than 20 years. Unlike a use permit or any other ordinary City entitlement, if the cemetery wanted to reopen the issue the City can unilaterally refuse the application. That is different than a normal City entitlement. If they are going to live with a contractual restriction on the zoning rights which is above and beyond the use permit restriction, they do not want the door shut in their face in perpetuity, but that win, lose, or draw you sign a contract and you are committed forever. They need to test it, make sure it works, they are giving a 20 year commitment, and the City could turn the cemetery away for 20 years no matter what - they have a contractual right. But they don't think they can commit to that as a completely open -ended commitment. In response to a comment by Commissioner Di Sano, Ms. Clauson said that all of the agreements are 20 year agreements, therefore, Commissioner Di Sano stated his support of the 20 year agreement. Commissioner Brown concurred. He said that his experience with Development Agreements is ' that they have never been tried and tested beyond 20 years, but the idea of setting a 20 year term and then provide for a mutual option to extend an additional 10 or 20 year term provided they are still building. Chairman Gifford stated that given the concession has been made that there would be a covenant granting the buffer area in perpetuity and given that the use permit remains in affect even at the expiration of the term of the Development Agreement and the use permit will reflect all of the land use planning elements contained in the Development Agreement, she did not see the need to extend it beyond that and she would support the 20 year 1 Ayes provision. Commissioner Di Sano suggested a straw vote of 20 years and an automatic mutual extension for 10 years. Preliminary Landscape Plan. Commissioner Brown addressed Exhibit `T', Nos. 1 through 4 which are the precise preliminary landscape plan by Clark and Green. The fourth page of the exhibit has language that if there is a conflict between those plans and the Development Agreement that the Development Agreement shall prevail. He said that would be unacceptable. Ms. Clauson stated that the Landscape Plan has been submitted and shall be an exhibit to the Development Agreement. ' -61- f COMMISSIONERS Al Al Mc r L CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL e INDEX Commissioner Brown wanted to be certain that the Development Agreement properly reflects the printed plans. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Brown, Mike Green reappeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Green stated that the landscape plans do not address irrigation. He said that pipes would be installed underground but he stated that it is difficult to trench on a steep slope and there is a reason to have above -grade pipes on a slope. Mr. Green pointed out that the landscaping would hide the pipes. Commissioner Brown suggested that above -ground landscaping should be 1 Ayes the more durable brownline type pipe. A straw vote was taken to direct staff to include in the Development Agreement, Exhibit "Y', Nos. 1 thru 4, the precise preliminary Landscape Plan by Clark and Green Associates. The exhibit and the Development Agreement shall be consistent and any above ground landscaping will utilize the more durable brownlne type pipe. ' Construction duration. In response to a question posed by Chairman Gifford, Mr. Schacht reappeared before the Planning Commission. He said that development for each building shall be completed within a period of 1 Ayes nine months subject to force majeure (Act of God). Straw vote was taken. Chairman Gifford suggested the Planning Commission direct the staff to review the documents and incorporate in specific language the direction that was given on the aforementioned items and to insure consistency among the various documents. To continue to work with the homeowners and the cemetery to refine the language that relates to the legal and technical issues, and to make a recommendation to those issues to the City Council. ,tion * Project approval. Motion was made to recommend to City Council the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 94 -1(F) [Resolution No. 1384]; Res. 13 Development Agreement No. 7 [Resolution No. 1389]; Use Permit No. Res • 13 3518; and Site Plan Review No. 69, and the acceptance of the environmental document, subject to the foregoing discussions and directed for those changes to be made. The motion included Chairman Gifford's previous stated recommendation. ' -62- COMMISSIONERS Ay( No 4 r 9..0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Dt Sano commended the detailed landscape plan that was submitted to the Planning Commission by the landscape architect on short notice, and he commended the individuals who actively participated in the application. Chairman Gifford stated that it was an extraordinary effort to have the plans completed and a set of documents that were available, and to have the detailed input that came from the homeowners, the meeting with the City Attorney, and there was a tremendous amount of hard work and problem solving effort on everyone's part. The motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. A Environmental Document Findings: 1. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments received, and all related documents, there is no substantial evidence that the project, as conditioned or as modified by mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, could have a significant effect on the environment, therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the requirements of CEQA, and is therefore approved. The Negative Declaration was considered prior to approval of the project. 2. An Initial Study has been conducted, and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. ' -63- COMMISSIONERS 4 4 $,04 c� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES MT MF.T{TA ROLL CALL INDEX Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c) of Title 14, CCR Mitigation Measures: 1. Buffer Zone a. A landscaped buffer zone (the `Buffer Area') shall be provided as depicted on Exhibit C of the Development Agreement along the easterly property line adjacent to residential properties. No structures, public access, , walls (other than retaining walls and existing underground utilities), or ground interments shall be pemnitted within this zone. b. The Buffer area shall be landscaped and provided with a permanent irrigation system. Said landscaping shall be installed in accordance with a plan designed by a licensed landscaped architect ' and approved by the Planning Director of the City of Newport Beach as provided in Mitigation Measure No. 5. Said landscaping shall be maintained by Pacific View at or below 430 feet elevation mean sea level in the "Height Limitation Area' designated on Exhibit C of the Development Agreement so as to preserve night light, water and mountain views from existing residences. 2. Heiwit Limit All structures shall comply with the 28/32 -foot height limitation as provided in the Zoning Code. In addition, no structure or landscaping shall exceed 430 feet elevation mean sea level in the "Height Limitation Area" designated on Exhibit C of the Development Agreement. 3. Tempos Screening All construction sites shall be screened from view from adjacent residential areas for the duration of construction activities to the extent reasonably feasible. Prior to issuance of any grading or -64- COMMISSIONERS 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH yLL�LO MINUTES XZ__. a IAAC ROLL CALL e INDEX building permit the Planning Department shall verify that appropriate screening requirements have been provided on the construction plans. 4. Mausoleum Desien All roofs, eves and facias of new garden crypts and community mausolea shall be constructed of material, color, texture, thickness and pitch to complement the architectural style of the original structures within the park (e.g., Lagunita Court). Blank walls in Building Sites E, G, and H shall be bermed, covered and/or screened with plant material so as to soften the appearance from adjoining residential areas. Eaves and tree canopies shall also be used to soften the appearance of mausolea from residential areas. 5. Landscaping and Maintenance ' a. Landscape design: A landscaping and permanent irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and approved to the Planning Director's satisfaction for following areas: 1. The -buffer area; and 2. The area adjacent to the easterly, northerly and southerly sides of the community mausolea in Building Site H, which shall be comprised of a band of screening shrubs. The landscaping plan shall be designed so as to screen structures in Building Sites E, D, F, G and H from ground floor views of existing residences along the eastern property line to the extent reasonably feasible and consistent with the 430 foot mean sea level elevation limitation in the "Height Limitation Area" designated on Exhibit C of the Development Agreement. -65- COMMISSIONERS 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES M9., A 100; ROLL CALL INDEX b. Landscape maintenance: All trees, both existing and new, shall be trimmed and maintained below 430 feet elevation mean sea level in the Height Limitation Area designated on Exhibit C of the Development Agreement so as to preserve, to the greatest extent practical, water, night light and mountain views from adjoining residential areas. This condition shall not require the removal of any tree, or the trimming of any tree in a manner which would eventually cause its death or removal. That all the landscaping between the terrace bench and the toe of slope, adjacent to the homes on Monterey Circle, shall continue to be maintained and irrigated. The undeveloped areas of the Memorial Park shall be maintained free and clear of debris. Grass and weeds shall be mowed regularly consistent with City standards for ' undeveloped areas. C. Reclaimed water connection: All existing and proposed irrigation systems shall be connected to the City's reclaimed water system as soon as it is practical (.e., when a reclaimed water connection is available at the property line) and economically feasible. 6. Light and Glare Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the fighting system shall be designed, directed, and maintained in such a manner as to conceal the light source and to minimize light spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses to the extent reasonably feasible. The plans shall be prepared and signed by a licensed Architect or Electrical Engineer (if such plans include fighting), with a letter from the Architect or Engineer stating that in his or her opinion, this requirement has been satisfied. -66- COMMISSIONERS 9a4-G�T �99��90�0 IT CY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL I INDEX 7. Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Department that the project will comply with Council Policies K -5 and K-6 regarding archaeological and paleontological resource investigation, surveillance and recovery. 8. Drilling and Engraving All drilling and engraving shall be done in enclosed areas or at a sufficient distance so as to cause no discernible increase in ambient noise levels at any residential property line. B. General Plan Amendment No. 94 -1(E) Adopt Resolution No. 1384 recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 94 -1(F). C. Develomnent Agreement No. 7 Adopt Resolution No. 1389 recommending City Council approval of Development Agreement No. 7. with the following condition: Condition: 1. Once every 12 months from the date of execution of the Development Agreement, the project proponent or his successor in interest shall prepare and submit for review by the City Council a report demonstrating compliance with the terms of the Agreement, as required by Section 15.45.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. COMMISSIONERS 4 r L F�99 $090 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX D. Use Permit No 3518 Findings: 1. That the proposed use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan as amended, and is compatible with surrounding land uses as conditioned. 2. That adequate parking is available on -site to accommodate the proposed facility. 3. The project will comply with all applicable City and State Building Codes and Zoning requirements for new building applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located, except those items requested in conjunction with the proposed modifications. 4. That public improvements may be required of a developer per ' Section 20.82.060 of the Municipal Code. 5. That the approval of Use Permit No. 3518 as it pertains to the build -out of the cemetery and the interim use of a temporary structure, 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: That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, elevations, sections, and conceptual landscape plans approved by the Planning Commission and/or the City Council, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. The approved technical site plan depicts the number, approximate size, configuration and location of future ' -68- COMMISSIONERS • 9��44 -5\illoiol\m 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Community Mausolea to be constructed within the Property. As used herein, "Community Mausoleum" shall mean any mausoleum building or crypt wall structure containing interment spaces capable of accommodating casketed remains, and/or which are available to the public at large. Future Community Mausolea shall be permitted only in Building Sites A, C, E, G & H. 2. The approved technical site plan also depicts Building Sites within which Family Mausolea may be developed. "Family Mausolea" as used herein shall mean a mausoleum building containing one or more crypts which are owned and privately used by any individual or family. The ability to construct private mausolea within the park shall be limited to the following: a. Family Mausolea shall not exceed 12 feet in depth, '22 ' feet in width and 15 feet in height; provided, however, in Building Site G, Family Mausolea shall not exceed 14 feet in height. b. Family Mausolea shall be permitted in Building Site D as depicted on the approved technical site plan. C. Family Mausolea shall be permitted in Building Site E provided they are contiguous and adjacent to a Community Mausoleum, are not visible from the first floor of any residential property and are constructed within the approved envelope for Building Site E. d. Family Mausolea shall be permitted in Building Sites F and G provided they are contiguous and adjacent to a Community Mausoleum and located within the westerly projections of the building envelopes depicted on the approved technical site plan. t -69- COMMISSIONERS 4 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 4. 1995 ROLL CALL INDEX 3. The approved technical site plan limits development to a maximum of 30,000 square feet of administrative offices and support facilities, 121,680 square feet of Community Mausolea and garden crypt walls, and 12,000 square feet of Family Mausolea As described in Section 4.1 of the Development Agreement, overhangs, eaves, walkways and similar architectural features and improvements shall not be counted toward such square footage limitations. Eaves may extend beyond the approved building envelopes a maximum of eight feet. Eaves on west facing gable ends of roofs shall not exceed the depth of three feet. 4. No roads or driveways shall be located so as to be closer to adjoining residential areas than depicted on the approved technical site plan. The existing road extension of Pacific View Drive adjacent to the northerly side of Area 12 shall be removed prior to the commencement of construction in Building Site E. ' 5. Except as provided in Section 4.8 of the Development Agreement, the operation of all construction and maintenance equipment shall be in conformance with the provisions of Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. All improvements shall be constructed in accordance with all applicable city ordinances relating to grading and building code requirements, including any such requirements of the Public Works Department. 7. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain system shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. Drainage facilities must be approved by the Public Works Department and must be designed so as to not cause flooding of or drainage of water onto any City property comprising the Big Canyon Reservoir Site. -70- COMMISSIONERS r F�9� 'G�0,9Oq'G CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL CALL I INDEX 8. That the temporary building (currently used as a sales office) shall be allowed for a period of two (2) years of the Effective Date, unless otherwise extended by the Modifications Committee. 9. At such time as the applicant's use of the temporary building ceases, the building shall be removed from the site and the property shall be restored to ifs prior condition. 10. Prior to the issuance of building permits for any Community Mausoleum or Family Mausoleum, the location of such structures shall be reviewed with the Planning Director or his/her designee, to ensure compliance with the approved plans. 11. Given the extended period of years over which the park will be developed, it is understood that minor adjustments in the location or configuration of these mausolea may occur, and that other minor adjustments (e.g. to accommodate slope engineering or the engineering of building pads) may be necessary to address site considerations. Notwithstanding any other provision of this use permit or the Development Agreement, such minor adjustments shall be permitted with the approval of the Planning Director provided that they are substantially consistent with the envelopes shown on the approved site plan, and that the building heights indicated on the plan are strictly adhered to. 12. Except as provided in Condition No. 13, landscaping in accordance with the landscaping and permanent irrigation plan described in Mitigation Measure No. 5 shall be installed no later than as part of the individual Community Mausolea projects described in said condition. 13. All required landscaping and related irrigation shall be initiated in accordance with Mitigation Measure No. 5 prior to issuance COMMISSIONERS 9� -�cT • F�991990 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES l! . A IAnC ROLL CALL f INDEX of building permits for the remaining construction of Sunset Court. 14. Grading for Building Sites E & G shall be completed within six (6) months of the commencement of construction of any Community Mausoleum in Building Site G. Within such six month period, Pacific View shall also complete the installation of landscaping and irrigation in the Buffer Area in accordance with the landscaping and irrigation plan described in Mitigation Measure No. 5; provided, however, that Pacific View shall be permitted to subsequently encroach into the Buffer Area, and to remove and/or disturb Buffer Area landscaping and irrigation to the extent the same is reasonably necessary for subsequent construction within Building Sites E & G and disturbance is minimized, and Pacific View reestablishes such landscaping and irrigation as soon as practicable after such construction ' activities are completed. 15. Within six (6) months of the Effective Date of this use permit, Pacific View shall plant twenty -six (26) fifteen - gallon trees within Area 8 designated on the approved technical site plan or at least four (4) years prior to the construction of any Community Mausolea in Building Site H; provided, however, that Pacific View may elect to plant such trees closer to the time of construction in Building Site H by increasing their box - size as follows: Less than 3 years = 36" box Less than 2 years = 48" box Less than I year = 60" box 16. Within six (6) months of the approval of this use permit, Pacific View shall also plant five (5) fifteen -gallon trees along the northeasterly boundary of Building Site D. -72- COMMISSIONERS 4 4 N-4 Rio�-P,*Plk CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES MauA 7Q" ROLL CALL INDEX 17. Remaining implementation of the approved landscape and irrigation plan shall occur in conjunction with individual construction phases or as otherwise required by this use permit. 18. That there shall be a minimum of thirty months between the completion and initiation of another phase of mausoleum and crypt wall construction in Building Sites E, G and H. 19. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this use permit, or recommended to the City Council the addition or modifications of conditions to this permit upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this amendment causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community . E. Site Plan Review No. 69 rFindings: 1. That the building pad elevations proposed by the applicant generally conforms to the existing and varied topography of the site, to the extent that the applicant has attempted to take advantage of the topography to minimize the visibility of mausoleum structures that are in close proximity to residential areas. 2. That the building pad elevations proposed by the applicant have taken into the consideration the preservation of existing views from adjoining residential properties. . 3. That the establishment of the building pad elevations as proposed by the applicant are consistent with the intent of Chapter 20.02 in that; the subject property includes very irregular topography which necessitates some grading on the site, and that the proposed building pads and related grading represent only 5 percent of the total site. ' -73- COMMISSIONERS 4 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES AX— a iooc ROLL CALL INDEX Condition• 1. That the proposed development shall be constructed in substantial accordance with the pad elevations set forth on the approved site plan. :r. Discussion Item: Disc. i A. Amendment No. 819 No. 1 Request to consider an amendment to the Commercial District A819 Regulations for the permitted uses in the APF District as contained in Section 20.33 of Title 20 of the Municipal Code. AND B. Amendment No. 821 Request to consider an amendment to Districting Maps No. 34, and 35 to reclassify all property located between Campus Drive, Bristol Street A821 North, Birch Street, and MacArthur Boulevard, from the M -1 -A District to the APF District, to establish consistency with the General Plan and existing development. ZONE: M -1 -A AND C. Amendment No. 822 A822 Request to reclassify specific parcels located on the southerly side of Westcliff Drive between Irvine Avenue and Dover Drive, from the CNH District to the APF District, to establish consistency with the General Plan and existing development. LOCATION: Lots 3 -7, and the northwesterly 55.98 feet of Lot 8, Tract No. 4225, located along the ' -74- tems COMMISSIONERS 0 F�9yFO90 Mo Al r Mo Al CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ROLL INDEX CALL I southerly side of Westcliff Drive, between Irvine S Set' for Avenue and Dover Drive. p public hearing b/18/95 ZONE: C -N -H tion M Motion was made and voted on to set Amendment No. 819, 1 Ayes A Amendment No. 821, and Amendment No. 822 for public hearing on May 18, 1995. MOTION CARRIED. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: A Add! l Business a.) Verbal report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - None s sDc b.) Verbal report from Planning Commission's representative to the B BPPAC Balboa Peninsula Planning Advisory Committee - None c.) Motion was made and voted on to excuse Commissioner Pomeroy from the May 18, 1995, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION P Pomeroy excused CARRIED. tion * * d d.) Other Business - A motion was made and voted on to direct staff 1 Ayes t to lace a discussion item on the P1 Commission Agenda of _ s set . May 18, 1995, regarding offstreet parking spaces, in -lieu parking i item spaces, landscape requirements, and floor area ratio requirements in the older commercial areas of the City. MOTION CARRIED. *s• ADJOURNMENT: 1:02 a.m. A Adjourn •s* GAROLD ADAMS, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION on