Loading...
Minutes 1977-01-20MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CYPRESS PLANNING COMMISSION HELD January 20, 1977 The regular meeting of the Cypress Planning Commission was called to order at 6:15 p.m. on Thursday, January 20, 1977 in the Cypress City Council Chambers, 5275 Orange Avenue, Cypress, California, Chairman Gerald Mullen presiding. PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Friedmann, Greenwood, Partin, Van Allen & Mullen None Also present were Brian Hawley, Planning Director, Art Schat- zeder, Public Works Director, Elizabeth Strauss, Deputy City Attorney, and Don Lamm and Robert Kastenbaum, Assistant Planners. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Friedmann led the pledge to the flag. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 1. Report from City Attorney regarding status of American Pool, Patio and Nursery. The Deputy City Attorney reported that the arraignment for Mr. Jack James was continued from January 11 to January 25. The Planning Director suggested that this item be continued until such time as the staff has something further to report. The Commission agreed to continue the matter. 2. Report on status of Midwood Manor. The Planning Director reported that he had spoken with Mr. Michael Park of Property Management Services, who reported that the new Board of Directors met and decided to construct a barrier across the front of the corner area to prohibit vehi- cular access. They requested that the Commission continue this matter to their first meeting in March so that the Board may notify persons who presently use the area for parking and assign them parking spaces elsewhere. Chairman Mullen asked if anyone wished to speak regarding this matter. Mr. Powell, 10401 Santa Elise, Cypress, stated the proposal by Midwood Manor is satisfactory to him but he questioned whether they need a few months to assign other parking spaces. He suggested that the matter be continued until February. Commissioner Partin asked about the future use of the area if it is blocked off. The Planning Director felt it could be assumed from the original plot plan that this area was intended to be an open landscaped area and he stated he would relate this to the homeowners' association: that the blacktop should be torn up and replaced with lawn area. Commissioner Van Allen supported a continuance to the March 3 meeting provided that the homeowners' association submit plans for the proposed landscaping of the area and plans for the barrier. Commissioner Greenwood did not feel landscaping was the major problem but that the area should be cleaned up so that it cannot be used for vehicle repairs. Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 1977 It was moved by Commissioner Van Allen, seconded by Commis- sioner Partin and unanimously carried to continue this matter to the March 3 meeting, accept the proposal of the Midwood Manor Homeowners' Association as submitted through Mr. Park, on the condition that they submit plans for landscaping, including a physical barrier, to restore the corner area. 3. Tentative Tract No. 9647 - MEB Investments. The Planning Director presented Staff Report #77 -1 dated January 13 and the tentative tract map which proposes the subdivision of 1.7 acres into 29 lots for the establishment of a 28 unit condominium project on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, behind the Lincoln Plaza Shopping Center. The map is being filed in conjunction with C.U.P. #76 -20. Mr. Doug Powrie, representing the applicant, 3723 Birch, Newport Beach, stated the density of the project has been reduced from 35 to 28 units. He stated the Commission should be familiar with the units since they are similar to previously approved plans submitted by the same developer. Commissioner Partin asked if the two trash areas were proposed to serve the entire project. He felt there were located some distance from several of the units and that more trash areas should be provided. Mr. Powrie stated the plans were approved by the Building Department and they were proceeding according to their recommendations. Mr. Hawley stated the building permits have not been issued yet and the CC$R's have not been submitted to staff. He suggested that individual trash pick -up be made a condition of the CCR's. Commissioner Van Allen inquired about emergency access and stated the tentative map indicates a solid wall on the east end of street "C ". Mr. Hawley stated this requirement is included in the conditions of approval of the conditional use permit which are applicable to the map. Commissioner Van Allen felt it should be indicated that, with approval of the map which does not show the emergency access, the Commission is not eliminating the requirement for emergency access. Mr. Powrie stated he has been in contact with the adjacent property owner and they are in the process of determining an emergency access which is agreeable to both. It was moved by Commissioner Van Allen, seconded by Commis- sioner Greenwood and unanimously carried to approve Tentative Tract Map #9647 subject to the following conditions: 1. All conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit #76 -20, as they relate to this Tentative Tract Map, shall be satisfied as a condition of approval of this application, except for the following revision: Condition #23, as approved by the Planning Commission, shall be revised to read: "Proposed Lot 1 shall be located a minimum distance of thirty -three feet (33') from the westerly property line, to provide adequate clearance from the entrance road (proposed street "A "). 2. An effective sight distance for vehicular traffic shall be maintained at the intersection of the driveway entrance with Lincoln Avenue. No landscaping over thirty -six inches (36 ") in height will be allowed in the area of the curb returns. Also, adequate sight distance shall be maintained within the development at all street and/ or walkway intersections to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2. Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 1977 3. Proposed Lot 10 shall be located a minimum distance of five feet (5') from the easterly property line to provide an adequate drainage easement for the parcels to the north of this development. It was moved by Commissioner Partin, seconded by Commissioner Friedmann and unanimously carried to direct staff to make it clear in the CCR's that the units shall have individual trash pick -up service. 4. Discussion of location of trash enclosures for Conditional Use Permit #76 -2, Eastern Pacific Development Company. The Planning Director reported that one of the conditions of approval of C.U.P. #76 -2 which provides for the establishment of office buildings on the south side of Orange opposite the Civic Center was that the landscaping and irrigation plans be submitted for Planning Commission review and approval. The applicant submitted final plans which showed the location of two trash enclosure areas, at the southeast and southwest corners of the property. The footings and foundations have been poured at these locations. As a result of this, staff has been contacted by neighbors who expressed opposition to the location of the trash enclosures adjacent to the wall, which is located on their property. Staff transmitted a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Tomnay, 5335 Oxford, who asked that the trash containers be moved away from the block wall or else moved five feet northerly. They also suggested that landscaping be installed between the block wall and trash containers. Their letter also expressed concern that the lighting, if not shielded, will shine directly onto their dwelling. The Planning Director presented photos of the trash enclosure areas. He reported that staff reviewed the lighting plans and found the light standards are the type that direct light downward for a radius of 20 feet. They will contain a shield on the southerly side which will prevent direct rays from shining onto the single - family homes. This was included as a condition of the C.U.P. On the landscaping plans that were submitted, the Commission required extensive landscaping treatment along the five- foot -wide strip between the parking area and wall on the south property line including several extra 15 gallon trees to provide screening. He outlined several alternative actions for the Commission: (1) reaffirm approval of the trash area locations; (2) require the developer to find an alternate location (he pointed out that placing them next to the buildings would be difficult because of a 3 to 4 foot grade difference between the parking and building areas); or (3)staff's suggestion that the trash containers be offset from the wall about five feet and that landscaping be extended behind the containers consistent with landscaping along the wall. The following persons objected to the location of the trash enclosures adjacent to the wall: Mr. Andrew Erdaly, 5373 Oxford Mr. Ken Cassidy, 5387 Oxford Mr. Lewis Stewart, 5397 Oxford Mr. Al Troncone, 5427 Oxford Mr. Albert Hirota, 5347 Oxford Mr. Ken Haraughty, 5323 Oxford Mr. Frank Fazio, 5361 Oxford Mr. Erdaly suggested that the enclosures be recessed into the building, similar to the church down the street on Orange. He felt the problem of dogs, cats, flies and ants will lower their property values. Mr. Cassidy reported he has a pool which attracts bugs and this will worsen the problem. 3. Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 1977 Mr. Stewart stated they have a problem with bugs and suggested that the trash containers be placed in the buildings. Mr. Troncone suggested that the City check the grades of the properties. He felt the adjacent office project grade is higher than his and that the trash bins will be visible over the wall. Mr. Hirota felt that with modern conveniences available, something like a trash compactor should have been considered. He felt the trash truck may bump into the wall and cause damage. He stated if the light standards are the same height as the wall they will not create a problem. Mr. Haraughty reported that while his neighbors, the Tomnays, were on vacation the contractor knocked a hole in their wall which is not yet repaired. He did not think five feet was sufficient and felt the containers should be further from the wall. Mr. Fazio felt the containers will attract bugs and create odor and stated there is no privacy in his yard because of the three story office buildings. Several of the speakers stated they or their neighbors were not notified of the public hearing on the C.U.P. Mr. David Doremus, 4232 Garnet, Cypress, representing Eastern Pacific Development, stated they were required and sent public hearing notices to all property owners within 300 feet of the property. He stated in designing the project, they recognized that their property was 3 or 4 feet higher than that to the south so they lowered the grade of the parking area and located the buildings northerly adjacent to Orange Avenue to alleviate the homeowners' concerns. The trash area is at the same grade as the adjacent property and there is a five -foot wall, in some cases 5'6 ", screening the trash area. He reported they reduced the size of the buildings in order to provide 5 parking spaces per thousand feet. He opposed relocating the trash area in the parking area since cars cannot park in the area designated for trash. He reported the opening on the trash enclosure is four - feet -wide and will face the parking lot. Roll -out bins will be used and the bins will be dumped on the trucks about 30 or 40 feet from the property line. He stated the developer met with the property owners and as a result expanded the landscaping along the south wall, and installed 39 15 gallon trees as a buffer. He stated the project is not a market or restaurant and the trash will be paper products, not food, therefore creating no fly or odor problem. He stated the project will not require two trash areas and that they proposed to use the area at the southwest corner for dry storage, like office furni- ture. The trash area at the southeast corner they propose to serve this project and the project which develops to the east. Mr. Doremus felt it would be costly to change the location of the trash area at this point. He stated if the homeowner desires they will repair the hole immediately. At the time it occurred, the homeowner gave the developer permission to repair the wall when the rest of the wall work is done for the entire project. He stated the appearance of the buildings is important since the rental of office space will be derived from their attractiveness. Chairman Mullen opened the public hearing regarding General Plan Amendment #77 -1 and continued it until after this item. In response to Commissioner Van Allen, Mr. Doremus stated they will install curb bumpers within the trash enclosure on three sides so that bins will not hit the wall. 4. Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 1977 Commissioner Greenwood pointed out that the property owner who lives behind the southwest trash enclosure has a tall hedge at the rear of his property so should not experience any problems. He felt some of the speakers' comments were conjecture. He felt the type of trash will not attract bugs and the wall height will not contribute to an invasion of privacy. He complimented the developer on the building and landscaping and felt this is one of the nicest projects in the City. The Planning Director stated the developer complied with the public hearing requirement to notify property owners within 300 feet. He presented an example of a public hearing notice and stated notices are required to be mailed 10 days prior to the hearing date. Because of staff's procedures notices are usually mailed 12 to 13 days in advance. He stated that according to the name and address labels in the file, notices were sent to all of the persons who spoke tonight. Chairman Mullen felt it would be unreasonable to change the building design at this late time and stated construction is in conformance with the C.U.P. approval. Commissioner Van Allen pointed out that if the light standards are the same height as the wall there would be a vandalism problem. If lights were hit out, replacement would be expensive and there would be a safety problem in the parking lot. The Public Works Director stated the lights at Mervyn's are about the same height as those proposed. When complaints were received, shields were added and those residents found this satisfactory. Commissioner Van Allen stated he did not hear any good alter- natives suggested by the speakers. Mr. Stewart suggested that paper shredders be used or that the paper be recycled and the developer could make a profit. Mr. Alex Bell, 9461 Grindlay, Cypress, stated they have two bins against a wall and for the last five years there has never been an insect problem. He felt the paper refuse won't cause an odor and he stated they have no rule that trash be placed in plastic bags. Mr. Doremus stated they will provide once a night cleaning service and that he was willing to accept a condition to the C.U.P. that all trash be placed in closed, plastic bags. He stated he would also accept a condition that the southwest trash area will be used for dry storage only and that material will not be visible above the wall. Regarding the future trash area, he stated if there is a potential problem they can install landscaping between the containers and wall. Mr. Haraughty felt there may be a legal problem for the devel- oper to use the property owners' wall as the rear for the trash enclosure. As an alternative, he recommended that the containers be moved five feet from the wall with landscaping in between. It was moved by Chairman Mullen and seconded by Commissioner Greenwood to add a condition to C.U.P. #76 -2 to require that all trash which is generated from the office buildings be disposed of in closed, plastic bags, and another condition that the facility at the southwest corner of the property be redesignated as a dry storage area with no stored materials to be visible above the wall, and a condition requiring that curb bumpers be installed on three sides within the trash enclosure area. Chairman Mullen felt the motion provides some mitigating relief for the problem. He stated the requirements of development were met and the Commission must assume the public hearing notices were sent. There was further discussion regarding the public 5. Plannning Commission Minutes January 20, 1977 hearing notice requirement. Staff indicated notices are mailed to the property owners, who may not necessarily be the tenants on the property. Mr. Erdaly stated the procedure needs changing. The motion carried with Commissioner Partin abstaining. Com- missioner Partin stated he abstained because he was unfamiliar with the background of the situation and the action tonight. RECESS: Chairman Mullen called a recess at 8:40 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 8:53 p.m. with all Commis- sioners present. PUBLIC HEARING RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 77 -1 - LINCOLN AVENUE: Chairman Mullen announced that this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider a proposal to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to provide for a new classification for certain properties along Lincoln Avenue which would permit the establishment of a variety of land uses in conjunction with the development of commercial projects. The proposed new classification would apply only to those properties currently designated for Highway Commercial uses and having lot depths in excess of 200 feet. Chairman Mullen reopened the hearing and asked for staff's report. The Planning Director reported that hearing notices were given in accordance with legal requirements and in this case were also mailed to all businessmen along Lincoln since they are directly affected. He read Staff Report #77 -2 dated January 13 describing the proposal of the Lincoln Avenue Action Com- mittee for the redesignation of those properties with frontage on Lincoln Avenue which have depths in excess of 200 feet, are located between Bloomfield and Holder Streets, from their highway commercial classification to a classification which will provide for the establishment of a variety of urban uses in conjunction with commercial development. The only properties not in the CH Zone are: Forest Lawn, Hyatt Die Cast f Engineering, Lincoln Center Mobilehome Park, and Tara Village apartments. The Planning Director stated the Lincoln Avenue Action Committee's recommendation regarding the problem of deep lot development is the final phase of the implementation program of the Lincoln Avenue Study. Deep lots were identified as those lots having excessive depth in relation to width and are typical of most properties on Lincoln. The commercial properties on Lincoln have varying depths ranging between 100 to over 650 feet. He presented a map showing the parcels on Lincoln. Mr. Hawley stated the lots which do not present a problem are those about 100 feet deep which are located between,Grindlay and the PERR. He stated the problem with the deep commercial parcels is that commercial development has occurred towards the front of the parcel adjacent to Lincoln and the rear portions are left in a vacant, unused state having little or no value for commercial purposes. The lots are stagnated by a zone classification which permits nothing but basic commercial uses. The Committee felt that assigning a zone classification, particularly commer- cial, with no consideration for lot configuration, site location or market demand is illogical and unreasonable and denies use of the property to the owners. The Committee discussed alter- native solutions with the Industrial /Commercial Development Commission and the Committee's final recommendation was that the frontages of parcels should be retained for commercial use with a minimum 200 foot depth for commercial and the remainder of the parcel should be reclassified to a zoning category per- mitting any urban use subject to a conditional use permit. The Committee recommended a combining zone for the entire parcel for properties along Lincoln. The Committee felt a 200 foot depth is more practical for commercial development but to ensure development of the commercial portion, the developer should submit a complete planning program which includes a condition or stipulation that the commercial will be developed in con- junction with development of the remaining portion. They felt Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 1977 many uses could be encouraged and the proposal is not a blanket authorization for residential development since many properties are not conducive to having residential at the rear of commer- cial use. To implement the proposal, the Committee recommended that the General Plan Land Use Element text be amended to provide for a combining zone which would permit a variety of urban uses along Lincoln; and that the Zoning Ordinance text be amended to conform with the General Plan, to establish the purpose and requirements of the combining zone and to designate the individual parcels along Lincoln where the classification could be applicable. Mr. Alex Bell, chairman of the Lincoln Avenue Action Committee, 9461 Grindlay Street, stated he had nothing to add to the report. He stated the Committee's recommendations were unanimous, made with a 6 -0 vote. He complimented the staff for their over- whelming assistance and cooperation. Chairman Mullen asked if anyone wished to speak in favor. Mr. Ken Hulse, 5158 Cumberland Drive, Cypress, felt it was a fine plan and will help facilitate development along Lincoln. He agreed with limiting the front 200 feet to highway commer- cial use and that the remainder of the property should be able to develop with another use to enhance the development process. Mr. Gleason, 100 Atlantic, Long Beach, asked if the intent of the rezoning was to allow other uses of the property in addi- tion to highway commercial. Staff advised him this was the intent. Chairman Mullen asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. No one wished to speak in opposition. Commissioner Partin asked if the proposal would eliminate the process of a zone change and General Plan amendment for prop- erties on an individual basis and staff answered it would. Mr. Hawley stated that the rear portions of property would not have to be rezoned since the entire parcel would be in a com- bining zone which would permit other than commercial use on the rear portion. He stated if a developer wished to develop only the rear portion for residential, it would be the Commis- sion's responsibility to determine the assurances they need or feel desirable for total development under a C.U.P. Mr. Bell pointed out several advantages to the proposal: chances for viable commercial projects on lots 400 to 600 feet deep are remote and a developer would be taking a major economic gamble in preparing plans and a presentation in seeking a zone change. He stated it is not worth it to a developer when there are other lots available bordering a major highway which can be purchased for about the same price. The property owners would be able to develop and receive the profit they're entitled to; the proposal would allow development of the entire property as a master planned project and development features of the rear and front would be compatible. Chairman Mullen complimented the Committee, Chamber of Commerce and staff on their work and Commissioner Greenwood stated he was highly in favor of the proposal since it would result in improvement of Lincoln which has not changed dramatically for many years. Commissioner Van Allen stated that development of the Warmington property could have been handled more easily under this procedure and stated it was fortunate that develop- ment is in conformance with this proposal. He felt the Commission should not give carte blanche to any urban use but that the urban use, in conjunction with commercial, should be subject to a conditional use permit. He recommended that this requirement be stated in the General Plan text. The Planning Director supported this recommendation and stated the specifics could be outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 1977 Mr. Ken Hulse, 5158 Cumberland Drive, asked if there was a way to require a developer to develop the entire property in the event a developer came in wishing to develop only the rear. Chairman Mullen felt this would be decided in each individual application and that the City would retain the right to permit development of only the rear portion or permit it only in conjunction with simultaneous development of the commercial portion. Commissioner Van Allen felt that in light of the Commission's and Council's actions over a period of time he did not feel it would be likely that a developer could convince them to permit residential development on the rear while leaving the front undeveloped. It was moved by Commissioner Van Allen and seconded by Com- missioner Friedmann to approve General Plan Amendment #77 -1 to revise that section of the General Plan text dealing with Special Treatment Area to provide for the establishment of any urban use subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in conjunction with a commercial project on parcels of land along Lincoln Avenue having depths in excess of 200 feet. The motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Friedmann, Greenwood, Partin, Van Allen $ Mullen 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 0 COMMISSIONERS: None It was moved by Commissioner Greenwood, seconded by Commis- sioner Friedmann and unanimously carried to recommend that the City Council initiate the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to implement General Plan Amendment #77 -1. Chairman Mullen closed the public hearing. MINUTES: January 6 It was moved by Commissioner Greenwood, seconded by Commis- sioner Partin and unanimously carried to approve the January 6, 1977 minutes. The Planning Director reported that at the January 17 City Council meeting, the Council approved Tentative Tract Map #9593 for the nine -unit condominium project on Graham Street but expressed concern over the method by which the applicant requested the conversion from apartments to condominiums. They requested that the Planning Commission and staff consider the establishment of standards for such conversions. The Planning Director stated staff is in the process of preparing an ordinance establishing such standards and that he would present the Commission with a transcript of the Council's discussion. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: There were no oral communications pre- sented at this time. Commissioner Van Allen stated the Commission should be aware of applicants who come before the Commission and purport to have a communication from the company headquarters office, as the recent occurrence with the 7- Eleven application when the applicant stated he had a letter from the Texas office which stated the freestanding sign had to remain uniform and could not be lowered in height. Chairman Mullen stated he saw in another city a freestanding sign for a shopping center and only a small 7- Eleven logo on the building and Commissioner Van Allen stated he saw a 7- Eleven sign which was low - level, slumpstone. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Mullen adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 1977 CHAIRMAN OF THE LANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SECRETAR OF THE PLANNIN, COMMISSION 9.