Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/09/2007"Planning Commission Minutes 08/09/2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2007 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Page 1 of 17 "http: / /www. city .newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas /2007 /mn08- 09- 07.htm 06120/2008 INDEX ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Peotter, Cole, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren: Commissioner Cole was excused; Commissioner Peotter arrived at 6:40. STAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Tony Brine, Transportation /Development Services Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Brandon Nichols, Associate Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary and Administrative Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on August 3, 2007. HEARING ITEMS OBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of July 19, 2007. ITEM NO. 1 Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Approved Commissioner McDaniel to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, McDaniel, and Toerge Noes: None Abstain: Hillgren Excused: Cole ITEM NO. 2 SUBJECT: Pacific View Memorial Park (PA2006 -282) PA2006 -282 3500 Pacific View Drive Approved request to amend Use Permit No. 3518 and Development Agreement No. 7 to allow the construction of nine (9) family mausoleum structures and estate gardens in lieu of a 7,200 square -foot community mausoleum in Page 1 of 17 "http: / /www. city .newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas /2007 /mn08- 09- 07.htm 06120/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/0912007 Site "H" of Area 8 at the Pacific View Memorial Park. ssioner Eaton requested to be recused from deliberation on as his family has a plot in Pacific View. osociate Planner Rosalinh Ung noted the applicant has revised �plication and now proposes a development of six (6) family maus id estate garden in -lieu of a single community mausoleum in Building of Area 8 of the park. The subject site is approved to be developed 7,200 square -foot community mausoleum at 24 feet maximum buil sight, the balance of Area 8 is to be developed with ground burials. he request requires an amendment to the 1995 approved Use Permit ai levelopment Agreement. These documents granted Pacific View the rig i develop the subject property in accordance with the terms ai :)nditions of the Use Permit and Development Agreement. She then gal n overview of the staff report. proposal would result in a decrease of the overall commu 3oleum building area within the park by 7,200 square feet. ional building area proposed for the family mausoleum will be ded the 12,000 square feet previously approved for the family mausole lopment limit. e proposed estate gardens are ground burials with no itation and therefore would not affect the approved reement or limits. he proposed first amendment to the Development Agreement has repared and reviewed by the City Attorney's office for code comp nd accuracy and includes proposed changes to the applicable se iroughout the entire document and added language for the pro indscaping around and within the subject site. Negative Declaration was prepared for the project and circulated fo ublic comments from the period April 6th to April 26th of this year. Stai ;ceived comments from the nearby residents but none were related t( nvironmental impacts. The residents' concerns have been discussed an( ddressed in the staff report. taff believes that the Use Permit findings necessary for the project pproval can be made as the project would not be detrimental to the djacent residential properties given the smaller building mass of the roposed family mausolea. The placement of these structures would be elow the existing established grade of the adjacent residences. andscaping would screen these structures from the ground floor views of ie nearby residents' properties. The estate gardens would be adequate) greened from the nearby residents and conditions to effect such screening ave been added to the Development Agreement and the Use Permi mendments. Staff recommends approval of the project. introduced Rich Mather from the Advanced Graphic Image le for the photo simulations, and Ms. Carolyn Schaffer Page 2 of 17 "http: / /www.city. newport- beach. ca. us /PI nAgendas /2007 /m n08- 09 -07. htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/09/2007 Dudek Environmental Consultant firm was responsible for the nvironmental document and both are present and available for comment. tennis O'Neil, representing Pacific View Memorial Park, introduced Mr. .obert Motzkin, the Director of Cemetery Development and Construction, ran Motzkin, retired General Manager of Pacific View, Michael Green and .andy McDaniel of Clark and Green who are serving as project managers nd lead consultants. e then noted concerns from the community had been received and that cries of meetings with the community and the Board Directors of Spygla: ill Homeowners Association (HOA) were held. They agreed to a numb F measures that have been included in the staff report and in tt levelopment Agreement, which provide additional enhancements ar uarantees for the surrounding residential community. He has read tt :)nditions and agrees with all those conditions. nmissioner McDaniel noted for the record that he and Randy not related. ran Motzkin gave an overview of the history of Pacific View starting fr 958 noting that it has been their purpose to remind visitors of the bee nd lives of those who are honored at Pacific View. She noted the priv state gardens, family mausolea, arches, open courtyards, water featu nd grounds. The acquisition of Pacific View by Service Corporal itemational in 1991 did not change that purpose. Pacific View is o 0% open space and what is proposed will continue the tradition reating a beautiful memorial park. The proposal includes install maller family mausolea and estate gardens. The community desi ifferent types of memorialization and interment opportunities for tl wed ones and themselves. These are personal decisions and roposed amendment is a direct result of trying to accommodate reque om families for that type of product. By providing a variety of que hoices we are better able to satisfy the needs of our families. Maintain ie overall beauty of the park is vital and we believe this amendment do al Green of Clark and Green Associates, made a PowerPoi station and stated the following: Location of site; Project site is on the south - eastern area of Memorial Park; Location of Spyglass Association homes on property line; Buffer areas planted as required by the Development Agreement 1996. This planting allows for screening of the cemetery from edge of homes; Building Site H will have the least amount of impact on loc residents due to the distance from the property line and the vertic separation from the residences; This had a 7,200 community mausoleum allocation and they hat looked how to incorporate family mausolea into that site; A Technical Site Plan was viewed on Building Site H depicting the family mausoleum sites with a new size of 17 feet by 22 fe footprint and 17 feet in height to accommodate some of the reques Page 3 of 17 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas /2007 /mn08- 09- 07.htm 06/20/2008 'Planning Commission Minutes 08/0912007 for slightly larger buildings than are approved to be built now; No of these buildings exceed the top height of the community mausol structures which is a 24 -foot building; The buildings are placed around the site; There will be some sm garden walls in certain areas; The project has had a Negative Declaration. He then reviewed mausoleum design including landscaping and low walls; This is a long range planning concept with families not utilizing th lots until 10 or 20 years; He noted photos of family mausolea that could be placed on tl site. Estate gardens built in the hill with flowers and fountains; He then introduced photo simulations of what the project would to like, one of the community mausoleum building at the 24 foot heic to the peak of the roof versus the family mausolea structures at bu out; He then proceeded with and explained the view simulations; There have been three community outreach meetings and meeting with the HOA Board; The following issues were resolved such as deletion of 3 mausoll and a reduction of size in two of the proposed mausole construction of Building Site E will be delayed until 2014; landscal exhibit including trees to be planted within twelve months approval of this application; staff has asked for additional trees ai HOA has asked for additional trees, one at each elevation of tl remaining six mausolea to help ensure that there will be landscaped foreground; low estate garden walls will be built into tl slope and the top of the 36 inch high wall will only have landscal but no ornamentation of any kind; restriction in height of pla material above the 430 mean sea level elevation and have extends that out to the perimeters of all these development building sites; A delay in any future amendments for 15 years has been agreed as well. missioner Hillgren asked about the story poles on site. Green answered they depict the breadth of the original application reduction of the new application. The largest family mausoleum w sally fit inside. irman Hawkins asked if there was a tracking mechanism forlhe use and for a topographic overview Green answered family mausolea were approved to be built. Bu square footage has been purchased; however, some families e chosen ground burials. An annual report on statistical sumo' done shortly after the Development Agreement was approved. ipany has to track everything that is done in the cemetery. He layed and explained the original site of Building H from 1995 and 1 slopes and various grades. Discussion continued on existing gi fill -ins, cut -outs and tree planting placements. Schaffer with Dudek, project manager for the environmental Page 4 of 17 "hftp: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas /2007 /mn08- 09- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08109/2007 this site. irman Hawkins, referring to the Negative Declaration page 11, e seems to be a discrepancy in terms of height. Schaefer noted the original project description proposed in the oric ication has since changed. I reviewed the staff report, and iges that were made are consistent with what was evaluated for ronmental study and we don't feel the impacts will be significa rent than what we found in the study. It is still within the 430 foot -li is part of the Development Agreement. The additional trees and gr I proposed to be used do not create a significant impact. nissioner Hillgren noted the report compares the new proposal to application. This strikes me as being less impactful than what )usly approved. Schaefer answered the environmental study considered what currently allowed to construct there in terms of the Developi ement and what they requested in their application. They asting reduced building space, reduced building mass and incre >caping. The impact levels were compared to determine if onmental impacts would be significant and we found that there that were less than significant and some with no impacts. lard Mather of Advanced Graphic Images testified that the v ulations are accurate and that he had created a terrain model to me actual physical camera. He went on to explain his process and that been in the business since 1992. is comment was opened. la Burton of Villa Park, noted she had been asked by Pacific View tc ain her experiences with them. She then gave a brief history of hei ,onal experience with the passing of family members noting the ,onal compassion and interest from the staff members. Additionally noted that on commemorative holidays the park places specia memoration for family members who are interred at Pacific View. A emission inquiry, she noted that she has ground burials. Bahri, local resident, speaking on behalf of several residents, noted: Bought his house 4 years ago and at that time the realtor showec him a copy of the recorded Development Agreement; He was told that the area in front of his house in Area 8 would be strictly ground burial; The Development Agreement prohibits building any family mausoleum in Area 8, Site H and is to be only a community mausoleum; We bought the house and have lived there happily until late 200E when we heard the Pacific View wanted to amend the Developmen Agreement; We went to a meeting and showed our opposition. We were told i there was enough opposition, they would not pursue the subject; Page 5 of 17 "hftp: / /www. city. newport- beach .ca.us /PinAgendas /20071mnO8- 09- 07.htm 06/2012008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/09/2007 Everybody on my street and the majority on a nearby street did si a petition. We gave this to staff; We received a letter about the Negative Declaration and we went the City to show our opposition; By changing this to six family mausolea you are going to change t atmosphere of the park -like setting; the pictures show distributed) that nothing humongous jumps out; We believe by building these huge 17 feet by 17 feet by 22 feet the middle of the park will change the California -style fair memorial park to an eastern -style cemetery; He is against this change as it has an emotional impact as well a: financial impact when it comes to selling his house; I am not against people doing business, but please have the points in your consideration as well; This house is my refuge and I will lose a lot of money; There is a chance for this Development Agreement, which is lec and the recitals are very important; it says to be careful of the buil out on adjoining residences; By approving this amendment Pacific View will be happy, Servi International Corporation will make good money, the residents v live miserable and be unhappy, please ask yourself what does tl City get? There should be some benefit. irman Hawkins noted that Dr. Bahri was eye his doctor and raises a conflict. City Attorney Harp answered, no. �r Wohrle, President of the Board of Directors for the Si ieowners Association, noted the letter dated August 7, 2007 support of this project as the issues that had been raised were there had been acceptable compromise. Jack DeKrive, resident of Laguna Woods, noted her p ence with her dealings with Pacific View during the times s. She noted her support of this application. Gillespie, Laguna Beach resident, noted his support of this application. noted his personal experience of building family mausoleum at Pacific Casillas, Vice President of the Vietnam Veterans of Orange County his support of this application. He gave a brief history of hk ,ement with Pacific View as a member of the Veterans group and the ;ration of Pacific View staff. nard Fish, local resident, noted this site was picked due to the view ocean. Area 8 was not approved for the estate gardens and th Ad be limited to Area H. Memorial Park and the neighbors have liv ifortably together based on mutual agreements. The request isolea will be privately owned and could contain up to 169 souls. The thousands of less privileged families with relatives buried in the lai is who want the lawn atmosphere maintained. He continued readi Page 6 of 17 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2007/mn08- 09- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/09/2007 comments into the record and concluded by asking that this denied or downsize the scale of the mausolea. >mmissioner Hillgren noted the applicant is reducing the density in i mber of internments and overall square footage. What is your conci over - densification? Fish answered he is concerned about the number of huge independi ildings which could hold 169 souls are asked to hold 44 as opposed original site. We told them we want the little ones and not the look eastern -style cemetery. What is the need for these massive siz ren Odell, local resident, noted she does not mind the park -like settii re at all. She noted Pacific View provided great comfort during her tin need. She asked that the cemetery keep to their original agreeme ere they would have a community mausoleum that would fit into tl ,rail architecture better and blend in better than having six separa finite mausolea. The landscaping that is planned, how long will it take /er the height of those buildings? I would ask that it continue to be ,k -like setting. ennis O'Neil, clarified that the location of the family mausolea in Buildinc ite H, Area 8 was not selected for the ocean view. The family mausolea 3ve an average of 4 crypts within each building and range anywhere fron to 10 and in some cases may never get built at all. The Building Site E ypt wall mausolea will be started imminently. What is being proposed wil rt add value to Pacific View in this case and the density and reduction o immunity mausolea is actually a diminishment of property rights; this is imewhat unique as there are vested development rights for Pacific Viev the Development Agreement, but it also provides protection and benefi r the surrounding community. What we are doing will not change the irk -like characteristics of Pacific View as 90% of the land is open space id that will remain. nissioner McDaniel asked how long the plant material will take and screen the buildings. . O'Neil answered we are conditioned to put in 36" boxes and none ;se family mausolea will be able to be seen by the residents from abc en they are occupied. The landscaping will go in starting within twe mths after this Development Agreement amendment is approved a ther landscaping will go in when building permits are pulled for ea; nily mausolea and finally, before there is a certificate of occupancy, I finish the landscaping. There is an additional provision in 1 velopment Agreement that says that if in fact any part of the tusolea are visible from up above that the City can require Pack Vi, further landscape it, which we have agreed to. We think there is me in adequate protection so that by the time these family mausolea go ire will be fully mature landscaping screening. McDaniel asked about the timeframe. Page 7 of 17 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2007 /mn08- 09- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/0912007 Er. Green answered that we are required to build a commur iausoleum, which is a cast in place concrete structure, within a nir ionth period from the day we start to end when we get a certificate ccupancy. He explained the construction process. The family mausol re pre - fabricated all- granite buildings that are pinned together. Other th ie grading that will be done and the planting of the 36" box trees, tho uildings are brought to the site and assembled quickly and set on oncrete foundation. The timing is a matter of weeks. We are requir iat the day we request the certificate of occupancy, a City inspect omes out and inspects from those two viewpoints. If it is deem ecessary, we are required to plant more trees to immediately block a few of the mausolea. :hairman Hawkins noted the aesthetic impact and landscaping will be uring the construction or during the period the structure will be erected. sere a feasible way to screen the structure prior to the certificate ccupancy? How tall and wide is a 36" box tree? Green answered that by planting the 36" box trees now those trees wil N. Our anticipation is that we will not need to add much additions Escaping. We could go out and plant trees to screen during the struction period; however, it seems that for a few weeks of assemblinc ration it's onerous. We would like to finish up after it is constructed. ing the construction period there is really not a lot that is going to be n. The soonest we can build a building is a year and a half from nov the time you go through all the permitting and assembling an( ication, etc. The typical spec would be five- foot -wide by about twelve -high trees. We are required to put in some 48" box trees which will be er and depending on what species they will be about 7 feet by 14 fee i. Since they will be placed up a slope, they will be higher than the lings the day they are planted. is comment was closed. nmissioner McDaniel noted the views from the back of these folks private views, not public views. Ung answered, yes. Hawkins noted the Development Agreement protects the views. Lepo added that the Agreement talks about protecting erties from impacts as one of the public benefits. , nmissioner Toerge noted the due diligence by one of the preN fakers. He noted he is sensitive to any pre- approved entitlement iht want to make changes and make impacts to adjacent prol iers. I have looked at the plans, visited the site, studied the draN I reviewed the conditions and have difficulty identifying material irr adjacent properties. I can't see where the proposed amendment ulting development has any kind of adverse impact on adja parties. It is not reducing values, not blocking views and with Page 8 of 17 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PinAgendas /2007 /mn08- 09- 07.htm 06120/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/09/2007 shorter amount of time to erect the mausolea with the additional landscaping there is no negative impact. With a condition that is so broad as to say that if at the completion of these mausolea they can be seen from he homes, then more trees will be planted. That is convincing to me that you are not going to see the mausolea. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner McDaniel to approve the amendment to Use Permit 351 and Development Agreement No. 7 (UP 2006 -040 and DA No. 2006 -001). Commissioner McDaniel noted that there is going to be screening of the mausolea as quickly as possible to minimize any visual impacts. We have one our job to protect the property value. Commissioner Hillgren noted he had walked the site and it comes down to a view of landscaping versus a view of a larger tiled roof and I think the community is better served looking at landscaping, so I support the application. Chairman Hawkins noted he shares the concerns expressed by Dr. Bahri and agrees with Commissioner Hillgren that the landscaping will and has always provided a buffer. Ayes: Peotter, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Recused: Eaton Excused: Cole SUBJECT: Knight Appeal (PA2007 -137) ITEM NO.3 312 Hazel Drive PA2007 -137 n appeal by Diane Knight of the Planning Director's interpretation Continued to regarding the application of a development stringline (setback) determined 09/20/2007 pursuant to General Plan Natural Resources Element Policy NR 23.6 to property located at 312 Hazel Drive. Planning Director David Lepo stated that the appellant has requested continuance of this item to September 20, 2007. Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded b Commissioner McDaniel to continue this item to September 20, 2007. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Excused: Cole SUBJECT: ARCO Gas Station Convenience Store (PA2007 -059) ITEM NO. 4 2100 Bristol Street PA2007 -059 request to approve Use Permit 2007 -009 to convert the existing are Continued devoted to automobile repair to convenience store use. In addition, 17 square -feet would be added to the existing building to provide a ne storage area. Page 9 of 17 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2007 /mn08- 09- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/0912007 sociate Planner Brandon Nichols gave an overview of the staff repot arring to a PowerPoint presentation. He noted that the applicant ha: de some last- minute changes to the design of the service station. One the changes is separate male and female restrooms that have bees luested by the Building Department and is one of the Service Statioi velopment Standards. Other changes were made to the landscap4 nter at the corner of Bristol and Birch. It has doubled in size; additions dscaping has been added in front of the parking spaces adjacent to th( Idling; additional trees are to be planted adjacent to the exterior propert. :s (2 facing Bristol and 2 in the corner planter at the intersection). Thes( anges result in 11 % total landscaping of the site. Additional landscapinc ng the interior property lines will be provided. Project includes new to rkings and signage for better circulation and ensures one -way access ti filling stations. Another change is the roofing material which is nov posed as red tile to be consistent with surrounding businesses. ;cussion continued on the site circulation signage as well as the drive Li kiosk of Carl's Jr. next door. Staff feels that the required findings fo )roval can be made. Eaton asked about the screening of the vents. (erring to the visual, Mr. Nichols located the gas vent at the corner screened by the vertical element on top of the roof as is all !chanical equipment. The gas vent is approximately 3 feet above sting roof, which as at a height of 12 feet. nmissioner Eaton asked about the restroom entrances being visible cashier. As mandated by the Development Standards, how will this ieved? With the added landscaping at the corner, what is t ventage of the landscaping that is within 20 feet of the street? Nichols noted that given the existing storage areas, there may not ability to have the entrances facing the cashier. The applicant I ;ed to mount a camera and an independent TV monitor visible to tier covering both those entrances. airman Hawkins noted the landscape issue should be asked of )licant. :ommissioner Eaton asked about the signs and if they meet the uideline criteria. Nichols answered the applicant is not proposing a change to :ing signage. The Design Guidelines encourage a monument sign current sign does not meet that definition. No discussions i erred regarding this. ammissioner Hillgren noted he spent time with the applicant at the id that this is his least favorite entrance to the community in terms of looks. He favors anyone doing changes to the entrances to Nem :ach. He noted the traffic on site is too much. Service stations ;coming more like mini -marts that he thinks of it as gas and milk. Page 10 of 17 "http: / /www. city. newport- beach.ca. us /PinAgendas /2007 /mn08- 09 -07. htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/09/2007 scussed problems with a right turn off Bristol, placement of s amps, mechanical bays used for storage, the potential for additional i site once a mini -mart opens, addition of patron parking for mir A back up of Carl's Jr. traffic. Circulation is quite difficult and he by an entrance off Bristol is appropriate. Nichols answered staff was attempting to achieve one -way ugh the site. insportation /Development Services Manager Tony Brine noted that ns of the direction of the aisle, traffic is to enter off Birch Street a .ulate around the opposite way, then people would be able to access t nps in that direction. Coming in off Bristol there is potential for them :ess the pumps in the opposite direction again. It is a site that pos illenges no matter which way you look at it. The decision would have made in what direction you want that circulation. imissioner Hillgren agreed that it ought to be going one way a ild be in a counter clockwise configuration, but adding that entrance driveway means they have to take a turn around the building instead ing the turn at the intersection, which is what they are doing today, Ad be doing. 1. Brine noted they could look at the circulation at the rear of the build! the opposite direction. It ends up they have to circulate around the s go to the pumps. There are challenges in both directions as far culation to the rear of the property. The applicant was interested ving the two -way direction at the northerly driveway off Bristol. If th me in off the Bristol driveway, they would end coming up to the pumps a wrong direction or force them around the back of the property. There t a lot of storage capability on the site and so this would provide sor gage capability and circulate the traffic around in the direction of tl mps. It's challenging in terms of size and use but this appears to be tl st circulation plan. iairman Hawkins noted the northerly entrance was not staffs t was a request of the applicant. Brine answered, that is correct. mmissioner McDaniel asked. - where people park for the rchases. Brine answered the parking is in the rear and on one side of ling for a total of 9 spaces. comment was opened. Fink of Donco and Sons, speaking on behalf of the applicant noted: This site has been operated for nine years by the applicant under lease agreement and earlier this year he bought the property; The applicant has invested to upgrade the entire above - ground fu system; Page 11 of 17 "http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.usIPInAgendas /2007 /mnO8- 09- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/09/2007 There are restrictions on this property due to size; There is now a little over 12.5% landscaping, which is about the be we can do; The sign on the corner is important to the business; We are willing to install a dedicated camera and monitor inside t sales area so that the doors can be monitored; The proposal is substantial and will be an improvement to the City Newport Beach; At Commission inquiry, he added that he has read, understands ai accepts the findings and conditions as currently drafted. iissioner Peotter asked about the pass - through that is labeled 16 on the plan. Is there any reason why the planter couldn't sed to 8 feet? eorge Imbraham, applicant, property owner and operator, answered it )ssible to increase that planter 2 or 3 feet. Brine noted the wider the aisle the better;1 3 feet would be acceptable. ssioner Peotter asked about the fuel tankers entering as well more planting area. Fink noted that due to the size of the site and the circulation probh currently exist, that suggestion would make it worse. By increasing of the planter that we have, we are able to still deal with the circula >lems and sufficient room for the tanker trucks and allow for rr Iscaping. Removing any more surface area will contribute to circula Nichols noted that we avoided expanding that planter because that primary area available for on -site stacking of vehicles. >mmissioner Peotter asked about closing one of the driveways. There lack of landscaping along the frontage and an alternative could be luction in square footage and parking because, in his opinic idscaping is more important than square footage. Fink added that in order to maintain good traffic flow and still soften ik, a stand -up planter was included to be installed on the southerly s the building. It is a number of feet from the property line. There will rubs in the planter that will measure approximately 3 feet wide by A long. ssioner McDaniel noted the landscape dimensions were difficult :and. What size and species type will be used in the planter? Fink answered they would be happy to provide a detailed missioner Hillgren asked why they requested the driveway off Bristol. e is not a need for another venue to sell alcohol and beer as there ar to be plenty of sources. Is it acceptable that the sale of the bees Page 12 of 17 "http: / /www. city. newport- beach. ca. us /PI nAgendas/2007 /mnO8- 09 -07. htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/09/2007 I wine be handled by a 21 year -old? Who uses the southerly d Bristol? Imbraham answered that entry is for the mini store. He answered A be acceptable to have at minimum a 21 year -old clerk selling be I wine. The driveway is vital for the gas delivery trucks but custome use it as well to exit onto Birch. imissioner Hillgren, referring to the site plan view, noted his concern traffic around the building and asked if the restroom access could i the store. Imbraham answered it is not possible as behind that interior wall electrical panels and moving this would be quite expensive. Fink answered it would be cost - prohibitive to move the electri, rever, they could put in a dedicated monitoring system to be viewed sales personnel. ioner Eaton, referring to the circulation plan, asked did y reversing the traffic behind the building so that the northw( would be an exit only, and what would be the downside of that? Imbraham answered that 70% of the cars entering the station Birch Street. mmissioner Eaton clarified his question by adding that then the Bristol would be one way. Brine added that if you were to change the direction of the circul; and the back, you would end up with no exit onto Birch Street. The would be onto Bristol, so whether that is an improvement or convei those patrons entering or want to exit onto Birch, changing elation to the back would remove any exit onto Birch. lion continued on the flow of traffic around the building, ingress onto or from Bristol and the problem of stacking that could occur Peotter asked about the square footage. Nichols noted the minimum site area requirement is part of the /elopment Standards. The calculation is 1,500 square feet of land area each fueling space, 1,000 square feet for each service or washing bay ch there are none, and 3.3 square feet for each square foot of gros it use for retail and/or food or beverage sales. The proposed service :ion and convenience store would require a 16,808 square foot site anc existing site is 16,484 square -feet so it is short 324 square feet of the imum standard. ssioner Peotter asked how much the requested additional r have to be reduced in order to make up the shortage of the )ment standard. Page 13 of 17 "http: / /www. city. newport- beach.ca. us /PlnAgendas /2007 /m nO8- 09 -07. htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/09/2007 Nichols answered 98 square feet. The storage area size they uesting is based on Health Department requirements for a convenif -e and that is why there is a proposal for more square footage. It c accommodated by altering the retail space. He noted that devial allowed by the Service Station Chapter. is comment was closed. )mmissioner Toerge, noting the guidelines and suggestions on tt �culation, density and landscaping, in this particular case in modifying a :fisting building indicated the circulation concerns trump the landscar interns if they are conflicting. We don't gain any community benefit t ;king the applicant to reduce the storage area by 98 square feet and ink we would hurt the project by doing that. Notion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded ,ommissioner McDaniel to approve Use Permit 2007 -009 (PA2007 -0: ,ubject to the conditions of approval with the following modifications: 1 rees to be installed are 36" -box minimum size; widen the planter alc 3ristol two additional feet rendering the drive- through at 14 feet; andscape plan to be prepared and submitted to the Planning Director approval; that a 21 -year age requirement be in place for anybody sell) )eer or wine to the public; and, a camera that has the capacity to view b4 -estroom doors, or two separate cameras if necessary, are in place so tl he employees can monitor those doors. nmissioner Peotter asked for the number, size and types of trees to ited. He recommended two trees in the front planter, or if using pair e should be four. In the comer there should be trees on each side sign that don't block the sign but shield the mass of the building a i in the other two areas at least four trees, being sensitive to the nmissioner McDaniel noted he would like to see canopy trees that do a the signs and that could mean fewer trees but be an enhancement site over time. ssioner Toerge amended his motion to encourage that and bei of site distances and shade producing trees being left up to i on of the Planning Director. nmissioner Peotter noted the time limit of fuel truck deliveries edition 31 add, "...or other times as determined by the Planni sctor." At this station a nighttime delivery would be perfect as the no residences around it and I would like to allow that option. Conditi repeats the code as far as noise and proposed to delete the table. maker of the motion agreed. rman Hawkins noted his concern of the landscaping. He asked al mmodating another landscape area thereby reducing a drive aisle. Fink answered we looked at that and instead came up with the Page 14 of 17 "http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us /PInAgendas /2007 /mnO8- 09- 07.htm 06/20/2008 'Planning Commission Minutes 08109/2007 ng planter on the southeast side of the building as the Hawkins noted Condition 43 spelling correction. maker of the motion agreed. Imbraham noted he needed clarification of timing of gas deliveries. iairman Hawkins noted the Planning Director may prohibit delivery ti his discretion. Imbraham stated he understands and agrees to the revised conditions. mmissioner Peotter noted he likes the fact that the applicant has bee ing to make the suggested changes and is spending the money t )rove and enhance his business. Not having that additional landscapin Birch is a deal breaker for me. I think this could be better architectural) i landscaping wise and site design without losing square footage. H ed he would not be supporting this application. issioner Hillgren noted he has similar concerns, particularly with I Jon. It is a difficult situation today that is not being improved at than slightly visually. The restroom is problematic and it riate to have direct access for the store. He stated he would t the motion. er Eaton noted the improvements are significant with at the corner. He noted he supports the motion. Chairman Hawkins noted he believes landscaping is possible on the Birch side and addition of the second restroom is beneficial and helpful, however, he is concerned with the orientation of restroom doors and that is problematic. He noted he will not be supporting the motion. Ayes: Eaton, McDaniel and Toerge Noes: Peotter, Hawkins and Hillgren Excused: Cole Chairman Hawkins noted it is a good project and would help the area. Th applicant has the opportunity to appeal this decision to the City Council. Lepo suggested another motion that this be denied without preju, direct the applicant to go back and revise his project in light of ;erns expressed tonight and return at another hearing. City Attorney Harp noted it would be appropriate to make motion. ioner McDaniel noted he would like to give the opportunity for to re- submit his proposal with a full Commission to vote. Imbrahams noted he would like to come back. was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded Page 15 of 17 "http: / /www.city.newpbrt- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2007 /mn08- 09- 07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08/09/2007 Commissioner Peotter to continue this item so the applicant would have he opportunity to re- submit his proposal no later than October 18, 2007. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Abstain: Cole SUBJECT: Code Amendment No. 2007 -004 (Screening of Mechanical ITEM NO. 5 Equipment) (PA2007 -056) PA2007 -056 Should Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code be Recommended mended to add regulations requiring the screening of all exterior roof for approval mounted and ground- mounted mechanical equipment on properties in all oning Districts? Public comment was opened. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Peotter asked why the 15 feet from exterior edge of the building was a requirement. If there is a parapet, would 6 inches be sufficient, and do you care? Mr. Lepo answered that could be deleted. Commissioner McDaniel noted his concern of the ground- mounted mechanical equipment Condition 1b. If I lived on Balboa Island with a three-foot setback, there is no way I could comply. This would be problematic to place screening so as not to be visible from other residences. Following a brief discussion staff recommended removing reference to "adjacent residential districts" from both Condition 1a and 1b. Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commissioner McDaniel to recommend approval to City Council with the removal of Condition 2b and the last sentence reference in Condition 1 and 1 c to "residential districts" be stricken. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Excused: Cole ITEM NO.6 SUBJECT: Special Meeting August 21St regarding Group Homes Following comments, this item was received and filed. Discussion Item ITEM NO.7 SUBJECT: Recommendation for appointment as a representative to Discussion he Special Needs Committee of the OCTA's Board of Directors. Page 16 of 17 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2007 /mnO8- 09 -07.htm 06/20/2008 "Planning Commission Minutes 08109/2007 Following comments, this item was received and filed. Item ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up - Mr. Lepo noted the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan was approved by the City Council i conjunction with the General Plan Amendment and Coastal Lan Use Plan Amendment that would accommodate the construction o the condominium units in Newport Center by Lennar Homes. Thi went to Coastal Commission with a recommendation to change th land use designation to residential; however, Coastal Commissio required mitigation of $5 million for Phase 2 renovations at Crysta Cove State Beach and that was added as part of our language in th Coastal Land Use Plan. Lennar agreed to this as well as Memorandum of Understanding with an additional $5 million to th City to be used for park improvements. Lennar is paying an owne of a twelve -unit apartment building to improve and upgrade thos units and to extend the affordability provisions for 30 years to satin the affordable housing requirement of 15% of new units. The iterr for final adoption of resolution for the Newport Brewing Compan was continued at the request of the applicant as they are still takin exception to the City's interpretation of the Coastal Commissio condition limiting the amount of dining area used before 5 p.m seven days a week. b. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Chairman Hawkins noted there was no meeting of EDC but the Executive Board met to discuss the personnel of the Committee and adding additional members. C. Report from the Planning Commission's representative to the General Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee Commissioner Eaton noted there was no meeting. d. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like Staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on future agenda for action and staff report - none. f. Project status - none. g. Requests for excused absences - none. ADJOURNMENT: 10:00 p.m. 1A DJOURNMEN BRADLEY HILLGREN, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 17 of 17 "http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us /PlnAgendas /2007 /mn08- 09- 07.htm 06/20/2008