Loading...
Minutes 1976-10-21MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CYPRESS PLANNING COMMISSION HELD October 21, 1976 The regular meeting of the Cypress Planning Commission was called to order at 6:15 p.m. on Thursday, October 21, 1976 in the Cypress City Council Chambers, 5275 Orange Avenue, Cypress, California, Chairman Gerald Mullen presiding. PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Greenwood, Partin, Van Allen, Walsh & Mullen None Also present were Planning Director Brian Hawley, Public Works Director Art Schatzeder, Business License /Zoning Inspector Sandy Pegueros, and Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Strauss. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Walsh led the pledge to the flag. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS: 1. Presentation of Resolution of Commendation to Dennis Hart. Chairman Mullen presented a resolution of commendation to past commissioner and chairman Dennis Hart in recognition of his four years of service on the Planning Commission. At Commissioner Greenwood's request, Chairman Mullen added an item to the agenda regarding the relationship between the City Council, Planning Commission and staff. Chairman Mullen added an item regarding the Lincoln Avenue deep lot development recom- mendations and at Commissioner Van Allen's request, he added an item regarding Midwood Manor. 2. Consideration of a request to eliminate a tot lot in Tract No. 8126 - Cypress Village. The Planning Director read a memorandum dated October 15 which indicated a request was submitted by several property owners in Tract #8126 for elimination of a tot lot located adjacent to the tennis court in the center of the Cypress Village project. Transmitted were letters and petitions in support and in oppo- sition to the request. The Planning Director reported on the history of approval of the conditional use permit and tract map for Cypress Village. No tot lots were shown on tentative tract map #8126 however, a condition of approval of the tract map and permit stated that "the location of tot lots, play equipment, passive areas and other facilities in common green areas shall be submitted for staff approval." He reported that staff was unaware when the tot lot in Tract #8126 was designed since there is no mention in the minutes or staff report. The first reference to a tot lot in Tract #8126 was on the landscaping plans approved in September, 1974. In response to requests, the Planning Commission subsequently approved the elimination of a tot lot in Tracts #8124, 7793 and 8177. Staff reported they received a communication from the homeowners association which indicated their final action on October 2 to retain and upgrade the tot lot in Tract #8126 was based on committee reports, special reports, petitions from both sides, legal counsel, and recom- mendations from the management company, Department of Real Estate and City of Cypress. Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1976 Chairman Mullen asked if representatives from S & S Construction Company or the homeowners association wished to speak. There were no representatives present. Chairman Mullen asked for those wishing to speak in support of retention of the tot lot. Mr. Lee Brockett, 11365 Grand Manon, Cypress, attorney for the homeowners association, reported there are 700 to 750 families in the project, about half with children. The yards are inade- quate to play in and small children cannot cross Orangewood to go to nearby parks. He stated the subdivision report, which is signed by each resident, showed a tot lot in each tract. He reported in February, 1976, he approached S & S about the poor condition and unusability of the tot lot. S & S agreed to budget $5,000 to upgrade the tot lot in exchange for the residents giving up their requests for tot lots in any other area. He reported with the exception of 3 or 4 homeowners everyone in Tract #8126 bought their home after the tot lot was installed. He presented a statement in support of retaining the tot lot containing 130 signatures. He did not feel elimination of the tot lot would solve the problem of teens congregating there or the noise and vandalism problems. He felt the objection to the tot lot was an objection to children in general. Mr. Gary Wagaman, 11370 Harkers Court, Cypress, stated there were several erroneous statements or assumptions in the petition opposing the tot lot, such as the tot lot will be enlarged. He felt several past petitions were not impartial. He reported the Board of Directors is addressing the teen problem and he did not feel the problem at the tot lot was caused by children but by the teenagers. He stated the project was and is still being advertised in the newspapers and developer's brochure as a family development so it is natural to assume there will be play areas. He felt the basic issue is the objection to children making noise. Ms. Pat Leseco, 6655 Brewster Court, Cypress, spoke on the need and importance of play areas to children's development. She stated the project was sold as a family community, the children need a place to play since the yards are small, and the sub- division report and advertising brochure indicated play areas. Mrs. Cindy Brassett, 6657 Brewster Court, Cypress, read a statement and indicated she felt the controversy was over whether this is a family or adult community. In the subdivision report and sales brochures play areas were promised in four areas. She felt in a close community more tolerance is required and that the objectors should have considered moving into an adult project. Chairman Mullen asked for those in opposition. Mr. Bob Stains, 11376 Matinicus Court, Cypress, felt that people coming from the other tracts to use the tot lot will be a burden to those in Tract 8126, that the propriety of the original installation of the tot lot was questionable, and that it was also questionable whether the homeowners association can enforce rules for the tot lot. Mr. Al Zimmerman, 11368 Harkers Court, Cypress, stated there was no mention of a tot lot by the salesman when he bought his home, he felt the CC &R's prohibited nuisances such as the tot lot, the children can use the three parks in the area as well as the crossing guard and crosswalk at Orangewood, and it would be a burden for children from the other tracts to use the tot lot in 8126. 2. Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1976 Ms. Amy Meleota, 11374 Nantucket, Cypress, stated there was no mention by the salesman or indication in the sales office of a tot lot. She read a statement reporting on teenage vandalism to her property and felt she was entitled to peaceful, trouble - free living conditions. Mr. Jack Brouska, 6768 Ossabaw Court, Cypress, stated he knew the tot lot was proposed when he moved in but he felt it was on a temporary basis. He stated it is a nuisance and there is a problem with the teens who have thrown objects into his yard. The Commission inquired if a similar problem exists at the tennis court. Staff reported they have received no complaints and that the courts are not lighted at night and are locked. Mrs. Brassett stated there is more noise from the swimming pool and jacuzzi which are open until 11:00 p.m. Chairman Mullen opened the public hearings and continued them until after this item. Mr. Joe Potasi, 11382 Nayshon Court, Cypress, stated the staff's report was accurate. He reported the Board of Directors unani- mously voted to retain the tot lot and recommended some restrictions for supervision and an age limit of 6 for users of the tot lot. Commissioner Van Allen felt the biggest problem was the older persons who use the tot lot other than during the day. He stated the fact that a tot lot exists in Tract 8126 was a factor in the elimination of tot lots in the other tracts. He felt that much of the advertising in the sales office such as pictures and plans of the amenities are sales gimmicks and are not binding. The Attorney stated that the homeowners could bring no legal action against S & S Construction Company. Mr. Don Hecker, 6772 Ossabaw, Cypress, felt if the tot lot is removed the teens will still congregate in the green area. He felt upgrading of the tot lot will reduce the problems. Ms. Mary Haber, 11369 Harkers Court, Cypress, stated the majority of persons who oppose the tot lot moved in after the tot lot was installed. Commissioner Walsh felt the main problem was one of maintenance. She felt the children need the tot lot area and that the total community is entitled to at least one. She agreed it needed upgrading and felt the teens must be controlled by their parents. Commissioner Greenwood felt the play area was necessary for family living and that the homeowners association should handle the noise and security problems caused by the teens. He suggested that they hire a security guard. Commissioner Van Allen asked if the property owners appealed the Board of Directors to reverse their decision. The home- owners indicated no appeal was made but objections were raised. Commissioner Van Allen felt that since the homeowners could have appealed the Board's decision it was improper to request an overruling by the Planning Commission. Chairman Mullen felt the homeowners have options, such as the CC &R's and elective process for Board members, to address their problems and that the Commission should not have been asked to overrule the Board. He felt since the project was advertised as a family community catering to families with children it is natural to assume there will be playground facilities. He felt if the Board determines a different solution to the problem it will probably be supported by the Commission. 3. Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1976 It was moved by Commissioner Van Allen, seconded by Commissioner Walsh and unanimously carried to deny the request for the elim- ination of the tot lot in Tract #8126. RECESS: Chairman Mullen called a recess at 8:10 p.m. Commis- sioner Partin asked to be excused from the meeting and left at 8:10 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 8:15 p.m. with Commissioner Partin absent. 3. Sign review for convenience shopping center at Lincoln and Denni - C.U.P. #76 -1. The Planning Director read a memorandum dated October 15 and described the signing and landscaping programs for a 7 -11 and satellite stores located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Denni Street. He presented the plans for Commission review. The applicant proposed one 24 foot freestanding sign, 85 square feet, for the 7 -11 store. Signs identifying the other tenants will be 30" by 10 feet and attached to the building. The applicant proposed another freestanding sign, 16 feet in height, and 48 square feet in area, for the satellite stores to be located at the northeasterly corner of the property. Chairman Mullen asked if the applicant wished to speak. Mr. Lewis Morgan, representing Planned Development Corporation, 1180 S. Beverly, Los Angeles, reported that the 7 -11 Corporation stipulates to having a freestanding sign with no additional signing on the pole. The signs on the building will be 2 1/2 by 10 feet with brown letters on an orange background. Commissioner Van Allen asked if the landscaping on the corner could be rounded off to conform with the curve of the corner and the applicant agreed to this if it is possible. The staff felt this area was a required street dedication to the State Division of Highways and stated they will investigate the possibility of rounding off the landscaping. Chairman Mullen felt it is important to maintain the highest standards for this project since it is across the street from an attractive development and is the eastern gateway to the City. He opposed the second freestanding sign and recommended a condition that no promotional banner signing be permitted. Commissioner Van Allen inquired about the height of the building. Mr. William Landis, Planned Development Corporation, reported the building is about 15 feet in height. All Commissioners agreed that the freestanding sign was too high particularly in relation to the building height. They were also concerned with the several design options shown in the plans and stated they wished to see plans showing exactly what is proposed to be constructed. Mr. Landis stated the applicant felt the two freestanding signs would be more esthetically pleasing than a combination of signs on one pole and stated they would investigate with 7 -11 placing the necessary signs on the 7 -11 freestanding sign. Commissioner Van Allen asked that the applicant consider sub- mitting revised plans for one freestanding sign of a lower height, perhaps a ground -level sign. He recommended that no other signing be permitted except the freestanding sign and signs that are designed as part of the mansard roof. Chairman Mullen recommended that only one "open 24 hours" sign be permitted. 4. Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1976 It was moved by Chairman Mullen, seconded by Commissioner Greenwood and unanimously carried to continue this item to the next meeting and request that revised sign plans be submitted taking into consideration the Commission's suggestions. It was moved by Commissioner Van Allen, seconded by Commissioner Walsh and unanimously carried to approve the landscaping plans as presented subject to the condition that the corner land- scaping be rounded off subject to approval of the State Depart- ment of Highways. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 76 -4: Chairman Mullen announced that this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider a proposed amendment to Section 8 and Section 13.3 of the Zoning Ordinance which amendment would provide for possible waivers of normal public street improvements and /or rights -of -way dedications in conjunction with the issuance of building permits for designated "Rural Streets." He opened the hearing and asked for staff's report. The Planning Director reported that the hearing was continued from October 7 with direction from the Commission to mail notices to the property owners on Acacia Drive and to publish press releases on the proposed amendment. Staff sent the notices and releases. Chairman Mullen stated his concern was that the proposed amend- ment was being improperly presented since the City Council already has exercised its authority to waive street improvements as recommended by the amendment. He felt the issue to be addressed is whether, upon waiver of the improvements, the City should waive the cash or bond requirement for new development. He stated he is not convinced the waiver of the bond is fair to the rest of the City. Commissioner Greenwood felt the waiver would be consistent with the intent of a rural street. He felt the City could require bonds when the property is rezoned. Commissioner Van Allen felt an advantage with the present requirement is that with a bond posted the public improvements could take place immediately without having to wait for a property owner to initiate development. He asked if a property owner could demand his right to install improvements himself in conjunction with new building. The Assistant City Attorney stated the City could prevent someone from installing improve- ments by determining that they would be in violation of the Zoning Ordinance provisions for a rural street or could condition a tract map or conditional use permit that improvements not be installed. Chairman Mullen asked for those wishing to speak in favor. Mr. W.D. Timlin, 8371 Gay, Cypress, stated Gay Street would qualify as a rural street if annexed into the City. He opposed installing the improvements or posting a bond if development in an area, like Gay Street, is unlikely to occur in the far future if at all. Mr. Everett Weerheim, 8541 Acacia Drive, Cypress, supported a waiver of the improvements and asked if the existing street lights would be removed with adoption of the amendment. Mr. Weerheim pointed out drainage problems on Acacia Drive and felt improvements will be necessary. Mr. Gene Vaughn, 8582 Acacia Drive, Cypress, supported the amendment. Commissioner Van Allen asked if there was an alternative to require the improvements if the bond is waived in the event the characteristic of the street changes and the City desires 5. Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1976 the improvements. The Planning Director advised that the City itself could install the improvements or they could be accomplished through an assessment district which would require approval of a majority of the property owners. Mr. W.D. Timlin, 8371 Gay, felt the property owners themselves could make improvements such as filling holes where water collects. He felt the general area and intent of the property owners should be considered and that the improvement requirement unfairly penalizes the few property owners involved with new construction. Mr. Larry Wuebker, 8661 Acacia Drive, Cypress, supported the amendment. He felt improvements are not required on a rural street so it is illogical to require the bond. He asked if the City would reimburse those property owners who have posted a bond or cash. The Planning Director stated it would be up to the City Council whether to reimburse the property owners but that this was not the subject of the discussion. Mrs. Cary Wilvers, 8131 Gay Street, Cypress, asked if the amendment would apply to Gay Street. The Planning Director stated it would not since Gay Street itself is not located within the City and is not included in Annexation #76 -2. Chairman Mullen asked for those in opposition. There were no speakers in opposition. The Planning Director reminded the Commission that there was input at the last meeting in opposition. COMMISSIONER PARTIN RETURNED AT 10:00 P.M. Commissioner Walsh stated she understood why the improvements should be required after discussing the ramifications of the amendment. Commissioner Van Allen felt a zone change on Acacia could occur as easily as the last zone change and he did not feel the bonding requirement is an imposition. He felt if the City waives the improvements or bond, and the zoning changes, it would be diffi- cult to get a majority of the owners to agree to post the bond when they did not do it now, or the City would have to install the improvements. He felt it was a mistake to not require the bond now. Chairman Mullen felt the Commission was addressing the wrong issue and the problem is whether to waive the cash deposit or bond, not the improvements,since the City has already waived them in the past. He stated if there had been more input from taxpayers of the City he might have supported the waiver. He felt the amendment represented a good deal for a small segment of the population and was unfair to the rest of the citizens. He felt the amendment was a mistake as long as the possibility of rezoning existed and stated his concern is over the financial impact of the amendment and not over the question of whether improvements shall or shall not be waived. Mr. W.D. Timlin, 8371 Gay, stated because of the nature of the residences and fact that it is not a fast changing area there will be little new construction for a long period of time and he felt the improvements were unjustified. Mr. Weerheim, 8541 Acacia, asked if there could be a lien on the property in lieu of improvements. The attorney stated the City is authorized to accept only certain types of securities in lieu of improvements and is not authorized to take out a lien on property for future improvements. 6. Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1976 It was moved by Commissioner Van Allen and seconded by Commis- sioner Walsh to deny Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance No. 76 -4. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Mullen, Van Allen & Walsh NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Greenwood ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAINING: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Partin PUBLIC HEARING RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 76 -15 - HOLY CROSS LUTHERAN CHURCH: Chairman Mullen announced that this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider a proposal to establish a youth center, classroom building and future parrish hall and visual arts building in conjunction with an existing church facility located at 4321 Cerritos Avenue, situated on the northerly side of Cerritos Avenue, approximately 500 feet westerly of Denni Street in the RS -6000 Residential Single - Family Zone. He opened the hearing and asked for staff's report. The Planning Director read Staff Report PC #76 -38 dated October 15 describing the application. The proposed new buildings will be on a parcel located easterly of the existing church. The Planning Director reviewed the plot plans. Chairman Mullen asked if the applicant wished to speak. Mr. Vince Marriner, 5141 Hickory Circle, Cypress, representing Holy Cross Lutheran Church, stated he just received the staff report yesterday. He reviewed the list of conditions and inquired about several conditions including requirements for landscaping, removal and replacement of parkway Cypress trees, soil testing, street lights and fire hydrants. Mr. Marriner asked why the burden of the improvements was on the applicant and why the City was not partially responsible. Staff indicated that the conditions are standard requirements for any development within the City and several are required by City Code. Staff pointed out that it was the applicant's intended use of the property which necessitated the improve- ments and that certain improvements in conjunction with the conditional use permit are required since the peculiar char- acteristics of a church use are not totally compatible with a residential area. For instance, there are higher traffic volumes and use of the property at odd hours. The Planning Director suggested that if the applicant has reservations about the conditions the hearing should be continued so that he may meet with staff to discuss the problems. Mr. Marriner suggested that the Commission approve the appli- cation with the stipulation that if the applicant has a major concern the matter could be placed on a later agenda. Chairman Mullen expressed concern that the Commission was aware the applicant proposed phasing of development but did not submit plans describing the phases in detail. He suggested that the applicant meet with the staff since the applicant was unprepared and he did not feel the meeting was the proper place to develop the plan since the explanation of conditions should have been done at the staff level. Mr. Ken Box, P. 0. Box 674, Cypress, member of the church planning committee, stated the applicant only proposes to construct the first phase at this time - the youth center and classroom building. He indicated the future buildings were shown on the plan to give the Commission an idea of their overall development plan for the entire property. Staff indi- 7. Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1976 cated that prior to construction of any of the buildings precise development plans must be submitted for Commission review. It was moved by Chairman Mullen and seconded by Commissioner Greenwood to continue the hearing regarding Conditional Use Permit #76 -15 to the next meeting. Commissioner Van Allen pointed out that if the Commission does not consider the future buildings then the applicant would have to reapply for another conditional use permit to construct those buildings. He stated since the future buildings are listed on the agenda the Commission must dispose of them which would mean denial. Mr. Marriner asked that the Commission deny that portion of the development that they are not building and stated they are willing to reapply since the other phases are over 10 years away. He stated they are ready to have the Commission vote on the application. Chairman Mullen stated he wished to consider only the entire plan. The motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Greenwood, Partin, Van Allen, Walsh & Mullen 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC HEARING RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 76 -16 - DR. ROBERT B. NEVIN: Chairman Mullen announced that this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider a proposal to establish a 14 -unit apartment project together with incidental off - street parking and landscaped, open areas on a parcel of land located at 6101 Orange Avenue, in the RM -20 /A Residential Multiple - Family Zone. He opened the hearing and asked for staff's report. Staff presented a memorandum dated October 15 and requested a continuance of the hearing to the next meeting so that the applicant may complete revisions to the plot plans. It was moved by Commissioner Van Allen, seconded by Commis- sioner Walsh and unanimously carried to continue the hearing regarding Conditional Use Permit #76 -16 to the November 4 meeting. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS (CONTINUED): 4. Continuation of consideration of report from Zoning Inspector regarding status of Planning Department actions relative to American Pool, Patio & Nursery. The Zoning Inspector reported that the City Attorney would file the complaint tomorrow against American Pool, Patio & Nursery, notifying them to appear in court on November 10. Hearing no objections, Chairman Mullen received and filed the report. MINUTES: October 7 It was moved by Commissioner Walsh, seconded by Commissioner Partin and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of October 7 as corrected. 8. Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1976 In regard to the item concerning relationships between the City Council, Planning Commission and staff, Commissioner Greenwood stated he felt the annual League conference should have been better planned and that he was disappointed there was no opportunity for the Council, Commission and staff to get together during the conference. Chairman Mullen stated he was alone during the conference and felt the City lost the benefit of the conference because of the lack of organization. Commissioner Van Allen stated the Council's late decision to approve the Commission's attendance was too late to make plans. The Planning Director stated the Council made no provisions for a meeting at the conference and he pointed out the restrictions of the Brown Act. Commissioner Partin asked for a copy of this legislation. The Commission decided to bring this matter up at the joint meeting with the City Council. Chairman Mullen inquired about the status of the ordinance relating to development of the deep lots on Lincoln Avenue. The attorney stated the draft ordinance should be available for review at the next meeting. Commissioner Van Allen inquired about the status of the parking area at Midwood Manor which was on the Commission's agenda last April. He reported the open corner area is still used for parking. He felt since the Commission denied their request to amend the development plans that they should comply with the plans and dispose of the parking area. The Planning Director stated he would investigate the situation and report back at the next meeting. Commissioner Walsh announced that this was her last meeting since she was moving out of the state and she expressed her enjoyment at having served on the Commission. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Mullen adjourned the meeting at 11:55 p.m. to Monday, October 25 at 6:00 p.m. ATTEST: CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY OF THE PLANNIN COMMISSION 9.