Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-06-22APPROVED ON 8-3-82 MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED MEETING Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 1982 - 7:15 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Higgins, Livengood ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 82-1 Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach A proposal to develop a 290-acre area bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, the City boundary to the west, Garfield and Ernest Avenues to the south, and a line extending north from Crystal Street to the east. The Plan, if adopted, will be the zoning for the area. It requires a minimum project size of 10 acres and allows a maximum density of 3 homes per acre of land. Grading activities are generally limited to no more than two feet of cut and two feet of fill, and the drainage swale areas are delineated as open space corridors in which no residential development will be allowed. The Plan also delineates a system of internal col- lector streets for the area and a backbone system of riding trails. Chairman Winchell noted that the public hearing had been opened, public testimony taken, and the public hearing closed at a previous meeting. Tonight's business will consist only of review and discussion of that public input and the Plan itself. Advance Planning staff reviewed the list of prior concerns which has been compiled as an outline for discussion and went over the recommended procedures for amending the district maps,.adding the specific plan to the zoning code, and approving by resolution the reimbursement by developers of the costs incurred by the preparation of the specific plan. Carol Inge led a point -by -point review of the discussion items: Administrative Revisions: The staff recommendations contained IF this section of the staff report were agreed to by consensus of the Commission. However, Item 5, regarding construction standards for corrals, was deleted from the Plan because the Fire Department already has adequate controls. Minutes, H.B. Planning Comm�sSxon June 22, 1982 Page 2 Straw Vote Actions: Items 1 and 2 remain as previously voted on by the Commission. In regard to Item 3, Ms. Inge asked for clari- fication on whether or not the Commission had intended to actually set the density for the.Plan by this wording. The Commission dis- cussion included the status of the current General Plan designation, the need for a specific criterion for future development plans, and the Commission's desire that the intended intensity of development for the area be very clear at the outset. By consensus, it was determined that Item 3 be amended to state that density within the specific plan shall not exceed three (3) units per acre. Item 4. Mike Adams presented cross sections depicting various setbacks and berm heights and showed slides of various berming con- structed in other projects. Extensive discussion took place concern- ing depth of setback, height of berm, possibility of using a wall at the property line as a retaining wall for such berm, and the desir- ability of allowing "feeder" trails along the arterials surrounding the plan area. The conclusion of the Commission was that if feeder trails were to be permitted they should go on the private properties and not in the right-of-way; it was also the consensus that minimum setback should be thirty (30) feet; the minimum berm height should be five (5) feet; walls should be designated as see -through; and the provision allowing for location of a 42-inch fence within the common setback area should be deleted from the plan. The Commission agreed with the insertion of a trail on Ellis Avenue to serve as a connecting link to the County's Master Plan of Trail Systems. Item 5. By consensus, the Commission concurred with staff's proposal for rolled curb and gutter street standards and approved the revised street sections as shown in the draft plan. Item 6. Mike Adams discussed the internal collector streets as originally shown, and proposed to change to a collector loop system to avoid dividing already consolidated parcels, accessing the area from the north and south as opposed to Goldenwest Street. Bill Cooper, in response to questioning from the Commission, said that a cursory review would indicate that such a change should make little impact on fire protection services but that further research would be needed before making'a definite statement. The Commission discussed the general street layout in the area, including future realignment of Ellis, Edwards, and Garfield; the traffic hazards involved with the access off Goldenwest Street; and the vehicular capacities of the arterials serving the area. BY UNANIMOUS STRAW VOTE, THE COMMISSION DIRECTED STAFF TO ELIMINATE THE ACCESS POINT INTO THE AREA OFF GOLDENWEST STREET. By consensus,.the Commission agreed to the staff's revision to the internal collector system in concept only. They agreed that there should be some flexibility -for change as development may require. Staff was directed to conceptually add the bluffline drive back into Subarea 1 in the Specific Plan. 1 �1 -2- 6-22-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June "22, 1982 Page 3 Item 7. Trail width remains at sixteen (16) feet as determined by previous straw vote. Text Revisions: Item 2. The prior Planning Commission recom- mendation to indicate intent on the eastern boundary of the Plan was amended to read: "The eastern boundary of the Specific Plan shall be determined by the future alignment of Gothard Street in the General Plan." Item 3. This item had been an Environmental Board recommenda- tion not to include planned residential developments as a per- mitted use in Subarea Two., It is staff's feeling that at a three unit per acre density the PRD designation is entirely ap- propriate type of development. Commission concurred, and the PRD designation will remain in the Plan. Item 4. Commission discussed Environmental Trails, Inc.'s recommendation for five acre projects with a density of two units per acre. Staff expressed its opinion that writing such a provision into the Plan would not encourage the type of con- solidation desired in the area. Commission discussion ensued. A straw, with an "aye" vote to allow the 5-acre minimum and a "no" vote to retain the 10-acre minimum, resulted in the follow- ing: Ayes: Winchell, Schumacher Noes: Paone, Porter The 10-acre minimum outlined in the plan stands as depicted in the Plan. Commissioner Porter noted that a special permit might allow a five -acre project. A motion for straw vote was made by Paone and seconded by Porter to add language to the document to prohibit use of the special permit or conditional exception processes from being used to re- duce the minimum project area. Staff discussed the possibility that extenuating circumstances, such as a landlocked smaller parcel, might arise which would necessitate special treatment and expressed the opinion that the plan should leave some option for such a hardship. Exten- sive Commission discussion ensued. Paone and Porter amended their motion to state that a conditional exception or special permit created to reduce the minimum pro- ject area below that specified in the Plan may be approved for projects of five acres or more, provided that the density in such a project does not exceed two (2) dwelling units per acre. Ayes: Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher Noes: None -3- 6-22-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 22, 1982 Page 4 Item 5. Public trails in setback adjacent to perimeter arterials. The Commission discussed the desirability of having trails on the arterials in terms of the possibility of encouraging excessive eques- trian traffic and of providing for smaller equestrian trails on private property along the arterials. A motion was made by Paone to approve staff's recommendation for an equestrian trail on Ellis Avenue only to provide a connecting link to the County trail system, with no trails on the arterials and no trails in the setbacks adjacent to the arterials unless they are part of a developer's need to access other trails. This motion received no second, Commissioner Porter suggested that an equestrian perimeter trail 10' wide be included in the setbacks on the arterials and that no side- walks be provided on the arterials. On motion by Paone and second by Porter the Commission by the follow- ing straw vote approved the adoption of the staff's recommended language in paragraph (c) on page 19 concerning the trail on the south side of Ellis Avenue. Ayes; Paone, Winchell, Porter Noes: Schumacher Item 6. Proposal to allow fenced riding corrals in open space corri- dors. Staff's recommendation is that no riding rings be allowed, but that the corridors remain open natural areas unobstructed by construction or fencing. On motion by Paone and second by Porter a straw vote was taken that the Commission not adopt the proposal. Motion resulted in the fol- lowing tie vote, and no change will be made in the Plan: Ayes: Paone, Porter Noes: Winchell, Schumacher Item 7. Uniformity of fencing. The Commission reviewed the proposal and staff's recommendations. On motion by Paone and second by Winchell a straw vote was taken,to adopt a design of a five foot high natural wood fence with mesh permitted as optional, by the follow- ing vote: Ayes: Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher Noes: None Item 8. Swale ownership. Staff noted that it does not recommend_ the dedication of swale open space area to the City; also, fence. in the swales are not recommended. Discussion ensued. -4- 6-22-82 -P.c. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 22, 1982 Page 5 A motion was made by Paone and seconded by Porter that the 100- foot minimum swale area shall be held in common ownership and that there shall be no structures of any kind in these swale areas except as otherwise expressly permitted in this Specific Plan. If the Specific Plan calls for trails within the swales, then fencing for those trails shall be permitted. Motion carried by the following straw vote: Ayes: Paone, Winchell, Porter Noes: Schumacher Item 9. No discussion took place on this item. Item 10. Provision of trail links from individual projects to the open space corridor trails. Mike Adams explained that this is addressed in another portion of the Plan, providing that projects can use the right-of-way in a collector street to access the main trails. Item 11. Fencing along trails. This item has already been dealt with in a prior item. Item 12. Number of horses per dwelling unit. It is staff's feel- ing that one horse per dwelling unit is excessive and could re- sult in a great amount of the open space being used for horses. Carol Inge discussed the percentages staff has found to be in use in other projects of a similar nature. The Commission discussed the problem at length, suggesting various percentage and square foot criteria which could be applied. A motion was made by Paone and seconded by Porter that 100 per- cent of the units in the project shall be provided with either the onsite ability to keep horses or the ability to use one stall in a common stable facility. The motion also incorporated the wording in Item 31 of the list of concerns, to allow two horses on a 15,000 square foot lot, three on a 20,000 square foot lot, four or five on a 35,000 square foot lot, and six on a 40,000 square foot lot. Motion carried by the following straw vote: Ayes: Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher Noes: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY PAONE AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO ADJOURN THE MEETING TO THE MEETING OF JULY 7, 1982. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -5- 6-22-82 - P.C.- Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 22, 1982 Page 6 Commissioner Porter suggested that when the Plan is brought up again it would be helpful if staff would highlight its own comments on each item which has not yet been discussed. Legal counsel Art Folger noted that the Commissioners who were not present tonight should be sure to review the -tape of the meeting so that they may vote on the Specific Plan. The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Grace H. Winchell, Chairman 1 11 -6- 6-22-82 - P.C.