Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc minutes 08-09-07Planning Commission Minutes 08/09/2007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes August 9, 2007 Regular Meeting - 5:00 p.m. Page 1 of 17 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn08- 09- 07.htm 12/19/2007 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 SUBJECT: 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. yes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, McDaniel, and Toerge Noes: None Abstain: Hillgren Excused: Cole SUBJECT: Pacific View Memorial Park (PA2006 -282) ITEM NO. 2 3500 Pacific View Drive PA2006 -282 request to amend Use Permit No. 3518 and Development Agreement Approved 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 Building Site "H" of Area 8 at the Pacific View Memorial Park. Page 1 of 17 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn08- 09- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 08/09/2007 ssioner Eaton requested to be recused from deliberation on as his family has a plot in Pacific View. ;sociate Planner Rosalinh Ung noted the applicant has revised plication and now proposes a development of six (6) family maul d 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 bui ight, the balance of Area 8 is to be developed with ground burials. request requires an amendment to the 1995 approved Use Permit velopment Agreement. These documents granted Pacific View the develop the subject property in accordance with the terms editions of the Use Permit and Development Agreement. She then c overview of the staff report. proposal would result in a decrease of the overall commu soleum building area within the park by 7,200 square feet. ional building area proposed for the family mausoleum will be deri the 12,000 square feet previously approved for the family mausol( loDment limit. proposed estate gardens are ground burials with no tion and therefore would not affect the approved �Iment or limits. proposed first amendment to the Development Agreement has ared and reviewed by the City Attorney's office for code comp accuracy and includes proposed changes to the applicable se ighout the entire document and added language for the pro l 3caping around and within the subject site. Negative Declaration was prepared for the project and circulated blic comments from the period April 6th to April 26th of this year. S' ;eived comments from the nearby residents but none were related vironmental impacts. The residents' concerns have been discussed dressed in the staff report. f believes that the Use Permit findings necessary for the projec roval can be made as the project would not be detrimental to thf scent residential properties given the smaller building mass of the >osed family mausolea. The placement of these structures would b( iw the existing established grade of the adjacent residences. dscaping would screen these structures from the ground floor views o nearby residents' properties. The estate gardens would be adequatell ened from the nearby residents and conditions to effect such screening been added to the Development Agreement and the Use Permi :ndments. Staff recommends approval of the project. Ung introduced Rich Mather from the Advanced Graphic Image wa onsible for the photo simulations, and Ms. Carolyn Schaffer fror * Environmental Consultant firm was responsible for th •onmental document and both are present and available for comment. Page 2 of 17 file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\rnn08- 09- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 08/09/2007 nis O'Neil, representing Pacific View Memorial Park, introduced Mr art Motzkin, the Director of Cemetery Development and Construction Motzkin, retired General Manager of Pacific View, Michael Green anc Jy McDaniel of Clark and Green who are serving as project manager: lead consultants. then noted concerns from the community had been received and that es of meetings with the community and the Board Directors of Spygla: Homeowners Association (HOA) were held. They agreed to a numb measures that have been included in the staff report and in tt ielopment Agreement, which provide additional enhancements ar irantees for the surrounding residential community. He has read tt editions and agrees with all those conditions. McDaniel noted for the record that he and Randy not related. ran Motzkin gave an overview of the history of Pacific View starting fror 958 noting that it has been their purpose to remind visitors of the beaut nd lives of those who are honored at Pacific View. She noted the privat state gardens, family mausolea, arches, open courtyards, water feature nd grounds. The acquisition of Pacific View by Service Corporatio iternational in 1991 did not change that purpose. Pacific View is ove 0% open space and what is proposed will continue the tradition c reating a beautiful memorial park. The proposal includes installin mailer family mausolea and estate gardens. The community desire ifferent types of memorialization and interment opportunities for the >ved ones and themselves. These are personal decisions and th roposed amendment is a direct result of trying to accommodate request •om families for that type of product. By providing a variety of qualit hoices we are better able to satisfy the needs of our families. Maintainin ie overall beauty of the park is vital and we believe this amendment doe ;l 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 hay 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 for slightly larger buildings than are approved to be built now; Nor of these buildings exceed the top height of the community mausole structures which is a 24 -foot building; Page 3 of 17 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning ConmllSSion\PC Min utes\2007\mn 08 -09-07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 08/09/2007 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 t 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 mausol and a reduction of size in two of the proposed mausolE construction of Building Site E will be delayed until 2014; landsca 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 t 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 landsca but no ornamentation of any kind; restriction in height of pie material above the 430 mean sea level elevation and have extend 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. 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. rman Hawkins asked if there was a tracking mechanism for the use and for a topographic overview r. Green answered family mausolea were approved to be built. Build to square footage has been purchased; however, some families hC nce chosen ground burials. An annual report on statistical summai as done shortly after the Development Agreement was approved. l )mpany has to track everything that is done in the cemetery. He tt splayed and explained the original site of Building H from 1995 and no e slopes and various grades. Discussion continued on existing grac ith fill -ins, cut -outs and tree planting placements. rolyn Schaffer with Dudek, project manager for the environmental this site. ran Hawkins, referring to the Negative Declaration page 11, seems to be a discrepancy in terms of height. Page 4 of 17 file : //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn08- 09- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 08/09/2007 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 -I, 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 Develop ement and what they requested in their application. They 3sting reduced building space, reduced building mass and incre ;raping. 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 ilations are accurate and that he had created a terrain model to ma actual physical camera. He went on to explain his process and that been in the business since 1992. comment was opened. r Burton of Villa Park, noted she had been asked by Pacific View tc iin her experiences with them. She then gave a brief history of hei mal experience with the passing of family members noting the mal compassion and interest from the staff members. Additionally noted that on commemorative holidays the park places specia nemoration for family members who are interred at Pacific View. A' mission 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 shower 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 communiti, mausoleum; We bought the house and have lived there happily until late 200( 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; Everybody on my street and the majority on a nearby street did sigi a petition. We gave this to staff; We received a letter about the Negative Declaration and we went tc the City to show our opposition; By changing this to six family mausolea you are going to change the Page 5 of 17 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn08- 09- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 08/09/2007 atmosphere of the park -like setting; the pictures show (h( distributed) that nothing humongous jumps out; We believe by building these huge 17 feet by 17 feet by 22 feet it the middle of the park will change the Califomia -style family memorial park to an eastern -style cemetery; He is against this change as it has an emotional impact as well as financial impact when it comes to selling his house; I am not against people doing business, but please have these 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 Iega and the recitals are very important; it says to be careful of the build• out on adjoining residences; By approving this amendment Pacific View will be happy, Service International Corporation will make good money, the residents wil live miserable and be unhappy, please ask yourself what does the City get? There should be some benefit. irman Hawkins noted that Dr. Bahri was eye his doctor and asked raises a conflict. City Attorney Harp answered, no. ar Wohrie, President of the Board of Directors for the Si neowners Association, noted the letter dated August 7, 2007 r 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 persona fence with her dealings with Pacific View during the times of he >. She noted her support of this application. II 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 hi; ement with Pacific View as a member of the Veterans group and the :ration of Pacific View staff. eonard Fish, local resident, noted this site was picked due to the view ie ocean. Area 8 was not approved for the estate gardens and th hould be limited to Area H. Memorial Park and the neighbors have IN Dmfortably together based on mutual agreements. The request iausolea will be privately owned and could contain up to 169 souls. ThE re thousands of less privileged families with relatives buried in the lay reas who want the lawn atmosphere maintained. He continued readi is comments into the record and concluded by asking that this applicati e denied or downsize the scale of the mausolea. (mmissioner Hillgren noted the applicant is reducing the density in mber of internments and overall square footage. What is your con( over- densification? Page 6 of 17 file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Planning COnunission\PC Minutes\2007\mn08- 09- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 08/09/2007 Fish answered he is concerned about the number of huge independ( dings 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 eastem -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 :rall architecture better and blend in better than having six separa mite 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 rk -like setting. )ennis O'Neil, clarified that the location of the family mausolea in Buildi Site H, Area 8 was not selected for the ocean view. The family mausol lave an average of 4 crypts within each building and range anywhere fr< I to 10 and in some cases may never get built at all. The Building Site ;rypt wall mausolea will be started imminently. What is being proposed v iot add value to Pacific View in this case and the density and reduction ;ommunity mausolea is actually a diminishment of property rights; this >omewhat unique as there are vested development rights for Pacific Vi( n the Development Agreement, but it also provides protection and ben( or the surrounding community. What we are doing will not change t )ark -like characteristics of Pacific View as 90% of the land is open spa (nd that will remain. nissioner McDaniel asked how long the plant material will take and screen the buildings. r. O'Neil answered we are conditioned to put in 36" boxes and none o ese family mausolea will be able to be seen by the residents from abov( ien they are occupied. The landscaping will go in starting within twely( onths after this Development Agreement amendment is approved an( rther landscaping will go in when building permits are pulled for eacl mily mausolea and finally, before there is a certificate of occupancy, w( II finish the landscaping. There is an additional provision in th( avelopment Agreement that says that if in fact any part of thos( ausolea are visible from up above that the City can require Pacific Viev further landscape it, which we have agreed to. We think there is mor( an adequate protection so that by the time these family mausolea go in ere will be fully mature landscaping screening. McDaniel asked about the timeframe. Green answered that we are required to build a commun (soleum, which is a cast in place concrete structure, within a nir ith period from the day we start to end when we get a certificate upancy. He explained the construction process. The family mausol pre - fabricated all- granite buildings that are pinned together. Other th grading that will be done and the planting of the 36" box trees, tho Jings are brought to the site and assembled quickly and set on Page 7 of 17 file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn08- 09- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 08/09/2007 rete foundation. The timing is a matter of weeks. We are requi the day we request the certificate of occupancy, a City inspei .s out and inspects from those two viewpoints. If it is deen ssary, we are required to plant more trees to immediately block 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? Ir. Green answered that by planting the 36" box trees now those trees wil row. Our anticipation is that we will not need to add much additiona indscaping. We could go out and plant trees to screen during the onstruction period; however, it seems that for a few weeks of assemblinc peration it's onerous. We would like to finish up after it is constructed. uring the construction period there is really not a lot that is going to be een. The soonest we can build a building is a year and a half from nov y the time you go through all the permitting and assembling an( rbrication, etc. The typical spec would be five - foot -wide by about twelve )ot -high trees. We are required to put in some 48" box trees which will be irger and depending on what species they will be about 7 feet by 14 fee igh. Since they will be placed up a slope, they will be higher than the uildings the day they are planted. 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 views. Lepo added that the Agreement talks about protecting ,erties from impacts as one of the public benefits. immissioner Toerge noted the due diligence by one of the previo eakers. He noted he is sensitive to any pre- approved entitlement tt ght want to make changes and make impacts to adjacent prope (ners. I have looked at the plans, visited the site, studied the drawin d reviewed the conditions and have difficulty identifying material imps adjacent properties. I can't see where the proposed amendment a witing development has any kind of adverse impact on adjace )perties. It is not reducing values, not blocking views and with t orter amount of time to erect the mausolea with the additior idscaping there is no negative impact. With a condition that is so bro to say that if at the completion of these mausolea they can be seen fr< homes, then more trees will be planted. That is convincing to me tt u are not going to see the mausolea. otion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded t ) mmissioner McDaniel to approve the amendment to Use Permit 351 Page 8 of 17 fil e : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes \2007\mn08- 09- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Conunission Minutes 08/09/2007 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 by Commissioner McDaniel to continue this item to September 20, 2007. Ayes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Excused: Cole ITEM NO.4 SUBJECT: ARCO Gas Station Convenience Store (PA2007 -059) PA2007 -059 2100 Bristol Street Continued request to approve Use Permit 2007 -009 to convert the existing area devoted to automobile repair to convenience store use. In addition, 173 square -feet would be added to the existing building to provide a new storage area. Associate Planner Brandon Nichols gave an overview of the staff report referring to a PowerPoint presentation. He noted that the applicant has made some last- minute changes to the design of the service station. On of the changes is separate male and female restrooms that have been requested by the Building Department and is one of the Service Station Development Standards. Other changes were made to the landscape planter at the corner of Bristol and Birch. It has doubled in size; additional Page 9 of 17 file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn08- 09- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 08/09/2007 idscaping has been added in front of the parking spaces adjacent to the ilding; additional trees are to be planted adjacent to the exterior propert, as (2 facing Bristol and 2 in the comer planter at the intersection). Thes( anges result in 11 % total landscaping of the site. Additional landscapinc mg the interior property lines will be provided. Project includes new to irkings and signage for better circulation and ensures one -way access t( filling stations. Another change is the roofing material which is nov )posed as red tile to be consistent with surrounding businesses. 3cussion continued on the site circulation signage as well as the drive u kiosk of Carl's Jr. next door. Staff feels that the required findings fo Droval can be made. Eaton asked about the screening of the vents. (erring to the visual, Mr. Nichols located the gas vent at the corner th screened by the vertical element on top of the roof as is all tl chanical equipment. The gas vent is approximately 3 feet above tl 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 1 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 reed to mount a camera and an independent TV monitor visible to shier covering both those entrances. Hawkins noted the landscape issue should be asked of immissioner Eaton asked about the signs and if they meet the desig ideline 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 rred regarding this. :ommissioner Hillgren noted he spent time with the applicant at the nd that this is his least favorite entrance to the community in terms of looks. He favors anyone doing changes to the entrances to Nem each. He noted the traffic on site is too much. Service stations ecoming more like mini -marts that he thinks of it as gas and milk. iscussed problems with a right turn off Bristol, placement of sei umps, mechanical bays used for storage, the potential for additional tr n site once a mini -mart opens, addition of patron parking for mini -i nd back up of Carl's Jr. traffic. Circulation is quite difficult and he a: rhy an entrance off Bristol is appropriate. Nichols answered staff was attempting to achieve one -way uah the site. Page 10 of 17 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\nm08- 09- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 08/09/2007 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 1 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 rllenges 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 aId 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, ald be doing. •. Brine noted they could look at the circulation at the rear of the buildii 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 wing 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 wrong direction or force them around the back of the property. There it a lot of storage capability on the site and so this would provide sor )rage 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. airman Hawkins noted the northerly entrance was not staffs was a request of the applicant. Brine answered, that is correct. McDaniel asked where people park for the Brine answered the parking is in the rear and on one side of Iding 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; 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 comer is important to the business; We are willing to install a dedicated camera and monitor inside tt 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 ar accepts the findings and conditions as currently drafted. Page 11 of 17 file: //F: \Users \PLN \Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn08- 09- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 08/09/2007 ;ommissioner Peotter asked about the pass- through that is labeled 16 ;fear on the plan. Is there any reason why the planter couldn't ncreased to 8 feet? Imbraham, applicant, property owner and operator, answered it to increase that planter 2 or 3 feet. Brine noted the wider the aisle the better;13 feet would be acceptable. nmissioner Peotter asked about the fuel tankers entering as well ing more planting area. r. Fink noted that due to the size of the site and the circulation probl( at currently exist, that suggestion would make it worse. By increasing ?e of the planter that we have, we are able to still deal with the circula oblems and sufficient room for the tanker trucks and allow for rr ndscaping. 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 i; lack of landscaping along the frontage and an alternative could be duction in square footage and parking because, in his opinion idscaping is more important than square footage. I. Fink added that in order to maintain good traffic flow and still soften >k, 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 :t long. :r McDaniel noted the landscape dimensions were difficult What size and species type will be used in the planter? Fink answered they would be happy to provide a detailed mmissioner Hillgren asked why they requested the driveway off Bristol. :re is not a need for another venue to sell alcohol and beer as ther( )ear to be plenty of sources. Is it acceptable that the sale of the bee i wine be handled by a 21 year -old? Who uses the southerly driveww. Bristol? r. Imbraham answered that entry is for the mini store. He answered )uld be acceptable to have at minimum a 21 year -old clerk selling be id wine. The driveway is vital for the gas delivery trucks but custome > use it as well to exit onto Birch. mmissioner Hillgren, referring to the site plan view, noted his concern traffic around the building and asked if the restroom access could I the store. Page 12 of 17 file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \2007\mn08- 09- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 08/09/2007 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 electrical Fever, they could put in a dedicated monitoring system to be viewed b), 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 m 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 circulatic and the back, you would end up with no exit onto Birch Street. The on would be onto Bristol, so whether that is an improvement or conveniei those patrons entering or want to exit onto Birch, changing th elation to the back would remove any exit onto Birch. ;ion 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. r. Nichols noted the minimum site area requirement is part of the alvelopment Standards. The calculation is 1,500 square feet of land areE r each fueling space, 1,000 square feet for each service or washing bay hich there are none, and 3.3 square feet for each square foot of gross nor use for retail and /or food or beverage sales. The proposed service ation and convenience store would require a 16,808 square foot site an( e existing site is 16,484 square -feet so it is short 324 square feet of the inimum standard. rmissioner Peotter asked how much the requested additional too Ad have to be reduced in order to make up the shortage of the si ,elopment standard. Nichols answered 98 square feet. The storage area size they a uesting is based on Health Department requirements for a convenieru re and that is why there is a proposal for more square footage. It cou accommodated by altering the retail space. He noted that deviatioi allowed by the Service Station Chapter. comment was closed. sioner Toerge, noting the guidelines and suggestions on n, density and landscaping, in this particular case in modifying building indicated the circulation concerns trump the land= > if they are conflicting. We don't gain any community benefit file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared\Planning Commission \PC Minutes \2007\mn08- 09- 07.htm Page 13 of 17 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 08/09/2007 g the applicant to reduce the storage area by 98 square feet and we would hurt the project by doing that. ;ion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded nmissioner McDaniel to approve Use Permit 2007 -009 (PA2007 -0 ject to the conditions of approval with the following modifications: s to be installed are 36" -box minimum size; widen the planter al( tol two additional feet rendering the drive - through at 14 feet; iscape plan to be prepared and submitted to the Planning Director roval; that a 21 -year age requirement be in place for anybody sell r or wine to the public; and, a camera that has the capacity to view b room doors, or two separate cameras if necessary, are in place so t employees can monitor those doors. imissioner Peotter asked for the number, size and types of trees to ted. He recommended two trees in the front planter, or if using pair e should be four. In the corner 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 inces. nmissioner McDaniel noted he would like to see canopy trees that do the signs and that could mean fewer trees but be an enhancement site over time. imissioner Toerge amended his re of site distances and shade retion of the Planning Director. motion to encourage that and b, producing trees being left up to mmissioner Peotter noted the time limit of fuel truck deliveries ndition 31 add, "...or other times as determined by the Plann actor." At this station a nighttime delivery would be perfect as th no residences around it and I would like to allow that option. Condil repeats the code as far as noise and proposed to delete the table. maker of the motion agreed. Hawkins noted his concern of the landscaping. He asked a lating another landscape area thereby reducing a drive aisle. Fink answered we looked at that and instead came up with the ding 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 his discretion. file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes\2007\mn08- 09- 07.htm Page 14 of 17 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 08/09/2007 Mr. Imbraham stated he understands and agrees to the revised conditions. Commissioner Peotter noted he likes the fact that the applicant has been filling to make the suggested changes and is spending the money to improve and enhance his business. Not having that additional landscaping on Birch is a deal breaker for me. I think this could be better architectural) and landscaping wise and site design without losing square footage. He noted he would not be supporting this application. Commissioner Hillgren noted he has similar concerns, particularly with the irculation. It is a difficult situation today that is not being improved at all other than slightly visually. The restroom is problematic and it is appropriate to have direct access for the store. He stated he would no support the motion. Commissioner Eaton noted the improvements are significant with the landscaping at the comer. 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. The applicant has the opportunity to appeal this decision to the City Council. Mr. Lepo suggested another motion that this be denied without prejudice and direct the applicant to go back and revise his project in light of the concerns expressed tonight and return at another hearing. Assistant City Attorney Harp noted it would be appropriate to make an alternative motion. Commissioner McDaniel noted he would like to give the opportunity for the applicant to re- submit his proposal with a full Commission to vote. Mr. Imbrahams noted he would like to come back. Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by 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 OBJECT: 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 Page 15 of 17 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \2007\mn08- 09- 07.htm 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 08/09/2007 d and ground- mounted mechanical equipment on properties in Districts? comment was opened. comment was closed. mmissioner Peotter asked why the 15 feet from exterior edge of thi Iding was a requirement. If there is a parapet, would 6 inches bi ficient, and do you care? Lepo answered that could be deleted. mmissioner McDaniel noted his concern of the ground - mounte( chanical equipment Condition 1b. If I lived on Balboa Island with :e -foot setback, there is no way I could comply. This would bi blematic to place screening so as not to be visible from othe a brief discussion staff recommended removing reference residential districts" from both Condition 1 a and 1 b. otion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded t :)mmissioner McDaniel to recommend approval to City Council with th moval of Condition 2b and the last sentence reference in Condition 1 id 1 c to "residential districts" be stricken. oes: None xcused: I Cole McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Special Meeting August 21St regarding Group Homes ng comments, this item was received and filed. 3JECT: Recommendation for appointment as a representative Special Needs Committee of the OCTA's Board of Directors. ng comments, this item was received and filed. BUSINESS: City Council Follow -up - Mr. Lepo noted the Affordable Housi Implementation Plan was approved by the City Council conjunction with the General Plan Amendment and Coastal La Use Plan Amendment that would accommodate the construction the condominium units in Newport Center by Lennar Homes. TI went to Coastal Commission with a recommendation to change I land use designation to residential; however, Coastal Commissi ITEM NO. 6 Discussion ITEM NO. 7 Discussion Item ADDITIONAL BUSINESS file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Planning Commission\PC Minutes \2007\mn08- 09- 07.htm Page 16 of 17 12/19/2007 Planning Commission Minutes 08/09/2007 ;d mitigation of $5 million for Phase 2 renovations at Crystal Cc State Beach and that was added as part of our language in 1 Coastal Land Use Plan. Lennar agreed to this as well as Memorandum of Understanding with an additional $5 million to 1 City to be used for park improvements. Lennar is paying an owr of a twelve -unit apartment building to improve and upgrade the units and to extend the affordability provisions for 30 years to sati the affordable housing requirement of 15% of new units. The it( for final adoption of resolution for the Newport Brewing Compa was continued at the request of the applicant as they are still taki exception to the City's interpretation of the Coastal Commissi condition limiting the amount of dining area used before 5 p. seven days a week. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Econo Development Committee - Chairman Hawkins noted there was meeting of EDC but the Executive Board met to discuss personnel of the Committee and adding additional members. Report from the Planning Commission's representative to tt General Plan /Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee Commissioner Eaton noted there was no meeting. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like Staff to report o at a subsequent meeting - none. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on future agenda for action and staff report - none. Project status - none. Requests for excused absences - none. RNMENT: 10:00 p.m. BRADLEY HILLGREN, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 17 of 17 file: //F: \Users\PLN \Shared \Planning Commission\PC Minutes \2007\mn08- 09- 07.htm 12/19/2007