Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-11-09MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9,,2004 HUNTINGTON BEACH CIVIC CENTER 2000 MAIN STREET. HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92648 6:15 P.M. - ROOM B-8 (CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL) CALL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER P P P P P P P ROLL CALL: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Stilton, Livengood, Dingwall AGENDA APPROVAL THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA OF NOVEMBER 9, 2004, WAS APPROVED BY ACCLAIMATION. A. STUDY SESSION ITEMS A-1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.04-02 (BEACH BOULEVARD RESIDENTIAL) — Ricky Ramos Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner, provided a brief overview of the proposed - amendment. He explained that the amendment is scheduled for a public'hearing tonight and that all property owners within a 300-foot radius of each property to be amended was notified along with subject property owners. Vice Chair Ray asked if the Automobile Dealers Association had been notified of the request. Staff responded no. Staff referenced maps depicting General Plan and zoning designations and discussed concerns raised by property owners and residents about the non -conforming status of their property as a result of the previous amendments to a commercial designation. Staff provided background on the past actions by the City and how the area was amended from residential to commercial and then directed by the City Council to amend the area back to residential. Chair Davis voiced concerns about discussing the item without the public having an opportunity to provide input. Commissioner Scandura stated that the request might require more time to study. A-2. PC PROTOCOL (COMMUNITY MEETINGS) —Commissioner Tom Livengood Commissioner Livengood introduced the item and expressed his reasons for asking the Chair to place the item on the agenda for discussion. He noted concerns with individual Commissioner's sending out meeting invitations on an item currently before the Commission. (04p=1109) PC Minutes November 9, 2005 Page 2 Commissioner Dingwall reminded the Commission of past discussions related to a Commissioner advocating for or against any given subject, and how such a restriction is an inviting test of one's first amendment rights. Chair Davis responded that public officials give up certain 1't Amendment rights (i.e., meeting on issues, providing a position, etc.), explaining further how courts interpret such issues. He also voiced concerns about public perception and confidence. Commissioner Dingwall stated that the Brown Act does not prohibit advocating routine procedural matters, and discussed his personal experience with being chastised for advocating a position on a past item heard by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Livengood spoke in opposition to initiating/organizing community meetings. Commissioner Thomas spoke in favor of a public forum to avoid misrepresentation and/or comments taken out of context. Commissioner Stilton stressed the importance of careful, organized communication when involved in serving the public as a Planning Commissioner, not private citizen. Commissioner Scandura stated that although he would not advise organizing community meetings, he felt that a recent community meeting organized by Vice Chair Ray was held for informational purposes only. Vice Chair, Ray explained that the meeting being discussed was organized by the neighborhood residents to bring both sides of an issue together. He stated that he did not distribute a flier and didn't have time to reach all Commissioners to notify them of the meeting. He stated that it is a Commissioners duty to speak to the public on issues before the Commission, and that a majority of the Commission meeting at an unadvertised location violates the Brown Act. He explained the information discussed at the meeting, and that the meeting was helpful to clarify some untruths among the public about the government process. He also stated that he did not advocate for or against the issue being discussed. Commissioners Thomas and Stilton discussed public misconception, whether or not any inappropriate action has actually taken place. Commissioner Dingwall repeated the importance of 15t Amendment rights, but understands that it may benefit the Commission to refrain from providing an opinion on an entitlement issue. Commissioner Stilton stated that it is inappropriate to discuss project details with any one side without the other side receiving the same information. She commented that emotionally driven individuals often provide incorrect information. Vice Chair Ray discussed arriving at a decision and making a judgment call based on the facts presented and opinions from staff and other sources. Commissioner Scandura stated that meetings should not be held if potential Brown Act violations exist. (04pcm1109) PC Minutes November 9, 2005 Page 3 The Commission and staff agreed that the issue would be discussed at the next_ Planning Commissioner Workshop to be held in February 2005. B. AGENDA REVIEW (UPDATE ON ALL AGENDA ITEMS) — Herb Fauland. Herb Fauland reported that staff has received no new information on Public Hearing Item No.- B-1 (Beach Boulevard Residential), and identified late communication received on Public Hearing Item No. B-2 (Good Shepard Cemetery Expansion.) - PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE REPORTS Commissioner Scandura discussed the sessions. and workshops he attended at the California Chapter of the American Planning Association-(CCAPA) Annual Conference held in Palm Springs held October 17-20, 2004. D. PUBLIC COMMENTS — Regarding Study Session portion of Meeting — None. 6:30 P.M. — RECESS FOR DINNER 7:00 P.M. — COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER P P P P P P P* ROLL CALL: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Stilton, Livengood, Dingwall AGENDA APPROVAL A MOTION WAS MADE BY THOMAS, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA OF NOVEMBER 9, 2004 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Stilton, Livengood, Dingwall NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None _ MOTION APPROVED A. . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Felipe Serrano, Meander Lane, questioned who initiated the request for Public Hearing Item No. B-1 (Beach Boulevard Residential). Chair Davis suggested that the individual speak on the item during the public hearing portion of the meeting. (04pcm1109) PC Minutes November 9, 2005 Page 4 B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS B-1. NEGATIVE DECLA 04=02 (BEACH BOULEVARD RESIDENTIAL): Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Property Owner. Various Request: ND: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. GPA: To amend the General Plan land use designation to match the current zoning designation for three areas along Beach Boulevard as follows: Area A — Amend from CG-F2-a-d (Commercial General — Maximum Floor -Area - Ratio of 0.50 — Auto District Overlay — Design Overlay) to RMH-25 (Residential Medium High Density — Maximum 25 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre) or RM-15 (Residential Medium Density — Maximum 15 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre) for properties along portions of Stark Ave., Holt Ave., MacDonald Ave., Glencoe Ave., and Alhambra Ave., west of Beach Blvd. Area B — Amend from CG-F2-a-d (Commercial General — Maximum Floor -Area -Ratio of 0.50 — Auto District Overlay — Design Overlay) to RM-15 (Residential Medium Density — Maximum 15 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre) for properties south of Terry Drive and east of Viewpoint Lane and along Moonshadow Circle. Area C — Amend from CG-F2-a- d (Commercial General — Maximum Floor -Area -Ratio of 0.50 — Auto District Overlay — Design Overlay) to RM-15 (Residential Medium Density — Maximum 15 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre) for properties along portions of A Street and B Street, south of Warner Ave. and north of Blaylock Drive. Proiect Planner. Ricky Ramos STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Negative Declaration No. 04-02 with findings;" and, "Recommend approval of General Plan Amendment No. 04-02 by adopting Resolution No. 1593 and forward to the City Council for adoption." Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner, provided a staff report and PowerPoint presentation to the Commission. Commissioner Livengood asked if the existing zoning on Moonshadow Circle would remain RM - Residential Medium density. Staff confirmed, explaining that the General Plan Amendment was initiated in order to make the General Plan - and zoning designations consistent. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Thiet Nguyen, Sailport Drive, requested that the zoning remain residential. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Scandura asked if the City had received requests for commercial development in the area in question. Staff responded that the City was approached by a car dealership about acquiring an adjacent parcel for a parking lot. Staff discussed the uncertainty of the market and explained that the subject parcels are not large enough for an auto dealership. Staff also stated that no plans had been submitted for any commercial development on the subject properties. (04pcm1109) PC Minutes November 9, 2005 Page 5 Vice Chair Ray asked about auto dealerships within an auto district overlay. Staff described the overlay district explaining that dealerships are restricted by their own guidelines from moving within 10 miles of another dealer without the other dealer's permission. Staff also explained auto dealership's options for expansion. Vice Chair Ray asked what type of residential units exists on Moonshadow Circle. Staff replied apartments. Vice Chair Ray, asked if any properties in areas A, B or C were individually owned? Staff replied yes. Vice Chair Ray asked if the area is slated for affordable housing. Staff replied that no sites are identified specifically for affordable housing. Discussion ensued about how the General Plan designation for the area changed to commercial in 1996. The Commission made the following disclosures: Commissioner Thomas drove the area; Commissioner Scandura spoke with staff and drove the area; Vice Chair Ray drove the area; Commissioner Livengood visited the area and spoke with staff; Commissioner Dingwall visited the area, read the staff report and discussed the issue during a Commission Study Session; Chair Davis is familiar with the area. Commissioner Dingwall asked if the auto dealership mentioned would be able to continue using the parking lot area for commercial purposes. Staff replied yes. Commissioner Scandura discussed the City Council's 1996 decision to amend the General Plan in order to facilitate auto dealership, and how the request ran into public opposition in 2000, explaining that the request should not impact future development of the area as residential. Chair Davis asked if the existing zoning designations'in the area were to remain unchanged, how would it negatively impact property. owners? Staff replied that if the request before the Commission does not pass, the properties would have inconsistent zoning and General Plan designations and be rendered non- conforming. The inconsistency or non -conformity would prohibit the owners from making improvements to their properties. The intent with the request is to remedy the situation and have the General Plan and zoning made consistent. Chair Davis asked what type of process is required to remedy the inconsistency and the non -conforming status. Staff explained that an application must be submitted to change the zoning or the General Plan. Chair Davis asked what is involved in changing the General Plan. Staff explained the process and noted a timeline of approximately 12 to 16 months, including the need for a possible environmental impact report. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.04-02 WITH FINDINGS. Vice Chair Ray asked if any discussions were held with the apartment owners to upgrade the area: Staff replied yes and some are ready to submit plans. Vice Chair Ray asked if staff had contacted and/or received comments from the Auto Dealers Association. Staff answered that the Auto Dealers Association was (04p=1109) PC Minutes November 9, 2005 Page 6 aware of the opportunity to provide comments on the request, and that the City had not received any comments to date. Vice Chair asked why the Economic Development Department is opposing the request. Jim Lamb, Business Development Manager, explained that the Economic Development Department has a general philosophy about retaining and expanding land for future commercial development, and opposes any request that may reduce commercial growth that has the potential to provide increased sales tax, services and employment. Vice Chair Ray voiced concerns about the lack of notification to the Auto Dealers Association and suggested continuing the item in order to consider their input on the matter. Commissioner Thomas also voiced concerns about auto dealerships but is in support for the request. Commissioner Dingwall called for the vote. Commissioner Livengood asked if auto dealerships within the required public notification area were notified. Staff answered yes. Chair Davis asked about a possible mixed -use development. Staff explained the direction provided by the City Council, and that the current zoning does not allow a mixed -use development. Staff also explained that auto dealerships have not been disregarded and encouraged the Commission to take action on the item this evening. Chair Davis asked why staff had not considered a mixed -use designation in the past in order to make both parties happy, explaining that he doesn't want to disadvantage anyone and will vote no on the request. Commissioner Scandura noted how the action taken this evening might cause expanding commercial businesses to go through a lengthy amendment process, that the process will allow additional analysis, and that the process is certainly not new. ° - - . - - THE MOTION TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.04-02 WITH FINDINGS WAS RESTATED BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Stilton, Livengood, Dingwall NOES: Davis ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.04-02 BY ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO.1593 AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION. (04pcm1109) PC Minutes November 9, 2005 Page 7 Vice Chair Ray made reference to Area C on Attachment No. 4.12 and discussion ensued with staff about the term "mixed vertical' (commercial on the ground floor and residential above) and how the Lowe's project changes the area to commercial. Vice Chair Ray voiced approval. Staff discussed mixed use being used for 10-15 acre parcels, and explained that requests involving smaller panels do require a coordinated development plan. Staff explained uniform regulations throughout each district and also discussed how zoning maintains property values and character. Commissioner Dingwall discussed how the request assists residential owners that are locked out of making improvements and how this request will not hurt auto dealerships. Commissioner Stilton explained how the request only makes consistent the current zoning identified in the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance with the General Plan. THE MOTION WAS ACTED ON BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:, AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Stilton, Livengood, Dingwall NOES: Davis ABSENT: None A13STAIN: None MOTION APPROVED B-2. _PERMIT NO.00-63 (GOOD SHEPHERD CEMETERY EXPANSIONI: Applicant: Padian Team Consulting Property Owner: Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange Request: MND: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. CUP: 1) To permit the three-phase expansion of the existing 23 acre cemetery. The {phased improvements include the construction of an approximately 85,000 square foot, three-story mausoleum, an approximately 10,000 square foot maintenance facility, and above -ground garden crypts totaling approximately 100,000 square feet on 12.5 undeveloped acres adjacent to the existing cemetery. 2) To permit approximately 980 lineal feet of six-foot tall decorative block walls and view fencing at a zero setback along the Beach Boulevard and Talbert Avenue frontages. Location: 8301 Talbert Avenue (North side of Talbert Avenue, east of Beach Boulevard). Project Planner: - Paul Da Vejga . , STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 03-08 with findings and mitigation measures;" and, "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 00-63 with findings, modifications and conditions of approval.' The Commission made the following disclosures: Vice Chair Ray and Commissioner Dingwall excused themselves from action on the item due to possible conflicts of interest; Commissioner Thomas visited the site; Commissioner Scandura visited the site and spoke with staff; Commissioner Stilton visited the site; Commissioner Livengood visited the site and disclosed that he owns a plot for future internment. (04p=1109) PC Minutes November 9, 2005 Page 8 Paul Da Veiga, Associate Planner, provided a staff report and PowerPoint presentation to the Commission. . THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED: Chrysteen Bandy, Board Secretary for the Tamarack Village Homeowners Association (TVHOA), spoke in support of the proposed lighting but voiced concerns about the proposed vinyl fencing, criminal activity, vagrancy, and the 10 foot setback between their property line and the crypt building. She also voiced opposition to the 3-story building and discussed how their front doors face the cemetery fence. Mindy Belli, Huntington Beach, discussed the property's north/south border along the Tamarack Village and voiced concerns about fencing and a 10-foot setback. She discussed how the area attracts undesirable traffic, including trespassers coming over the fence at the northwest comer of Tamarack Village. She stated that safety issues in the 10-foot setback must be addressed through proper lighting and maintenance. She also discussed the nature of the gate at the end of alleyway, and whether groundcover was being considered. Gordon Doull, Residents — RD283, voiced concerns that existing water runoff problems are not being adequately addressed in the report, including water basins not being able to maintain proper capacity because of problems that exist downstream. He discussed Districts 2 and 3 having no tract access to the east and south, creating a pocket that could attract undesirables and encourage criminal activity. He also discussed the 20-foot Newman Avenue setback and the use of trees and shrubs that could provide housing to vagrants and prohibit vehicular access by police. He stated support for wrought iron fencing. Ron Cowper, Huntington Beach, stated that certain exhibits do not correctly depict the area they represent. He described the mausoleum as prison -like and dilapidated. He discussed the public notification process and the 300 feet radius requirement. He voiced concerns about aesthetics, wall height, and connecting a 54" drainpipe into a 48" drainpipe. He described flooding in recent years that caused water to rise up to the front doors of residents on Newman Avenue. Joe Novoa, Diocese of Orange, identified his associates and discussed a neighborhood meeting held to address concerns by residents about lighting, landscaping, Police accessibility, and neighborhood flooding due to the absence of a capable drainage system downstream. He explained that a large volume of public water travels through their property that lies between 2 drainage areas, suggesting the need for a comprehensive master plan to upgrade the property and improve runoff conditions. He discussed landscaping and setback enhancements and stated that the project is committed to enhancing the infrastructure, irrigation, current slopes, and mitigation of issues related to drainage and runoff. Discussion ensued about standard city code requirements. Mr. Novoa addressed concerns related to noise by referencing fencing and solid block wall information provided on page 3 of the staff report. He also requested that public improvements along Newman Avenue be completed within the second (04pcm1109) PC Minutes November 9, 2005 Page 9 phase of the project because of unfeasible costs estimated at $3 million dollars. He finalized his comments by referencing staffs opposition to the three-part phasing plan identified on page 11 and the associated financial impacts related to grading and construction of detention basins. Mike Padian, applicant, addressed the concerns related to possible flooding on the property and the re -design of the detention basins. He discussed Public Works suggestion for compliance with the sloped basin design for water drainage, City liability issues, the City's annual schedule for maintaining the channels, and basins not depicted in the City's master plan of drainage. He also voiced concerns with the City using their site for correcting drainage issues. Commissioner Scandura made reference to an informational discrepancy related to phase one activity on attachment 3.15 and the conditions of approval listed on page 5 of the staff report. Mr. Padian discussed drainage improvements projected in the first phase, including making detention basins slightly bigger by using a larger drainpipe, depicted on Attachment 2.1, CUP Site Plan Phases 1, 2and 3. Irwin Fishbein, Huntington Beach, provided a history of activity related to the existing storm basin backing up and causing flooding to area neighbors. He described how his property has been flooded 3 times in 25 years, and that boats were required to'access neighbors front doors that were submerged in 3 feet of water. He called -the situation urgent and recommended_ that an expedient remedy for drainage be initiated. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Scandura commented on the differences in drainage and the applicant's proposal to install pipes in certain areas but not throughout the property. Commissioner Stilton questioned the applicant's choice for phase 1 improvements proposing the walls along Newman Avenue and not the corner of Beach Blvd. and Talbert Avenue. The applicant suggested swapping Newman Avenue improvements for the Beach/Talbert improvements. Commissioner Thomas asked if it was common for the City to require an applicant to complete public improvements like detention basins within the first phase of a project. Staff responded that it is common to condition necessary public improvements with the first phase of projects with a phasing plan, and given the drainage issues that impact the residents to the north of the site, the condition is appropriate. Commissioner Scandura asked about the vinyl fencing near Tamarack Village. Staff replied that the Tamarack Village Homeowners Association (TVHOA) is responsible for maintaining the vinyl fence, and suggested that the Commission consider a condition that prohibits double fencing. (04pcm1109) PC Minutes November 9, 2005 Page 10 Commissioner Scandura asked how the applicant would control vagrant and graffiti activity. Staff responded that security patrols will be made 4 times per evening and reported graffiti would be removed within a 24-hour period. Commissioner Scandura asked what type of storm event the proposed detention basins would control in the final phase. Staff responded that the improvements would maintain the current level of detention and not accentuate the condition. Commissioner Scandura asked if the cemetery is responsible for the floods experienced by area neighbors. Staff responded that the cemetery is not the reason for the floods in the area, but rather it is a combination of onsite, offsite, and upstream conditions. Staff discussed the vertical concrete walls requested by the applicant and staff's recommendation for earthened sloped areas to prevent slope deterioration. Commissioner Scandura voiced concerns about contacting cemetery officials and requested that a condition of approval be added that provides a public contact number. He asked that the vegetation in bermed areas be clearly identified, reminding the applicant that the Environmental Board advised native, drought - tolerant plants. He voiced concerns about the height of the garden crypts along Newman Avenue, and massing issues associated with the mausoleum height. Commissioner Stilton asked if staff received reports related to criminal activity on the property. Staff replied that code enforcement has received calls about people 'trespassing, but none from the Police Department. Commissioner Stilton voiced concerns about massing of the mausoleum and height of the garden crypts. She asked if the applicant considered the scale of adjacent businesses when designing the project, and whether or not it was possible to relocate the 3-story building. She also voiced concerns about insufficient landscaping and lighting to mitigate vagrancy, discussed how drainage issues may have dictated design, and how the request hasn't appropriately addressed neighborhood concerns. Commissioner Livengood asked how much property it would take to create sloped basins that would accommodate the storm water. Staff responded that they were waiting for a final proposal from the applicant before an exact area could be determined. Commissioner Livengood asked if the City is responsible for replacing the 32- inch drainpipe. Terri Elliott, Public Works, responded that channels downstream are not sized properly to accommodate a large volume of water, and that a detention basin must be included. Staff also discussed existing drainage channels identified on past maps. Chair Davis asked if the issue is inadequate downstream capacity. Staff confirmed, stating that the City provides a recommendation based an analysis of the worst -case scenarios and then determining what level of improvements are necessary. Staff also explained that the adjacent Wal-Mart development is conditioned to retain storm water flow (underground pipes, detention basins, etc.) in order to maintain current water flow conditions. (04p=1109) PC Minutes November 9, 2005 Page 11 Chair Davis asked what is involved, including costs, to fix the problems that exist downstream. Staff responded that a number -of issues exist, most importantly improperly sized channels'constructed by the County prior to 1996. Staff also explained how detention basins operate to store water. Commissioner Livengood voiced concerns about the sidewalk/curb/gutter on the south side of Talbert Avenue being ADA compliant. He stated that modifying the sidewalk and adjacent improvements would be cost prohibitive, and asked for a recommendation by Public Works. Public Works staff distributed photos that identified sidewalk width and their relationship to the streetlights and other right- of-way improvements. Discussion ensued on the process of involving the DRB in the review of the public improvements. Commissioner Livengood discussed Attachment 3 and the applicants phasing for the CUP. He asked if the detention basin identified within the first phase was temporary. Staff confirmed that the detention basin was temporary until the issues identified downstream were corrected. Commissioner Livengood discussed staffs acceptance of the applicant's wall proposal for Newman Avenue, and staffs recommendation for view fencing at the Beach/Talbert location. Staff described the wall and landscape design along Newman Avenue. Staff also. stated that view fencing was recommended at Beach Blvd. and Talbert Avenue because of zero setback issues; adding that it also softens the overall appearance. Commissioner Livengood asked the applicant if block wall fencing would better deter vagrants. Mike Padian discussed topography and fencing in-between crypt buildings along Newman Avenue and that the detention basin in front of the mausoleum is heavily screened. Commissioner Livengood asked if the crypts are considered part of the wall. Mr. Padian discussed the wall materials and crypt construction. " = Commissioner Thomas asked if the proposed Talbert Avenue crypt design provided an improvement to the stark -like appearance that currently exists. Mr. Padian responded that the proposed design would not be a flat wall. Discussion ensued about the zero setbacks along Beach Blvd. and landscaping. Commissioner Thomas asked if the fence along the garden crypt on Talbert Avenue could be set back to align with the mausoleum. Staff responded that moving existing gravesites pose serious problems. Staff stated that the wall could not be set back enough to provide adequate landscaping and that is why staff recommends view fencing. Joe Truxaw, the applicant's consultant, discussed street access and ADA compliance on Talbert Avenue. He also discussed moving the existing curb line 2 feet into Talbert Avenue to provided for a 6-foot wide sidewalk, explained that the existing gravesites abut at a zero setback line and encroaching into the street will not prohibit the right turn onto Beach Blvd. Staff responded that the City does not recommend reducing the right-of-way for Talbert Avenue to provide a 6-foot sidewalk. Commissioner Thomas asked if the properties lighting is shielded away from the adjacent residents. - Staff confirmed. (04p=1109) PC Minutes November 9, 2005 Page 12 Commissioner Scandura recommended adding 4 new conditions for discussion including keeping the applicant's proposal for drainage, limiting at the height of the garden crypt building and mausoleum at a maximum height of 30 to 35 feet, redesigning the garden crypts along Newman Avenue, and moving the crypt wall in. line with the existing Talbert Avenue mausoleum. Commissioner Stilton stated that the applicant did not provide enough information asking if it were possible for the applicant to present material to the Design Review Board (DRB) in order to consider Urban Design Guideline elements, etc. Staff referred to the mandatory processing time identified on page 8 of the staff report, and explained that the Commission could act on Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff added that based on the comments related to design, staff recommends that the Commission receive input from the DRB. Staff asked Commission Counsel if a 45-day extension of the CUP would be in compliance with CEQA guidelines. Commission Counsel stated that the applicant would have to concur. Discussion ensued about possible meeting dates for the DRB. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY STILTON, TO APPROVE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.03-08 WITH FINDINGS AND MITIGATIONS MEASURES, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Davis, -Stilton, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Ray, Dingwall MOTION APPROVED Staff recommended the Commission identify what they wish to see at the next meeting, adding that the applicant had met the minimum code requirements. Staff also reminded the Commission that public improvement requirements are regulated by code and the Public Works Department. Commissioner Livengood asked for an appropriate solution to widening the sidewalk on the north side of Talbert Avenue. Staff reminded the Commission that the street/curb/gutter/sidewalk design was part of the Wa1Mart project and again referenced the photos distributed. Staff also stated that the existing utility pole would be relocated underground, and that the signal poles comply with Title 24 requirements. Commissioner Livengood asked for the sidewalk width in commercial areas. Staff replied that the sidewalk on Talbert Avenue is 8 feet and explained that due to gravesite location along the north side of Talbert Avenue, a 10-foot dedication would not be possible. Staff said that the existing sidewalk could be modified to meet ADA requirements. Commissioner Thomas asked if the fence could be moved inward at the comer of Beach Blvd. and Talbert Avenue. Commissioner Scandura said he believed that 15 feet existed between the fence and gravesites. Mr. Padian explained that (04p=1109) PC Minutes November 9, 2005 Page 13 lawn crypts must be measured and the width must be established for the area behind the fence, but that they would prefer a block wall in that area to inhibit noise and allow visitors to mourn. Staff stated that such a request would be subject to further review. Staff also recommended seeking a recommendation from the DRB for walls and landscaping. Commissioner Scandura questioned how much time would be necessary to allow the applicant to address height and sidewalk issues. Chair Davis responded that the applicant has met all zoning requirements and staff repeated that if the Commission decides to continue the item, clear direction must be given on what specific items the Commission is asking staff and the applicant to address. THE COMMISSION TOOK A RECESSED AT 10:00 P.M. AND RESUMED AT 10:0T P.M. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY THOMAS, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.00-63 TO A SPECIAL MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2004, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Davis, Stilton, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: ' = Ray, Dingwall - MOTION APPROVED A SUBSTITUTE MOTION WAS MADE BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY THOMAS, TO APPROVE STAFFS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.00-63, AND FORWARD DESIGN ELEMENTS (BUILDING SIZE/MASSING) TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. - Commissioner Thomas asked if it were possible for the DRB to provide a recommendation on downsizing the garden crypts or mausoleum. Staff responded that there isn't enough time to get a DRB meeting scheduled to review the proposal prior to the next meeting. The applicant explained the overall crypt height, articulation, and design proposed to -address the mass of the building and to soften the appearance of the Newman Avenue frontage. Commissioner Scandura suggested modifying the grade, downsizing the proposal to 5 crypts, and reducing the mausoleum height by 15 feet. Commissioner Stilton requested that the Commission give the applicant precise direction. She also expressed concerns with the long, linear design of the crypts and the 10-foot setback along the easterly side of the project adjacent to the existing residential development. COMMISSIONER THOMAS WITHDREW HER SECOND TO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION MADE BY CHAIR DAVIS. Commissioner Scandura restated his proposal to reduce the mausoleum height by 15 feet. He also recommended reducing garden crypt height by 3 to 6 feet, (04p=1109) PC Minutes November 9, 2005 Page 14 creating view corridors on the east side of the project, widening the sidewalk width at Beach Blvd. and Talbert Avenue, and providing view fencing versus a solid wall at Beach Blvd. and Talbert Avenue. Commissioner Stilton stated that height issues could be addressed during design review. Commissioner Scandura stated that if the slope/grade causes increased building height, then a two-story structure can be considered. Commissioner Livengood stated that the projects phasing plan needs to be studied, adding a request that 1 to 2 feet be added to the sidewalk on the north side of Talbert Avenue for increased width. Commissioner Scandura proposed conditions of approval to address the Tamarack Village fence issues, advertising a public contact number for the cemetery, using California native/drought tolerant landscaping, prohibiting use of bushes and shrubs that may provide visual cover to vagrants, and to leave the applicant's phasing plan as is. Discussion ensued about continuing the item to December 7, 2004. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY THOMAS, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.00-63 TO A SPECIAL MEETNG HELD ON DECEMBER 7, 2004 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Stilton, Livengood, Dingwall NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED C. CONSENT CALENDAR C-1. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to: "Approve the September 14, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes as submitted." A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY THOMAS, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 14, 2004, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Stilton, Livengood, Dingwall NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED (04pcm1109) PC Minutes November 9, 2005 Page 15 C-2. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to: "Approve the September 30, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes as submitted." A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 AS MODIFIED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Scandura, Davis, Stilton, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Thomas, Ray, Dingwall MOTION APPROVED C-3. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED OCTOBER 12, 2004 A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY THOMAS, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED OCTOBER 12, 2004 AS MODIFIED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Stilton, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Dingwall MOTION APPROVED D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS — NONE. E. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS E-1. PLANNING COMMISSION REQUEST ITEMS — NONE. E-2. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Thomas - None. Commissioner Scandura — wished the public happy Thanksgiving and Veteran's Days. Commissioner Ray — shared birthday sentiments with Veterans. Commissioner Davis - None. Commissioner Stilton — discussed the importance of studying staff report material so that Commissioners are prepared to take action on requests for entitlement that appear before them. Commissioner Livengood — asked about the progress of a single -room occupancy project at Ellis Avenue and Beach Blvd. (04pcm1109) PC Minutes November 9, 2005 Page 16 Commissioner Dingwall — questioned how the passing of Proposition 59 (Public Records/Open Meetings — Legislative Constitutional Amendment) will affect the Commission and Planning Department staff. F. PLANNING ITEMS F-1. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Scott Hess, Planning Manager — reported on the Planning Department items heard before the City Council on November 1, 2004. F-2. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS FOR THE NEXT MEETING Scott Hess, Planning Manager — reported on the Planning Department items scheduled before the City Council on November 15, 2004. F-3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING - . Herb Fauland, Principal Planner — reminded the Commission that the regular meeting of November 23, 2004 has been cancelled. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 10:45 p.m. to a special meeting on Tuesday, December 7, 2004 at 7:00 p.m., Huntington Beach Civic Center. The December 14, 2004 meeting has been canceled. APPR VED BY: Howard ZED sky, Secretary (04p=1109)