Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-02-09I MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1982 - 7:00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: STUDY SESSION: - Civic Center California Bannister, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey Kenefick ELLIS/GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN Initiated by the Department of Development Services Florence Webb informed the Commission that staff had held a meet- ing with property owners in the involved area today at 1:30 p.m. At this meeting it was stressed that the plan as presented was only the introductory step in.the planning process, subject to modifica- tion after the review and public comment procedure. She intro- duced staff members Mike Adams and Carol Inge who together made a brief presentation of the draft plan. The presentation included identification of issues addressed by staff; e.g., density, minimum development size, realignment of arterials, public open space, development types,and equestrian uses. Slides were presented showing existing conditions in the area and existing developments in Orange County built on property with simi- lar terrain and with a similar goal to provide a rural -type atmos- phere. The latter depicted how problems in open space, provision of interior drives, equestrian trails, and drainage swales had been met while still preserving the quality of the areas. The proposed general provisions of the plan were reviewed by Adams and Inge, covering proposed averaging of General Plan densities to allow three units per acre, a 10 acre minimum project site size, circulation to be provided, open space locations to preserve the existing topographical -features of the area, design features, treatment of existing and future oil operations, equestrian uses, housing types, and implementation strategies. The Commission discussed the proposal. Commissioner Porter asked for clarification of the location of equestrian trails in relation to the arterials, and Ms. Inge responded, that the equestrian trail connecting to Central Park will cross Ellis Avenue at an under- Minutes, H.H. Planning Commission February 9, 1982 Page 2 crossing. Mr. Porter also noted that there may be areas which will pose difficulties in accommodating a development project even on an area 10 acres in size. Commissioner Schumacher expressed the opinion that maintenance of the equestrian trails should be financed by all the persons using the trails through some sort of assessment and not be the sole responsibil- ity of homeowners' associations in the project area, since the public will also be using the trails. She also questioned whether or not the equestrian trails would also serve as walking trails. Commissioner Mahaffey indicated that in his opinion the 10-acre requirement was too strict and assumes that a small parcel cannot be developed, thereby limiting an owner's right to use his land. He asked if any input had been received from property owners of the areas specifically designated on the plan as being restricted from building of any kind. Florence Webb said that consolidation will allow these owners to join other property owners to construct a project with mutual benefit to all parties. The Commission also reviewed the exact location of two previously approved tracts of five and 15 acres in the area, the current value of property in the area, and the possibility of City participation in the consolidation process. Commissioner Paone stated that the 10 acre size in his estimation is too small and would not result in the type of development the City desires to see in the area. He suggested that the 236 buildable acres be separated into four or six distinct areas with a developer allowed maximum flexibility in planning a project on the larger sections. He felt that this would ensure a'variety of project types and greater diversity in housing than the City presently has. He suggested that some areas of higher density with clustered housing might be per- mitted so that the equestrian lifestyle being developed would not go exclusively to the wealthy. He advocated letting the proposed devel- opment standards go by the wayside and letting each developer propose his own standards and show the City how these would fit into the prop- erty for which they are being proposed. This approach would be both more and less restrictive, but there would be no arbitrary formulas for development. After extensive discussion it was the consensus that staff should re- turn to the Commission with some alternative approaches on minimum development size, development standards, densities, and some method of preventing consolidation from being totally haphazard (which implies some type of City participation or guidance in parcel configuration, possibly through the use of redevelopment processes). This specific plan will be rescheduled for a study session on March 9, 1982. The Commission recessed at 8:05 and reconvened at 8:15 p.m. -2- 2-9-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 9, 1982 Page 3 CODE AMENDMENT - REVISIONS TO ARTICLE 936, PRD Initiated by Development Services By consensus action, the Commission continued the study session on this item to the scheduled study session to be held on March 9, 1982. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-8/TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11417/EIR 78-4/ TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 82-552 (Cont. from February 2, 1982) Applicants: Mansion Properties, Inc./Urban West Communities To permit a 492 unit planned residential development on a one - parcel subdivision for condominium purposes on property located on the east side of Main Street at the southeast corner of Clay Avenue and Main Street, bounded on the east and south by Hunting- ton Street and Yorktown Avenue, respectively. The tentative par- cel map is.to create a one -parcel oil island within the subject project. Jim Barnes reviewed the history of the EIR on this project and introduced Jim Rabe, of Environmental Resources Group. This con- sulting firm had prepared both the original EIR and the supplemen- tal information on the revised project. Mr. Rabe discussed the changes to the project since the original proposal, which consist of a reduction in units from 692 to 492, a reduction of acreage from 49.7 to_42 net acres, a second access road off Clay Avenue into the project, the revision of the internal street system, and the deletion of the tree stands to the south of the existing ranch dwelling from the plan. He reviewed the pro- posed bicycle trail as well as two alternative layouts for the bike trail presented in the EIR supplement and discussed the advan- tages and disadvantages for each layout. He also reviewed the question of a possible future transportation corridor, the noise impacts to the project, and possible traffic impacts which could result from both alternative transportation corridor configura- tions and from the three alternative bike trail routes. Internal privacy and security of the project was also reviewed by Mr. Rabe. Savoy Bellavia presented a list of unresolved issues identified by staff, and the Commission discussed them one by one as follows: 1. Compliance of the proposed project with the City's General Plan and with Article 936, Planned Residential Development. Staff pointed out that the Trails and Implementation Plan in- dicates that a bicycle trail was slated for the abandoned railroad right-of-way through the property and that has not been identified on the plan. There are several areas of non- compliance with Article 936, some of which have been addressed in a request for special permits. -3- 2-9-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 9, 1982 Page 4 2. Traffic impacts have been addressed in a traffic study prepared and included in the EIR. 3. Removal and/or relocation of trees existing on the subject prop- erty have been addressed in the EIR.. Commissioner Winchell said that it appeared from the study that no trees would remain - they would either be relocated or removed.- Jim Barnes explained that the only trees addressed were the ones that would be moved or taken out, but that there were a number of trees that will remain as they are, and these were not identified. However, the staff now has a colored map showing the number of trees in all categories. 4. Existing recorded streets. Savoy Bellavia reported that the streets have been dedicated but not improved.- They were a part of Tract 77 and as part of the present map would have to be vacated. 5. Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way. Art Folger, legal counsel representing the office of the City Attorney, informed the Commission that this item concerns a pos- sible cloud on a title and should- not -_.be_ considered -by the Plan- ning Commission but resolved in a court of law. He also stated that the Government Code does not require proof -of ownership until a final map is filed. After discussion on whether -or not the Com- mission might be remiss in approving a project which might be in part constructed over public domain,-Mr.-Folger requested that the Commission go into executive session -to discuss potential litiga- tion matters. By voice vote the Commission agreed and --at 8:45 went into executive session, reconvening at 9:00 p.m. 6. Interior vehicular circulation, proposed entrances -along Hunting- ton Street in relationship to existing -dwellings, and the provision of additional fire roads were all reviewed by staff and the Commission. 7. Treatment of abandoned streets: Staff pointed out concerns about how street sections would be hand- led adjacent to not -a -part parcels on this map; for instance, one- half of a street section adjacent to the existing apartments on Huntington Street will be left with no access and no responsibility for its improvement. 8. Requests for special permit: These include building separation, setback of garage from travel lane, building bulk, and alley configuration; and Savoy Bellavia pointed out the discussion of these matters in the staff report. 9. Building heights of "flats." Staff indicated some areas where the three-story flat units are actually constructed on -grade and not sunk into the earth. This might lead to interpretation as four stories and require sprinkler- ing. Also, there are some places where these buildings will be [1 1 -4- 2-9-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 9, 1982 Page 5 in excess of 50 feet from finished street grade; however, because of the berming up of earth around the structures they do comply -with the height definition in the Uniform Building Code. 10. Perimeter Walls on Main Street. Staff expressed the concern that openings in the wall along Main Street might encourage persons to park on Main and enter their units from the street rather than from the interior of the project. Detail on these walls was requested. 11. Access to oil wells. No access is shown from the map into the not -a -part parcel where oil wells are located, and staff expressed concern that access not be taken from Yorktown Avenue, noting that the curve of the street at that location would make a very dangerous situation if such access were to be allowed. Some means of taking access to this parcel from the interior of the project should be shown. 12. Existing oil lines. Staff would like the status and treatment of these lines to be spelled out by the applicants. 13. Not -a -Part Parcel. Although it is not part of the project, it would be desirable to see how the parcel will be integrated into the development at the time the oil operations are phased out, so that the City can be assured that the development on the parcel will be incorporated into the homeowners association. These and other issues of concern were submitted to the appli- cants and Mr. Bellavia indicated that a letter has been received commenting on a number of the issues. The Commission discussed the issues raised by staff, with particu- lar emphasis on the question of compliance with the General Plan and the transportation and bicycle corridors. The public hearing was opened. Mike Kelly, project manager, addressed the Commission. He stated that it is the developer's desire that the City accept dedication of the bicycle trail at the location it is shown on the plan and that the City assume responsibility for maintenance and liability, in that it does not seem equitable to expect a relatively small homeowners association to provide those services for the general public which will be using the trail. Mr. Kelly also informed the Commission that there are 231 existing trees on the site, including the not -a -part parcel on Yorktown, and that 146 of those will remain. Other trees are damaged and will be removed; others will be transplanted to other locations within the project. -5- 2-9-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 9, 1982 Page 6 Mr. Kelly also addressed the abandoned street section next to the apartment house,over which the staff had expressed concern. The portion of the street which reverts to the Huntington Beach Company has been treated within the map, and the other half -street section will revert to the adjacent property owner. Mr. Kelly concluded by noting that the architect and engineer for the project are present to respond to any questions the Commission may have. Stuart Woodard, architect, addressed the Commission to discuss the project density and layout, orientation of units, parking problem on Main Street discussed by staff, and the treatment of the Huntington Street side of the project. Dick Harlow,-consultant,for the developers, addressed the question of conformance with the General Plan, stating that the plan does not specify the precise location of recreational trails and that the lay- out proposed provides an alignment approximately in conformance with that delineated in the Recreation Trails Element. He also discussed at length the siting of any future transportation corridor in the area, saying that both the Orange County Transit District and the Transportation Commission have concurred that the proposal down Main Street which his clients have presented satisfies their needs. He also indicated that the width of the right-of-way adjacent to resi- dential uses would effectively preclude its use for any future rapid transit purposes. Commissioner Porter inquired if there was not a likelihood that the OCTD and the Transportation Commission might take a different approach if their position had been taken on the premise that the right-of-way might be in the public domain. Mr. Harlow re- plied that all of his comments on the matter were based on the fact that the right-of-way is considered as private property belonging to the applicants. Dick Hammond, manager of Cambro, addressed the Commission to request that any approval of this project take into consideration some method of buffering it from his adjacent industrial use. He pointed out the adverse effect on his operation if parking on Clay Avenue were pro- hibited as suggested by the Department of Public Works.. Rosalie Crable, 2620 Huntington Street, spoke in opposition to the plans as presented, citing the adverse impacts the project would have on the R1 properties across Huntington. She cited specific areas of concern in regard to density of units, height and bulk of buildings, drainage and grading, traffic and parking problems, earthquake safety, provisions for play areas for children, possible rezoning of adjacent property after this project is built, environmental impacts from noise, smog, etc., and increased crime and wrong doing in her neigh- borhood which might result from construction of the project. She concluded by stating that the adjacent neighborhood expects to be notified of all meetings pertaining to this project and requested that such meetings be held when the neighbors can attend. There were no other persons present to speak for or against the pro- posals, and the public hearing was closed. 1 -6- 2-9-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning COmm�SsOn February 9, 1982 Page 7 Commission discussion ensued concerning drainage, impacts of the proposed project on surrounding properties, elevation of units, siting of the flats and townhouses on the project, and the ques- tion of conformance with the General Plan. ON MOTION BY PAONE AND SECOND BY PORTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 78-4 INCLUDING ALL SUPPLEMENTS THERETO WAS FOUND TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH CEQA AND APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick ABSTAIN: None It was the consensus of the Commission that further information responding to the concerns expressed at this meeting should be provided. In response to a request for concurrence with a con- tinuance, Mike Kelly asked that comments regarding the areas the Planning Commission would like addressed be listed. In subsequent discussion the Commission listed the following areas on which they would like additional work done and information submitted: 1) Building height and bulk as viewed from Huntington Street; 2) Treatment along Main and Clay for patio walls. Commis- sioner Bannister suggested that there be walls with no gates at all or one-way gates allowing exit but no entrance. The proponent responded that the Fire Department might find this a problem for emergency access; 3) Buffering from Cambro; 4) A letter indicating that the future construction on the not -a -part parcel will be con- sistent with the existing construction on the rest of the property; 5) Further information on the 30 percent compact car parking and the trash locations; 6) Some treatment so that the intersections of the entryways with the bicycle path do not pose _a safety hazard to bicyclists or pedestrians; 7) Discussion on the oil wells - e.g., whether there will be further recovery wells drilled and if it is safe to build over abandoned wells; 8) Information on the quantity of cut and fill on the property and a comparison of exist- ing grades on the property versus the proposed grades; and 9) The remaining issues of concern distributed by staff which have either not been resolved at this meeting or specifically outlined above. From staff, the Commission requested more discussion on the dis- crepancy between the Uniform Building Code and Division 9 in re- gard to allowable building heights. After this discussion, Mr. Kelly agreed to a continuance of the requests. ON MOTION BY MAHAFFEY AND SECOND BY BANNISTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-8, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11417, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 82-552 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1982, WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE APPLICANT, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Bannister, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Kenefick ABSTAIN: None -7- 2-9-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 9, 1982 Page 8 COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Bannister requested that the Commission be supplied with a packet of information giving background information on the proposed Mobile Home Park Conversion ordinance. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. to a Subdivision Committee meeting to be held in the Council Chambers at 6:30 p.m. on February 17, 1982, with the regular meeting to follow at 7:00 p.m. :df ] o /'4 �W Palen, Secretary i Grace H. Winchell, Chairman 1 -8- 2-9-82 - P.C.