Loading...
RA1988/04/12,; ~~ a`~ Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY April 12, 1988, 1:20 P.M. PRESENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler, Bay ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Bob Simpson CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White SECRETARY: Leonora N. Sohl INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency was posted at 4:00 p.m. on April 8, 1988, at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all items as shown herein. Chairman Bay called the regular meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency to order at 1:44 p.m. MINUTES: Agency Member Hunter moved to approve the minutes of the regular meetings held March 15 and March 29, 1988. Agency Member Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY in the amount of 12,557.70, in accordance with the 1987-88 Budget, were approved. PROPOSED DESIGN CRITERIA-PARCELS 14 AND 22 IN PROJECT ALPHA: Approving the proposed Design Criteria for Parcels 14 and 22 in Project Alpha as recommended in memorandum dated April 6, 1988 from the Interim Executive Director of Community Development, Lisa Stipkovich. Agency Member Pickler moved to approve the proposed Design Criteria for Parcels 14 and 22 in Project Alpha Before further action was taken, Chairman Bay stated that the Criteria for Parcels 14 and 22 have been developed with a great deal of effort over the past months with the help of a consultant. He has a great deal of concern with the proposed criteria for those parcels as presented which he feels are overly restrictive in many ways especially with regard to density and height. He is, therefore, offering specific changes to the Design Criteria as presented. Parcels 14 and 22 are limited to 380 dwellings with specific heights and types of dwellings almost to the point where it is pre-designed so that there is not a great deal of leeway for any of the five master developers to present any innovative plans. With the proposed Design Criteria, he does not believe they would get five different plans from which choose, but similar plans from all five. He would also like to see Parcel 4D added to the proposal. When Parcel 10 was removed, Commercial of any size was eliminated from the Development Plan. They should put back in what they can and call it a Mixed Use, Commercial/Residential. It is time they tried a mixed use. He suggested that they draw a line at approximately Center Street across Parcel 4D and E and call it 4D adding that to the 88-23 . ~. ~: Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY April 12, 1988, 1:20 P.M. proposal and asking for a mixed use proposal from the five competitors. He is also asking that they open up the total dwelling units for Parcels 14 and 22 to 500 units rather than 380 and back off on the specific layouts in order to leave leeway for the developers to come in with whatever they feel is best and "sell" it to the Agency. Agency Member Ehrle. He agreed with Chairman Bay on most of his recommendations. He also urged that when they go to the master development on Parcels 14 and 22 they give attention to single family ownership, either patio homes, townhomes, condominiums or whatever means. It is necessary to have a balance of ownership as well as apartments and other types of living accommodations. He knows it can be accomplished through high rise or other means. He would urge the master developer to listen to the requests of the local residents. He reiterated he agreed with Chairman Bay especially on Parcel 4D that it be a mixed use. Councilman Hunter. He agrees on Parcels 14 and 22. In one of those parcels or perhaps both they should at least look at single family detached, zero lot line houses such as the ones built in Santa Ana and in Paramount. It will help revitalize the downtown area and encourage young people to move in. He is also in agreement on 4D that it should be commercial or a mixed use. Also on 14 and 22, the Project Area Committee and Redevelopment Commission have done a lot of work with staff and basically they are also saying that there not be just apartments but also single family homes. Agency Member Pickler He has no quarrel with condominiums or townhouses but he does not think it is economically feasible for single family homes. By limiting it he feels they are tying the developer's hands. He is looking at open space, park space - those things needed to make it a viable area and a place where people will want to move to. Chairman Bay. He emphasized he does not disagree with ownership but does disagree on single family detached homes which he personally does not feel are economically feasible on 14 and 22 nor does he believe that was ever the intent. Agency Member Kaywood. One of the recommendations of the consultant was to decrease the parking requirements. She has a problem with that. Problems usually follow where there is a parking shortage. She does not want to build something new and create an immediate problem. The parking requirements are very reasonable. Single family detached homes are more of a hope than a reality since the price would be out of reach for most people. Chairman Bay. He is willing to go out with maximums instead of minimums and then the Agency can decide which plan is best for the City. He also does not agree with Agency Member Kaywood relative to her view on relief of parking requirements. He feels the parking requirements are extremely tight and it is also the belief of the consultant. Parking problems are the exception and not the rule. He favors listing the standards on parking as requested by the consultant. 88-24 Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY April 12, 1988, 1:20 P.M. Another item, he has a problem with Atchison Street remaining straight the way it is because it is going to make it very expensive to provide the grade to take it over. He feels they should bend Atchison toward the railroad bridge to where they have enough depth in the underpass on Lincoln so that they will not have to bridge up to take Atchison across. Lisa Stipkovich. What the Agency is being asked to approve today would not necessarily include the approval of Atchison as a provision but Chairman Bay is correct, if it was moved over, they would not have a problem with the height. No plans have been drawn as yet. She also confirmed for Agency Member Kaywood that Parcel 10 had been removed and it should be deleted. She understands that now 4D is to be added with the Design Criteria. Chairman Bay. If they add in 4D and say it is going to be a Mixed Use, Commercial/Residential, there will have to be a dwelling unit number set on that. Lisa Stipkovich. They will look at the maximum allowed under the EIR and the Plan and come up with a number for that parcel and the other two parcels in a Mixed Use conf figuration. They can send back the final criteria for the Agency's review as an informational item rather than bringing the item back on .~ the agenda. It will give staff and the developer more flexibility to look at the total number of dwelling units proposed on those three parcels and make that the total and they can spread it out as they wish. Chairman Bay. He does not want to go less than 100 units on parcel 4D, less than 500 on Parcels 14 and 22 and if more than that is set as a maximum, he would not have a problem with it. Lisa Stipkovich. She recommended that the Agency approve the Design Criteria as recommended with the following exceptions: remove any height restrictions, density restrictions and set the maximum number of units at 500 for Parcels 14 and 22 and 100 for Parcel 4D and indicate a mixed use on 4D; the Chairman added that they also agree with the requested parking reduction by the consultant. Lisa Stipkovich. On parking something that might help which can be added to the RFP is to ask the developer to come up with a marketing plan to market especially to people who live in the surrounding area which will help relative to parking restrictions Councilman Bay seconded the motion approving the Design Criteria for Parcels 14 and 22 in Project Alpha but including the changes as recommended that height restrictions be removed, density restrictions be removed, maximum dwelling units on Parcels 14 and 22 be no less than 500 units and on 4D no less than 100 units and that Parcel 4D be indicated as mixed use. MOTION ""- CARRIED. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: No items of public interest were addressed. 88-25 Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY April 12, 1988, 1:20 P.M. ADJOURNMENT: Agency Member Bay moved to adjourn. Agency Member Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (2:13 p.m.) o`-.~~~ EONORA N. SOHL, SECRETARY 88-26