HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnvironmental Assessment TTM14017 - Staff Report or Executive Summarysraff Intington beach departmentI community development
EP OR
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Community Development
DATE: September 19, 1989
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-17 WITH SPECIAL PERMITS
AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14017
APPLICANT: Hall and Associates DATE ACCEPTED:
2717 South El Camino Real September 7, 1989
San Clemente , CA 92672
MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE:
PROPERTY William Lamb 45 days following certifi-
OWNER: HC 60 Box 1050 certification of EIR 89-5
Bliss, Idaho 83314
ZONE: R1-FP2 (Low Density-
REQUEST: CUP: Construct 18 two-story Floodplain District 2)
single family dwellings in
a planned residential GENERAL PLAN: Low Density
development with special Residential
permits including reduced
side yard setbacks, offsets, EXISTIN SE: Vacant
building separation,
private open space in lieu LOCATION:Southeast corner
of required common open of Garfield Avenue and
space. Bushard Street
TTM: Subdivide a 2.56 acre
parcel into 18 individual ACREAGE: 2.56 gross acres
planned development lots 2.04 adjusted gross acres
with private streets.
1.0 SUGGESTED A TION:
Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 89 -17 and Tentative Tract Map
No. 14017 with findings.
2. GENERAL INFORMATION:
Conditional Use Permit No. 89 -17 with Special Permits and Tentative
Tract Map No. 14017 is a request to construct an 18 unit detached
single family dwelling planned residential development with special
permits to deviate from required sideyard setbacks, offsets,
building separation and required common open space pursuant to
Section 9150 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code.
1R)A -FM-23C
31-Q RR NDIN LAND' E Z NIN AN N PLAN _IESIGNT191:
Nor h f 'ec Pro rt : Located within the City of Fountain
Valley (Commercial /Retail)
Ea t and outh of Sub'ect Pro ert :
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential
ZONE: R1-FP2 (Low Density
Residential-Floodplain District 2)
LAND USE: Single family detached dwellings
Wes of Sub'ect Pro ert :
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION : General Commercial
ZONE : (Q) C2 (Qualified Commercial Business
District)
LAND USE: Commercial /retail
4 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STAT S:
Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time,
the Department of Community Development prepared and circulated
Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 89 -5. Prior to any action on
Conditional Use Permit No. 89 -17 with Special Permits or Tentative
Tract Map No. 14017, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to
review and act on Environmental Impact Report No. 89-5.
5.0 COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable.
6.0 REDEVELOPMENT TAT Not applicable.
7.0 SPECIFIC PLAN: Not applicable.
8.0 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE:
On August 2, 1989, the Subdivision Committee reviewed the proposed
subdivision . Staff presented an overview of the project in
conjunction with an explanation that the applicant was
simultaneously processing a General Plan Amendment and Environmental
Impact Report to increase the land use density from 6.5 units per
acre to 15 units per acre.
During the staff analysis of the subdivision, concerns regarding
access to the site, lack of guest parking, building bulk and lack of
common open space were discussed . As indicated in the Subdivision
Committee minutes dated August 2, 1989 (Attachment No. 5), the
Committee discussed staff concerns regarding the proposed project
and indicated that a revised subdivision layout with a lower density
would be better suited for the site. The applicant requested that
the committee vote on the subdivision as presented. After a lengthy
discussion, the applicant agreed to a continuance in order to revise
the project. A motion to continue the item passed by a vote of 6-0.
•
•
Staff Report - 9/19/89 -2-(3641d)
•
•
•
On August 9, 1989, the Subdivision Committee met in order to review
a revised subdivision which addressed the concerns of the
Committee. Although the applicant had previously indicated that the
subdivision would be revised, the applicant requested that the
Committee make a determination on the subdivision as proposed.
After a brief discussion a motion to recommend denial passed 6-0
based on the primary concern of insufficient off-street guest
parking.
I ES AND ANALYSIS:
Conditional Use Permit No. 89-17 with Special Permits and Tentative
Tract Map No. 14017 is a request to construct an 18-unit detached
single family planned residential development. In order to
subdivide the parcel into 18 individual lots, the applicant is
proposing 35 foot lot frontages which range from 3,800 to 5,250
square feet in size. In addition, the applicant is requesting a
number of special permits to deviate from the planned residential
development standards which should be based on enhanced design and
architectural diversity which staff feels is absent from the
proposed project.
The following is a matrix which illustrates compliance and special
permits associated with the proposed 18 unit planned residential
project:
Section Issue
9150.4 Density
max. 6.5 units/acre
Bedrooms/acre
9150.5 Site Coverage
9150.6 Max. Height
9150.7 Front Setback
9150.8 Side Setback
-Exterior
-Interior
-Interior garages
9150.9 Rear Setback
Required Proposed
Max. 13 units
Max. 20/acre
Max. 50%
35 ft.
20 ft. avg.
18 units*
20 ft. avg.
10 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft. plus
15-18 ft.**
5 ft. **
5 ft.**
35 ft.
* Needs General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
** Needs Special Permit
Staff Report - 9/19/89 -3-(3641d)
Section Issue Required Proposed
9150.10 Building Separation •
-Front-to-front 25 ft.80 ft.
-Rear-to-rear 20 ft.n/a
-Side-to-front 15 ft.45 ft.
-Side-to-side 10 ft.10 ft.
Garage 20 ft.20-25 ft.
9150.13 Open Space
Total required 14,400 sq.ft.21,721.5 sq.ft.
Ground level 622.5 sq.ft.6,225 sq.ft. or
minimum greater
9150.14 Main Recreation 2,500 sq.ft.None**
Area minimum
50 ft. dimension
9150.19 Trash Areas Located within Complies
200 ft. of unit
9600 On-Site Parking
2 spaces/unit 36 36
+ .5/guest +18 +18 (in 20 ft.
54 54 minimum
50% of open space driveway)
may be in tandem
in 20 ft. driveway
** Needs Special Permit
Pro'ect Anal sis:
As the matrix illustrates, the proposed project requires a general
plan amendment from low density residential to medium density
residential. Also, in concert with the general plan amendment, the
project requires a zone change from R1 (Low Density Residential) to
R2 (Medium Density Residential).
Aside from the density issues, the project requires a number of
special permits in order to accommodate the planned residential
development standards. The applicant has designed a planned
residential development with detached single family dwellings in an
attempt to be compatible with the existing residential neighborhoods
surrounding the site. Access to the project will be through an
established neighborhood located to the east of the site.
•
Staff Report - 9/19/89 -4- (3641d)
•
•
Staff has a concern regarding compatibility with abutting single
family dwellings. In order to subdivide the site into 18 lots, the
lot widths and lot size are significantly less than the existing
neighborhoods. Also, the project is located in a floodplain area
which requires the existing grade to be elevated three feet when a
two-story dwelling is built. Staff has a major concern regarding the
impact of artificially elevated two-story homes located very close to
the existing dwelling located next to the site.
Also, staff perceives that any overflow parking which may occur
during a special event or in case of extra vehicles per dwelling will
negatively impact the existing neighborhood to the east. The absence
of adequate off-street guest parking spaces is a serious deficiency
in the design. Staff suggests that more guest parking be provided
off-street and greater setbacks should be provided between abutting
properties and along the arterials in order to mitigate the increased
building pad elevations required by the floodplain regulations.
Staff does not support the request for special permits due to greater
concerns over on-site guest parking, lack of adequate setback buffers
to abutting properties and the arterials, and lack of architectural
diversity in the project. Staff has analyzed the site and has
determined that a 15 unit project would be better suited for the
site. Decreasing the project size from 18 units to 15 units would
provide areas for additional parking, greater setback buffers, larger
lot sizes, and be more compatible with the densities of the
surrounding neighborhoods.
A 15 unit project would still require a general plan amendment and
the change from low density residential to medium density residential
because the number of units would exceed the maximum of 6.5 units per
acre limit existing on the property. Both staff and the Subdivision
Committee have serious concerns over site layout, lack of off-street
guest parking density and compatibility. These concerns have been
discussed with the applicant. In addition, staff received a letter
from the Environmental Board (see Attachment No. 6) which expresses
the concerns that staff and the Subdivision Committee share. Staff
agrees with the Subdivision Committee recommendaton of denial of
Conditional Use Permit No. 89-17 with Special Permits and Tentative
Tract Map No. 14017.
10.0 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Conditional Use
Permit No. 89-17 with Special Permits and Tentative Tract Map No.
14017 with the following findings:
FINDIN S FOR DENIAL - ONDITI NAL USE PERMIT NO. 89 -17 WITH SPECIAL
PERMITS:
1. The proposed 18 unit detached planned residential development
will not be compatible with adjacent single family neighborhoods
because of lack of adequate setback buffers for noise, height,
landscaping and lack of adequate off-street guest parking.
Staff Report - 9/19/89 -5- (3641d)
2. The construction of the 18 unit detached planned residential
development will be detrimental to the general welfare of
persons working of residing in the vicinity and detrimental to
the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood.
3. Off-street parking and circulation are inadequate for the
proposed 18 unit detached planned residential development and
have the potential of creating congestion and circulation
hazards.
4. Ingress and egress to the site has the potential of creating
negative traffic impacts to Albacore Street.
5. The planned residential development for the 18 unit detached
planned residential development does not conform to the
provisions contained in Article 915, as demonstrated by the
following special permit requests:
a. Exterior sideyard setbacks of 15 feet to 18 feet in lieu of
20 feet average.
b. Interior setbacks of 5 feet in lieu of 10 feet.
c. Garage sideyard setbacks of 5 feet in lieu of 10 feet.
d. Private recreation area in lieu of common recreation area.
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14017:
1. The size, depth, frontage, street width, and other design
features of the proposed subdivision for the 18 unit detached
planned residential development are not in compliance with the
standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well
as in compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act and the
supplemental City Subdivision Ordinance.
2. The property has not been previously studied for this intensity
of land use at the time that the General Plan designation of low
density residential and R1 (6.5 units per gross acre) zoning
were implemented.
3. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
8.8 units per gross acre.
4. Tentative Tract No. 14017 for an 18 unit detached planned
residential development is not consistent with the goals and
policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan and the existing
land use designation of low density residential.
•
•
•
Staff Report - 9/19/89 -6- (3641d)
•
•
•
•
11. ALTERNATIVE A TION:
As an alternative action, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission continue Conditional Use Permit No. 89-17 with Special
Permits and Tentative Tract Map No. 14017 to the November 1, 1989
Planning Commission meeting and refer the project back to the
Subdivision Committee in order to review a 15 unit detached planned
residential development project which will provide the following:
1. Increased setbacks between adjacent properties and from
arterials.
2. Provide additional off-street guest parking.
3. Increse private open space for lots located along Bushard Street.
4. Increased architectural diversity.
ATTA HMENT :
1. Area map
2. Site plan , floor plans and elevations
3. Tentative Tract Map No. 14017
4. Subdivision Committee minutes dated August 9, 1989
5. Subdivision Committee minutes dated August 2, 1989
6. Letter from Environmental Board dated August 3, 1989
7. Narrative for Conditional Use Permit No. 89-17 and Tentative
Tract Map No. 14017
HS:RLF:kla
Staff Report - 9/19/89 -7-(3641d)
RFIGAELD
C2
R3
u.f
HYDE
Rl
PAID
w0, H LN CA
..I..............:.rR
E„0t
CF-E
R1 ITALBER'r
MA-
R!
K A M
RI J P.!
IRKTOWN A
RI RI
VERONICA - OR
1 RI
wA01FIElO W.
RI i RI J RIQ
[LVA CR
RI -
RI RI
T HFI
VELARDO
0.
KREPP
,VI
SANE ,AEC
1401014,00
SAILFISH
za.82 „ RI n ;,LC'IN
N N RI ALBACORE
d RI
.a
DR
BASS DR.
RI W RI RI
A
R VELAR00
C.F.
RI
RI...-E7
Z
DR. J FLOUNDER
BONNY OR
50.2.[0 RIVER
RI
RI
RI
AVE
x TARPON 8 u
RI RI RI RI
RI m 5
RI
GREENWICH DR
K
RI 4R! RI RI
.PORTSMOUTH OR.InnSNYVCA
RI RI
Cl NANTUCKET DR I AOJ:.=w2.
RI
Ix CF-E
EIR89 -5 , GPA89 --1 ,Z e89
CUP89 47,1"TM 1401J '
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION
RI
RI
RI
......,..E R R: w
RI
.EACH 1
DR
OR,
A
R.I
(IC1ci
III!IIIIII
l
I!1
IIIIIIIIIII
1 1 1 I IAI I V7 I
I
MH
1060
RA
MH
FAIR I
RI
AVE.
S,DI1 Q
RI I~(CNA BHGCi.I
R
I
C4
RI3
el
FRECERKK at
RI
HOORE CR
RI
IOHD CR
C2
HUNTINGTON BEACH
•
•
•00
•
'PROJECT DATA 4
r9mo.
l.l.tl.y .-1 (Uo. 0.n.ltylPro90..d 4-i (LO ._0.d. O.,ultyl
Let Ar..,
339.30• . 319.30• r a. 910 .9.1t.
A1lw.d . 50{4134351 .yy.t. (92 910 .4.18.)
Pro90..0. 011.490 .9. (t. or 350
e er..4
P0.0 .0 3_ly +, it . 9 ..... 3.0550 .9.31.
81.0 •0' / 3-m- A 0.n wit . 9 .....lf.10 9.ft.)
T.- .
3*9 r.e, 3-34.,, 40)8 1 3 .9..../ wn)8 (9)
s-4dr.. A 0.n • 3 .q0../ it (91
luwl i.d. 36 --
GENERAL NOTES:
1.8.99(.8. 0 .r.1t 1 . yyoOr .d (or o0 M./1041n{ 0e
tor.. 1.. • 3 900. .11 .• ..miry ..I1 .. 4400.? pr)Hoer ..l.iry 9001./ .9u.
i. Rwld ..un.7 .8.4.. prior to 3.w0 .tl.n ln .WUelw t0-13y 104 110...
d.. o8W )ry Pl... for 100 .81.0 .3 r .t.)nl0 13 0.10.. 0002 ..t a.d.. 8.9...90.
0391.? 17 W PUb4100 Wo«1 pOSiic .tiono1
4.
VICINITY MAPlr
18-UNIT PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT
'CITY( OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
OWNER /BUILDER:
WALL A ASSOCIATES.INC.,
LGARFIELD STREET,
a U
tn.,
3) M 49!11
:'FIRE•DEP • . REO'M S•
I/_a N. . /.I. ,Pipe'40,.>Q M4. 4)311' t P99 H.'"O F'NO I W9Nl'P""'W'40 Pad. r- v4f(
v
}1.
L
2 r-
EXI8 COURt
01, g
09
iALBACQRE STJ
di41i./tY/M/l0
SITE PLAN 1
• - _1 e 5
N-I
PLAN "A"
BEDROOM +2 BEDROOM +3 KITCHEN FAMII.YR
-- - _ 0 2-CAR GARAGE
- N b
LIBRARY -F"
I. BATH IDININGROOM_ O2 . r /2 BATH LAUNDRY FIrO
t w
WMASTER BEDROOM i
MAST.BATH LIVINGROOM
'ENTRY "
BALC ONY I - -11
L -4-
DECK'.
NO G
N pJMLL OI HGN91/N7
7N
A/f• i0, o
SLEEPING LEVEL 'LIVING LEVEL1 GARAGE LEVEL
P-2
0
PLAN "Be
BEDROOM 12 BEDROOM +3
10• t•
LIBRARY
MASTER BEDROOM
I4 • s
BALCONY
tis,o,
F IlhIM Te v _r IT RMRM .
DININGROOM
IV, A
H
2-CAR GARAGE
N
o
IZ•'' /2 BATH a LAUNDRYF_F 1 I `I
I \II I
I _ ]IIG _ y "tlf
LIVINGROOM
I. IY"
ENTRY
DECKi PARLOR.101- 11°
SLEEPING LEVEL LIVING LEVEL GARAGE LEVEL
P-3
0 'o-
0
REAR ELEVATION
DD
A
LEFT-SIDE ELEVATION
o(3
1YPµ-C T+vSrh Wirtt')
j RIGHT-SIDE ELEVATION 049J-1 016,
I
DLkGy I'c4GGlt3fT-+kr*Gh/rYfwt
•
• - -a . SO
F.RO T' ELEVATION PLAN ° :. P-4
is
•
ED
u L-1 Clf71ITlIF
REAR ELEVATION
00
LEFT -SIDE ELEVATION
l- ' ryrtr ) C9 LkZCl'(I(I[+f
0 k
rN
RIGHT -SIDE ELEVATION
II
Ti/IUAL& p# x•7ti)
LL
orrrr' n.la' sco
frAHN&) rfr
FRONT ELEVATION PLAN "2"P-5
0
LEFT-SIDE ELEVATION
ftt r
t/f
4fA
LCFROSSECT!ON•;'ALL AC ALJNI.WPn gel. hoot la/tlf.(•fi1n&N'tf
Alu r J141 L.L ..Isvnl•I AU ircco/
f'f+hHL'y/fif. - _ tf. (HIkHI fGc 4)
'G-1o, ze' CCL.41.H1f/
FRONT ELEVATION PLAN '03'P-6
ENThTG V E TRACT IO
/4-0/7
V1Ur.rY /Y)4,
C/7Y OF /auNT/.LV 'W BEACH • ORANGE
.""4. - /919 1
GARFIELD AVENUE
lrv P.
fes ° '•a
rt
rvrY2oiF i
is //30'
/0'p`EG a
Vj v 8 30'
StA
sl. o 7
81
)y,10 (7o.4)
2 tt o• a , A..
r r3Y
f klFe.
L I
AGE
e ._reo 61107
3s' 7 3r' :r
C-7?
'ti _ 5 1 14 5. 3
E,pm jr:..
r' r'
Gr /4 TizAr
6.•.) (s2./)
IS 3/P•iZr
¢812 Gr /6
,d etita
1r
)S•Q,r
2 /
COUNTY
Aa.taae.
696pE ,b 5.42:1
NAIL 4 ArJOrra)FI
27/7' Se,n,Y Ec in..w e
S,9•v C[E.aIPAE/C4 92672
(710)41841200
A}Entacb t/YY:
VANE" o..pNJL 7.1001 ',, /NC
-C6 ,,7x 4 %4, 4, 92707
) 0th A AN M/ Q'E 29 2
2 fkvi.,m 20.0...0 - Q 2. (2 o -* Rwv,n)
3. F)vmws Uri - Stc2e `,t S06
4 Fhvs ,wo Uri - /LP L.r rrve4•V1LOy
r TO 040 ...r Ew.r . v (w ,+.a/G .. /Au.
A R,.r_ A.-
7 .4u Fwn.vc Jr,h.aut. 7f, ee it--.e
B. A4t livrrv a nrrts ro •1¢ £0501400
9 J" a[/( [e[ rv C.fr A,..•awsrtn
/o. A.c rvr.Y i sK•.a,.•Iw. fo rar ,4 Cm
12 A. aanr r,w Gwl....r
p.t0 I.
111 100 pttlm of I tlw.t it 1400.flt u. 0.60Mttia•wl.rt«b 04 004.4 of oa 0, toll. of dllto[.b. 1.0'P1 of Ve..pp
00..0 .00004. oe .wra:y: a..ty. t«`e'[ie .erti slm..t°«n.
tcti
1.01 4Ita ,tt, t004.0i,
e[.t.'•tir 410eV tO...40th1[m. of ..14 55.001doo. f [e ! par• .100 tO. 0••t 1IM ofb[ttw.t 00uu• t•[ of -1 .. 4
toot
ti tat t• tl• to,. ps tot oftlae. ,00th ••t «[.1101 .111 LLo M.t 11M Of ••11 10,00.«0of t«<im Ii . to tG..00th IoM of Get 10 or h .et to. 00011 10.40•Wt .loop CM bill 110. of tot. It, It ... 11 of 1[•00 M. a\fi b
tW to.at8..at 0000.[ of tat •0 of .tat told *Wm boll 50[.14 fatto too II [tl«•t mt «t or tat \I o 00. \\11 nme• lIlt.140..l 1t«t, tlua• b LL4.4 ..ll 0f 40.00
LL•tt«ttli .• oft0.t.
foot
to
till
lo.[t.t of MOttm it [, awr tarts nro. M•t•rlr III.,.t to polo. It Mp10oty.
p.1t>Q. II.
ttlletlmtt0,of a WlttltLL•ttt.ept IIlo.o '10 t p motes lot=..City or Wt10pt ® t..et, Ismq et aarp•, s". of tSllreNl., «
.0000. m
t a °oi:.ero.tte9• main....ettttrpt\ttal [e1i..,[ItMau
.. - .of Northtlamrb[tlf\t a...\.m.el .1oct m10{..04flock..11« of 1•l. brLL«• Ou•rt•r, 1\t.\f t«t, LLa« M..uo 0• 1.' u•Wt, 0•[•31.1 .1tt till t«t 1W of tlr brtl0•e0 mar of .0,4
p«tf« t, f f f«t, «r •t p 00. 4 fM bRl 1IM of tat if of•r.0I b. 0013, M m« ee . o p tMrar r«ot.M 00 .•0l 111. ,tooti1, la «e i., 11•cW w r•p•. te• •f •1I.both . ofp t II,LL tooth f• 11. .i• t, 11101 tM 11 ... of ltet .
. It, la W
i.Iltof •1. 1. b. a.i t.. it w.t.1l) «f.•••StO et tM T-I
te 110•
Of
or •tl. Get li, lpt.ff f..t mn or 1 M t Wt 1tr
of tlt : [gM..l. 111.0 114.. 110 0t• Col.`1 ` 0W• MILL
I.. 10. 01•pIlM .r .ttMt.t.
SUBDIVISION MINUTES
AUGUST 9, 1989
1:30 PM
Subdivision Committee Members Present:
Geri Ortega, Kirk Kirkland, Ken Bourguignon, Bill Patapoff,
Ward Kinsman (representing Steve Parker), Mike Adams
Staff Present:
Scott Hess
Tentative Tra No. 14017•
Applicant: Hall & Associates
•
This item was continued from the August 2, 1989 Subdivision
Committee to allow the applicant time to submit revised plans
addressing the concerns of the Committee. The applicant had agreed
to prepare two plans, one depicting 9 duplexes and one as an
alternative single family residence plan showing more guest parking
spaces. Subsequently, the applicant requested that the Committee
make a determination on the project as it was presented with no
revisions.
Following the applicant's request, the Subdivision Committee met on
this date to review and discuss the proposal.. The applicant was
unable to attend the meeting. After brief discussion, Commissioner
Kirkland made a motion to recommend denial to the Planning
'Commission of the 18 unit detached planned residential development
project as presented based on insufficient guest parking.
Commissioner Ortega seconded the motion and it passed 6-0.
•
Subdivision minutes (3402d)
•SUBDIVISION MINUTES
AUGUST 2, 1989
1:30 PM
Subdivision Committee Members Present:
Geri Ortega, Kirk Kirkland, Ken Bourguignon, Bruce-Crosby
(representing Bill Patapoff), Ward Kinsman (representing Steve
Parker), Scott Hess '(representing Mike Adams) (Mike Adams arrived at
2:45 p.m.)
Staff Present:
Robert Franklin, Michael Connor
Tentative Tract No. 14017:
Applicant: Hall & Associates
Tentative Tract No. 14017 is a request for an 18-lot detached single
family planned residential subdivision. The 1.9 acre project is
located at the southeast corner of Garfield Avenue and Bushard
Street. The property is currently zoned Rl-FP2 (Low Density
Residential-Flood Plain) which allows for 6.5 units per acre.
Access to the subdivision is from Albacore.
• In conjunction with the subdivision request is a general plan
amendment and zone change to R2 (Medium Density residential) which
would permit up to 15 units per acre on the property. The proposed
subdivision represents 10 units per gross acre.
Robert Franklin presented an overview of the project as well as the
following concerns and requirements from Community Development:
1.Special permits will be required for lack of common open space
with recreation amenities and guest parking.
2.Access from Albacore as presented is recommended.
the arterial streets is not recommended.
Access to
3.Planned Residential Development Standards are required.
4.Parking on private streets is prohibited due to a
street section and lack of curb space.
narrow
5.Increase variety in building setbacks; the current design
creates a straight line effect.
6.A 10' landscape buffer is recommended along arterial streets.
The Committee discussed the density of the project. Commissioner
Ortega suggested that the project be revised as a 13-unit
subdivision instead of the proposed 18. Discussion ensued. John
Cowles, applicant, requested that the Committee vote on the plan as
it was presented. He did not wish to change or revise the project.
Bruce Crosby presented the following requirements of Public Works:
1. The Tentative Tract map shall be revised to show:
a. 7' of dedication on Garfield Avenue along Lots 13 - 18.
b. The proposed streets to be private
c. Parcel I (proposed streets) shall be lettered lot.
d. Elimination of Parcel II.
2. All vehicular access rights to Garfield Avenue and Bushard
Street shall be dedicated to the City.
3. The existing driveways on Garfield Avenue shall be installed
where required.
4. Street lights on Garfield and Bushard shall be installed where
required.
5. Deteriorated public improvements , (streets , curb and gutter,
sidewalk, etc.) shall be removed and replaced adjacent to the
Tentative Tract.
6. Grading and drainage patterns shall be approved by the Public
Works Department.
7. A soils report is required.
•
8. Water facilities shall be public and constructed per the Water
Division requirements . The water mains shall be constructed
in the private streets.
9. Each dwelling unit shall have a separate water service.
10. The perimeter planter areas shall be constructed per City
Landscape Standards and maintained by the Homeowner's
Association.
11. The sewer mains within the private streets shall be privately
owned and maintained.
12. If a security gate is desired , its configuration shall be
designed and approved with the street improvements.
13. A vehicular turnaround shall be designed at the westerly end
of Albacore Street and approved by the public Works Department.
14. Private street turnaround shall be designed to accommodate
trash trucks.
Ward Kinsman of the Fire Department presented the following
requirements:
1. Provide one (1 ) new fire hydrant.
2. "Hammerhead " portion of street shall be a designated fire lane
with no parking allowed.
•
Subdivision Minutes -2-(3383d)
Plannin Commission Comments:
0
1. Commissioner Ortega recommended that the project be reduced to
a 13-lot planned residential development; and expressed
concern regarding on-site/off-site guest parking and
buffer/setback problems to existing residences and arterial
streets.
2. Commissioner Kirkland stated that two-thirds of the units back
or side an arterial. He expressed concerns regarding the lack
of a sound buffers for those units as well as concerns about
the elevation (3' higher than adjacent properties) of the
proposed residences.
3. Commissioner Bourguignon was concerned with the possible
visual problems of the residences from the street. The
current design of the plan lacks variety in the building
setbacks and presents small front yard areas.
All three Commissioners expressed great concern about the proposal's
lack of on-site /off-site parking (i.e. guest parking, resident
parking).
The Committee requested that the applicant provide for more on-site
parking. The two allotted spaces per unit were not sufficient for
the site.
After lengthy discussion between the Committee and the applicant, a
suggestion was made to revise the plan. The applicant agreed to
submit a conceptual layout of duplexes instead of the proposed
single family detached residences.
Commissioner Ortega made a motion to continue this item to the next
Subdivision meeting scheduled for August 16, 1989 at 1:30 p.m. This
would allow time for the applicant to revise the tentative map to
address the concerns stated herein and re-submit it for the
Subdivision Committee's review. Commissioner Bourguignon seconded
the motion and it passed 6-0.
•
Subdivision Minutes -3-(3383d)
August 3, 1989
HUNTINGTON BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD
Huntington Beach City Hall
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Kelly Main
Planning Department
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Ms. Main:
The Environmental Board has reviewed EIR No. 89-5, the
General Plan Admendment for the southeast corner of Garfield and
Bushard.
There is no significant justification presented in this
document for the proposed rezoning of the parcel from Ri (Low
Density Residential) to R2 (Medium Density Residential).
Construction of two-story homes three feet above existing
grade would have a considerable negative impact on the existing
neighborhood of modest single story homes. Mitigation measures
must address aesthetics, glare, and noise emanating from such a
project. Setbacks and screens of mature trees should be
considered to avoid adverse impact on neighbors.
Parking, as noted in the report, will be a definite problem.
Even using existing Ri zoning, off-site parking will be severely
limited in the proposed cul-de-sac situation.
Not addressed in this report is the considerable negative
impact of construction debris and noise generated by this project
within a previously developed residential area. Construction
equipment and materials will be transported through the tract to
the Albacore cul-de-sac.
Additionally, existing buildings on the site must be
evaluated for asbestos content. Demolition of any structures
demonstrated to contain asbestos should comply with OSHA and
Huntington Beach City mandates for the removal of hazardous
substances. Extreme caution should be used to avoid air-borne
contamination of adjoining inhabited sites.
Sincerely,
Mark Conley
Chairperson
(Ad Hoc Committee Members: Irene Alfieri,
Mark Conley, Suzanne Heritage)
•
is
•
cc: Vic Leipzig, Liaison , Planning Commission
Peter Green , Liaison , City Council
A
Design &
•
INCORPORAT D
5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 130, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 • (714) 898.9693
April 19, 1989
Oonditional Use-Permit Narrative
a.) The reason is to create an 13-Unit Planned Development
with a private street serving the project for ingress and
eggress.
•
John 14:2
b.) Primarily Single Family Residential with Neighborhood
Commercial. Proposed project would serve the need for
additional Single Family Residential (Detached) thru-
out the city.
c.) The proposed project is a Small Lot Sub-Division (P.V.D.)
creating 18 Single Family Residences fulfilling a need for
housing of this type thru-out the city.
d.) The surrounding uses are primarily Single Family Residences
to the South and East and Neighborhood Commercial to the
West and North.
0
AGk PE
Design &
nt
INCORPORATED
5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 130, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 • (714) 898.9693
John 14:2
April 19, 1989
Tentative Tract Ma Narrative
a.) The existing use of Subject property is vacant with a
few livestock on site. Present zoning is R-1.
b.) 18-Unit Planned Development create by a General Plan
Amendment (6.5u/ Acre to l5u/ Acre) and a zone change
(R-1 to R-2).
c.) Creation of a private street with public utilities via
existing water and sewage lines. They will be installed
prior to final inspection of Building Inspectors on
new structures unless noted otherwise.
d. ) None
e.) Street trees per city of Huntington Beach Park and
Recreation Department (Landscape and Irrigation Division).
f.) Conditions, convenants and restrictions shall be submitted
to Planning Department and then forwarded to City Attor-
ney's office for review prior to Building Permits.
•
•
0