Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-01-12Approved 2-2-82 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Room B-6 - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOLDING A SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Schumacher, Winchell, Paone, Porter COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Bannister, Kenefick, Mahaffey CITY STAFF PRESENT: Palin, Bellavia, Barnes, Noble, Parker, Tindall TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 1982 - 7:00 PM TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11716 (C.U.P. 81-33) Applicant: Robert P. Warmington Co. Marc MacAlpine was present to represent the developer; Ray Harnes, with Cable TV, and Pat Capp, Civil Engineer; were also present. Savoy Bellavia described the proposed project, a 51-unit planned residential development on a 4.1 acre site located at the termina- tion of Countess Drive in Huntington Harbour. Mr. MacAlpine addressed the Commission. He pointed out that one basic building type will be used, arranged in three- and six-plex unit types. The construction will be three-story, with the bottom unit always being one-story and townhouses above. The one-story units will be from 1844 to 2088 square feet and the townhouses from 2690 to 2843 square feet in size. Architectural style will be Mediterranean with three theme plazas, all concrete streets, and auto courts. In some locations the surface will be stamped concrete to accentuate the theme plazas and driveways. Recrea- tional amenities will include a tennis court, clubhouse, swimming pool and spa, as well as dock facilities as part of the recrea- tional package. He indicated that there are 47 already approved boat slips with 60 foot pierhead line on the main channel and a 50 foot pierhead line on Trinidad Channel; the applicant is pro- posing 10 more boat slips so one can be provided for each unit and 6 for guest dockage. He said that landscaping material will be carefully selected for species that will withstand the growing conditions on the site and be compatible with the architecture. The proponent will in- Minutes, H.H. planning Commission/$ubdivision Committee January 12, 1982 Page 2 stall landscaping between the project and the public parking lot dir- ectly to the north, which he is by prior conditions of approval required to design and install for the City. There will be a small greenbelt in the center of this lot to break up the appearance, and landscaping along Countess Drive at the edge of the lot. The entry treatment from Countess Drive will be tied to a central theme and carried all the way down Countess Drive to provide an aesthetically pleasing access to the units. Mr. MacAlpine discussed the safety features to be installed for fire detection purposes, the street width for fire emergency access, and the parking provided onsite which meets the code requirements. He emphasized that none of the 102 parking spaces to be included in the public parking lot will be counted to meet the development's parking requirements (as had been the case when this property previously had been intended to be used for a commercial purpose and the parking lot originally conditioned). Staff and the Commission discussed the proposal. Fire Department: Steve Parker outlined the following concerns: . The gross square footage of the buildings might indicate that they all may be required to be sprinklered. He reviewed the fire alarm and detection systems as discussed by the applicant. • The main entrance turning radius will not fit fire trucks and will need to be redesigned slightly. . A wet standpipe system will be required at the dock areas as well as fire extinguishers for fire boat requirements. • A Knox box system shall in installed for all gates on the project. • The department has concerns it wishes to discuss in regard to the turf block treatment and its effect on the turnarounds. • There is a possibility that special separation walls could be in- stalled to affect the base requirement for automatic fire protection systems in buildings of more than 12,000 square feet. The Fire Department is willing to review this in greater detail. Public Works: Don Noble • It is the assumption of the Department of Public Works that the vacation of a portion of Countess Drive which the layout makes nec- essary will be handled on the final tract map, an assumption which the applicant's representative indicated was correct. . Public Works would prefer a sidewalk with no block outs for trees, noting that the required landscaping can be picked up onsite. . Concern was expressed with the 24-foot widths on the internal street circulation system, and the applicant advised that Public Works would like to see that width extended to at least 27 feet. 1 -2- 1-12-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commisgion/Subdivision Committee January 12, 1982 Page 3 The configuration at the end of the entrance street may be somewhat tight for adequate access and should be modified. • Public Works would prefer a crowned street section instead of the 21 small drainage structures shown on the plan to take surface flow off the development. The possibility of getting the site to sheet flow to the street and draining it in that fashion was discussed. . Noting that the plans seem to indicate that the existing storm drain easement will be abandoned and a new easement created, Mr. Noble asked the developer if that was correct; Mr. MacAlpine agreed that that would be done. . A retaining wall cannot go on top of a bulkhead as it is shown in Section B-B'on the plan. . Public Works assumes that all onsite sewer systems will be private systems. . The City has an existing 12" water line along a portion of the development that goes underneath the channel to the other side of the harbor. It appears that the developer is planning to relocate that line. Mr. Noble cautioned the representative that the City will need a 10 foot easement for that line and needs to be able to get in and out for purposes of maintaining the line. Later in the meeting, he again stressed the need to know exactly how this would be handled. . Public Works would like the CC&R's for the development to es- tablish the responsibility for maintenance of the landscaping between the project and the public parking lot. It is their desire that the Homeowners Association assume that maintenance, as the City does not have funds or manpower sufficient to undertake that task. . It was recommended that all large -domed trees be kept a minimum of six feet from a curb, walk, or paving. It was also recom- mended that the eucalyptus citriodora shown not be used. . Parking: Mr. Noble pointed out several uncovered parking areas on the site where parked cars would impede traffic movements and recommended their modification. He said that the six park- ing spots shown for the pool and recreation facility might be insufficient, and cautioned the applicant not to plan parking in the fire turnaround areas, as seems to be indicated on the plan. . Wharfage and Dock Area: This was discussed between Mr. Noble and the applicant, with the following conclusions: All 47 approved docks will have bulkheads all built in one phase. If the other 10 proposed spaces are allowed, these will also be constructed at the same time. The final map will represent the existing pierhead for those docks, and sewerage facilities will be provided. Also, these docks will be accessible to the handicapped. -3- 1-12-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commiss�,on/Subdivision Committee January 12, 1982 Page 4 Mr. Noble asked for some indication of the shoreline of Seabridge Park and how it would affect the proposed development. The perimeter walkway for public access as required by the Coastal Commission is shown directly on the docks themselves. This is not acceptable to the City because of safety, liability, and security problems and must be provided on the site itself. The applicant said it had been considered preferable at that location rather than to have it directly outside the windows of the dwellings, in order to pro- tect the privacy of the residents. Public Works staff and the applicants will meet to discuss and re- solve the above items as well as grading and drainage concepts and street sections. Development Services: Savoy Bellavia presented the Planning Division's critique. . It was hard to ascertain if the required square footage is provided for the patios. Location, orientation, and dimensions of patios and balconies must be indicated on the plans. . Areas where streets in the project narrow down to 18 feet are not acceptable and must be widened to 24 foot minimum. There are angled corners where there is no actual turnaround area. Parking spaces in these locations will have to be relocated or redesigned. . The perimeter walk directly on the docks is not acceptable to the Planning Division. . The main entranceway per code is required to be 48 feet for 100 feet into the property. This will have to be addressed by the special permit process if the applicants wish to pursue this design as shown. . A parking plan shall be submitted showing the actual location of each space, along with a parking assignment diagram. • A special permit may be needed if the parking layout determines that 50 percent of the garages do not set back the required 20 feet from the travel lane. . Elevations must be dimensioned. • On the tentative tract, the pierhead line shall be shown at the end of the boat slips. . A small section of the property which the applicant indicated will be described as Lots A and B shall be included within the blue border of the map. Commissioner Schumacher questioned the bedroom count which seems to be over the allowable density spelled out for the R2 District. By her count the project shows 170 bedrooms, and the maximum permitted is 155. This will be checked out by staff. She also questioned the lack of required roof variation, and Mr. Bellavia said this has been reviewed with the applicants and will be addressed by special permit. -4- 1-12-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission/Subdivision Committee January 12, 1982 Page 5 Commissioner Porter and Jim Palin differed with the approach of the Department of Public Works in regard to the maintenance of landscaping next to the public parking lot. Mr. Porter inquired what the value of the improvements to this lot would be.- The applicant replied that he had no breakdown between actual construction and landscaping, but the total cost was estimated to be between 175 and 185 thousand dollars. It was the contention of both the above men that the City should not require the homeowners to take over this maintenance, as it is intended to benefit all the citizens of the City. Other methods were discussed, such as some kind of maintenance trust set up as part of the developer's landscaping budget or the installation of parking meters in the lot with the revenue being used to maintain the landscaping. It was the consensus of the meeting that the landscaping should not be decreased or deleted from the plan because of the maintenance problem. Mr. Bellavia announced that if the staff/developer meetings are completed and all the information requested is submitted in time he will attempt to schedule this item before the full Commission at its second meeting in February. TENTATIVE TRACT 11673 Applicant: Mola Development Corporation Frank Mola, Dick Harlow, Andy Barber, Arthur Danielian, Carl McClellan, Don Brinkerhoff, Will Haynes, and others were present at the meeting to represent the proposal. Savoy Bellavia briefly outlined the subject of the meeting: the Specific Plan and EIR for a proposed 744-unit planned residential development located on 60 acres of land southeast of Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue. Code Amendment 81-16 and Zone Change No. 81-15 are filed to implement the specific plan, required when the property was redesignated on the General Plan to planned development. The tentative tract and Conditional Use Permit No. 81-34 have also been filed to cover the construction of the project. Consultants for the developer made a slide presentation of con- ceptual plans for the development and showed the layout and landscaping of other similar projects built by the designer and landscape architect selected by Mola Development for this development. After this presentation, Jim Barnes described the history of the adoption of the amendment to the General Plan and the applicant's subsequent preparation of the EIR and the specific plan, aimed at dealing with the unique problems on the site. Staff and the proponent have worked together in the formulation of these documents; the EIR addresses environmental concerns resulting from the proposal and contains mitigating measures in the areas of flood protection, circulation, traffic control, -5- 1-12-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission/Subdivision Committee January 12, 1982 Page 6 geology, hydrology, noise, and buffer areas. The Development Stand- ards section of the plan follows fairly closely the areas presented in the City's planned development ordinance with variations to fit the conceptual design of the project. The following areas were discussed by the Committee: Resource Production Areas: Frank Mola said that the resource prod- uction areas on the site would be deeded to the Homeowners Associ- ation, with the developer retaining oil production and surface access rights for the economic life of the wells. He noted that there are eight new wells proposed by the lease operators, adding that if the first few wells are not productive obviously the drilling program would not be continued. These wells, as well as all existing wells, will be the required setback from any residence, and the site layout to the east of the flood control channel has taken the wells into considera- tion. Secretary Palin noted that the oil production areas should be presented as a lot upon the map, and that a future zone change would have to processed to apply the -01 designation to these lots so that Article 968 would have full force and effect on those areas. After approval of the request, an appraisal of the treatment and land- scaping of these resource production areas as permanent open space within the development will be made and, prior to permits being issued for construction, funds will be deposited into an interest - bearing account to pay for the ultimate development of those areas. Water Areas: Consultant Richard Harlow described how the water areas will be handled. There will be a freshwater pond installed at the location of the present ponding area at the base of the bluff. This freshwater pond will not be similar to the other rivers and streams in the project, but will have a natural type bottom with vegetation growing there compatible to the area. A viewpoint will be constructed overlooking this small pond, with fencing weaving in and out of the landscaped area adjacent to Beach Boulevard to allow people to view the area without a safety risk. A portion of the oil area -west of the channel will be improved as a restored salt water marsh at the termination of oil operations as men- tioned above. The flow into this marsh will be tidal and is intended to mitigate the possible impact from the conversion of the present ponding area. Commissioner Schumacher discussed how water will be provided for this marsh and what the effects on its vegetation might be if the water were mixed with rainwater. She also wished to make sure that the specific plan absolutely guarantees that this procedure will be followed after the oil wells are abandoned. Jim Barnes cited a recent communication received from the State Department of Fish and Game and noted that this department is taking a very negative approach to the proposed treatment. Pumping systems will be installed to effect circulation in the other waterscapes on the project. -6- 1-12-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission/Subdivision Committee January 12, 1982 Page 7 Development Standards: Mr. Harlow reported that the City's planned development ordinance had been used as a basis for the development standards in the code amendment, keeping in mind that this specific plan is written for a condominium type use, not townhouses. This program is intended to bridge a gap between the planned develop- ment and a condominium ordinance; e.g., the standards do not talk about six buildings in a row when discussing building bulk but in- stead addresses the maximum allowable length of buildings. The planned development -ordinance is followed for separation between buildings and for separation for open space. A major departure in the specific plan is the proposal to relate the amount of common open space to the square footage of development instead of the set amount of open space called for in the present ordinance. The specific plan will mandate what the perimeter landscaping buffer will be, but ample setback (minimum of 45 feet) will be provided from the walls in the adjacent R1 districts, and all one-story construction around the periphery of the property next to the R1 will also help to minimize the effect of the project when viewed from the adjacent residential uses. The easterly side of the property has been reserved for the lower density development, with the high density, stacked units on the west side of the chan- nel. The circulation pattern is designed as a major collector street connecting Adams Avenue and Beach Boulevard in a long loop through the project. Interior streets will provide access to the units, with no direct access to any units off the major street. This will limit the amount of traffic past any unit and will permit each unit to be located no more than 250 feet from the collector street. Parking is provided close to the individual units the spaces are intended to serve, and the applicant is suggesting a 40 percent compact car parking ratio in the parking structures. Mr. Harlow pointed out that the specific plan does not provide the 20 foot setback for 50 percent of the units as included in the PRD ordinance, as it is not felt to be a necessary concept for a condo development. The interior street width of 25 feet, with a five foot garage setback, provides an effective 30 foot turning radius for vehicles entering the garages, according to the proponents. It was emphasized that at the desire of the adjoining residents no connections to the south or east through the extension of the existing streets will be a part of this project. Building heights were reviewed in light of the differences between the Uniform Building Code requirements and the height definitions in Division 9. Jim Palin cautioned the applicants that. if they are proposing any heights not allowed by Division 9 they should make sure that this is written into the specific plan for approval. Mr. Harlow also discussed the sidewalk on Beach Boulevard, noting that it is the hope of the developer to be allowed some -7- 1-12-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission/subdivision Committee January 12, 1982 Page 8 flexibility there in order to provide mounding and a meandering walk which, combined with landscaping and a security fence, will pro- vide a desirable street scene on Beach. Sewering the project, drainage, and soil testing were also briefly discussed by Mr. Harlow. Individual City departments presented the following comments: Public Works: Don Noble. 1. The conceptual plans did not give staff a specific cross section for the 50 foot wide street. Staff assumes that there will be some sort of treatment provided for pedestrians and bicycles, and would like to have information on that treatment. 2. Public Works considers that the 25 foot secondary interior roads would present traffic problems and would like to have at least a 27 foot width on those streets. 3. No treatment has been shown for the existing streets to termin- ate at the east and south property lines of the subject project. Public Works would like to see an indication of that treatment. 4. Bus turnouts which the developer and the Orange Coast Transit District are working out should be shown. 5. Consideration should be given to the streets on the opposite sides of Beach and Adams, so that proper turning movements can be worked out. 6. Information on the master planned facilities for drainage is available to the developers. It is the understanding of the Department of Public Works that the drainage facilities are to be constructed by the developers and no problem is foreseen. An engineer for the developer said that a storm drain from across Beach Boulevard which presently terminates on the subject prop- erty will be carried over across the property to dump into the flood control channel. The entire site will be graded to drain to the north and runoff will be handled by the existing pump station across Adams Avenue. (Public Works informed the Commit- tee that this station is adequate to handle the subject project as well as all other construction which has gone into the area it serves.) The property is approximately two feet lower than adjacent residential property to the east and south, and its water runoff will not impact those neighborhoods. The road system in the project will be of crest and valley construction; every valley will have a catch basin to pick up the water and direct it to a trunk system which will run through an easement to the pump station, with another drainage system east -west across the prop- erty. -8- 1-12-82 - P.C. Minutes., H.B. Planning Commission/Subdivision Committee January 12, 1982 Page 9 Public Works is assuming that all storm drain facilities with the exception of the master planned facilities will be private and would like to see a grading plan to demonstrate how it is planned to accomplish the proposed drainage to the north. 7. All onsite sewer facilities will be private facilities con- structed to City standards. 8. Discussions must be held about a signaled intersection at Adams Avenue and the main collector street. (It was noted that it has always been the intention of the developer to pro- vide for signalization at the Beach intersection, and they agreed to discuss the Adams intersection.) 9. At some locations on the conceptual plan onsite parking may conflict with vehicular traffic, and it was suggested that these locations be revised. 10. Public Works has a concern about liability problems in the areas of the freshwater pond and later for the salt marsh when it is installed. They would like to see plans for the protection of the general public in connection with these waterscape areas. Mr. Brinkerhoff, landscape architect, in- dicated that there will be landscaping and some type of fencing between the perimeter sidewalk and the water to pre- vent intrusion into the project and to protect the public. 11. Public Works has some problems with some of the plant spec- ies indicated and would like to review further. 12. A landscaping treatment proposal along Beach Boulevard should be submitted. 13. The walls existing between the subject property and the ex- isting residential tracts were discussed. The developer said it was his intention to remove and replace all walls which are structurally unsound; other walls allowed to remain will be stuccoed in order to present one continuous treatment. Staff cautioned that all property owners will have to be con- tacted about that action and that a landscaping plan should be specified so that the neighbors will know precisely what will happen adjacent to their lots. Fire Department; Steve Parker. 1. Security systems shall be provided for all gates and roadways that are.1controlled - guards oi� a Knox box system. 2. All roads are to be designated and posted as fire lanes. 3. Clearance for fire equipment access is needed between unit walls and any water on the site. -9- 1-12-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission/Subdivision Committee January 12, 1982 Page 10 4. All access points, stair wells, security systems, etc., for the multi -story buildings will provide for both vertical and lateral access to the approval of the Fire Department. 5. As noted by Public Works, some of the internal turning radii need to be modified and increased slightly; otherwise the road system is adequate to meet minimum Fire Department standards. 6. Automatic fire sprinklers, standpipe systems, and alarm systems shall be to the approval of the Fire Department. Planning Division: Savoy Bellavia. 1. Relationship of the units with adjacent units and the grade differentials should be addressed. 2. The 16-foot-wide apron on the two -car garages servicing two different households must be increased to 18 foot dimension. 3. The Planning Division is also concerned with how the two streets within the adjacent R1 tracts will be terminated and what treatment will be done there. 4. Mr. Bellavia discussed the requested 40 percent compact car parking ratio in the parking structures, saying that it seems to be high; however, a decision will be made after a parking plan is submitted. 5. Planning shares the prior concern about the treatment of the existing walls separating the subject property from the Rl areas. Extensive discussion took place among those present on the matters presented by the above speakers. In summary, the applicant was requested to present the following items for future review. 1. Rendering to show how the new construction will look from the back yards of existing residences to the east and south (Commissioner Porter asked that this include conceptual landscaping). 2. Grading plan to show elevation and drainage. 3. Bus turnouts as proposed. 4. Treatment of the adjacent streets and how they will be termin- ated at the property lines. 5. Discussion of signals on Adams and Beach. 6. Plans for the development and maintenance of the waterscape area . 7. Conceptual future treatment of the oil production area suffi- cient to allow cost estimate to be made. -10- 1-12-82 - P.C. 1 I� Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission/Subdivision Committee January 12, 1982 Page 11 8. Treatment of walks and landscaping along Beach Boulevard. 9. Wall treatment. Survey of walls that are to be replaced and a definitive plan for landscaping in that area, prior to tentative tract review. 10. Treatment of stacking areas at entry points to avoid im- pacting arterials. 11. Street sections to show drainage. 12. Parking plan. 13. Design detail showing how Flood Control District can get equipment in for levee maintenance. 14. Elevation of the bridge structure. (The applicants indi- cated that the Flood Control District can enter from Adams Avenue, but will need to be able to get around the bridge. The District will have approval of bridge and levee plans and has agreed to relocate their right-of-way fencing to the top of the bank and allow homeowners to landscape the entire bank area.) 15. Handout to show how footings of the buildings will relate to utility easements and what the patio projection over the five-foot required setback will be. Mr. Bellavia reported that the Specific Plan and EIR are scheduled for Planning Commission review on the 19th of January. If approved on that date, the tract and conditional use permit will be scheduled for the second of February. Meeting adjourned. 1 Savoy M e avia, ecretary Subdivi ion ommittee :df Grace H. Winchell, Chairman -11- 1-12-82 - P.C.