Loading...
Minutes 1976-04-01MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CYPRESS PLANNING COMMISSION HELD April 1, 1976 The regular meeting of the Cypress Planning Commission was called to order at 4:05 p.m. on Thursday, April 1, 1976 in the Cypress City Council Chambers, 5275 Orange Avenue, Cypress, California, Vice Chairman Gerald Mullen presiding. PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Greenwood, Mullen and Van Allen Commissioners Walsh and Hart Also present were Brian Hawley, Planning Director, Art Schatzeder, Public Works Director, Roger Grable, Deputy City Attorney, and Sandy Pegueros, Business License /Zoning Inspector. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 1. Midwood Manor, northeast corner of Cerritos and Bloomfield, consideration of request for amendment to approved devel- opment plan. The Planning Director reported he received a request from the Board of Governors of the Midwood Manor Townhouse Association for approval of a modification of the development plan which would allow the conversion of the open, landscaped area at the northeast corner of the tract to a paved parking area. He indicated the conversion to the paved parking area was done about a year ago without Planning Commission approval. The Planning Director presented maps of the tract and described the original landscape plans. Single - family dwellings abut the parking area to the north and east. The paved area is marked for six parking stalls. Mr. Everett Harper, Chairman of the Board of Governors, 10407 Colgate Drive, Cypress, stated the Association's records indi- cate the landscaped area was paved about 11 years ago to be used for storage but the records do not indicate how or why this action was taken. He stated the parking situation in Midwood Manor is critical and the paved area is necessary. He felt eliminating the area would create more problems. Mr. Harper presented photos of the paved area. He stated the Association would attempt to enforce the rule prohibiting the repair of automobiles in this area. He reported there are five to six feet long wheel stops along the fence. The Planning Director reported there were no driveway approaches to this area, only rolled curbs which permit cars to enter. He stated it appeared that posts closing off this area from the street were removed. He felt the development met the parking requirements at the time it was approved. Mrs. Duckworth, 10407 Stratton Court, Cypress, stated she has lived on the corner adjacent to the paved area for 11 years. She reported the area was paved and used as a play- ground and later was used as a storage area. Posts were installed to prevent access from the street. Mr. Eugene Elerding, attorney representing Midwood Manor Townhouse Association, 1617 Cliff, Suite 204, Newport Beach, California, stated the Association is willing to take whatever action is necessary to comply with the CC &R's and prevent car repairs and excessive noise in the paved area. He stated Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1976 there is a great need for parking in the tract and he felt eliminating this area would cause persons to park incorrectly and block access for emergency vehicles. Mr. Ed Powell, 10401 Santa Elise, Cypress, stated his home is adjacent to the paved lot and he objected to cars being repaired there, and the fumes, noise and lights of cars entering the lot late at night or early in the morning. He presented photos which showed cars being repaired after the Association's letter of March 17 which indicated car repairing would cease and he did not feel the Association would enforce this rule. He felt parking in the tract was comparable to nearby areas and was sufficient. He suggested that the Plan- ning Commission survey the area and asked that the request be denied. Mr. Herb Lee, 4102 Marion Avenue, Cypress, stated his home is adjacent to the lot and since they removed the chain link fence he has had a problem with children climbing his fence to enter Midwood Manor. He stated he is disturbed by cars coming in late at night. Mrs. Jane Salas, 4122 Marion Avenue, Cypress, stated her home abuts this area at the northeast corner and she objected to the noise of cars coming and going late at night or early in the morning. She felt there was adequate parking in the tract without using this area. Mr. Harper stated it was impossible to patrol the area at all times for car repairing. He felt the children would climb the wall whether cars park here or not. He indicated that two streets in the tract point directly towards this area with car lights shining onto the lot. He stated the Association will attempt to control noise and other problems and that, if landscaping is installed in this area, it will not be fenced off by a chain link fence. He stated the Association will investigate raising the block wall and will post signs prohibiting car repairs. It was moved by Commissioner Greenwood, seconded by Commis- sioner Van Allen and unanimously carried to continue this matter to the next meeting to allow the Commissioners to visit the site. The Deputy City Attorney cautioned the Commissioners from engaging in conversation with residents so that all discussion may be restricted to the public meeting. 2. Tentative Tract #9289, 9731 Walker Street, proposed subdivision of subject property into six single - family lots and one residual commercial lot. The Planning Director summarized Staff Report PC #76 -8 dated March 26 regarding the proposed subdivision of 2.39 acres in the CG- 10,000 and RS -6,000 zones into seven lots; six lots are proposed for single- family development and the seventh lot will be retained for a chicken ranch and retail egg sales facility. He pointed out that lots 1, 3, 4 and 6 have sub- standard depth which is not less than 85 feet. Mr. Calvin Meekhoff, 5438 Hanover Drive, Cypress, property owner, stated he accepted all conditions but asked that Condition #3, requiring drainage fees on all parcels, be waived for parcel #7. He stated it was his understanding that the City Council waived this condition for development 2. Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1976 on the adjacent Trautman property. He felt the condition should be waived on parcel #7 since it was not being developed and would provide no revenue. Mr. Dan Brose, 2366 Glassel, Orange, California, stated the quality and cost of the homes will be in conformance with the area. He requested that drainage fees be waived on lot #7. He stated this development would be combined with devel- opment on the Trautman property into a nine unit project. Commissioner Van Allen stated Condition #26 should be revised so as not to require the removal of existing improvements on Lot #7. It was moved by Commissioner Greenwood, seconded by Commis- sioner Van Allen and unanimously carried to approve Tentative Tract Map #9289 subject to the following conditions and the findings contained in Section 17.2 -7 of the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Greenwood moved to recommend to the City Council that the drainage fee for Lot #7 be waived. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Mullen supported the waiver of the condition only if it is consistent with the Council's action on the adjacent property. Commissioner Van Allen did not feel the condition for drainage fees was waived by the Commission or Council and he did not support a waiver in this case. 1. The parcel directly to the east of the proposed tract, fronting on Walker Street, shall be made a part of the recorded tract, and shall be designated as Lot No. 7. 2. A complete topograph of the land directly to the east of the proposed tract shall be made in order to establish existing drainage patterns for the area. If the develop- ment of Lots 5 and 6 inhibits the drainage of surrounding areas, as shown by the required topograph, an underground drainage system shall be designed and installed to remove storm water from the area, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3. Drainage fees shall be paid on all parcels in accordance with the Master Plan of Drainage. 4. Drainage shall be solved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A grading plan showing elevations of the proposed development and all surrounding parcels shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. 5. All secondary and primary utility services shall be underground. 6. Street lights shall be installed on Rome Street per City of Cypress Standards. 7. Advance street light energy charges shall be paid. 8. Rome Street shall be dedicated and fully improved in accordance with the Master Plan of Streets and Highways. 9. Street structural sections to be based on recommendation and soils report by soils engineering firm acceptable to the City Engineer with street structural sections to be determined by using an applicable T.I. 3. Planning Commission Minutes April 1,_ 1976 10. Street trees (15 gal.) 40' on center shall be installed along Rome Street in conformance with the street tree policy of the Public Works Department. The type of trees shall be as required under the Townscape and Urban Design Element of the General Plan. 11 Soil in planting areas, including trees, shall be tested by a qualified agricultural laboratory to determine the organic and chemical amendments for optimum growth for the plants specified. The test results shall include concentration of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, pH, salinity, sodium status and boron saturation extract. Results of these tests with recommendations of the agri- cultural laboratory shall be furnished to the Public Works Department for approval at least 30 days prior to planting date. 12 Necessary fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with Fire Department requirements and City Standards. 13. Plan checking and inspection fees amounting to 3 1/2% of the street improvements shall be paid. 14. Developer shall conform to all applicable provisions of the City Code. 15. All requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance shall be satisfied. 16. Developer shall pay Park and Recreation fees in accordance with the Park and Recreation Ordinance. 17. Installation of cable T.V. shall be subject to any City ordinance or regulations which are in effect at the time of recording of Final Map. 18. The Rome Street cul -de -sac shall have a property line radius of forty -four feet (44') and an additional six - foot (6') wide tree planting, public utility, and walk- way easement behind the property line. 19. All lots shall have a slope gradient of between 1% and 3% from rear lot line to the street. 20. The developer shall pay $250.00 per unit for a sewer connection charge assessed by the Orange County Sanita- tion District. In addition, there will be a $50.00 per unit developer's tax as required by the City of Cypress Business License Department. 21. Minimum street grade shall be 0.20 %. 22. A minimum six -foot (6') high block wall, measured from the highest adjacent grade, shall be maintained on the northerly and westerly property line. Unless the property owner's approval is given to heighten the existing wall, a new wall shall be constructed adjacent to the existing wall to meet the six -foot height re- quirement. 23. A retaining wall shall be constructed where the differ- ence in grade on the two sides of any property line is greater than twelve inches (12 "). 24. Necessary soil reports shall be submitted for City review and approval. 25. All existing improvements on Lots 1 -6 shall be removed to the specifications of the Building Superintendent. 4. Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1976 3. Consideration of request that S & S Construction cancel plans for installation of Tot Lots and /or Sand Play Areas, Tracts 8124, 8125 and 8177. Mr. Jim Bullitt, representing S & S Construction Company, 14340 Bolsa Chica, Suite D, Westminster, California, stated the request by the Cypress Village Homeowners' Association was to eliminate plans for a tot lot in Tract 8124 only which is not yet under construction or being marketed. Mr. Bullitt clarified that Tracts #8125 and 8177 are not included in the request since tot lots were not shown on the final approved plans for Tracts 8125 and 8177. As part of the request, the Association requested that the tot lot in Tract #8126 be upgraded by filling the area with sand, adding a concrete border and two benches. Mr. Bullitt stated the area where the tot lot was proposed would be landscaped with turf and trees. It was moved by Commissioner Mullen, seconded by Commissioner Greenwood and unanimously carried to approve the request by S & S Construction Company to cancel plans for the installation of a tot lot in Tract 8124 and to upgrade the existing tot lot in Tract 8126. 4. Sign Review, Zip'z Ice Cream, 10033 Valley View. The Planning Director presented the plans for Zip'z Ice Cream shop and stated the interior lighting plans were approved by the Building Department but were not reviewed by the Planning Commission. He stated the staff's concern was that the lights at the front of the store, which continuously blink, are overly bright and are directed outwards towards one of the main aisles of the shopping center. Staff felt the lighting was distracting and a potential hazard to motor- ists. Mr. Tim Pfeiffer, 9623 Bickley Drive, Huntington Beach, California, co -owner of Zip'z Ice Cream, stated the lights were at one of the side entrances of the store and he felt only half of the store front was visible when driving down the aisle adjacent to the Plankhouse Restaurant. He did not feel the lights interfered with motorists since the driveway entrance on Valley View is about 150 feet from the store. He stated there was no objection from other store owners to the lights and that their purpose was to attract attention. He did not feel he should be penalized by changing the lights since the plans were approved by the Building Department. Mr. Ed Sovesky, co -owner of Zip'z, 3165 Westhaven, Anaheim, California, stated the lighting was shown in the plans which were approved by the Building Department and he would not have installed such expensive lighting without approval. The Planning Director stated the plans showed the lights hanging down and not directed outward. Mr. Grable stated the lights are included in the definition of signing in the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Mullen felt the problem could be resolved at the staff level and moved to continue this item to the next meeting to give the applicant an opportunity to work out the problem with the staff. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Greenwood moved to deny the sign plans. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Van Allen felt the item should not be continued if the applicant didn't want to work with the staff. Mr. Pfeiffer agreed to work with the staff to reach a solution. 5. Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1976 It was moved by Commissioner Van Allen, seconded by Commis- sioner Greenwood and unanimously carried to continue this matter for two weeks to give the applicant an opportunity to work with the staff to resolve the sign problem. 5. Consideration of Cal Fruit request for growing of straw- berries on Van Hunnick property, west side of Valley View, south of Lincoln. The Planning Director reported he received a request by Mr. Jack Licause of Cal Fruit to farm strawberries on 10 to 12 acres of the Van Hunnick property. He stated the Zoning Ordinance does not provide for the raising of agricultural products in commercial zones but the Commission may determine that a use is similar to and no more detrimental than existing permitted uses in any commercial zone. The staff felt the raising of agricultural products does not involve an irrevocable commitment to land use and they had no objections to the proposed activity. Mr. Jack Licause, 14429 Broadway, Whittier, California, stated they would remove the corrals and clean up the debris which would enhance the appearance of the property and the use would benefit the property owner. It was moved by Commissioner Van Allen, seconded by Commis- sioner Greenwood and unanimously carried to approve the request by Mr. Licause of Cal Fruit to farm strawberries on the Van Hunnick property. 6. Review of landscape plans, Insta -Tune, Conditional Use Permit #75 -5, 5501 Ball Road, northeasterly corner of Ball Road and Walker Street. The Planning Director presented the landscape plans for the reactivation of the service station at the northeast corner of Walker and Ball. The staff suggested a modification to the plans to require the installation of two, 15- gallon Carrotwood trees in the planter areas on Walker Street - one between the two driveway approaches and one at the southwest corner of the lot. Mr. James Crowell, representing Insta -Tune, 17981 Sky Park Circle, Irvine, California, stated he agreed with all condi- tions. He stated they would perform minor tune -ups only and it would be an accessory use to the service station operation. He stated there would be no major repairs or body work and cars would not be left at the station overnight. It was moved by Commissioner Greenwood, seconded by Commis- sioner Van Allen and unanimously carried to approve the landscape plans for Insta -Tune, Conditional Use Permit #75 -5 subject to the following condition: two 15 gallon trees (Carrotwood) shall be installed on Walker Street: one in the planter area at the southwesterly corner of the subject property and the other to be located in the planter area be- tween the two driveway approaches on Walker Street. Commissioner Greenwood asked that the following matters be placed on the agenda: 1. Commissioners' terms of office 2. Planning Commission meeting time 3. Status report on abandoned service stations 4. Status report on Acacia Drive zone change 5. Award to outstanding businesses 6. Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1976 The Planning Director reported he contacted the Chamber of Commerce twice regarding the special commendation to out- standing businesses who indicated they would keep this matter under consideration. The Commission asked that this item be placed on a future agenda. Mr. Hawley stated the City Council approved Zone Change #76 -1 for Acacia Drive and ini- tiated an amendment to the General Plan. The Council also requested that the Commission undertake a study of the RS- 15000 zone standards. Regarding the abandoned service station report, he stated this matter would be placed on a future agenda. He reported the matter regarding commissioners' terms of office was still on the City Council's agenda. The Commission requested that the matter regarding their meeting time be placed on a future agenda. RECESS: Vice Chairman Mullen recessed the meeting at 6:40 p.m. until 7:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Hart called the Planning Commission meeting back to order at 7:35 p.m. with the following Commis- sioners present: PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Greenwood, Mullen, Van Allen and Hart Commissioner Walsh Also present were Brian Hawley, Planning Director, Art Schatzeder, Public Works Director, and Roger Grable, Deputy City Attorney. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chairman Hart led the pledge to the flag. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Chairman Hart asked if anyone wished to speak in regard to any matter not on the agenda. Mrs. Arlene Spatz, 9836 Avenida Mateo, Cypress, reported sev- eral of the new trees planted on the west side of the tank farm along Denni Street were dead or removed and she asked that they be replaced. The staff stated they would investigate the problem and contact Mrs. Spatz. PUBLIC HEARING RE: AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN NO. 76 -1 - ARLAN PROPERTY: Chairman Hart announced that this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider a proposed amendment to the City of Cypress General Plan by the adoption of a proposed Master Plan of Development which would provide for the establishment of various land uses in the area generally bounded by Knott Avenue on the east, the Stanton Storm Channel on the south, Walker Street on the west and Cerritos Avenue and the Southern Pacific Railroad right -of -way on the north. This proposal is to change the current designation to provide for the establishment of industrial, commercial, residential of various densities and public and semi - public uses. As a prerequisite and in conjunction with this hearing, a public hearing will be held to review the adequacy of the Environ- mental Impact Report prepared for this proposal. Chairman Hart asked for the staff's report. The Planning Director reported this hearing was continued to allow discussion on land use allocations proposed by the applicant and recommendations of the Team and also to identify other alternatives the Commission would like studied. The consultant is preparing responses to comments and questions from the last hearing which will be presented at a later meeting. The Planning Director summarized the zoning history of the property and reported on development proposals from the mini -city to the current plan. He stated the Team supports the proposal and feels it conforms with criteria recommended by 7. Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1976 the Team in previous meetings on this subject. He indi- cated the Team and property owner disagree about the phasing program. He presented slides of the applicant's proposal for land use allocations and compared the applicant's and Team's phasing programs. He described the Team's five rec- ommendations to guarantee development and the Team's suggested development plan implementation program. Chairman Hart was concerned that the Commission appeared to be reworking the applicant's plan and felt it is fruitless to consider the plan if the applicant will not agree to it. The Planning Director stated the Team had worked out the problems with the owner regarding the mix of uses and only disagreed with the phasing program. General discussion was held regarding the guarantees of development and the Planning Director indicated two guarantees would be the filing of a subdivision map and an annual review of each phase of devel- opment. The Commission inquired what the applicant proposed for Area VI (designated agricultural transition) and Commis- sioner Mullen felt the voters would regard this area as residential. Commissioner Van Allen felt the Commission should at least know what the applicant is not proposing for Area VI. The Planning Director stated the Team felt any use would be suitable in Area VI and it is the Commission's prerogative to give the area a zone designation. He reported the Team suggested agricultural transition since the applicant wished to farm the land and not tie it down to a vote at this time. The Planning Director reported that the development proposal includes a 1 1/2 acre parcel of land, the Baroldi property, west of Holder and north of the Southern Pacific Railroad right -of -way, which will be combined with the Arlan property. He stated the property will be given the same zone designation as Area II which is adjacent. Chairman Hart opened the hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak. Mr. Karl Mazzeo, 9949 Madrid Circle, Cypress, felt there was a lack of commitment by the applicant to a definite project since it appeared the applicant was allowing the Team to decide on the plan. He felt there was no commitment to industrial development and that the owner was undecided on the plan, for instance, by not designating Area VI. He felt the EIR did not address alternative uses for Area VI. He stated the EIR should have addressed four or five alter- natives and he recommended that a factor analysis be done on the alternatives. Mrs. Vickie Evans, 9326 Cambridge, Cypress, felt the Commission's duty was to determine the highest and best use of the land. She did not object to the agricultural transition area as long as its ultimate use will be decided by the Commission and she supported a planned development designation for this area. She felt the Commission should recognize that circumstances have changed since the entire property was zoned industrial and will change and she supported holding back on some zoning and placing some of the property in a zone not requiring a vote. Regarding the statement about a lack of commitment by the owner, she felt it was preferable to be advised by an impartial, professional planner as to how the property should be developed than to be told by a biased property owner. Mr. Joe Hardcastle, 4588 Blanca Drive, Cypress, felt the Cypress residents had demonstrated they are opposed to any rezoning of industrial property to residential. He felt 8. Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1976 the agricultural transition zone was a device to circumvent the ordinance requiring a vote on industrial zone changes. He felt if any property is placed in an agricultural transi- tion zone it should be that which is presently used for agricultural purposes. He felt the total residential acres proposed was more than shown in the EIR and was not much less than what the mini -city plan proposed. He felt the owner would not proceed with industrial or commercial development as long as the possibility exists for a zone change to residential. He stated he opposed any rezoning of this property or change to the Master Plan. Mr. Larry Wuebker, 8661 Acacia Drive, Cypress, stated homes in the College Park tract in Cypress increased in value in four months by $10,000 and are selling for about $80,000. He felt the applicant's proposal for $65,000 houses was un- realistic. He stated as a voter he would regard the agri- cultural transition zone as residential. He felt Phase I alone should be placed before a vote of the people since all single- family development was proposed in this phase and industrial development was proposed in later phases. Mrs. Vickie Evans, 9326 Cambridge, Cypress, stated she was concerned with the fallacy that the City will only be bene- fitted by industrial development. She felt a combination of uses would not be detrimental to the City's tax base and she stated studies pointed out a two cents difference in City tax between a combination of uses and all industrial use. Mr. Karl Mazzeo, 9949 Madrid Circle, Cypress, stated he was a candidate for the Citizens' EIR Committee and would have gladly served except he was not selected. He felt it was an ill - chosen committee since they accepted the EIR. He suggested that another committee be formed whose sole function is to review the EIR and he volunteered to be on the committee. Mr. Roy McNeil, 200 Homewood Road, Los Angeles, California, stated he and his partner, Mr. Charles Kendall, were hired by the property owner because of their experience in devel- oping industrial parks. He reported on their experience and reported that interest has been expressed by industrial and commercial developers in a portion of the property. He felt the development proposal was not a political plan and was a well thought out distillation of thoughts contri- buted by community groups, the staff and property owner. From an industrial standpoint he stated his objection was to the ambitious industrial development planned in Phase II. He reported he has been authorized by the owner to investi- gate the possibility of immediately preparing a tentative tract map for Areas 4 and 5 and he is presently working on the cost analysis. He estimated off -site improvements at $17,000 to $21,000 per acre rather than $2.5 million for the total acreage. Mr. Joe Hardcastle, 4588 Blanca Drive, Cypress, stated he did not read the entire EIR and felt much of it was a duplication of documentation presented before. He felt the figures of school age children to be generated by development were inaccurate and he felt the children factor would affect the tax base. RECESS: Chairman Hart called a recess at 9:30 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 9:45 p.m. with all Commissioners present except Commissioner Walsh. 9. Planning Commission Minutes April 1, 1976 Commissioner Van Allen suggested that Area 6 (agricultural transition) be given a residential designation and that Area 2 be given a combination industrial /commercial designation which corresponds in acreage with Area 6. He suggested that Area 11 be given an industrial designation with possibly some commercial. Chairman Hart suggested that a portion of Area 6 be designated for commercial in order to take advantage of arterial frontage. Commissioner Mullen felt the voters would regard Area 6 as residential and that it would be attacked by elements of the population who desire no development. He supported the concept of a link between north and south Cypress with residential development in Area 10. He stated he did not object to a commercial designation for Area 6. Mr. Karl Mazzeo, 9949 Madrid Circle, Cypress, felt this was the opportunity to develop a more creative plan avoiding traditional planning concepts for industrial /commercial development. He stated bike trails, greenbelts and a combination of recreation and industrial /commercial facilities could be attractions for new development. He stated a revised EIR based on existing environmental impacts is necessary and he suggested that a factor analysis be done. It was moved by Commissioner Mullen, seconded by Commissioner Greenwood and unanimously carried to continue the hearing to April 22, 1976 at 7:30 p.m. The Planning Director stated he would request an environmental and economic analysis by the consultants on the combination of uses and changes suggested by the Commission. The Planning Director reported the staff met with the devel- oper of the commercial center at Via Largo and Ball Road and worked out a solution to the driveway problem. This matter will be presented for Commission review at a later meeting. He reported the City Council will hold a public hearing on an appeal of the Commission's decision to approve the commercial center at Denni and Lincoln Avenue on April 12. MINUTES: It was moved by Commissioner Mullen, seconded by Commissioner Greenwood and unanimously carried to approve the March 4, 1976 minutes. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Hart adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m. ATTEST: C ( , , kl tic CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY OF THE PLAN INC COMMISSION