Loading...
Minutes 1966MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS HELD January 6, 1966 The Planning Commission of the City of Cypress met in regular session on Thursday, January 6, 1966, at 7.30 p m in the Council Chambers, 5311 Orange Avenue, Cypress, California, Chairman Harvey presiding. PRESENT. Baroldi, Borders, De Pietro, Ferreira, Worley, and Harvey ABSENT. Hickey Also present were: City Attorney, James Erickson- and Secretary of the Planning Commission George Putnam. MINUTES: It was moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and unanimously carried the Minutes of December 16 1965 be approved as mailed ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. There were no oral communications presented at this time PUBLIC HEARING RE: ZONE CHANGE NO. Z-147, CYPRESS PLANNING COMMISSION. The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider the rezoning of approximately 38 acres of property located at the southwest corner of Ball Road and Valley View Street, known as Zone Change No Z-147 The Chairman then asked the Secretary for his report The Secretary reported that there had been a deficiency in the public hearing notice, therefore, the public hearing had been re -advertised and would be held on January 20th, and no action was necessary at this meeting. PUBLIC HEARING RE. MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, C-184. The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider modification of conditions of Conditional Use Permit No C-184, known as Margaret Landell School The Secretary of the Commission then read Staff Report PC#65-109 which outlined the nature of the proposed modification and the staff recommendation of approval of the modification of condition number two. The Chairman then asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed modification No one addressed the Commission speaking in favor or in opposition to the proposed modification The City Attorney explained the previous action taken and the action before the Commission at this time. There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner De Pietro and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No. 298 approving the modification of condition number two of Conditional Use Permit No C-184 changing it to read as follows: January 6, 1966 "2 Drainage fees shall be paid in accordance with the Master Plan of Drainage as if this were a subdivision, in the amount as allowed by the State." The following roll call vote was taken: TO WIT• ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARING RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. C-191; SHATTUCK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY' The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for conditional use permit to allow the construction of a sales office, four (4) model homes, and accompanying parking lot, to be generally located on the north side of Orange Avenue, between Denni St. and Bloomfield St. requested by Shattuck Construction Company, 2953 54th Street, San Diego, California, known as Conditional Use Permit No C-191 The Secretary of the Planning Commission read Staff Report PC#65-110 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed use Mr J R Shattuck, President of Shattuck Construction Company, addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the proposed use and stating they were in agreement with the staff's recommendations Commissioner Harvey asked Mr Shattuck if the expiration time of eighteen months would be sufficient Mr. Shattuck stated, he felt the eighteen month time limit would be adequate At the request of Commissioner De Pietro Mr. Shattuck described the proposed models. There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was then moved by Commissioner De Pietro, seconded by Commissioner Baroldi and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 299 approving Conditional Use Permit No C-191 subject to the conditions outlined in Staff Report PC#65-110 The following roll call vote was taken TO WIT• ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARING RE: VARIANCE NO. V-215; SHATTUCK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY: The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for variance from the Sign Ordinance No 185 to permit a temporary sign advertising Tract No 5072 on property generally located at the southeast corner of Bloomfield and Lincoln Avenues, requested by Shattuck Construction Company, 2953 54th Street, San Diego, California, (Mr & Mrs Peter Van Ruiten, owners of the property), known as Variance No V-215. The Secretary of the Commission read Staff Report PC#65-111 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed variance. Mr. J R Shattuck, President, Shattuck Construction Company, addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the proposed variance, stating they felt this would be the most important sign Commissioner Harvey asked what would happen to the sign if the property developed Mr. Shattuck stated the property on which the sign was located had been leased on a month to month basis January 6, 1966 The Secretary then informed Commissioner Harvey, that the sign would be removed if the property owner decided to develop the property and wished the sign removed There was considerable discussion regarding the possibility and probability of the sign being lighted with the feeling that flashing or blinking lights should not be permitted The City Attorney read the appropriate section of the City Code pertaining to the regulations for signs and stating the requirement was that no flashing or blinking light could be located within 200 feet of an intersection The Secretary of the Commission informed the Commissioners that the sign was within 200 feet of an intersection, therefore, would have this restriction applied to it, prohibiting flashing or blinking lights that would distract traffic, however, there was no restriction regarding a constant light for the sign in case Mr. Shattuck wished to have one in the future. There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was then moved by Commissioner De Pietro seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 300 approving Variance No V-215 subject to the conditions outlined in Staff Report PC;r`65-111 The following roll call vote was taken: TO WIT. ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARING RE- VARIANCE NO. V-216, SHATTUCK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for variance from the Sign Ordinance No. 185 to permit a temporary sign advertising Tract No. 5072 on property generally located at the no?theast corner of Bloomfield and Orange Avenues, requested by Shattuck Construction Company, 2953 54th Street, San Diego, California (Mr. & Mrs Peter Van Ruiten, owners of property) known as Variance No V-216 The Secretary of the Commission reported that the property owner had contacted the planning department and stated that he could not allow the sign to be placed on his property due to the fact that another company had a previous lease on the property and objected to the sign being placed there for another developer. Mr Shattuck addressed the Commission stating the property owner had informed him of this and had offered him another piece of his property in another adjacent city. The City Attorney stated the easiest course of action would be to ask the applicant to withdraw the application Mr. Shattuck addressed the Commission asking permission to withdraw the application for variance, and asking if the filing fee could be refunded The City Attorney stated the filing fee was to cover publication and mailing costs for the public hearing notices and, since the application had been published and notices mailed to the property owners within three hundred feet, the fee could not be refunded It was then moved by Commissioner De Pietro seconded by Commissioner Baroldi and unanimously carried the Commission grant the request to withdraw the application. January 6, 1966 PUBLIC HEARING RE: VARIANCE NO. V-217, SHATTUCK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for variance from the Sign Ordinance No 185 to permit a temporary sign advertising Tract No 5072 on property generally located at the northeast corner of Bloomfield Street and Ball Road requested by Shattuck Construction Company, 2953 54th Street, San Diego, Calif , (Robert W Helms, M. D., owner of property), known as Variance No V-217 The Secretary of the Commission read Staff Report PC#65-113 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed use. Mr. J. R Shattuck, President, Shattuck Construction Co., addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the proposed variance and stating he concurred with the staff's recommendation There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was then moved by Commissioner De Pietro, seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 301 approving Variance No V-217 subject to the conditions outlined in Staff Report PC#65-113 The following roll call vote was taken. TO WIT. ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARING RE: VARIANCE NO. V-218; SHATTUCK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for variance from the Sign Ordinance No 185 to permit a temporary sign advertising Tract No. 5072 on property generally located at the northwest corner of Valley View Street and Orange Avenue, requested by Shattuck Construction Company, 2953 54th Street San Diego, California, (D & E Corporation, owner of property), known as Variance No V-218. The Secretary of the Commission then read Staff Report PC#65-114 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman then asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed variance. The Secretary then informed the Commission that there was an existing sign on the property which was illegal and the building department had informed the owner of the property to remove same Mr J R Shattuck, President, Shattuck Construction Company, addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the proposed variance and stating he concurred with the staff's recommendation There was discussion of restricting lighting this sign due to the fact it would be located adjacent to some homes There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed. It was then moved by Commissioner De Pietro seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 302 approving Variance No V-218 subject to the conditions outlined in Staff Report PC# 65-114 with the additional condition to read as follows: "7 The sign shall not be illuminated " The following roll call vote was taken - TO WIT: ALL AYES January 6, 1966 ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, Chairman Harvey declared the meeting adjourned at 8:20 p m ATTEST CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY0F THE PLANING COMMISSION January 6, 1966 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS HELD January 6 1966 The Planning Commission of the City of Cypress met in regular session on Thursday, January 6, 1966 at 7.30 p m in the Council Chambers, 5311 Orange Avenue, Cypress, California, Chairman Harvey presiding PRESENT. Baroldi Borders, De Pietro, Ferreira, Worley and Harvey ABSENT Hickey Also present were: City Attorney, James Erickson and Secretary of the Planning Commission George Putnam MINUTES. It was moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and unanimously carried the Minutes of December 16, 1965 be approved as mailed ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: There were no oral communications presented at this time PUBLIC HEARING RE: ZONE CHANGE NO Z-147, CYPRESS PLANNING COMMISSION The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider the rezoning of approximately 38 acres of property located at the southwest corner of Ball Road and Valley View Street, known as Zone Change No Z-147. The Chairman then asked the Secretary for his report The Secretary reported that there had been a deficiency in the public hearing notice, therefore, the public hearing had been re -advertised and would be held on January 20th, and no action was necessary at this meeting PUBLIC HEARING RE: MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO C-184 The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider modification of conditions of Conditional Use Permit No C-184 known as Margaret Landell School The Secretary of the Commission then read Staff Report PC#65-109 which outlined the nature of the proposed modification and the staff recommendation of approval of the modification of condition number two The Chairman then asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed modification No one addressed the Commission speaking in favor or in opposition to the proposed modification The City Attorney explained the previous action taken and the action before the Commission at this time There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner De Pietro and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 298 approving the modification of condition number two of Conditional Use Permit No C-184 changing it to read as follows. "2 Drainage fees shall be paid in accordance with the Master Plan of Drainage as if this were a subdivision, in the amount as allowed by the State " The following roll call vote was taken TO WIT ALL AYES Mr J R Shattuck, President, Shattuck Construction Co , addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the proposed variance and stating he concurred with the staff s recommendation:. There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was then moved by Commissioner De Pietro, seconded by Commissioner Worley, and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 301 approving Variance No V-217 subject to the conditions outlined in Staff Report PC#65-113 The following roll call vote was taken TO WIT. ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARING RE: VARIANCE NO V-218; SHATTUCK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for variance from the Sign Ordinance No 185 to permit a temporary sign advertising Tract No 5072 on property generally located at the northwest corner of Valley View Street and Orange Avenue, requested by Shattuck Construction Company, 2953 54th Street, San Diego, California, (D & E Corporation, owner of property), known as Variance No V-218 The Secretary of the Commission then read Staff Report PC#65-114 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman then asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed variance The Secretary then informed the Commission that there was an existing sign on the property which was illegal and the building department had informed the owner of the property to remove same Mr J. R Shattuck President Shattuck Construction Company addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the proposed variance and stating he concurred with the staff's recommendation There was discussion of restricting lighting this sign due to the fact r^� it would be located adjacent to some homes There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was then moved by Commissioner De Pietro, seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 302 approving Variance No V-218 subject to the conditions outlined in Staff Report PC#65-114 with the additional condition to read as follows. '7 The sign shall not be illuminated The following roll call vote was taken. TO WIT ADJOURNMENT: ALL AYES There being no further business to come before the Commission, Chairman Harvey declared the meeting adjourned at 8.20 p m ATTEST: E�RET�iRY7OF H PLANNING COMMISSION P CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNINGISSION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS HELD January 20 1966 The Planning Commission of the City of Cypress met in regular session on Thursday, January 20, 1966, at 7:30 p m in the Council Chambers, 5311 Orange Avenue, Cypress California Chairman Harvey presiding PRESENT Baroldi, De Pietro, Ferreira, Worley, and Harvey ABSENT. Borders and Hickey Also present were City Attorney, James Erickson, and Secretary of the Planning Commission, George Putnam MINUTES: It was moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner De Pietro and unanimously carried the Minutes of January 6 1966 be approved as mailed ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications presented at this time PUBLIC HEARING RE. HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT NO. 25, FRANK J. SCOTT. The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for home occupation permit to allow the use of an offset duplicator and related photographic equipment to print Christian literature in a home located at 5701 Marion Circle, requested by Frank J Scott, 5701 Marion Circle, Cypress, California, known as Home Occupation Permit No 25 The Secretary of the Commission read Staff Report PC#66-1 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of denial The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed permit Mr Frank Scott, applicant, addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the request and explaining the type of equipment he proposed to use stating the noise created by the equipment would be about the same as that created by a vacuum cleaner He further stated the machine was small and he had insulated the garage and felt this would bring the •moise level down Mr Ethan Harris, 5711 Marion Avenue and Mrs Brundage, 5642 Marion Ave addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the request After discussion there being no written communications and no oral protests the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was moved by Commissioner De Pietro, seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and carried to approve Home Occupation Permit No 25 subject to the following conditions' 1 A business license shall be obtained 2 The operation shall be limited to the use of one duplicating machine and one camera Any additional equipment shall be subject to the approval of the City staff 3 The home occupation permit is granted until July 1, 1966 at which time it shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and may be extended The following roll call vote was taken. AYES 4 COMMISSIONERS Baroldi, De Pietro, Ferreira, and Harvey NOES' 1 COMMISSIONERS: Worley ABSENT 2 COMMISSIONERS• Borders and Hickey PUBLIC HEARING RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO C-191; SHATTUCK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY: The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for conditional use permit to allow the construction of a sales office, four (4) model homes, and accompanying parking lot, to be generally located on the north side of Orange Avenue, between Denni St and Bloomfield St requested by Shattuck Construction Company 2953 54th Street San Diego, California, known as Conditional Use Permit No C-191 The Secretary of the Planning Commission read Staff Report PC#65-110 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed use Mr J R Shattuck, President of Shattuck Construction Company addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the proposed use and stating they were in agreement with the staff s recommendations Commissioner Harvey asked Mr Shattuck if the expiration time of eighteen months would be sufficient Mr Shattuck stated, he felt the eighteen month time limit would be adequate At the request of Commissioner De Pietro proposed models There being no written communications and Chairman declared the public hearing closed Mr Shattuck described the no oral protests, the It was then moved by Commissioner De Pietro, seconded by Commissioner Baroldi and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 299 approving Conditional Use Permit No C-191 subject to the conditions outlined in Staff -Report PC#65-110 The following roll call vote was taken TO WIT. ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARING RE: VARIANCE NO V-215; SHATTUCK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY: The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for variance from the Sign Ordinance No 185 to permit a temporary sign advertising Tract No 5072 on property generally located at the southeast corner of Bloomfield and Lincoln Avenues, requested by Shattuck Construction Company, 2953 54th Street, San Diego, California, (Mr and Mrs Peter Van Ruiten owners of the property), known as Variance No V-215 The Secretary of the Commission read Staff Report PC#65-111 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed variance Mr J R Shattuck President Shattuck Construction Company addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the proposed variance stating they felt this would be the most important sign Commissioner Harvey asked what would happen to the sign if the property developed Mr Shattuck stated the property on which the sign was located had been leased on a month to month basis The Secretary then informed Commissioner Harvey that the sign would be removed if the property owner decided to develop the property and wished the sign removed There was considerable discussion regarding the possibility and probability of the sign being lighted, with the feeling that flashing or blinking lights should not be permitted The City Attorney read the appropriate section of the City Code pertaining to the regulations for signs and stating the requirement was that no flashing or blinking light could be located within 200 feet of an intersection The Secretary of the Commission informed the Commissioners that the sign was within 200 feet of an intersection therefore would have this restriction applied to it prohibiting flashing or blinking lights that would distract traffic, however, there was no restriction regarding a constant light for the sign in case Mr Shattuck wished to have one in the future There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was then moved by Commissioner De Pietro seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 300 approving Variance No V-215 subject to the conditions outlined in Staff Report PC#65-111 The following roll call vote was taken: TO WIT ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARING RE: VARIANCE NO V-216; SHATTUCK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY: The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for variance from the Sign Ordinance No 185 to permit a temporary sign advertising Tract No 5072 on property generally located at the northeast corner of Bloomfield and Orange Avenues requested by Shattuck Construction Company, 2953 54th Street, San Diego, California (Mr & Mrs Peter Van Ruiten, owners of the property), known as Variance No V-216 The Secretary of the Commission reported that the property owner had contacted the planning department and stated that he could not allow the sign to be placed on his property due to the fact that another company had a previous lease on the property and objected to the sign being placed there for another developer. Mr Shattuck addressed the Commission stating the property owner had informed him of this and had offered him another piece of his property in another adjacent city The City Attorney stated the easiest course of action would be to ask the applicant to withdraw the application Mr Shattuck addressed the Commission asking permission to withdraw the application for variance, and asking if the filing fee could be refunded The City Attorney stated the filing fee was to cover publication and mailing costs for the public hearing notices and, since the application had been published and notices mailed to the property owners within three hundred feet the fee could not be refunded It was then moved by Commissioner De Pietro seconded by Commissioner Baroldi and unanimously carried the Commission grant the request to withdraw the application PUBLIC HEARING RE. VARIANCE NO. V-217, SHATTUCK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY: The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for variance from the Sign Ordinance No 185 to permit a temporary sign advertising Tract No 5072 on property generally located at the northeast corner of Bloomfield Street and Ball Road, requested by Shattuck Construction Company, 2953 54th Street San Diego Calif (Robert W Helms, M D , owner of property),known as Variance No V-217 The Secretary of the Commission read Staff Report PC#65-113 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed use PUBLIC HEARING RE: ZONE CHANGE NO Z-147, CYPRESS PLANNING COMMISSION The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider rezoning approximately 38 acres of property from P -D (Planned Development) to P -C (Planned Commercial) generally located at the southwest corner of Bali Road and Valley View Street initiated by the Cypress Planning Commission known as Zone Change No Z-147 The Secretary of the Commission read Staff Report PC#66-2 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman asked is anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed change of zone Mr M Morita 5856 Ball Road addressed the Commission stating he owned the westerly portion of the property to be rezoned and he did not know whether the proposed rezoning would be good for the property or not He further stated he felt he might not be able to hold onto the property for the period of time it will take to support a sub -regional or regional shopping center as foreseen by the Economic Research Associates Report Mr Jack Vandenbos addressed the Commission stating he lived in Fairway Park south of the proposed rezoning and he had had a bad experience with a commercial development next to other property he had owned and, therefore, he wanted to know what restrictions could be placed on the development of the property The City Attorney advised Mr. Vandenbos that the P -C (Planned Commercial) zone had provisions for requiring restrictions, therefore, there should be no problem imposing certain restrictions on the development At the request of the Chairman, the Secretary of the Commission explained the results of the survey made by ERA (Economic Research Associates) Mr Bill Mann addressed the Commission asking why the Commission felt the need for a commercial center such as was proposed in the future The Secretary of the Commission explained that this is why the consultant had been hired and their report had projected the need for such a center in the future therefore the Commission was taking this action to reserve some land at this time so all the land resources of the City would not be depleted at the time such a center could be built and supported There being no written communications and no oral protests the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was then moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner De Pietro and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 303 recommending approval of Zone Change No Z-147 to the City Council by the following roll call vote TO WIT: ALL AYES CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING RE. ZONE CHANGE NO. Z-142, MARCUSSON & SYKES The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the continuation of the public hearing to consider an application for amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to change the zone from R-1 (One -family Residential) and R-2 (Two-family Residential) to C-2 (General Commercial) on property generally located at the southwest corner of Valley View Street and Orange Avenue requested by Floyd G Marcusson and Albert C Sykes 9706 Compton AVe Bellflower, California, known as Zone Change No Z-142 The Secretary of the Commission read a staff report entitled Allocation of Commercial Zoning Within the City of Cypress", as had been requested by the Commission at the meeting of December 16th, at which time the item had been before the Commission He then stated the staff recommended approval of Zone Change No Z-142 The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed change of zone Mr Floyd Marcusson 9706 Compton Blvd Bellflower, addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the proposed zone change, as one of the applicants He stated that, since the meeting in December, he had received several inquiries about the property, possibly from potential tenants There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was then moved by Commissioner De Pietro, seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 304 recommending approval of Zone Change No Z-142 to the City Council by the following roll call vote* TO WIT ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARING RE: VARIANCE NO V-219; BARKLEY DEVELOPMENT CO • The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for variance to increase the height of the block wall along Moody Street, at the rear of Lots 7, 8, 9 10, 11 12 13 And 14 of Tract No 5337 from the standard height limit of six feet (6') to a height of six feet, eleven inches (6 11'), requested by Barkley Development Co , Moody at Park Avenue, Cypress, California, known as Variance No V-219 The Secretary of the Commission read Staff Report PC#66-3 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed variance Mr Stanley Sampson, representing Barkley Development Co , addressed the Commission explaining the problem with the height of the fence being the maximum six feet and speaking in favor of the proposed variance to allow the additional height After discussion there being no written communications and no oral protests the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was moved by Commissioner De Pietro, seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 305 approving Variance No V-219 subject to the conditions outlined in Staff Report PC#66-3 with a modification of condition number 2, as follows* "2. Not more than one course of additional block with a brick cap shall be placed upon the already constructed fence " The following roll call vote was taken. TO WIT ALL AYES It was moved by Commissioner De Pietro and seconded by Commissioner Ferreira to direct the staff to prepare a report for the next meeting of the Commission regarding the location and height of block wall fences at entrances and exits to subdivisions, with the recommendation of the Acting Chief of Police as to whether such fence was a traffic hazard Commissioner Baroldi asked if the location and height of fences at these locations had not been discussed previously by the Commission and a recommendation made to the City Council The Secretary replied that the Commission had recommended to the City Council that the six foot high wall be allowed on corner lots, in their recommendation of approval of a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would allow such a wall The following roll call vote was taken on the motion. AYES 2 COMMISSIONERS De Pietro and Ferreira NOES. 3 COMMISSIONERS. Baroldi, Worley, and Harvey ABSENT. 2 COMMISSIONERS• Borders and Hickey Motion failed to carry PUBLIC HEARING RE. VARIANCE NO. V-220, TIC TOC MARKET, INC. The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for variance to allow a reduction in the number of off-street parking spaces required and a reduction in required landscaping for a market generally located on the north side of Orange Avenue easterly of Valley View Street requested by Tic Toc Market Inc 12311 Chapman, Garden Grove, California, known as Variance No V-220 The Secretary of the Commission read Staff Report PC#66-4 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval. The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed variance Mr J R Cruz, representing Tic Toc Markets, addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the proposed variance and offering to answer any questions the Commission might have Mr Ray Sanborn addressed the Commission asking if the request for variance included a reduction in landscaping The Secretary of the Commission informed Mr. Sanborn that the landscaping problem had been resolved and would not he reduced as originally requested There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was then moved by Commissioner De Pietro, seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried, the Commission adopt Resolution No 306 approving Variance No V-220 subject to the conditions of Staff Report PC#66-4, by the following roll call vote: TO WIT ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARING RE: VARIANCE NO V-221; JAMES HODGES! The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for variance to allow an encroachment into the required front yard setback on property generally located at the northwest corner of Ball Road and Valley View Street, comprising approximately 4 18 acres, requested by James Hodges, 1709 So Brookhurst, Anaheim, California (Mt Calvary Lutheran Church, owner of property), known as Variance No V-221 The Secretary of the Commission read Staff Report PC#66-5 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed variance Mr James Hodges, 1709 So Brookhurst, Anaheim, applicant, addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the proposed variance and offering to answer any questions the Commission might have There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner De Pietro and unanimously carried the Commission ddopt Resolution No 307 approving Variance No V-221 subject to the conditions outlined in Staff Report PC#66-5, with the modification of condition number 2, to read as follows. "2 All parking areas shall be paved with asphaltic concrete and the parking spaces striped." The following roll call vote was taken on the motion: TO WIT• ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARING RE: VARIANCE NO V-222; WILLIAM B MANN• The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for variance to allow a six foot (6') block wall fence to encroach ten feet (10') into the required ten foot (10') sideyard setback, on property generally located at 4801 Ashbury Avenue, requested by William B Mann 4801 Ashbury Avenue , Cypress, California, known as Variance No V-222 The Secretary of the Planning Commission read Staff Report PC#66-6 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of denial The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed variance Mr William B Mann, applicant, addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the requested variance Mr Mann stated that the contractor that had contacted the City with regard to building his fence had not been the contractor that actually built the fence as stated in the staff s report The City Attorney informed Mr Mann that the problem regarding the contractor constructing the fence without first contacting the City was between he and his contractor There was some discussion of the staff report and its contents, with Mr Mann objecting to some of the statements made The Secretary and City Attorney informed Mr Mann that the staff report was merely informational and had only been sent to him as a courtesy to allow him knowledge of the recommendation prior to the meeting, as it is done with all applicants Commissioner Harvey informed Mr Mann that the staff reports were to inform the Commission of the facts of each case, however, the Commissionb decision was not based solely on the staff report, all evidence presented was taken into consideration before the Commission s final decision was made Mr Richard Parker 4662 Ashbury Avenue Cypress addressed the Commission regarding some other fences in the City There was some discussion of considering the fact that the driveway of the applicant's neighbor was located some sixty feet away from the block wall therefore no hazard had been created by the building of the fence on the property line, without setback for vision clearance, as required by the Zoning Ordinance Mr Bill Morrow 5047 Cumberland Drive addressed the Commission stating he felt as the safety factor was not a consideration, then the strip left out of the property enclosed with the fence should be taken into consideration in making their decision, in regard to maintenance of the strip, etc Commissioner De Pietro stated he had viewed the premises and studied the vision clearance from the driveway of the property to the north and found no safety hazard had been created by the fence The City Attorney further stated that if the Commission approved the Variance, it should be conditioned upon a determination by the Building Inspector that the wall is constructed properly and that a building permit be obtained Commissioner Baroldi asked the City Attorney to explain the restrictions on visiting the site of subjects before the Commission The City Attorney explained the case that had been found illegal by the Courts, stating that the Courts say the Commission or Council, as the case may be must base their decision upon facts submitted at the public hearing, therefore, if someone had visited the site, that fact, along with his findings must be disclosed at the public hearing He then stated the Courts felt they should not conduct separate fact finding excursions Commissioner Baroldi stated he felt the variance should be approved if the wall was inspected and found to be constructed in a safe manner, according to Code Commissioner Harvey asked what the Commission's position would be in the future on other such variances, if this one were approved The City Attorney stated the action taken on this variance would not be considered as a precedent for granting other such variances The Secretary asked the applicant if he would agree to a condition that if the property to the north ever constructed a garage on the south side of his property the applicant would bring the wall to meet the Code by reducing it to the maximum allowable height in the setback, three feet, or remove the wall completely Mr Mann stated he would agree to such a condition There being no written communications and no oral protests the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was moved by Commissioner De Pietro, seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 308 approving Variance No V-222 subject to the following conditions• 1 The applicant shall obtain a Building Permit 2 The applicant agrees to bring the block wall to meet the requirements of the City Code if any garage building is built to the southerly portion of the lot northerly of his property The following roll call vote was taken• AYES 4 COMMISSIONERS Baroldi, De Pietro, Ferreira, and Harvey NOES. 1 COMMISSIONERS. Worley ABSENT• 2 COMMISSIONERS• Borders and Hickey ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Bob Kadick addressed the Commission stating he felt the Grant Company s wall at the entrance and exit to Fairway Park was a traffic hazard and should be reduced to three feet in height, instead of the existing six feet Mr Chiodo addressed the Commission stating he wished to construct a fence similar to Mr Mann's and would like a Variance to do so The Secretary informed Mr Chiodo that he would have to obtain the necessary forms from the Planning Department at City Hall to apply for a Variance and it would be considered on its own merits, no consideration being given to the fact that Mr Mann had obtained a similar Variance ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission Chairman Harvey declared the meeting adjourned at 10.05 p m CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS HELD February 3, 1966 The Planning Commission of the City of Cypress met in regular session on Thursday, February 3, 1966, at 7:30 p m in the Council Chambers, 5311 Orange Avenue Cypress California, Chairman Harvey presiding PRESENT Baroldi, Borders, De Pietro, Ferreira, Worley Harvey ABSENT. Hickey Also present were City Attorney, James Erickson, Director of Public Works/City Engineer, Art Schatzeder; and Secretary of the Planning Commission, George Putnam MINUTES The Secretary pointed out a correction to be made in the Minutes of January 20 1966 on page 5, the title should be change to read as follows: "PUBLIC HEARING RE: VARIANCE NO V-220, TIC TOC MARKET., INC. It was moved by Commissioner Ferreira, seconded by Commissioner Borders and unanimously carried the Minutes of January 20 1966 be approved as corrected ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications presented at this time PUBLIC HEARING RE MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO C-166; LARWIN COMPANY The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for Modification of Conditional Use Permit No C-166 to construct townhouses on property generally located south of Orange Avenue north of Ball Road east of Bloomfield Street and west of Denni Street, requested by Larwin Company, 9300 Wilshire Blvd , Beverly Hills, California, known as Modification of Conditional Use Permit No C-166 The Secretary of the Commission read Staff Report PC#66-7 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed modificatien of the use permit Mr Joel Rottman, representing Larwin Company, applicant, addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the modification explaining the proposed plans for the development In answer to a question from the applicant, the City Engineer explained proposed condition number 4 regarding the realignment of Ball Road and Bloomfield stating how much of a realignment there would be There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was moved by Commissioner Borders seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried, the Commission adopt Resolution No 309 recommending approval of Modification of Conditional Use Permit No C-166 to the City Council subject to the conditions outlined in Staff Report PC#66-7 with the modification of conditions 12 and 13, to read as follows "12 All roadways and alleyways shall be improved to the edge of the garage slab to City standards, however, only the middle 26 of the alleyway shall be dedicated to the City 13 All general conditions on previously approved Conditional Use Permits which are not in direct conflict with the conditions as outlined or on the accompanying plans for this Modification shall be in full force and effect The following roll call vote was taken. TO WIT ALL AYES The Secretary asked the Commission if they would like to move to item number 6 on the Agenda, which was the Tract map related to the Conditional Use Permit Modification that had just been acted on It was moved by Commissioner Baroldi, seconded by Commissioner De Pietro and unanimously carried to move to item number 6 on the Agenda CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 5374, LARWIN COMPANY. The Chairman announced this was the time for consideration of Tentative Tract Map No 5374 consisting of 861 lots 92 2 acres generally located north of Ball Road bounded on the east by Denni Street on the west by Bloomfield St , and on the north by Orange Avenue, for the construction of townhouses, requested by Larwin Company, 9300 Wilshire Blvd , Beverly Hills, California The Secretary of the Commission read Staff Report PC#66-12 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval Mr Art Rosenthal Director of Engineering for Larwin Company, addressed the Commission speaking on behalf of the Larwin Company He asked for an explanation of some of the conditions recommended by the staff The City Engineer explained the conditions in question to Mr Rosenthal and the staff's reasons for recommending the conditions Recommended condition number 4 was discussed regarding dedication and full improvement of Bloomfield Denni, Orange, and Ball Rd Mr Rosenthal stated he felt the City was responsible for the improvement of the existing public right-of-way The City Attorney informed Mr Rosenthal and the Commission that the City had the legal right to impose such a condition upon the developer if they wished to do so The Secretary of the Commission suggested the condition remain as recommended, and allow the City Council to make the policy decision in regard to who should be responsible Mr Rosenthal agreed with the Secretary's recommendation It was then moved by Commissioner De Pietro, seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and unanimously carried the Commission approve Tentative Tract Map No 5374 subject to the following conditions 1 The blue border be extended to the centerline of all streets 2 The street names as indicated are not approved, the approved street names being those approved under Modification of Conditional Use Permit No C-166 3 All drainage fees shall he paid 4 Dedication and full improvement of Bloomfield, Orange, Denni, and Ball Road shall he required, improvements as required by City Engineer, improvements not to extend beyond the centerline except for feathering for satisfactory joining 5 Radius of the curb line on all alleys shall he 15' and the radius for all street curb lines shall be 25' 6 All streets shall be dedicated and fully improved in accordance with City standards and the approval of the City Engineer 7 There shall he 40' of paving on interior streets 8 On the peripheral streets around the school there shall be an 8' parkway along the school side with tree wells spaced 40 foot apart The peripheral street around the schoolshall be 54' in width 9 The center 26' of the alley section shall be dedicated to the City however the total alley section shall be improved to City standards to the garage slab 10 The east curb line of Somerset Lane shall be aligned with the east curb line of Somerset Lane in Tract 5072 11 Drainage shall he solved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer 12 A master storm drain shall he constructed as per agreement between the City and the Larwin Company, the design and location of which shall be approved by the City Engineer 13 Total acreage needs shall be revised to indicate fee ownership 14 The Tentative Tract is approved subject to obtaining approval of Modification of Conditional Use Permit No. C-166 15 Alley turn-arounds shall be provided, subject to the City Engineer's approval of the location and type 16 Advance payment of street lighting energy charges shallbe paid The following roll call vote was taken. TO WIT: ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARING RE. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO C-192; PETER A GIOVANNONI• The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for conditional use permit to allow the construction of two structures on R-3 (Multiple -family Residential) zoned property generally located at 6452 Orange Avenue renuested by Peter A Giovannoni, 1784 West Alomar Anaheim California known as Conditional Use Permit No C-192 COMMISSIONER WORLEY ASKED TO BE EXCUSED FROM THE PODIUM DUE TO THE FACT HE OWNED PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY The Secretary of the Commission read Staff Report PC#66-8 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval The Secretary then stated that property owners on the west and east sides of the subject property had contacted him requesting that a 6 block wall fence be built on the easterly and westerly property lines of the proposed development to separate the apartment use and recreation facilities from the single units on each side The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed use Mr Peter A Giovannoni applicant addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the proposed use and stating he would agree to construct any block walls the Commission required Mr Frodsham, adjacent property owner to the east addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the proposed development but requesting a wall be built along the easterly property line as his property backs un to the recreation area Mr Wayne Worley, adjacent property owner to the west, addressed the Commission, speaking in favor of the development and requesting a wall be built on the westerly side of the development to separate it from his property Mrs Rogers adjacent property owner to the east, asked that a wall be built on the easterly property line adjacent to her property also COMMISSIONER HICKEY ARRIVED AT 8.25 P M AND TOOK ITIS CHAIR ON THE PODIUM Commissioner De Pietro asked the Secretary how condition number 4 could be revised to require a block wall on the west and east side of the property as well as the south side The Secretary read the revised condition Mr Worley stated he owned the existing fence on the west side and stated he would give his permission for the applicant to tie his block wall into his (Mr Worley's) existing wall Commissioner Borders asked if some provision should be made for turn -around areas in the driveway on the north of the proposed development, where carports were provided He suggested a proposed layout and the Secretary of the Commission informed him that by the applicant reducing the width of the carports, which were wider than required, enough area would be left to provide the turn -around area There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed The City Attorney informed the Commission that Commissioner Hickey should abstain from voting on the matter due to the fact he was present only for a portion of the public hearing It was then moved by Commissioner Ferreira, and seconded by Commissioner De Pietro, and carried the Commission adopt Resolution No. 310 approving Conditional Use Permit No C-192 subject to the conditions outlined in Staff Report PC#66-8 with the modification of the following conditions. '4 A 6' high concrete block wall shall he constructed on all property lines in conformance with City standards " '9 Alley turn-arounds shall be provided, subject to the City staff's approval as to location and type, at the northerly parking area " The following roll call vote was taken. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Baroldi Borders, De Pietro, Ferreira, and Harvey NOES• 0 COMMISSIONERS None ABSENT 1 COMMISSIONERS. Worley ABSTAIN. 1 COMMISSIONERS: Hickey PUBLIC HEARING RE. VARIANCE NO. V-223 DOUGLAS A GALLANT: The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for variance from the Sign Ordinance No 185 to permit a temporary 8' x 12 subdivision directional sign to be located 575 west of the centerline of Valley View Street and 60' north of the centerline of Cerritos Avenue, requested by Douglas A Gallant 14574 E Firestone Blvd , La Mirada, California for R H Grant & Co , owners of property, known as Variance NO V-223 The Secretary of the Commission read Staff Report PC#66-9 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed variance. Mr Murphy, representing R H Grant Company, addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the proposed variance and asking for a reduction in the amount of cash bond recommended by the staff in condition number 4 The Secretary informed Mr Murphy and the Commission that the amount of $250 was the normal amount required Mr Murphy then stated they would agree to the condition as recommended Mr Herb Bowman, representing Robert H Grant Co , addressed the Commission stating they needed the sign because more traffic to their models was being generated from Anaheim and their sign program for traffic from the east was weak There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was then moved by Commissioner Borders seconded by Commissioner Baroldi and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 311 approving Variance No. V-223 subject to the conditions outlined in Staff Report PC#66-9 with the addition of the following two conditions. '6 The copy of the sign shall be approved by the staff. 7. The sign shall be non -illuminated The following roll call vote was taken: TO WIT• ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARING RE: VARIANCE NO V-224; NORMAN & ELAINE SHAPIRO The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for variance from the Zoning Ordinance No. 90 to permit a reduction of minimum lot width in Tract No 5903 Lots 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 12 13 and 14 requested by Norman and Elaine Shapiro, 1107 East Chapman Avenue, Orange, California, known as Variance No V-224 The Secretary of the Planning Commission read Staff Report PC#66-10 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to sneak for or against the proposed variance. Mr Mary Cook addressed the Commission stating he lived in Fairway Park, adjacent to the proposed tract, and asked if the new homes would have hardwood floors or cement slab. The Secretary stated the new homes would have hardwood floors Mr Frank Martinez addressed the Commission stating his property bordered on Rome Avenue and asked how far Rome Avenue would be improved by the developer of this tract The Secretary explained that the developer would improve the half he owned There was some discussion regarding whether an existing fence on the southerly boundary of the proposed tract would obstruct vision when the street for the new tract is constructed adjacent to the fence The City Attorney advised the Commission that the discussion of the fence was unrelated to the discussion of the Variance before the Commission at this time There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was then moved by Commissioner De Pietro seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 312 approving Variance No V-224 subject to the conditions of Staff Renort PC#66-10 with the correction of condition 2 to read as follows: "2 All driveways shall be concrete The following roll call vote was taken. TO WIT: ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARING RE. VARIANCE NO. V-225, DANIEL G. CASTILLO The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for variance to allow a 6' block wall fence to encroach ten feet (10') into the required ten foot (10') sideyard setback on property generally located at 9281 Nancy Street requested by Daniel G Castillo 9281 Nancy St Cypress, California, known as Variance No V-225 The Secretary of the Commission read Staff. Report PC#66-11 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommmendation of denial The Secretary of the Commission presented photographs taken of the property in question, one with a simulated fence showing the appearance of a fence if constructed in the manner the applicant requested Mr Daniel Castillo, applicant, addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the request, stating his reasons for requesting the variance Commissioner De Pietro stated he had visited the subject property and he felt the construction of a fence in the area proposed would he a safety hazard Commissioner Borders suggested that possibly the fence could be built with a radius at the corner to allow the vision clearance from the adjacent property's driveway The Secretary suggested if the Commission wished to approve the radius idea, that it he a 20 radius from the intersecting of the side and rear property line Mr. Castillo stated he thought the radius was a good idea and would be willing to construct the fence in that manner Commissioner De Pietro stated he would like to see complete plans drawn to scale before acting on the variance It was then moved by Commissioner Baroldi seconded by Commissioner Borders and unanimously carried the public hearing for Variance No V-225 be continued until the next regular meeting of the Commission, February 17th REPORT FROM SECRETARY OF COMMISSION RE: REVISION OF LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. The Secretary of the Commission reported that the revision to the Land Use Element of the General Plan had been given to the Commission some meetings before for study and he felt due to the small agenda for the next meeting it would be a good opportunity to discuss the proposed revisions It was moved by Commissioner De Pietro, seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried the Commission review the Land Use Element of the General Plan at their next meeting February 17th REQUEST FOR FURTHER REPORT ON HEIGHT OF FENCES ON CORNER LOTS FROM COMMISSIONER DE PIETRO. Commissioner De Pietro reviewed the discussion and action taken at the latt meeting in regard to the height of fences for corner lots for the benefit of the Commissioners not present at that meeting. He then stated that since the meeting date, he had received a communication dated February 1, 1966 from the City Manager informing him that the Traffic Committee had studied the matter of the height of fences at entrances from arterial highways to various subdivisions within the City and of the conclusions that had been reached The conclusions being that '' 1 The construction of block wall fences, regardless of size, does present a problem of visibility in rA1ation to maximum traffic safety, however, the block walls are only a part of the problem Utility poles parkway trees and parked vehicles within 100 feet of intersections to arterial highways, may all be considered nrohlems to maximum traffic safety 2 Due to the existence of all of these conditions, it appeared that the driver of vehicles at these intersections must take the responsibility to acknowledge the surrounding conditions and proceed with utmost caution 3 From the field observations, it appears the City has taken certain safety measures, including the installation of stop signs and the location of "Stop" traffic bars at points where visibility is not hampered however, the driver should still proceed with caution at any intersection with a major arterial highway " The letter further stated "The Traffic Committee makes the following recommendations regarding this matter• 1 Further studies must be given to the restriction of parking on both sides of the intersections with arterial highways for a distance of at least 100 feet 2 The staff, Planning Commission, and City Council should discourage subdividers from submitting subdivision maps which have double -frontage lots thereby eliminating the need for block wall fences immediately adjacent to subdivision entrances ' After discussion Commissioner De Pietro asked that the motion he made at the previous meeting requesting a study with the recommendation of the Acting Chief of Police he read to the Commission The motion was read from the Minutes of the meeting of January 20, 1966 Commissioner De Pietro then moved to direct the staff to prepare a report for the next meeting of the Commission regarding the location and height of block wall fences at entrances and exits to subdivisions with the recommendation of the Traffic Safety Committee as to whether such a fence was a traffic hazard The motion died for lack of a second ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 9 50 p m ATTEST. Th 0 0. F TH PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING CO SION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS HELD February 17 1966 The Planning Commission of the City of Cypress met in regular session on Thursday, February 17, 1966, at 7:30 p m , in the Council Chambers 5311 Orange Avenue Cypress California Vice Chairman Borders presiding PRESENT. Borders, De Pietro, Hickey, and Worley ABSENT: Baroldi, Ferreira, and Harvey Also present were City Attorney, James Erickson, Director of Public Works/City Engineer, Art Schatzeder, and Secretary of the Planning Commission George Putnam MINUTES It was moved by Commissioner Hickey seconded by Commissioner De Pietro and unanimously carried the Minutes of February 3, 1966 be approved as mailed ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. There were no oral communications presented at this time CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: VARIANCE NO V-225, DANIEL G. CASTILLO The Vice Chairman announced this was the time and place for the continuation of the public hearing to consider an application for variance to allow a 6' block wall fence to encroach ten feet (10') into the required ten foot (10') sideyard setback on property generally located at 9281 Nancy Street requested by Daniel G Castillo, 9281 Nancy Street, Cypress, California, known as Variance No V-225 The Secretary of the Planning Commission stated that the applicant had contacted him and requested that the item he postponed until the next meeting of the Commission because he could not attend the public hearing at this meeting due to illness It was then moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner Hickey and unanimously carried the public hearing for Variance No V-225 be continued until the next regular meeting of the Commission March 3 1966 PUBLIC HEARING RF.: VARIANCE NO. V-226, ROBERT H. & VIRGINIA R LOPEZ. The Vice Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for variance from the Zoning Ordinance No 90 to permit an accessory building to encroach to within three feet (3') of the side property line on R-4 zoned property located at 5602 Bishop Avenue requested by Robert H & Virginia R Lopez 5602 Bishop Avenue, Cypress, California known as Variance No V-226 The Secretary of the Commission read Staff Report PC#66-13 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of denial The Vice Chairman then asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed variance Mr Elmer G Saylor, 5612 Bishop Avenue addressed the Commission sneaking in favor of the proposed variance stating he was the next door neighbor, and the appearance of the structure was good, therefore, he did not object to the Variance Mr P J Kennedy, 5582 Bishop Avenue addressed the Commission stating the building as constructed did not conform to the fire zone requirements and he wondered if they had obtained a building permit, because he had built some buildings on his property and had to conform to the fire zone requirements as well as others before he could construct tha buildings The Secretary explained that the applicant had not obtained a building permit and constructed the building illegally, however, if the Variance were granted by the Commission the applicant would have to comply with all the fire zone requirements as well as those conditions set out in the staff report Commissioner Hickey asked Mr. Saylor if he was aware that the building did not meet the fire zone requirements Mr Saylor stated that, as a layman, he did not consider such things, only that the appearance of the building was good Mr Lopez, applicant, answered questions from the Commission and stated that he knew he had constructed the building illegally, that he knew a building permit was required The Commission asked Mr Lopez is he would agree to all the conditions recommended by the City staff Mr Lopez replied that he would agree, if they were reasonable The Commission then specifically asked Mr Lopez if he would agree to install full street improvements, as stated in recommended condition number 2 The applicant stated he would agree, if they were reasonable The Secretary and City Engineer explained what the meaning of "full street improvements included Mr Lopez stated he felt the City was being unreasonable by requiring the improvements as listed and further stated this was the reason he had failed to obtain a building permit, because he knew the City would require conditions such as these The Secretary explained to the applicant that the conditions listed were standard conditions for variances. Discussion followed regarding the other recommended conditions, with Mr Lopez again stating that he felt the conditions were unreasonable There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Vice Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was moved by Commissioner De Pietro seconded by Commissioner Hickey and carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 313 denying Variance No V-226 by the following roll call vote AYES- 3 COMMISSIONERS: Borders, De Pietro, and Hickey NOES 1 COMMISSIONERS• Worley ABSENT. 3 COMMISSIONERS Barol.di, Ferreira, and Harvey PUBLIC HEARING RE: VARIANCE NO V-227; CECIL C BUTLER. The Vice Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for variance to allow a six foot (6') high block wall fence to encroach ten feet (10') into the required ten foot (10 ) sideyard setback on property generally located at 4831 Ashbury Avenue requested by Cecil C Butler, 4831 Ashbury Avenue, Cypress, California, known as Variance No V-227 The Secretary of the Planning Commission read Staff. Report PC#166-14 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of denial The Vice Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed variance Mr Cecil Butler applicant addressed the Commission, speaking in favor of the request, and stating his reasons for the request. Mr William Morrow 5047 Cumberland Drive, Cypress, addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the request stating that no safety hazard would be caused by the construction of the fence at the proposed location due to the fact that the house was located on the front of the lot and the neighbor s garage and driveway were not located adjacent to where the fence would he constructed He also pointed out the fact that the applicant had applied for the Variance prior to constructing the fence, which had not been the case in some similar requests in the past Mr Bill Mann, 4801 Ashbury Avenue, Cypress, addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the request as he had been granted a similar variance, which had been used as a comparison in the staff report He also stated he felt the Code was for safety purposes and the granting of the Variance would not create a safety hazard Commissioner De Pietro stated he had visited the subject site and did not see that any safety hazard would be created by the granting of the Variance, therefore, he would be in favor of granting the request Mr Butler stated he would be willing to move the fence back from the property line, approximately twelve to eighteen inches to allow vision clearance from the driveway Mr Mann again addressed the Commission stating he and his neighbor had tested the vision clearance from the driveway, in his case, which was identical to the subject case, and found no safety hazard with due caution used, as would normally be used backing out of any driveway The City Attorney advised the Commission that, if they were concerned about the feelings of the adjacent property owner whose driveway was the one in question, they could add a condition that notification of the action taken be sent to him, thus giving him time to appeal the decision of the Commission if he was dissatisfied A member of the Commission then reminded the Commission that public hearing notices had been mailed prior to the hearing and, if the adjacent property owner objected he had the opportunity to send in his written objection or appear at the hearing to object Mr Robert Kay representing the R H Grant Co , 1665 So Brookhurst, Anaheim, addressed the Commission stating that his company was the builder of the tract in which the subject lot was located, and, at the time the tract had been submitted, they had plotted the lots so the driveway of the adjacent lots would be some distance away from property lines where fences, as proposed in the subject request might be constructed There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Vice Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was then moved by Commissioner De Pietro seconded by Commissioner Hickey and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No. 314 approving Variance No V-227, subject to the conditions outlined in Staff Report PC#66-14, by the following roll call vote: TO WIT: ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARING RE. PROPOSED REVISION OF DRAINAGE DISTRICTS 1-A, 1-B, 3-N, 3-0, and 3-P OF THE MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE The Vice Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider proposed revision of Drainage Districts 1-A, 1-B, 3-N, 3-0 and 3-P of the Master Plan of Drainage of the City of Cypress, located generally in the area bounded by Moody Street, Orange Avenue, Juanita Street, and Ball Road in the City of Cypress initiated by the Secretary of the Planning Commission, George R Putnam The Secretary addressed the Commission stating that the City Engineer had prepared and would present the report for this item and they should direct all questions pertaining to the item to him Commissioner De Pietro addressed the Commission asking if the item could be postponed in the hope that a greater number of Commissioners would be present at the next meeting as the item was of such importance It was then moved by Commissioner De Pietro seconded by Commissioner Hickey and unanimously carried to continue the public hearing for the Proposed Revision of Drainage Districts 1-A, 1-B, 3-N, 3-0, and 3-P of the Master Plan of Drainage until the next meeting of the Commission, March 3, 1966 The Secretary of the Planning Commission then requested permission to moved Item No 6 before Item No 5 on the Agenda as Item 5 would take more time It was moved by Commissioner De Pietro seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried to move to Item No 6 on the Agenda. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED SUMNER ANNEXATION: The Secretary of the Commission stated the proposed Sumner Annexation to the City of Cypress, consisting of 79 51 acres 1165 people generally located north of Lincoln Avenue west of Moody Street east of Lincoln Annexation (Cemetery), and south of Crescent Avenue was before the Commission for their recommendation to the City Council and only required a Minute Action The Secretary described the proposed annexation and some of the features and stated the staff recommended that the Commission recommend approval of the proposed Sumner Annexation to the City Council Commissioner Worley asked why some of the area south of Lincoln Avenue had not been included in the same annexation. The City Attorney explained to the Commission, as a point of information, that prior to the item coming before the Planning Commission, it was considered by the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County and only the area described in the proposed annexation had been approved by that body and was before the Planning Commission for consideration The Secretary also explained that property owners in the subject annexation area had requested annexation to the City, whereas no requests had been received from property owners south of Lincoln, in the area Commissioner Worley had mentioned It was then moved by Commissioner De Pietro, seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried the Commission recommend approval of the proposed Sumner Annexation to the City Council. CONSIDERATION OF REVISION OF LAND USE ELEMENT OF GENERAL PLAN: The Secretary of the Commission reported on the proposed revision of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, stating it was before the Commission for discussion, comments and their recommendations Commissioner Worley stated he felt the item should be postponed until more members of the Commission were present to give their comments and recommendations Commissioner De Pietro stated he agreed with Commissioner Worley. It was moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner De Pietro and unanimously carried to continue consideration of the revision of the Land Use Element of the General Plan until the next meeting of the Commission March 3, 1966 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Commissioner Hickey suggested that the reverse corner lot requirements for fences be studied for a possible revision, due to the fact so many requests for variances had been received recently. It was moved by Commissioner Hickey, seconded by Commissioner De Pietro and unanimously carried to direct the staff to investigate and report on requirements for the construction of fences on reverse corner lots Discussion was held in reference to Variance No V-226 The City Attorney suggested that when the written notice of the action that had been taken by the Commission was sent to the applicant by the Secretary, the consequences of the denial of the Variance could be spelled out The Commission generally agreed the action suggested by the City Attorney would be the most desirable and the Secretary was so advised Mr Bill Mann addressed the Commission commending Commissioner Hickey on his attitude in requesting a study of fencing requirements on reverse corner lots for possible revision He stated he felt many homeowners are not aware of the various Codes of the City restricting building, zoning, etc , and amending the Codes to alleviate the need for variances in as many instances as possible was the best method to use in obtaining conformance with said Codes. ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business to come before the Commission it was moved by Commissioner De Pietro, seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried, the Commission a. .urn at 9 00 p m ATTEST: CE CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 'SECRETARY 0 INC COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS HELD March 3, 1966 The Planning Commission of the City of Cypress met in regular session on Thursday March 3, 1966, at 7 30 p m , in the Council Chambers, 5311 Orange Avenue, Cypress, California, Chairman Harvey presiding PRESENT: Baroldi Borders De Pietro, Ferreira, Hickey, Worley, and Harvey ABSENT' None Also present were: City Attorney Alex Bowie, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Art Schatzeder and Secretary of the Planning Commission, George Putnam MINUTES: It was moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner Hickey and unanimously carried the Minutes of February 17, 1966 be approved as mailed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS• There were no oral communications presented at this time. PUBLIC HEARING RE. HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT NO. 26, STEPHEN A ALLARD. The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider a request for home occupation permit to allow a mail order business in guns and related supplies for hunters, target shooters, and collectors to be conducted in a home generally located at 9748 Pauline Drive, requested by Stephen A Allard, 9748 Pauline Drive, Cypress, California known as Home Occupation Permit No 26. The Secretary of the Commission read Staff Report PC#66-16 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of denial, due to the fact it was in conflict with the criteria of the Home Occupation Section of the Zoning Ordinance. The Chairman then asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed permit Mr Stephen Allard, applicant, answered questions from the Commission regarding the proposed permit The questions pertained to the procedure he would use for the mail order business, how many guns he had at the present time and what he planned to have and the type supplies he would sell Commissioner De Pietro stated it was his opinion that he was in favor of having a business in the home after retirement, as Mr Allard proposed, but he was not in favor of the business Mr. Allard proposed as it did not meet the criteria of the Zoning Ordinance No one appeared to speak in opposition to the request Commissioner Hickey stated he felt there was a difference in gun collecting and the selling of guns and related supplies, which he felt was in direct conflict with the Home Occupation Permit criteria There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed. It was moved by Commissioner De Pietro, seconded by Commissioner Borders and unanimously carried Home Occupation Permit No 26 he denied, as it did not meet the criteria of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Home Occupations CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING RE. VARIANCE NO V-225; DANIEL G CASTILLO• The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the continuation of the public hearing to consider an application for variance to allow a 6 block wall fence to encroach ten feet (10') into the required ten foot (10') sideyard setback on property generally located at 9281 Nancy Street, requested by Daniel G. Castillo 9281 Nancy Street, Cypress, California, known as Variance No V-225 The Secretary of the Commission reported the past action that had been taken on the variance and reminded the Commission that they had directed the staff to study the possibility of revising the Code to change the requirement in regard to this type request, and stated the report would be ready for the next meeting of the Commission The Secretary further reported that Mr Castillo applicant could not attend the meeting due to his work schedule He further stated that when he had talked to Mrs Castillo, he had informed her of the report regarding revision of the Code, and asked her if they would agree to having their item continued till the next meeting when the report would be presented to the Commission. Mrs Castillo agreed that it might be best to continue the item and gave her permission to do so It was then moved by Commissioner De Pietro, seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and unanimously carried the public hearing for Variance No. V-225 be continued until the next meeting of the Commission, March 17th, 1966 PUBLIC HEARING RE. VARIANCE NO. V-228, CLARENCE E DENNEY. The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for variance from the Zoning Ordinance to permit an addition to an accessory building to encroach to within three feet (3') of the side property line on R-3 zoned property generally located at 5542 Karen Avenue requested by Clarence E Denney,5542 Karen Avenue, Cypress, California, known as Variance No V-228 The Secretary of the Commission read Staff Report PC#66-17 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed variance Mr Denney, applicant, answered questions from the Commission, and objected to the recommended conditions, stating they were ridiculous The Secretary of the Commission explained the reasons for the conditions and stated that they were a requirement of the City Code and must be met by any property owner upon development of his property Commissioner Worley stated he felt the applicant's circumstances were not his fault and stated he would like to see the variance granted without the conditions No one addressed the Commission speaking in opposition Commissioner Hickey asked why the City did not require a five foot sideyard when the garage is attached, as well as when it is detached The Secretary explained that, when the garage is detached it is considered an accessory building and accessory buildings must be set back 5' from the side property line unless located on the rear one-half of the property and constructed with a one hour fire wall on the side lot line, then the building may be located on the side lot line He further explained that when the garage is attached to the dwelling it becomes a part of the main building and, as such, must meet the setback requirements for the main building Considerable discussion followed regarding the cost of the improvements if required by the conditions recommended by the staff There being no written communications and no oral protests to the request the Chairman declared the public hearing closed. It was then moved by Commissioner Hickey seconded by Commissioner Borders and carried the Commission adont Resolution 315 approving Variance No V-228 subject to the conditions outlined in the Staff Report PC#66-17, with the addition of condition ##4, as follows: '4 Building shall meet Fire Zone 112 requirements The following roll call vote was taken: AYES• 6 COMMISSIONERS. NOES. 1 COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT. 0 COMMISSIONERS• Baroldi, Borders, De Pietro, Ferreira, Hickey, and Harvey Worley None PUBLIC HEARING RE. VARIANCE NO V-229; BRENTWOOD BAPTIST CHURCH. The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for variance from the Sign Ordinance No 185 to permit the erection of a Church sign on property generally located at the northeast corner of St Alban Street and Cerritos Avenue requested by the Brentwood Baptist Church c/o 5521 Marcella Avenue, Cypress, (Larwin Company, owner of property),known as Variance No V-229 The Secretary of the Commission read Staff Report PC#66-18 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of denial The Chairman then asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed variance Mr Larry Smith addressed the Commission, stating he was a member of the Brentwood Baptist Church, speaking in favor of the requested variance He stated that the proposed sign would state that the property was the future site of the Church and reported that the property was in escrow He then asked if the recommended condition requiring the $250 cash bond to guarantee removal of the sign at the termination of the variance was not an excessive amount to charge, when the sign was so small The Secretary of the Commission informed Mr Smith that the fee was returnable when and if the church located on the property Mr Smith then asked if the fee could not be reduced due to the size of the sign being so small not the size of a billboard or subdivision directional sign The Secretary informed Mr Smith that the Commission could reduce the amount of the fee if they so desired however, it was the normal fee required but not a fee set by City Code Commissioner De Pietro gave his opinion stating he was generally opposed to any type directional sign Vernon Grace, 5521 Marcella Avenue, Cypress, Pastor of the Brentwood Baptist Church, addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the variance stating that the sign stated that it was the future site of the Church, the present location and time of services pastor s name and phone number, assistant pastor s name and phone number, and youth director's name and phone number He then stated that the actual size of the sign was 4' x 8' and would be the job of a professional painter. No one appeared to speak in opposition to the proposed variance Commissioner Hickey stated he felt the sign requested was quite a bit Like the signs in the City directing people to model homes and he felt the Church should he treated no better and no worse than those developers in the City putting these signs up and should be subject to the same conditions Commissioner Harvey stated he felt the Church was at a disadvantage as far as their present meeting place being temporary and not their permanent location He agreed that the requested sign was no worse than others which have been allowed for future shopping centers and the Church should be given as much consideration for theirs as the others have been treated just the same Commissioner Baroldi stated he agreed with Commissioners Hickey and Harvey Commissioner Worley stated he did not agree with some of the statements made He stated Commissioner De Pietro had made a statement saying he was not in favor of any directional signs and Commissioner Worley felt he did not mean it the way it sounded Commissioner De Pietro added that he meant "most directional signs". Commissioner Worley then stated some directional signs are needed and are helpful He felt, because the Church does not have a permanent location as yet it was a good idea to have such a sign directing people to services Commissioner De Pietro stated he agreed with the staff, that approving the application might set a precedent and other churches would want such signs He felt if someone wanted to find a church they could by driving through the City or asking one of the policemen who could direct them He again stated he was definitely against granting the subject variance There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was then moved by Commissioner Hickey seconded by Commissioner Worley and carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 316 approving Variance No V-229, subject to the conditions as set forth in Staff Report PC#66-18, by the following roll call vote AYES• 6 COMMISSIONERS• Baroldi Borders, Ferreira, Hickey, Worley, and Harvey NOES 1 COMMISSIONERS. De Pietro ABSENT. 0 COMMISSIONERS. None CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: REVISION OF DRAINAGE DISTRICTS 1-A, 1-B, 3-N, 3-0, and 3-P OF THE MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE. The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the continuation of the public hearing to consider proposed revision of Drainage Districts 1-A, 1-B, 3-N 3-0 and 3-P of the Master Plan of Drainage of the City of Cypress, located generally in the area bounded by Moody Street, Orange Avenue, Juanita Street and Bell Road in the City of Cypress initiated by the Secretary of the Planning Commission. The Secretary of the Commission informed the Commission that the City Engineer would present the report on this item The City Engineer addressed the Commission pointing out the areas involved in the proposed revisions as shown on the Hydrology Map prepared in the office of Voorheis Trindle & Nelson for the City of Cypress He explained that District 1-A extends from Ball Road to Orange Avenue between Moody and Walker Streets, District 1-B includes a small area north of Orange Avenue and extends southerly to the Carbon Creek Channel from Walker Street to approximately 660 feet east of Walker Street District 3-N extends from Orange Avenue to the Carbon Creek Channel from 660 feet east of Walker Street to Valley View Street, District 3-0 extends from Orange Avenue to the Carbon Creek Channel from Valley View Street to Juanita Street and District 3-P extends from the Pacific Electric Railroad to the Carbon Creek Channel from Juanita Street to Holder Street The City Engineer then explained the background on the proposed revisions, stating that the City Council had authorized the engineering firm of Voorheis Trindle & Nelson to study the drainage areas and prepare a report and that his report was based on the study and report of the engineering firm, as checked and approved by the Engineering Department He then stated the totalarea of the districts involved was 441 acres, and to figure the new drainage fee the cost of the existing facil- ities had been added to the cost of the proposed facilities and divided by the total number of acres, arriving at the fee of $565 per acre He reported the present drainage fees were $385 for Disttict 1-A $350 for District 1-B $555 for District 3-N, $375 for District 3-0, and $370 for District 3-P The total cost of all existing and proposed facilities was reported as being $249,795 Commissioner Harvey asked the affect the Junior College would have on the district The City Engineer stated it would have no effect on the area being discussed The Commissioners asked the City Engineer various questions on portions of his report that needed more explanation Mr James Duncan, 9582 Walker Street, addressed the Commission asking the City Engineer about the proposal for Drainage District 1-B and inquired about the drainage of his property The City Engineer explained the new proposal to Mr Duncan The City Engineer reported that the cost of the engineering study had been $4 300 IIe then stated that Mr Jim Crosby of Voorheis, Trindle & Nelson was present and could answer some of the Commission's questions about the study Mr Crosby addressed the Commission and in answer to a question from the Commission, explained the meaning of a 'design storm", as used in the report The City Attorney explained the action the Commission could take was to adopt a Resolution approving the change in the Master Plan of Drainage based on the boundaries and facilities indicated on the Hydrology Map and recommend approval of the total estimated cost of the facilities, $249,795 If the Planning Commission did not feel the study was complete and enough of an answer to the problems, the action would be to ask for further studies The City Engineer then reported the total cost of the existing facilities was $58,345 and gave a breakdown of the cost of the existing facilities He then explained the new proposed facilities and the cost of the facilities, giving the totalcost of the new facilities as $159 542 He then stated the proposed facilities had not vet been designed and allowing 20% for engineer- ing and contingencies, the total cost would be $191,000 In answer to a question from one of the Commissioners, the City Engineer stated that street work involved in the drainage of certain areas had not been included in the cost of the drainage, only minor street work COMMISSIONER HICKEY REQUESTED A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AT 10:00 P M THE CHAIRMAN DECLARED A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AT 10 00 P M THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER AT 10:05 P M There being no written communications and no oral protests the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was then moved by Commissioner Hickey, seconded by Commissioner Baroldi and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 317 recommending to the City Council approval of the proposed combination of Drainage Districts 1-A, 1-B, 3-N, 3-0, and 3-P, as well as the facilities indicated on the Hydrology Map prepared by Voorheis, Trindle & Nelson and the costs as presented by the City Engineer with an acreage assessment fee of $565 00 per acre The following roll call vote was taken TO WIT• ALL AYES DISCUSSION OF GENERAL PLAN. The Chairman announced the next item of business was discussion of the General Plan and asked the Secretary for his report The Secretary of the Commission asked the Commission if they would like to consider the matter at their study sessions until the time the item would be ready for public hearing, possibly holding the study sessions earlier than usual He then stated, at the time the item was ready for public hearing, a special meeting could be held to discuss only the General Plan It was moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner Baroldi and unanimously carried to continue discussion of the General Plan until the study session for the meeting of March 17th setting the time at 3.00 p m. CONSIDERATION OF COMMUNICATION FROM PRESIDENT OF CYPRESS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RE. CHANGE OF ZONE ON NORTH SIDE OF BISHOP, BETWEEN WALKER & PACIFIC ELECTRIC RAILROAD TRACKS• The Chairman announced this was the time for consideration of a commun- ication from the President of the Cypress Chamber of Commerce regarding a change of zone on the north side of Bishop between Walker and the Pacific Electric Railroad Tracks The Secretary of the Commission read the communication to the Commission then recommended that the Planning Commission direct the staff to make a study of the area in question It was moved by Commissioner Baroldi, seconded by Commissioner Borders and unanimously carried to direct the Secretary to make a study of the area in question and report back to the Commission ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 10 20 p m ATTEST• ETR CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE =LANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS HELD March 17, 1966 The Planning Commission of the City of Cypress met in regular session on Thursday, March 17 1966 at 7.30 p m in the Council Chambers, 5311 Orange Avenue Cypress California, Chairman Harvey presiding PRESENT. Baroldi, Borders De Pietro Ferreira, Hickey, Worley, and Harvey ABSENT None Also present were• City Attorney James Erickson, and Secretary of the Planning Commission George Putnam MINUTES Commissioner Hickey stated on page 5 of the Minutes of March 3rd, regarding Variance No V-229, there was a general statement regarding the Commissioners expressing their opinions regarding such signs as that requested whereas on the previous page Commissioner De Pietro's statement that "he was generally opposed to any type directional sign had been included Commissioner Hickey stated he would like his statement that he "felt it was not a directional sign included and felt the other Commissioner's opinions should also be included Commissioner De Pietro stated he would be in favor of striking his opinion if it would be less complicated, however, Commissioner Hickey stated he felt each opinion expressed by a Commissioner regarding the sign should be included It was then moved by Commissioner De Pietro seconded by Commissioner Hickey and unanimously carried to postpone action regarding the Minutes of March 3rd until the next meeting to allow the requested corrections and additions to be included The following roll call vote was taken. TO WIT: ALL AYES ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. There were no oral communications presented at this time PUBLIC HEARING RE. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE NO 90, SECTION 125.9, RE LOCATION OF WALL, FENCE, OR HEDGE ON REVERSE CORNER LOT: The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance No 90, Section 125 9 to permit a wall, fence, or hedge to he maintained in any "R" zone on the side property line on the side street side of any reverse corner lot initiated by the Cypress Planning Commission The Secretary of the Commission read Staff Renort PC#66-22 which outlined the proposed amendment and the staff recommendation that the Commission recommend approval of the amendment to the City Council. The Secretary then read the Ordinance Section as it would appear if the amendment were approved He then submitted photographs to the Commission that had been taken of vat±ous locations indicating the visibility from the driver's seat of a car as he is hacking out onto the street The Chairman then asked the Secretary to explain the past action that had been taken on the item and the reason the Commission initiated the action for the benefit of the audience The Secretary proceeded to explain that quite a number of requests for variances for this type fence had been received within the past few months and the staff felt the Zoning Ordinance amendment would eliminate the need for variances of this type The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed amendment Mr Daniel Castillo, 9281 Nancy Street Cypress addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the proposed amendment as the situation involved in the amendment existed on his property No one appeared speaking in opposition Commissioner Borders asked if the amendment was to include R-2, R-3, and R-4 zones as well as R-1 The Secretary explained that the amendment would pertain to all reverse corner lots in "R" zones Commissioner Borders then stated he was opposed to filling in the proposed triangle area with concrete as the amendment proposed, he felt planting the area would create a better appearance He also pointed out the fact that possibly cars, trailers, etc , might be parked in the triangle area if it were concreted Commissioner De Pietro stated that if landscaping of the triangle area was allowed, the plantings might obstruct the vision in hacking from the driveway as much as the block wall would if it had been constructed The Secretary stated that this had been the staff's feeling• that landscaping might obstruct the vision, the possibility of weeds growing would be likely in some cases and if asphalt were used in place of the recommended concrete there was a possibility of a maintenance problem being created as well as the fact the area could become very unsightly Commissioner Baroldi stated that he felt landscaping would look better, but might be neglected and become an eyesore Commissioner Hickey stated he felt the homeowner on the reverse corner lot was being penalized because he usually purchases the home having no idea of the problems that could arise, such as the case under consideration merely because he has purchased a reverse corner lot He further stated he felt the layout of the property in back of the reverse corner lot should be controlled in the planning stages, the requirement should he that the driveway on this lot must be located on the side of the lot away from the problem corner, thus avoiding the problem of the vision from the driveway arising at the time the owner of the reverse corner lot wishes to build a fence He then stated he felt the existing reverse corner lots with this problem could be handled through variances and more control of the layout of the lot behind the reverse corner lot would avoid the problem in the future therefore the amendment to the Ordinance would not be necessary Commissioner Hickey then stated he felt by amending the Ordinance they would be attempting to control the outgrowth of the problem not the problem itself The Secretary of the Commission stated that the staff had discussed the reverse corner lot and decided to discourage reverse corner lots in new subdivisions in the future Commissioner Harvey asked if the proposed amendment would mean that all reverse corner lots would have to have the triangle area The Secretary stated that the proposed amendment as worded would include all reverse corner lots Commissioner Harvey then stated he agreed with Commissioner Hickey's opinion that something should be done to control the layout of the property in back of the reverse corner lots Commissioner De Pietro stated he felt the situation would be controlled by no more reverse corner lots being allowed He further stated he felt the staff had come up with a good solution to the existing problem, however, he felt the triangle area should not be required if the driveway of the adjacent property did not abut the proposed fence Commissioner Hickey suggested the possible wording of a regulation for control of the lot in back of the reverse corner lot would be. 'On lots that are located in back of reverse corner lots no building (garage or additions) shall encroach to within forty (40) feet of the reverse corner lot line or forty (40) feet from its own front property line ' The Secretary of the Commission stated that he and the staff felt such a condition would he depriving that property owner of the highest use of his land as the size of the lot is only 6,000 square feet, whereas the reverse corner lot would have 6,500 square feet, which is the minimum area for any corner lot, therefore, the requirement of the triangle on the reverse corner lot would still leave them with more lot area than the lot behind Commissioner Borders stated he felt the Subdivision Ordinance should be formally amended to state that "no reverse corner lots shall be allowed in new subdivisions He also stated he was still opposed to concreting the triangle area. Commissioner De Pietro stated he felt the problem had been answered by the staff s recommendation and that he would prefer the triangle area being landscaped but, since it might be neglected he felt the 3" of concrete would be the best solution Commissioner Harvey stated he also agreed with Commissioner Borders that landscaping of the triangle would be nice but he felt it was unpractical He further stated that he definitely felt the triangle should not be required if the driveway of the adjoining property was not adjacent to the proposed fence He then asked if people moving into the City could be notified to come to the City Hall and check into regulations and requirements before building anything on their property. Commissioner Baroldi stated that, in the future, reverse corner lots would not be allowed,therefore, the people moving into the City would not have to know about the problems of building on such lots Commissioner Harvey stated that he felt it would help if all new residents could be notified that building permits are required and advised to check with City Hall before building. Commissioner Worley stated he agreed that the triangle area should only be required in the case where the driveway of the adjoining property was adjacent to the proposed fence Commissioner Hickey suggested that the reverse corner lots should he controlled through amending the ordinances because the staff and members of the Planning Commission would change in years to come and the "discouraging" of the reverse corner lots might not be carried out There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed Commissioner Hickey asked the City Attorney and Secretary of the Commission if it were possible to reword the proposed amendment and take action on it at this meeting The City Attorney stated if they wanted the changes discussed included in the proposed amendment, he would prefer to have time to prepare the revised wording of the proposed amendment He then stated, if they wished to continue the item the public hearing should be continued in order to receive further information. It was moved by Commissioner Baroldi, seconded by Commissioner Borders and unanimously carried to reopen the public hearing The Chairman declared the public hearing open It was then moved by Commissioner Hickey seconded by Commissioner Borders and carried to continue the public hearing until the next meeting of the Commission, April 7, 1966 The following roll call vote was taken: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Borders Hickey Worley and Harvey NOES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Baroldi De Pietro and Ferreira ABSENT• 0 COMMISSIONERS• None Commissioner De Pietro stated for the record that he was in favor of the proposed amendment as originally written and recommended by the staff PUBLIC HEARING RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 90, SECTION 112.2 PERMITTED BUILDINGS AND USES, SUBSECTION Ff ,RE. RESTAURANTS, DELETING WORDS "(NO ENTERTAINMENT OR DANCING)": The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance No 90, Section 112 2 PERMITTED BUILDINGS AND USES., Subsection Ff Re: Restaurants, by deleting the words "(No entertainment or dancing)" initiated by the Cypress Planning Commission The Secretary of the Planning Commission read Staff Report PC#66-23 which outlined the nature of the amendment and the staff recommendation that the Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the City Council The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed amendment No one appeared in favor or in opposition to the proposed amendment Commissioner Worley stated he felt the amendment should be recommended for approval, thus turning over the regulation of entertainment and dancing to the City Council under their Special Permit requirements There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was then moved by Commissioner De Pietro seconded by Commissioner Baroldi and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 318 recommending approval of the proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance No 90, Section 112 2 "PERMITTED BUILDINGS AND USES' by deleting the words "No entertainment or dancing" in Subsection Ff , Restaurants PUBLIC HEARING RE: ZONING DETERMINATION NO. 66-1, FOSTER SAND & GRAVEL CO : The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider a request for zoning determination to allow a ready mix batch plant operation as a permitted use in the C-3 (Commercial -Manufacturing) zoning district requested by Foster Sand and Gravel Company, 915 South Harbor, Fullerton California, known as Zoning Determination No 66-1 The Secretary of the Commission read Staff Report PC#66-19 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the request Mr Paul Gray, representing Foster Sand and Gravel Co , applicant addressed the Commission offering to answer any questions they might have He also explained the operation the fact that they wanted to improve the plant they met all dust control requirements, they were only compounding aggregates as they go out, the amount of noise was under 25 decibels or, at the most 30, and most of the work creating noise was completed by 1.00 p m unless an emergency arises No one appeared to speak in opposition Commissioner Borders stated he felt the operation was in an area in which it would not he out of character with other C-3 uses Commissioner Worley stated he felt the business was in as good a place as it could be and felt it was an ideal location and they should be allowed to operate and improve the operation Commissioner De Pietro reminded the Commission that the location should not be considered, only whether the use should be allowed in that zone Commissioner Harvey stated he felt the proposed use would fit into the C-3 zone Commissioner Hickey asked the Secretary why a flour mill and building materials business had been used in comparison with the requested operation in the staff report The Secretary explained the correlation between the uses Commissioner Hickey then asked if the business was going to increase Mr. Victor Sherron addressed the Commission stating he had operated the plant for six to eight years He explained the operation as compared to the flour mill He then stated the capacity was increasing Commissioner Hickey then asked if the equipment used in both were similar Mr Sherron explained the enuipment used was almost the same There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was moved by Commissioner Baroldi seconded by Commissioner De Pietro and unanimously carried the Commission approve Zoning Determination No 66-1 subject to the condition that a Conditional Use Permit shall be obtained Commissioner Hickey stated he had been concerned if the modernization of the plant would increase the use greatly, but was in favor of the request Commissioner Worley stated he felt the modern plant would probably be quieter than the old one. Commissioner De Pietro stated he was not concerned with any existing plant only whether the use was suitable in the C-3 zone The following roll call vote was taken on the motion TO WIT: ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARING RE. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. C-193, EDWIN F & BERNICE M BROWN PETER D & BARBARA A GORZEMAN, BY R M GALLOWAY & ASSOCIATES: The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for conditional use permit to allow the construction of a planned development type single-family subdivision on property zoned P -D (Planned Development), generally located at the northeast corner of Walker Street and Ball Road, requested by P M Galloway 504 No Newport Blvd Newport Beach Calif for Edwin F & Bernice M Brown, 1134 W Greendale St , West Covina, and Peter D & Barbara A Gorzeman, 9922 Walker St , Cypress, Calif , (owners of property involved), known as Conditional Use Permit No C-193 The Secretary of the Commission read Staff Report PC#66-20 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation that the Commission recommend approval to the City Council The Secretary then explained the various options in regard to park dedication on the subject property Mr Robert Galloway, consulting engineer for Andover Land Co , proposed developer of the property, addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the proposed use and offered to answer any questions the Commission might have. He also stated the recommended conditions of approval were agreeable as amended in regard to the various options for park dedication. The City Attorney stated the wording and form of the options was not correct, he would be revising it Mr Miller, representing Andover Land Company, addressed the Commission and asked the City Attorney if the new wording would be ready for presentation to the City Council if the Conditional Use Permit was approved by the Planning Commission at this meeting The City Attorney stated it would depend upon whether the people involved could get together and work out the wording to the satisfaction of all concerned No one appeared in opposition to the proposed use. In answer to a question from the Commission Mr Miller and the Secretary explained that the City had until July 13th, 1966, to exercise the option they choose but could obtain an extension to January, 1967, upon payment of $5 000 to the owner The Secretary explained that the staff was aware of the time limit In answer to a question from Commissioner Hickey, the Secretary stated if none of the options were taken, the City would get 1 6 acres dedicated for park purposes Commissioner Borders stated he was in favor of Option B which reads as follows. "B Dedicate 1 4 net acres of land for park purposes and give an option to the City to purchase an additional 2 9 acres of land adjoining such 1 4 acres on terms and conditions satisfactory to the City." He stated he felt this option would benefit the City the most and would he the most attractive, having quite a few lots which would face the park The City Attorney informed the Commission that the decision as to what option would be exercised would be made after the City Attorney and City Manager work with the developers and discuss and prepare the agreements then it would be up to the City Council as to what option the City chooses to exercise He then stated that up to the last date in January 1967, the City Council could take any one of the three options they wished He also stated that the City had a fourth alternative, which would be not to exercise any of the three options, in which case the City would receive 1 6 net acres dedicated Mr Calloway asked if he could be assured that they could redesign the tract map if the City did decide not to exercise any option and the 1 6 net acres were dedicated Commissioner Harvey stated he was in agreement with Commissioner Borders in feeling that Option B would be best Commissioner De Pietro stated he felt the Planning Commission might suggest to the City Council the option they felt would be hest Commissioner Harvey stated, as the City Council has to decide what option to take or whether or not to take an ontion, he would be reluctant to include a recommendation of an option in the motion as it might tie their hands Commissioner Hickey stated he did not think it would he typing their hands but felt that the Commission's feelings should be brought to their attention Commissioner Worley stated he felt the Commission should indicate to the City Council their opinion regarding which option they feel would benefit the City the most The City Attorney advised the Commission that if they adopted a Resolution recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit to the City Council subject to the conditions as outlined then they could, by Minute Order to the City Council state their opinion as to what option they felt would benefit the City the most Commissioner Borders stated he did not feel it would be necessary to have such a Minute Order because Option B had been the one favored by the majority of the Commission and most likQly would be the one favored by the City Council Commissioner Hickey stated he felt the City Council must take a lot of things into consideration before they decide on which option to take, or whether to take an option He then pointed out that as well as considering the aesthetic value they must consider the economic factor, therefore, he felt that making a recommendation on whether to accept the options at all was a big enough decision without making a definite decision on which option to take There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was then moved by Commissioner Borders seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 319 recommending anproval of Conditional Use Permit No C-193 to the City Council subject to the following conditions: 1 The conditions of Tentative Tract 6194 shall apply 2 Applicant shall dedicate and give an option to the City, in one of the following manners at the election of the City. A Dedicate 1 2 net acres of land for park purposes and give an option to the City to purchase an additional 5 acres of land adjoining such 1 2 acres on terms and conditions satisfactory to the City, or B Dedicate 1 4 net acres of land for park purposes and give an option to the City to purchase an additional 2 9 acres of land adjoining such 1 4 acres on terms and conditions satisfactory to the City, or C Dedicate 1 6 net acres of land for park purposes and give an option to the City to purchase an additional 83 acres of land adjoining such 1 6 acres on terms and conditions satisfactory to the City 3 Plot plans and elevations of typical dwellings shall he approved by the staff prior to issuance of building permits The following roll call vote was taken. TO WIT ALL AYES CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: VARIANCE NO. V-225, DANIEL G. CASTILLO The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the continuation of the public hearing to consider an application for variance to allow a 6' block wall fence to encroach ten feet (10') into the required ten foot (10 ) sideyard setback on property generally located at 9281 Nancy Street, requested by Daniel G Castillo, 9281 Nancy Street, Cypress, California, known as Variance No V-225 The Secretary of the Commission reported on the past action taken and stated the request was one of those in the situation involved in the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment that had been discussed earlier in the meeting a reverse corner lot. He also reported that the staff had changed their recommendation since the time of the original public hearing at which time they had recommended denial They now recommended the variance he approved subject to the following conditions. 1 A 15' x 15' corner cut off measured from the intersection of the rear property line and side property line shall he provided and filled in with 3' of concrete 2 A building permit shall be obtained Mr Daniel Castillo, applicant, addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the request stating he would like to put a gate in the fence at the location of the 15' x 15 corner cut off area if he could and also asked if he could improve the triangle area with something other than concrete, possibly landscaped He also mentioned that the grade of his building pad was 32' higher than the sidewalk Discussion followed regarding the treatment of the triangle area Commissioner De Pietro stated he felt the Commission should consider the case in question and not get into more discussion of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Commissioner Borders stated he agreed with Commissioner De Pietro and asked if the request could be approved subject to the conditions recommended but ex6luding the requirement that the triangle area be filled with 3" of cement The Secretary replied that the Commission could impose any reasonable conditions they wished upon approval Commissioners Worley and Baroldi stated they felt possibly a 3' high fence should he built around the triangle area to keep the dust down and trash from collecting in the area, and could be used as a planter Commissioner Hickey asked the annlicant if he would agree to build a 3' high retaining wall in that area Mr Castillo stated he would like the retaining wall as it would retain the dirt in the area and keep it from washing away, as it might because the grade from the top of the building pad to the sidewalk is so great In this way, he could landscape the area He again asked if he could have a gate in the block wall at the triangle area to use as access to the planter, or landscaped area, and stated he would build the 3 retaining wall Commissioner Hickey stated he would he in favor of the retainer wall if the height of the shrubbery would be controlled and kept very low possibly ground cover not to exceed one foot in height. Commissioner Worley stated he did not necessarily mean the retaining wall should be 3', it could be smaller The Secretary of the Commission stated that, if the Commission wished to include the retaining wall in the conditions a certain maximum height should be stated in the condition Commissioner Hickey suggested the condition he worded so the height of the wall and any landscaping may not exceed a certain height as approved by the City staff There being no written communications and no oral nrotests the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner Baroldi and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 320 approving Variance No V-225, subject to the following conditions: 1 A 15' x 15' corner cut off measured from the intersection of the side property line on the street side and the rear property line shall be provided 2 The corner cut off shall he landscaped and a wall shall be permitted around the landscaped area, the height of the wall and landscaping shall be approved by the City staff but in no case shall the landscaping and wall exceed three feet(3') in height 3 The fence shall be constructed immediately adjacent to the side property line 4 A building permit shall he obtained before construction of the fence The following roll call vote was taken: TO WIT: ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARING RE: VARIANCE NO V-230. BRIAN D & JUDY L. MOORE• The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for variance to allow a six foot (6') block wall to be built to within two feet (2') of the side property line on property generally located at 6287 Mt Ripley Drive, requested by Brian D. and Judy L Moore 6287 Mt Ripley Drive Cypress California known as Variance No V-230 The Secretary of the Commission read Staff Report PC#66-21 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the request Mr Brian Moore applicant addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the variance, stating he wished the two feet along the side so he could plant Italian Cypress trees He also stated he would not like the triangle requirement he would like to take the wall out to the property line Commissioner De Pietro asked the distance between the proposed fence and the driveway of the adjacent property The Secretary of the Commission replied that the distance was approximately 35' to 40' There was some discussion about whether the 15 cut off should be required due to the location of the adjacent property's driveway being located away from the proposed fence Commissioner De Pietro asked the applicant if he would agree to constructing the fence to allow for the 15' x 15 triangle The applicant stated he would agree to the triangle area if renuired but did not like the condition that it be filled with 3' of concrete Commissioner De Pietro then stated he felt the distance between the driveway of the adjacent property and the proposed wall was enough to allow the vision clearance from the driveway and felt the fence should be allowed to he built to the property line, without the cut off area Commissioner Borders stated he felt the triangle cut off area should he required Commissioner Hickey asked the applicant if he would agree to build a small retainer wall around the cut off area as required on the previous application The applicant stated he would prefer the retaining wall and landscaped area to the concrete Mr Les Douglas 9786 Kathleen Drive addressed the Commission asking how far the fence would come to the intersection and if it would obstruct the view from the intersection He stated he felt safety at the intersection would he reduced if the fence were constructed in the manner proposed The Secretary of the Commission stated that the view would be cut down somewhat Mr Douglas then stated he would object to the view being reduced He also objected to the appearance of the fence if brought out to the property line and asked if the aesthetic standpoint had been considered The Commission replied that the aesthetics of the wall was one of the items taken into consideration on the request Commissioner Hickey stated he felt the wall should be built to the sidewalk and the 15' x 15' cut off area required with the retainer wall., height of said wall to be approved by the City staff Commissioner De Pietro again stated he felt that the 15' x 15' cut off area should not be required in this case Commissioner Borders stated he agreed with part of the applicant's request, that he felt the 2' area on the side property line should be allowed for planting, but he felt the cut off angle should he required not concreted and he nuestioned the necessity of the retainer wall planter in the area as there was no problem with the grade of the building pad being quite a bit higher than the sidewalk as in the previous case Commissioner Hickey stated he felt the same conditions should he imposed on this variance as on the variance in the preceding action He also stated he felt at least one tier of brick should he required around the cut off angle to keep the dirt in and trash out Commissioner Worley stated he did not feel the tier of brick would be necessary unless the grade was of the height that would wash dirt back on the sidewalk in that case it should be required The applicant stated he would be in favor of putting the tier of brick in There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was moved by Commissioner hickey, seconded by Commissioner Worley and carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 321 approving Variance No V-230 subject to the following conditions: 1 A 15 x 15 corner cut off measured from the intersection of the side property line on the street side and the rear property line shall be provided 2 The corner cut off shall he landscaped and a wall shall he permitted around the landscaped area, the height of the wall and landscaping shall he approved by the City staff but in no case shall the landscaping and wall exceed three feet (3') in height 3 The fence shall be constructed immediately adjacent to the side property line 4 A building permit shall be obtained before construction of the fence Commissioner De Pietro stated he felt conditions 2 and 3 were not necessary in this case The following roll call vote was taken on the motion: AYES• 6 COMMISSIONERS• Baroldi Borders, Ferreira, Hickey, Worley, and Harvey NOES 1 COMMISSIONERS De Pietro ABSENT 0 COMMISSIONERS. None THE CHAIRMAN DECLARED A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AT 10 15 P M THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 10.20 P M , ALL MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION BEING PRESENT. CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 5782, ROBERT H GRANT & CO : The Chairman announced the next item of business was consideration of Tentative Tract Man NO 5782 consisting of 20 P-3 lots, 4 3 acres, generally located on the west side of Valley View Street, approximately 300' North of Cerritos Avenue, requested by Robert I1 Grant & Co 1665 So Brookhurst Anaheim, California, The Secretary of the Commission reported that the applicant had submitted a communication requesting a continuance until the next meeting of the Commission April 7th, 1966 It was moved by Commissioner De Pietro, seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried to continue consideration of Tentative Tract Man No 5782 until the meeting of April 7 1966 CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 6194, ANDOVER LAND CO : The Chairman announced the next item of business was consideration of Tentative Tract Map No 6194, consisting of 149 lots, approximately 26 31 acres, generally located on the northeast corner of Walker Street and Ball Road, requested by Andover Land Co 10889 Wilshire Blvd Los Angeles California The Secretary of the Commission read Staff Report PC#66-25 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval, also stating the applicant had applied for construction under Optional Design Standards The Secretary also presented a map prepared by the developer s engineer showing the details of the streets with the tree wells bricked in Mr Robert Galloway engineer for the subject tract, addressed the Commission asking about the possibility of revising the map in case the City Council did not choose to exercise one of the options regarding park dedication, as mentioned under Conditional Use Permit No. C-193 earlier in the meeting The Secretary and City Attorney advised Mr Galloway that he always has the opportunity to submit a revised map if he wished to do so Upon a question from the Commission regarding the building plans which had been submitted for information only, Mr Armando Vasquez, representing the architect, Earl G Kaltenbach who had drawn the plans addressed the Commission explaining the various plans Mr Miller, representing Andover Land Co , addressed the Commission stating the building plans were only representational and had not been approved by his company, the developer of the tract, as yet The City Attorney advised the Commission that the quality of the homes to be built should not be considered at this time It was moved by Commissioner Baroldi, seconded by Commissioner Worley, and unanimously carried Tentative Tract Man No 6194 be recommended to the City Council for anproval subject to the following conditions. 1 The area shown as 'Not a Part shall be indicated as Lot 149 2 The blue border of the map_ shall be extended to the centerline of Walker Street and Ball Road 3 All drainage fees shall be paid 4 Drainage of the tract shall be solved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5 An ornamental 6 high concrete block wall shall he constructed along the rear property lines of all peripheral lots and along all arterial highways 6 Access rights, along all lots backing up or siding on all arterial highways, shall be dedicated to the City of Cypress, excluding Lot 149 7 All streets shall be fully improved and dedicated to the City including Graham Street 8 Walker Street and Ball Road shall be fully improved and dedicated to the City 9 Street light energy charges shall be paid 10 "A" Street shall. have 40' of paving curb to curb from Walker Street to Graham Street 11 Street tree fees shall be paid 12 All interior tree wells shall be bricked in 13 The Tentative Tract is approved, subject to the approval of Conditional Use Permit No C-193 14 The drainage problem as indicated on the Tract Map is not approved 15 The street trees on the interior streets shall be of a fifteen gallon size The street tree fees shall refelct the 15 gallon size of the trees 16 Park dedications and options as stated in the conditions of Conditional Use Permit No C-193 shall be made a part of this Tentative Tract 17 Parkway treatment, including the sidewalks, shall be in accordance with a map entitled "Tree Well Details", as submitted by R. M Galloway and Associates 18 Right-of-way and sections of the streets shall be approved by the City Engineer The following roll call vote was taken TO WIT- ALL AYES ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business to come before the Commission, it was moved by Commissioner De Pietro and unanimously agreed the meeting be adjourned at 11 00 p m ATTEST: CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMM. ON _SECRET '` i T= PLA ING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS HELD April 7 1966 The Planning Commission of the City of Cypress met in regular session on Thursday, April 7, 1966, at 7.30 p m , in the Council Chambers, 5311 Orange Avenue, Cypress, California, Chairman Harvey presiding. PRESENT Baroldi, Borders, Hickey, Worley, and Harvey ABSENT: De Pietro and Ferreira Also present were City Attorney, Len Hampel, Public Works Director/ City Engineer, Art Schatzeder; and Secretary of the Planning Commission, George Putnam. MINUTES. It was moved by Commissioner dickey seconded by Commissioner Baroldi and unanimously carried the Minutes of March 3 1966 be approved as corrected It was then moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner Borders and unanimously carried the Minutes of March 17, 1966 be approved as mailed ORAL COMMUNICATIONS• There were no oral communications presented at this time CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 90, SECTION 125 9, RE. LOCATION OF WALL, FENCE OR HEDGE ON REVERSE CORNER LOT The Chairman announced this was the time and place for the continuation of the public hearing to consider a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance No 90, Section 125 9 to permit a wall, fence or hedge to be maintained in any "R" zone on the side property line on the side street side of any reverse corner lot initiated by the Cypress Planning Commission The Secretary of the Commission reported on past action at the last meeting and read the new wording of the proposed amendment as suggested by the Commission at the last meeting which would only require the 15' x 15' triangle area on the side street side of reverse corner lots abutting to key lots having a driveway approach on that half of the key lot closest to the rear property line of the reverse corner lot not requiring it on all reverse corner lots and which would require the triangular area to be landscaped and permanently maintained, and not concreted as the staff's recommendation had been The Secretary then reported that the staff had again studied the matter and still felt the amendment should remain as originally recommended by them The Secretary reported that he had investigated the triangle areas existing in the City that had been landscaped and found them well kept, therefore, he felt changing the amendment to require the area to be landscaped might be better than the original requirement that it be filled with 3" of concrete. Commissioner Harvey asked, in regard to the suggested rewording of the amendment by the Commission which would not make the triangle area a requirement of all reverse corner lots wishing to build fences, about the probability of homeowners making the existing garage into another room and adding a new garage in the area adjacent to the fence, thus creating the vision problem after the fence had been built without the triangle area The Secretary explained that this was the main reason the staff had recommended that the requirement be placed on all reverse corner lots Commissioner Borders stated he felt they should all be required to have the 15' triangle, not only those having a garage adjacent to the proposed fence. Commissioner Hickey stated he felt, if the staff felt strongly enough about recommending the original proposal without the concrete requirement he would be in favor of going back to the original recommendation with the only change being the requirement that the triangle area be landscaped instead of concreted, landscaping not to exceed three feet (3') in height The City Engineer suggested that the condition regarding the height limit be worded so that it states "landscaping not to exceed three feet (3') in height above sidewalk grade' Commissioner Hickey suggested wording for the condition be that "the triangle area can be landscaped, with the exception that landscaping shall not impair the view from the driveway of the key lot" Commissioner Worley stated he felt the condition should he plainly stated that it "shall not be more than three feet (3') above sidewalk grade" so there would be no exceptions At the request of the Commission the Secretary read the proposed amendment as originally recommended with the exception that the concrete requirement had been replaced by the landscaping requirement, as follows: "On reverse corner lots, a six foot fence may be located anywhere on the lot except in those areas comprising the required front yard provided a triangular area for safety vision purposes is provided on the side street side of such lot One angle of said triangular area shall be formed by the intersecting of the rear lot line and the side lot line on the side street side of said reverse corner lot The sides of such triangle forming the corner angle shall each be fifteen feet (15 ) in length, measured from the aforementioned corner angle. The base of the triangle shall be a straight line connecting the last two mentioned points which are fifteen feet (15') distant from the intersection of the rear and side property lines Such triangle shall be landscaped and permanently maintained No such landscaping and/or structures, or combination thereof, shall exceed three feet (3') in height as measured from the adjacent sidewalk " There being no written communications and no oral protests the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was then moved by Commissioner Hickey, seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No. 322 recommending approval of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance No 90, Section 125 9 as revised and just read by the Secretary, to the City Council. The following roll call vote was taken. TO WIT ALL AYES REVIEW OF ACTION RE: ZONE CHANGE NO. Z-147, INITIATED BY CYPRESS PLANNING COMMISSION - The Chairman announced the next item of business was a review of action on Zone Change No. Z-147 to rezone approximately 38 acres of property from P -D (Planned Development) to P -C (Planned Commercial), generally located at the southwest corner of Ball Road and Valley View Street, initiated by the Cypress Planning Commission The Secretary of the Commission read Staff Report PC#66-26 which outlined the background of the subject zone change, stating it had been referred back to the Planning Commission due to the fact additional information had been received by the City Council at their public hearing This additional information being that one of the property owners of the property involved protested the zone change at the City Council meeting and it had been disclosed that the Arlan Development Company representing the Harvey property, was in the process of attempting to lease land at the southeast corner of Valley View Street and Katella Avenue to a major commercial user. He stated that if the Arlan Company were successful, and the City had already rezoned the subject property, it might prove to be an excessive amount of such zoning He also stated the staff upon receipt of this information had recommended to the City Council that they withhold rezoning the subject property until the Arlan Company had further details on how much land was needed for the use and what type use they would have The Secretary further stated that the staff still felt the rezoning should be withheld until the amount of property the Arlan Company is going to request be rezoned is determined, then the City could decide how much of the subject zone change area should be rezoned or whether to rezone any at all at the southwest corner of Ball Road and Valley View ST He further stated the staff felt, if an excessive amount of such zoning were created by rezoning the subject property, and the Arlan Company applied for rezoning already having a tenant signed, and obtained the zoning, it might create an amount that the City would not have enough potential to support Commissioner Hickey asked, if the property were rezoned and a portion used, then could the remaining portion be rezoned again for another use The Secretary stated it could be done Commissioner Harvey asked about whether or not the Arlan Company would fulfill their plans Discussion followed regarding the question Commissioner Harvey had presented with the Secretary explaining the progress the company is making as reported to him Commissioner Baroldi stated he felt it would be better to have someone from the Arlan Company at the meeting to give them as many facts as possible regarding their progress It was moved by Commissioner Baroldi to continue consideration of Zone Change No. Z-147 till the next meeting of the Commission April 21st 1966 and to ask for someone from the Arlan Company to appear at the meeting to give as much information as possible on the progress they are making in respect to the commercial center Commissioner Worley stated he agreed with Commissioner Baroldi's suggestion and seconded the motion Commissioner Hickey stated he felt the motion was good, but felt that the company may not wish to disclose some of the facts- however he stated he would go along with the suggestion Commissioner Harvey stated he felt the request was in effect for a "show of faith" Commissioner Baroldi stated that in his motion he meant to ask them to appear to give indications regarding the progress not a list of specific prospective tenants The following roll call vote was taken on the motion to continue to the meeting of April 21st: TO WIT• ALL AYES CONSIDERATION OF RELOCATION PERMIT NO. 33, VALE HOMES, INC. The Chairman announced the next order of business was consideration of an application for Relocation Permit No 33 to relocate Model No 802 from the Larwin model site at Moody Street and Lincoln Avenue to Lot 78 of Tract 5537 between Juanita Street and Holder Street, requested by Vale Homes, Inc , 9300 Wilshire Blvd , Beverly Hills, California The Secretary of the Commission read Staff Report PC#66-27 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval He then submitted pictures of the home to be relocated to the Commission for review The City Attorney read the section of the City Code which states the findings the Commission must make before approving an application for Relocation Permit The City Engineer brough up discussion about actually moving the houses on the City streets stating at the present time there were no specific restrictions and provisions set out in the City Code or any other ordinances regarding the damage caused to City streets, utility poles and lines, etc Commissioner Worley stated, in the experience he had had with housemovers, he found they were insured for such damages and usually contacted the Police Department before moving the houses on the City streets Discussion followed regarding the possibility of providing regulations by adopting an ordinance to control the actual moving of houses over City streets Commissioner Hickey asked if conditions could be placed on the relocation permit in question to control these items The Secretary stated that the City Attorney had reported that since there was no present ordinance controlling the actual moving of the structure the City could not impose such conditions Commissioner Hickey stated that the housemover's insurance probably would cover all damages caused to such property while the structure is being moved Commissioner Hickey then stated he felt the Commission should act on the relocations in question and then, at the end of the meeting, direct the staff to study and prepare an ordinance regarding such provisions The City Attorney stated, that if the staff were directed to study the matter, then the City Attorney could look into the City's liability It was then moved by Commissioner Baroldi and seconded by Commissioner Worley to approve Relocation Permit No 33 subject to the conditions outlined in the Staff Report PC#i66-27 Commissioner Worley suggested that a condition requiring the exterior of the building to be repaired be added Commissioner Baroldi stated he would like such a condition included in his motion to approve Commissioner Worley, who seconded the motion, agreed to add such a condition THe Commission unanimously carried the motion to approve the permit subject to the following conditions: 1 Secure Building, Electrical, Plumbing, and Sewer Permits 2 Install new house numbers after relocation 3 Raise water heater so that burner is a minimum of 24' above the floor 4 Rebuild garage, one hour fire wall and garage door header to meet minimum Code requirements 5. Properly hook up dishwasher. 6 If air conditioning unit is used, install proper condensate drain 7 Have entire gas piping system pressure tested prior to final inspection 8 Install screens on all sliding glass doors 9 Provide certificate from certified, bonded termite control agency prior to securing building permit. 10 Prior to securing a Building Permit, the applicant shall post a bond in the amount of $2,500 naming the City of Cypress as obligee. The bond shall be conditioned upon guaranteeing completion on or before the 180th day from the date of issuance of the Building Permit 11. All damages which occur while house is moved shall be repaired to meet minimum code requirements 12 The location of the buildings shall conform to the plot plan submitted 13 The exterior of the structure shall be repainted The following roll call vote was taken on the motion to approve: TO WIT• ALL AYES CONSIDERATION OF RELOCATION PERMIT NO. 34, VALE HOMES, INC . The Chairman announced the next item of business was consideration of application for Relocation Permit No 34 to relocate Model No 302 from the Larwin model site at Moody Street and Lincoln Avenue to Lot 77 of Tract 5537, between Juanita Street and Holder Street, requested by Vale Homes, Inc , 9300 Wilshire Blvd , Beverly Hills, California The Secretary of the Commission read Staff Report PC#66-28 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval It was moved by Commissioner Baroldi seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried Relocation Permit No 34 be approved, subject to the following conditions. 1. Secure Building Electrical Plumbing and Sewer Permits 2 Install new house numbers after relocation 3 Raise water heater so that burner is a minimum of 24" above the floor 4 Make up kitchen hood vent to code requirements 5 Properly hook up dishwasher 6 Properly patch fire wall, garage to house 7 If air conditioning unit is used, install proper condensate drain 8 Have entire gas piping system pressure tested prior to final inspection 9 Provide certificate from certified, bonded, termite control agency prior to securing building permit 10 Prior to securing a Building Permit the applicant shall post a bond in the amount of $2,500 naming the City of Cypress as obligee The bond shall be conditioned upon guaranteeing completion on or before the 180th day from the date of issuance of the Building Permit 11 All damages which occur while house is moved shall be repaired to meet minimum code requirements 12 Install screens on sliding glass doors 13 The location of the buildings shall conform to the plot plan submitted 14 The exterior of the structure shall be repainted CONSIDERATION OF RELOCATION PERMIT NO. 35 VALE HOMES INC.. The Chairman announced the next item of business to come before the Planning Commission was consideration of an application for Relocation Permit No 35 to relocate Model NO 402 from the Larwin model site at Moody Street and Lincoln Avenue to Lot 76 of Tract 5537, between Juanita Street and Holder Street requested by Vale Homes, Inc , 9300 Wilshire Blvd , Beverly Hills, California The Secretary of the Commission read Staff Report PC#66-29 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval It was then moved by Commissioner Hickey seconded by Commissioner Borders and unanimously carried to approve Relocation Permit No 35 subject to the following conditions 1 Secure Building, Electrical, Plumbing, and Sewer Permits 2 install new house numbers after relocation 3 Raise water heater so that burner is a minimum of 24" above the floor 4 Install sufficient under floor access entries 5 Properly repair one hour fire wall garage to house. 6 Provide certificate from certified, bonded termite control agency prior to applying for a Building Permit 7 All damages which occur while house is moved shall be repaired to meet minimum code requirements 8 If air conditioning unit is used, install proper condensate drain 9 Have entire gas piping system pressure tested prior to final inspection 10 Prior to securing a Building Permit the applicant shall post a bond in the amount of $2 500 naming the City of Cypress as obligee The bond shall be conditioned upon guaranteeing completion on or before the 180th day from the date of issuance of the Building Permit 11 Install screens on sliding glass doors 12 The location of the building shall conform to the plot plan submitted 13 The exterior of the structure shallbe repainted CONSIDERATION OF RELOCATION PERMIT NO 36; VALE HOMES,INC The Chairman announced the next order of business was consideration of an application for Relocation Permit No 36 to relocate Model No 702 from the Larwin model site at Moody Street and Lincoln Avenue to Lot 2 of Tract 5537, between Juanita Street and Holder Street requested by Vale Homes Inc 9300 Wilshire Blvd Beverly Hills California The Secretary of the Planning Commission read Staff Report PC#66-30 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval It was then moved by Commissioner Baroldi, seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried to approve Relocation Permit No 36, subject to the following conditions. 1 Secure Building Electrical, Plumbing, and Sewer Permits 2 Install new house numbers after relocation 3 Install water heater to code requirements 4 Properly hook up kitchen sink and dishwasher 5 Properly repair garage to house one hour fire wall 6 If air conditioning unit is used, install proper condensate line and receptor 7 Have entire gas piping system pressure tested prior to final inspection 8 All damages which occur while house is moved shall be repaired to meet the minimum code requirements 9 Provide certificate from certified, bonded termite control agency prior to securing a building permit 10 Prior to securing a Building Permit, the applicant shall post a bond in the amount of $2,500 naming the City of Cypress as obligee The bond shall be conditioned upon guaranteeing completion on or before the 180th day from the date of issuance of the Building Permit 12 Install screens on all sliding glass doors 13 The .exterior of the structure shall be repainted CONSIDERATION OF RELOCATION PERMIT NO 37; VALE HOMES, INC. The Chairman announced the next item of business before the Commission was consideration of an application for Relocation Permit No 37 to relocate Model No 902 from the Larwin model site at Moody Street and Lincoln Avenue to Lot 1 of Tract 5537 between Juanita Street and Holder Street, requested by Vale Homes Inc 9300 Wilshire Blvd , Beverly Hills, California The Secretary of the Commission read Staff Report PC#66-31 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation 6f approval It was moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner Baroldi and unanimously carried to approve Relocation Permit No. 37 subject to the following oonditions• 1 Secure Building, Electrical, Plumbing, and Sewer Permits 2 Install new house numbers after relocation 3 Raise water heater so that burner is a minimum of 24" above the floor 4 Provide means to vent dryer to outside 5 Properly repair one hour fire wall, garage to house 6 Remove non -conforming wiring and eidctrical fixtures from under stairway 7 If air conditioning unit is used, install proper condensate drain 8 Have entire gas piping system pressure tested prior to final inspection 9 Provide certificate from certified bonded termite control agency prior to securing building permit 10 Prior to securing a Building Permit the applicant shall post a bond in the amount of $2 500 naming the City of Cypress as obligee The bond shall be conditioned upon guaranteeing completion on or before the 180th day from the date of issuance of the Building Permit 11 All damages which occur while house is moved shall be repaired to meet minimum Code requirements 12 Make up kitchen hood vent to Code requirements 13 Install screens on sliding glass doors 14 The location of the buildings shall cofi6orm to the plot plan submitted 15 The exterior of the structure shall be repainted CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 5782, ROBERT H. GRANT & COMPANY The Chairman announced the next item was continuation of consideration of Tentative Tract Map No 5782, consisting of 20 R-3 lots, approximately 4 8 acres generally located on the west side of Valley View Street approximately 300 North of Cerritos Ave , requested by Robert H Grant & Company, 1665 So Brookhurst, Anaheim, California The Secretary of the Commission read Staff Report PC#66-32 which stated that the applicant was redrawing the map at the request of the staff and had requested another continuation until the next regular meeting of the Commission April 21st, 1966 It was moved by Commissioner Baroldi seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried to continue consideration of Tentative Tract Map No 5782 to the next meeting of the Commission, April 21, 1966, as requested CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE NEED FOR ORDINANCE REGULATING MOVING OF STRUCTURES BEING RELOCATED ON CITY STREETS* The Secretary of the Commission stated the only other item of business was whether the Commission wished the staff to investigate the possibility of adopting a Relocation Ordinance regulating the actual moving of relocated structures on City streets He stated the staff could check to see what regulations the City now has and what the City lacks in regulations, then they could prepare an Ordinance to cover what is lacking It was moved by Commissioner Baroldi and seconded by Commissioner Borders to direct the Secretary and staff to make such a study Commissioner Worley stated he felt if the City was covered as far as liability was concerned, then there was no need for such an Ordinance Commissioner Baroldi stated his motion was only directing the staff to prepare a study for the Commission The Secretary of the Commission asked if, when the study is made, the staff discovers a void in some other area than the City's liability the Commission wished this brought to their attention in the study or if they only wished the City s liability studied Commissioner Hickey stated he would prefer an overall study of the problem to find the weak points It was then moved by Commissioner Baroldi, seconded by Commissioner Hickey and unanimously carried that Commissioner Baroldi's original motion and Commissioner Borders' second be withdrawn, with the consent of Commissioner Borders It was then moved by Commissioner Baroldi, seconded by Commissioner Borders and unanimously carried to direct the staff to make a general study of all aspects of the relocating of structures and prepare a report for the next meeting of the Commission, April 21st, 1966 ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, it was moved by Commissioner Hickey, seconded by Commissioner Borders and unanimously carried the meeting adjourn at 8:50 p m ATT CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMION TAF THE PLANNING COMMIS ON MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS HELD April 21, 1966 The Planning Commission of the City of Cypress met in regular session on Thursday April 21 1966 at 7.30 plm , in the Council Chambers, 5311 Orange Avenue Cypress, California, Vice Chairman Borders presiding PRESENT. Ferreira, Hickey, Worley and Borders ABSENT: Baroldi Also present were. City Attorney, James Erickson. Public Works Director/ City Engineer, Art Schatzeder• and Secretary of the Planning Commission, George Putnam. MINUTES It was moved by Commissioner Ferreira, seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried the Minutes of April 7, 1966 be approved as mailed CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF ACTION RE: ZONE CHANGE NO Z-147, CYPRESS PLANNING COMMISSION: The Vice Chairman announced the next item of business was continuation of review of action regarding Zone Change No Z-147 to rezone approximately 38 acres of property from P -D (Planned Development) to P -C (Planned Commercial), generally located at the southwest corner of Ball Road and Valley View Street, initiated by the Cypress Planning Commission COMMISSIONER BAROLDI ARRIVED AT 7:33 P M AND TOOK HIS CHAIR ON THE PODIUM The Secretary of the Planning Commission presented Staff Report PC#66-33 which informed the Commission that a joint meeting between the Planning Commission and City Council for the purpose of meeting with representatives of the Harvey properties, had been scheduled in the near future The report further stated that this meeting would provide an opportunity for the people representing the Harvey properties to outline their proposed development program. therefore Mr Shapiro would not appear at this meeting of the Planning Commission, as the Commission had requested at their previous meeting The Secretary then stated the staff recommendation was that the Planning Commission send a Minute Action to the City Council indicating that the Commission's report to the Council would follow the joint meeting It was moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and carried to continue the review of action for Zone Change No Z-147 till the next regular meeting of the Commission, May 5 1966 by the following roll call vote: AYES 4 COMMISSIONERS Ferreira, Hickey, Worley, and Borders NOES. 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN• 1 COMMISSIONERS• Baroldi CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 5782, ROBERT H GRANT AND COMPANY. The Vice Chairman stated the next order of business was continuation of consideration of Tentative Tract Map No 5782, consisting of 20 R-3 lots, approximately 4 8 acres generally located on the west side of Valley View Street, approximately 300 north of Cerritos Avenue, requested by Robert H Grant & Company, 1665 So Brookhurst, Anaheim, California The Secretary of the Planning Commission presented a written communication from Richard L Owen, of the Robert H Grant Company, requesting that Tract Map 5782 be withdrawn The Secretary stated the only action necessary would he to receive and file the communication It was then moved by Commissioner Worley seconded by Commissioner Baroldi and unanimously carried to receive and file the communication REPORT FROM SECRETARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION:RE: RELOCATIONS: The Secretary of the Commission reported to the Planning Commission, reviewing the action and discussion that had taken place at the last Planning Commission meeting regarding possible revision of existing regulations regarding relocations He then stated, according to the Commissioners' comments at the last meeting, it appeared there were three main questions regarding the existing regulations which should be referred to the City Attorney these being. 1 Does the City, by virtue of the granting of a relocation permit allowing relocated structures to move upon City streets assume any liability for damage created to private property and/or public utility facilities? 2 Are the moving companies required to have insurance and bonds by another agency i e State or County? 3 Would it be of value fbr the City to require bonds insuring the City against such liability if they are required to he insured or bonded by another agency? The City Attorney stated that the City assumes no liability, by granting relocation permits, for damage created to private property and/or public utility facilities by the housemover in the process of moving the structure upon City streets He stated that no other agency, such as State or County, has control over housemoving companies He then informed the Commission that the City could adopt an ordinance regarding the moving of structures upon City streets in order to be doubly sure the City is covered regarding liability however, it was not necessary The Secretary of the Commission then reported on the existing Relocation Ordinance regulations and other cities regulations regarding relocations He stated that some of these cities require the housemover to deposit a cash bond with the City for damage to public property and if no damage is caused, then the bond is returned to the housemover after the structure has been relocated The Secretary then stated that the staff felt that the Commission should recommend to the City Councilthe expansion of the present Relocation Ordinance to add conditions to cover some deficiencies in the Ordinance He further stated the staff felt there were potential problems if no revisions were made- therefore the staff recommendation was that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they direct the staff to study and prepare an ordinance expanding on the existing Relocation Ordinance of the City Commissioner Worley stated he felt the City would not be held liable in any way and felt there was too much red tape and too many ordinances already and did not like to see more ordinances recommended unless they were necessary Commissioner Baroldi stated he felt the question was to determine whether an ordinance was or was not necessary He then asked what the City's position would be if, for instance, a house was moved into the City and because of a faulty street, the house was dropped and damaged The City Attorney replied that the City would not be liable in such a case Commissioner Borders asked, in regard to houses being moved through the City if it was a courtesy of the Police Department to provide a police escort The Secretary stated that the Chief of Police did not like to provide escorts in such cases, but would if a traffic jam was caused The City Attorney then informed the Commission that if the City did decide to provide a police escort for housemovers and something happened to cause damage to private or public property and/or the structure being moved then there might be a question as to the City's liability Commissioner Hickey asked if moving structures on City streets was possibly already covered under the Vehicle Code The City Attorney renlied that it might be so he did not know for sure Commissioner Borders asked what areas of the City might be most susceptible to relocations The Secretary pointed out the various areas of the City, most of them being older sections of the City Commissioner Hickey stated that the question brought up by Commissioner Borders was one item he had wondered about He stated he thoughtallowing relocations in these areas which appeared to he the older portions of the City, would tend to keep the standard of living in the areas the same and not improve the areas because "like uses breed like uses It was then moved by Commissioner Baroldi, seconded by Commissioner Hickey and carried that the Commission recommend to the City Council that they direct the staff to make a study of the existing Ordinance to find its weaknesses and prepare an Ordinance to cover them The following roll call vote was taken: AYES• 4 COMMISSIONERS Baroldi, Ferreira, Hickey, and Borders NOES 1 COMMISSIONERS Worley ABSENT. 0 COMMISSIONERS: None DISCUSSION RE: APPLICATION FOR URBAN BEAUTIFICATION GRANT The Secretary of the Planning Commission presented the Commissioners with copies of the Application for Urban Beautification Grant, which had heen prepared by the staff, and stated it would he studied more extensively at the next meeting of the Commission, thus giving the Commissioners time to review the application He then asked the Commission to bring back their suggestions The Commission generally agreed that they felt the Master Street Tree Plan needed improving Commissioner Borders stated he would like to take the matter on himself, as he had time at home and materials to work with to make a study and prepare a Master Street Tree Planting Plan with the help of the City staff in providing him with the present Plan used and other items he might need, at no cost to the City The Secretary stated if the Commission wished to accent Commissioner Borders offer, the action would he to direct the staff to work with Mr Borders on such a program, then the staff could go ahead and help by providing information, materials, and having the necessary printing done Commissioner Hickey stated he felt it was a good idea for Mr Borders to work on the Plan as he was well qualified but Commissioner Hickey further stated he felt Mr Borders should be given as much help as possible in the preparation of the Plan It was then moved by Commissioner Hickey seconded by Commissioner Baroldi and unanimously carried that the City staff and Mr Borders work together on the Master Street Tree Planting Plan and present some report at the next meeting of the Commission In answer to a question from the Secretary of the Commission as to whether it was proper for the City to accept Mr Borders' offer the City Attorney stated that the City staff could utilize any help made available to them Commissioner Borders stated he could have something ready for the next meeting if he received the needed information from the City staff and then briefly explained the procedure he might follow in the preparation of the Plan The City Engineer stated he would be able to furnish the information for Mr Borders, but would not have time to work with him Commissioner Borders stated that, as long as he had the needed information furnished to him, he probably would not need to call on the City Engineer for help ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business t moved by Commissioner Ferreira, secon unanimously carried the meeting adjo ATTEST�„� come before the Commission it was by Commissioner Worley and at 8.0 VI E CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TARY s. THE LANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS HELD May 5 1966 The Planning Commission of the City of Cypress met in regular session on Thursday May 5 1966 at 7.30 p m in the Council Chambers 5311 Orange Avenue, Cypress, California, Vice Chairman Borders presiding PRESENT. Baroldi Ferreira Hickey and Borders ABSENT Worley Also nresent were. City Attorney, Len Hampel, Public Works Director/ City Engineer, Art Schatzeder, and Secretary of the Planning Commission, George Putnam MINUTES. It was moved by Commissioner Baroldi seconded by Commissioner hickey and unanimously carried the Minutes of April 21, 1966 he approved as mailed ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. There were no oral communications presented at this time. ELECTION OF OFFICERS. The Vice Chairman announced the first order of business was election of officers, including Planning Commission Chairman and Vice Chairman as required by Ordinance No 218 of the City of Cypress The Vice Chairman then turned the gavel over to the Secretary who presided over the elections The Secretary asked for nominations for the office of. Chairman of the Planning Commission Commissioner Ferreira nominated Commissioner Baroldi for Chairman Commissioner Borders nominated Commissioner Hickey Upon the motion of Commissioner Ferreira, the Secretary declared the nominations for Chairman closed A secret ballot was cast, after which the Secretary tallied the votes and announced the balloting had resulted in a tie vote Commissioner Hickey moved that a five minute recess be taken to discuss the matter of the tie vote THE SECRETARY DECLARED A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AT 7 36 P M MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY THE SECRETARY AT 7.40 P M The Secretary returned the gavel to the Vice Chairman It was then moved by Commissioner Hickey, seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and unanimously carried to move the Election of Officers to the last item on the Agenda due to the tie vote, and, meanwhile try to contact Commissioner Worley and see if he could attend the meeting 1 PUBLIC HEARING RE: REVISION OF DRAINAGE DISTRICT 3-90 OF THE MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE The Vice Chairman announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider a proposed revision of Drainage District 3 -SQ of the Master Plan of Drainage, which District is bounded generally on the northwest by the Bolsa Chica Channel, on the north by a line approximately 600 feet north of the centerline of Orangewood Avenue, on the east by Knott Street• and on the south and west by the Cypress City boundary, initiated by the Cypress Planning Commission The Secretary informed the Commission that the City Engineer would present the report on this item The City Engineer outlined the boundaries of the district on a map entitled "Drainage District 3 -SQ" He also outlined the proposed revisions as stated in his report to the Commission, those being. "A The difficulty of obtaining right of way for an open channel and the added maintenance costs of this type of drainage facility indicate that an underground conduit system in this District would be more satisfactory B The Orange County Flood Control District has indicated their intention to install an underground box conduit in Orangewood Avenue from the Bolsa Chica Channel to approximately 1320 feet west of Valley View Street, which will be an Orange County Flood Control District facility Since it will not be necessary to include this facility as part of the 3 -SO District facilities, the cost of this facility is not included in the Drainage District fees C A general updating of construction costs to conform with revised facilities is necessary in order to provide adequate funds for the completion of District facilities D Portions of the present District which are outside of the City limits and which are not affected by the provisions of the Master Plan of Drainage should be deleted at this time " He further stated in the report that "The estimated total cost of the facilities necessary for an underground drainage system in Drainage District 3 -SQ is $342 400 The recommended drainage assessment for the 321 acres includdd in the District -$1,070 per acre The drainage fee in Drainage District 3 -SQ as per the existing Master Plan is $660 00 per acre based on a total cost of $173 000 for the construction of an open channel on the north side of Orangewood Avenue, which does not include right of way costs '' The City Engineer also explained that there had been some interest shown in the area involved in the district for development and this had created, what he felt was a necessity for the study and subsequently the revision of the district Mr John Kennedy addressed the Commission asking if the box structure being constructed in the City of Los Alamitos adjacent to Cypress, was being paid for by the City of Cypress The City Engineer replied that the City of Cypress was not paying for the structure it was an Orange County Flood Control District project The Vice Chairman then asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed revision No one addressed the Commission speaking in favor or in opposition to the proposed revision Commissioner Hickey then asked the staff if the Planning Commission should be concerned with the monetary portion of the proposed revision The City Attorney replied that it was within the Commission s discretion to consider and make recommendations regarding the revision in respect to fees and other monetary aspects Commissioner Hickey stated he felt the Commission did not know enough about the fees that they should have more of the details Commissioner Borders asked Commissioner Hickey if he wished to clarify the cost of the project or the assessed value Commissioner Hickey stated he would like the cost of the project clarified Commissioner Borders stated he felt Commissioner Hickey's request was for a breakdown of the cost of obtaining the right of way and the cost of constructing the covered channel (underground conduit) as opposed to the open channel COMMISSIONER WORLEY ARRIVED AT 8 00 P M AND TOOK HIS CHAIR ON THE PODIUM Commissioner Hickey then asked the City Engineer what created the difference between the three figures, specifically $1,070 00, $960 00, and $660 00 per acre The City Engineer explained that the present fee of $660 00 per acre would provide funds for the construction of the open channel, the $960 00 fee per acre would provide funds for the construction of the oven channel and acquisition of right of way for the channel• and the $1 070 00 per acre would provide funds for an underground conduit which would not require acquisition of right of way Commissioner Borders stated he was in favor of underground pipe wherever possible and the cost of maintaining the open channel might add to the total cost enough to bring the figure up to the same or more than the cost of constructing the underground conduit Commissioner Baroldi stated he felt they should consider the developers that might wish to develop the area involved and whether the increased fees would detract from the area, hindering the development, especially of the Planned Manufacturing (P -M) area within the district Commissioner Hickey asked if the high cost of fees would detract from the area making it less desirable to develop The Secretary of the Commission stated that at a recent Council meeting a developer in the 3 -SQ District was told he would have to pay any increased drainage fees if the Council approved his request for an extension of time in recording a final map for a tentative tract The developer was aware of the amount of the proposed increase in the fees and agreed to pay the increase in' fees Commissioner Borders pointed out the fact that very little P -M (Planned Manufacturing) zoning was included in the drainage district being discussed that it was mostly R-1 (One -family Residential) zoning in the area Commissioner Hickey asked Commissioner Baroldi what he had in mind when asking the various questions Commissioner Baroldi asked the City Engineer about the necessary of the revision being made at the present time The City Engineer explained that there was no great rush to make the revision but at the time the study was initiated there had been a number of inquiries regarding an area included in the district, this was not so at the present time The Secretary of the Commission also stated that, if the revision were not completed soon, any developer could file a tentative map on property in the district in the near future and with the revision not already acted on the time required to advertise the public hearing and conduct same before the Planning Commission and City Council, would be greater than the time within which the Commission and Council must act on such a map, and would prevent the City from charging the developer the new increased fees There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Vice Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was moved by Commissioner Hickey, seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and carried the Commission recommend approval of the City Engineer's Report Re: Proposed Revision to Master Plan of Drainage - District 3 -SO including the assessment fee of $1 070 00 per acre, to the City Council, by adopting Resolution No 323 Commissioner Baroldi stated he felt, when it is possible the future of the souther part of the City might be involved the Commission should take more time to consider the revision The following roll call vote was taken on the motion AYES. 3 COMMISSIONERS Ferreira Hickey and Borders NOES. 2 COMMISSIONERS Baroldi and Worley ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS. None CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF ACTION RE: ZONE CHANCE NO Z-147. The Vice Chairman announced the next order of business was the continuation of review of action regarding Zone Change No Z-147, to rezone approximately 38 acres of property from P -D (Planned Development) to P -C (Planned Commercial), generally located at the southwest corner of Ball Road and Valley View Street, initiated by the Cypress Planning Commission The Secretary of the Commission renorted to the Commission reviewing the action taken at the last meeting regarding the proposed joint meeting between the City Council, Planning Commission, and representatives of the Harvey properties He stated that, since that meeting, the Harvey people had been contacted and stated they were not ready to appear at a joint meeting as vet, because they didn t have the answers to many questions but if the Commission had specific Questions, they could direct the Secretary to write to them asking the questions and they would be happy to reply to as many as possible The Secretary then advised the Commission of the various actions they could take those being: 1 Direct the Secretary to write to the Harvey people asking various questions 2 Re -affirm the action the Commission had taken previously, recommending approval of the Zone Change No Z-147 3 Write a report to the City Council stating that, due to other circumstances that were not available at the time of the Commission s public hearing specifically the protest of the property owner of the subject property and the chance that such a commercial center might be developed south of the area, the Commission wishes to recommend that action on Zone Change No Z-147 be terminated More discussion was held in reference to the alternative actions the Commission could take Commissioner Baroldi asked which of the choices the staff felt was best The Secretary replied that the staff felt the City should proceed with the P -C zoning in the subject zone change to reserve the property, until such time as the Harvey property is ready to be developed Commissioner Borders asked the Secretary which of the two areas the staff felt was the best for such zoning The Secretary pointed out the advantages and disadvantages of both Commissioner Hickey asked if the joint meeting was completely off The Secretary replied that as of this time it was definitely off Commissioner Hickey asked the Secretary if he felt the Harvey people would answer questions if the Commission sent them the letter as they had mentioned The Secretary of. the Commission replied that they would probably answer general questions concerning the property Commissioner Hickey then asked what type answers the Secretary felt he would get if such a letter were sent, how much information they could obtain The Secretary stated, if the letter were kept to general questions, he felt he could obtain some information the Commission had been concerned with Commissioner Hickey then stated he felt the best way to act on the matter might be the letter sent to the Harvey people asking general questions Commissioner Baroldi stated he agreed with Commissioner Hickey about the letter being a good idea Commissioner Hickey then stated that in the letter the City s case and position in the matter could be explained and the City_ could ask for their cooperation and help in the matter Commissioner Borders stated he felt the letter would be a good idea It was then moved by Commissioner Hickey, seconded by Commissioner Baroldi and unanimously carried to direct the Secretary to communicate with the Harvey people including in the letter those items mentioned by the Commission during discussion Commissioner Worley asked if some other action should he taken on the item before the Commission, such as to continue the item to the next meeting The City Attorney replied that it might be best to take another formal action on the item It was then moved by Commissioner Worley seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and unanimously carried to continue the review of action on Zone Change No Z-147 until further information is obtained CONSIDERATION OF CITY'S APPLICATION FOR URBAN BEAUTIFICATION GRANT The Vice Chairman announced the next item ob business was consideration of the City of Cypress Application for Urban Beautification Grant The Secretary of the Commission reviewed the action taken at the last meeting, that being that the Commissioners had received a copy of the Application and were requested to study them and present their comments if any at the next meeting of the Commission Also the Master Street Tree Planting Plan had been taken under study by Commissioner Borders, with the approval of the Commission, and a preliminary report was to be presented at this meeting He then stated that the action required by the Planning Commission on the Application was to adopt a Resolution stating that the Planning Commission has found both the beautification program and proposed activities outlined in the program to he fully consistent with the long-range planning objectives of the City of Cypress Commissioner Worley stated he felt he would like more time to study the program before voting on the matter Commissioner Hickey asked the Secretary if action would he necessary at this meeting or if time permitted a possible continuance to the next meeting The Secretary stated he felt the action could be postponed to the next meeting without creating any difficulties Commissioner Hickey then stated he agreed with Commissioner Worley but would like some report from Commissioner Borders about the Master Street Tree Planting Plan he had been working on Commissioner Borders reported on what information he had obtained and themmethod he had used and was using in preparing the Plan He stated he was still working on the Elan and was not ready to submit any report as yet It was then moved by Commissioner Worley seconded by Commissioner Hickey and unanimously carried to continue consideration of the City s Application for Urban Beautification Grant to the next meeting, for further study The following roll call vote was taken. TO WIT: ALL AYES CONSIDERATION OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATION RE. EXTENSION OF VARIANCE NO V-2241 NORMAN AND ELAINE SHAPIRO: The Secretary of the Planning Commission presented a written communication from Norman Shapiro, President,of Dallor Development., INc , regarding Variance No V-224 which had been granted by the Commission previously for Tract No 5903 In the letter Mr Shapiro requests an extension 6f said Variance, they should attach a time limit Commissioner Worley stated he felt a time limit should be specified, possibly to the time limit on the Tentative Tract Map The Secretary then stated that they could state that the Variance expiration date would coincide with the time limit on the Map, therefore, if the Map were extended the Variance would also be extended If the Map expired and was not extended, then the Variance would also expire It was then moved by Commissioner Worley seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and unanimously carried Variance No V-224 he extended to coincide with Tract Map No 5903 The following roll call vote was taken TO WIT. ALL AYES CONTINUATION OF ELECTION OF OFFICERS The Vice Chairman turned the gavel over to the Secretary who presided over the flections The Secretary announced that nominations were open for the office of Chairman of the Planning Commission Commissioner Borders nominated Commissioner Hickey Commissioner Ferreira nominated Commissioner Baroldi Upon the motion of Commissioner Worley, the Secretary declared the nominations closed Ballots were cast the results tallied and the Secretary announced that Commissioner Baroldi had been elected Chairman of the Planning Commission by a 3 to 2 vote The Secretary returned the gavel to the newly elected Chairman Baroldi The Chairman announced nominations were open for the office of Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission Commissioner Hickey nominated Commissioner Borders Commissioner Borders nominated Commissioner Hickey Upon the motion of Commissioner Worley, the Chairman declared the nominations closed Ballots were cast tallied and the Secretary announced the results were that Commissioner Borders had been elected Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission by a 3 to 2 vote ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONER WORLEY EXPLAINED TO THE COMMISSION WHY HE HAD BEEN LATE GETTING TO THE MEETING There being no further business to come b .re the Commission upon the motion of Commissioner Borders, the Chairman .ecla ed the meeting adjourned at 9.30 p m ATTEST F THE P ING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN OF .HE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS HELD May 19, 1966 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cypress was called to order at 7 30 p m on May 19, 1966 by the Chairman of the Planning Commission, Leo Baroldi PRESENT Borders, Hickey, and Baroldi ABSENT Ferreira and Worley Also present were• City Attorney James Erickson Public Works Director/ City Engineer, Art Schatzeder, and Secretary of the Planning Commission, George Putnam CHAIRMAN HAROLD' DECLARED A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AT 7.35 P M TO DISCUSS THE LACK OF A QUORUM THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7.37 P M BY CHAIRMAN BAROLDI Following discussion of the time limit on the various requests on the Agenda of the meeting, to determine when they must be acted on it was moved by Commissioner Borders seconded by Commissioner Hickey and unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting to Thursday, May 26th, 1966, at 7.30 p m The following roll call vote was taken. AYES• 3 COMMISSIONERS• Borders Hickey, and Baroldi NOES 0 COMMISSIONERS None ABSENT. 2 COMMISSIONERS. Ferreira and Worley At 7.50 p m. the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned to Thursday, May 26th, 1966, at 7 30 p m ATTEST. CHAIRMAN OF E PLANNING COMMISSION TAR o THE •LANNING ODMMISSION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS HELD May 26, 1966 The Planning Commission of the City of Cypress met in an adjourned session on Thursday, May 26, 1966 at 7:30 p m in the Council Chambers 5311 Orange Avenue Cypress California Chairman Baroldi presiding PRESENT Borders, Ferreira, Hickey, Holden, Worley, and Baroldi ABSENT. None Also present were• City Attorney James Erickson Public Works Director/ City Engineer, Art Schatzeder, and Secretary of the Planning Commission, George Putnam MINUTES It was moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and unanimously carried the Minutes of May 5 1966 be approved as mailed It was then moved by Commissioner Hickey, seconded by Commissioner Borders and unanimously carried the Minutes of May 19 1966 he approved as mailed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications presented at this time INTRODUCTION OF NEW COMMISSIONER. Chairman Baroldi introduced new Planning Commissioner Ernest Holden who had been appointed by the City Council to fill the unexpired term of Robert C Harvey, who had been elected to the City Council PUBLIC HEARING RE! MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO C-193; INITIATED BY CYPRESS PLANNING COMMISSION The Secretary of the Commission announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider modification of conditions of Conditional Use Permit No C-193 an optional design subdivision generally located at the northeast corner of ball road and Walker Street, initiated by the Cypress Planning Commission known as Modification of Conditional Use Permit No C-193 The Chairman declared the public hearing open The Secretary read Staff Report PC#66-36 which outlined the proposed modification reasons for said modification and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed modification Mr Robert Galloway, consulting engineer for Andover Land Company, addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the proposed modification. No one appeared speaking in opposition Discussion of the proposed layout of the tract followed, with the Secretary of the Commission displaying the tract map and explaining how the map would be changed. There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed The Chairman of the Commission then asked if the staff had forwarded the Planning Commission's feeling that proposal "B" would be the best of the proposals offered The Secretary replied that he had forwarded the Commission's feeling to the City Council however the Council had chosen to accept the fourth alternative proposal of the developer, that being the dedication of a total of 2 acres for park purposes and providing all street dedications and improvements It was then moved by Commissioner Hickey seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 324 recommending approval of the Modification of Conditional Use Permit No C-193 to the City Council modifying condition number 2 to read as follows: '2 The developer will dedicate a total of 2 acres for park purposes and will provide all street dedications and improvements " The following roll call vote was taken AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Ferreira, Hickey, Holden, and Baroldi NOES. 2 COMMISSIONERS• Borders and Worley ABSENT 0 COMMISSIONERS None PUBLIC HEARING RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO C-194, PETER GORZEMAN, (BY ROBERT M GALLOWAY)* The Secretary of the Commission announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for conditional use permit to allow the construction of model homes for Tract No 6194 on property generally located at the northeast corner of Walker Street and Ball Road requested by Peter Gorzeman 9922 Walker Street Cypress California (Robert M Galloway, 504 N Newport Blvd , Newport Beach, California, authorized agentl known as Conditional Use Permit No C-194 The Chairman declared the public hearing open The Secretary then read Staff Report PC#66-37 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed use Mr Robert Galloway, civil engineer representing Andover Land Company addressed the Commission stating they had read the staff report and recommended conditions and were in agreement with them No one spoke in opposition to the request The Secretary then stated the City Engineer had requested that a change be made in the staff's recommended condition number '4 ' to read as follows. '4 The ultimate utilities shallbe installed in Ball Road prior to paving ' The Commission generally agreed to amend said condition There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was then moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner Hickey and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 325 recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit No. C-194 to the City Council subject to the conditions outlined in Staff Report PC##66-37 with the following additions to conditions 4 and 7. "4 The ultimate utilities shall be installed in Ball Road prior to paving ' " 7 The parking area as indicated on the plan shall be of asphaltic concrete, striped and maintained The following roll call vote was taken: TO WIT: ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARING RE. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO C-195; LARWIN COMPANY (FOR DELL HOMES, OWNER OF PROPERTY): The Secretary announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for bonditional use permit to allow the construction of a temporary model homes sales area for Tract No 4377, which is generally located at the southeast corner of Valley View Street and Orange Avenue requested by Larwin Company 9300 Wilshire Blvd , Beverly Hills, California (for Dell homes, owner of property), known as Conditional Use Permit No C-195 The Chairman declared the public hearing open The Secretary read Staff Report PC#66-38 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the requested use permit Mr Lee Goldin addressed the Commission representing the applicant, speaking in favor of the request, and stating the applicant agreed with the conditions recommended by the staff in their staff report except condition number 2 which states. "2 That a bond be posted with the City of Cypress guaranteeing removal of the sales office, play area, parking area and all sidewalks which will not ultimately be used with the total development of Tract 4377. This bond amount shall he established by the City staff He stated they felt the existing Tract bonds, which had been posted for the Tract, should cover removal of all the items listed in the recommended condition The Secretary of the Commission explained those items covered by the existing bonds for Tract 4377 and those items not covered by the bonds, such as removal of the sidewalks in some areas etc. The City Attorney then advised the Commission that the existing bonds were merely to insure the public improvements of the tract being completed and did not extend to cover other work, such as that listed in the proposed condition Mr Goldin then stated that they merely asked for a clarification of condition number 2 The Secretary explained that the proposed condition was meant to cover the removal of those items not covered by the public improvement bonds already posted on the Tract Mr Goldin stated he felt that the items mentioned were covered by the grading bond The Secretary of the Commission asked the City Engineer if the City required a grading bond The City Engineer replied that the City did not require a bond for grading Mr John Iwashita 4742 Crescent Avenue addressed the Commission representing his father, who owned property to the east of. the Tract involved Mr Iwashita asked if the Conditional Use Permit was limited to the five model homes The Commission replied that it was only for the five models. Mr Iwashita then stated that a problem with drainage had arisen last winter and he wanted to know if the drainage of the tract would he taken care of The Secretary explained that the drainage would be solved for the models at this time and, when the tract was built, the drainage on that portion would be solved Commissioner Borders asked the Secretary if he still felt condition number 2 should remain as a condition to the granting of the Conditional Use Permit The Secretary replied that the staff felt the items stipulated in the condition should be required The Secretary of the Commission then asked the City Engineer if the City could require removal of the items listed if the condition were not attached The City Engineer stated that the City would have no basis to require their removal without the condition Commissioner Hickey suggested that the Commission might, in place of condition 2, require that "all walks within the area shall he removed as determined by the City Staff Commissioner Hickey then asked about the solution of the drainage problem in the area The City Engineer explained the problem at the present time and stated the solution of the drainage of the entire tract could not he solved at this time, but when the remainder of the tract is built, the drainage problem would be solved Commissioner Hickey then asked about the problem of possibly having to removed some of the landscaping of the models in the future in order to solve the drainage problem for the entire tract Mr Goldin replied that this item was one of those expected with the construction of model homes and sales offices The City Attorney suggested the Commission could add to condition number 2 "to the extent there are improvements on the model site that are not covered by other bonds, they shall be guaranteed by additional bonds' He then stated that the existing bonds could be reviewed to determine if the other items of condition 2 would be covered, if not, then the additional bond would be required The City Engineer stated there had been a problem with drainage last winter on Mr Iwashita's property, and explained his possible solution to the problem would be to add a condition to the Conditional Use Permit requiring the construction of a ditch to relieve the drainage problem temporarily, until the remainder of the tract is constructed at which time the drainage problem would be solved He then stated he had checked with the City Attorney who had advised him that it would be possible to add such a condition. Mr Goldin stated he did not feel it was a proper condition, that it dict not 'apply to the request as it was not on their property and the problem would not be created by them The City Attorney then stated that, if the improvements proposed by this Conditional Use Permit would not have any affect on the drainage of the area, then the condition could not be attached but if it did affect the area, the condition could he attached Commissioner Worley stated he felt the development,as proposed, would not create drainage on the adjacent property, if anything it would make it drain better therefore, he did not feel the condition should be required There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed Commissioner Borders asked the City Engineer if he thought the model site would create a hazard to drainage to the adjacent property The City Engineer replied that he felt it would create such a hazard Commissioner Hickey stated he felt that once the grade was brought to the ultimate it would create drainage onto the property easterly of the tract The City Engineer replied that the general drainage of the tract would be westerly It was then moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner Holden and carried the Commission adopt Resolution No. 326 approving Conditional Use Permit No C-195, subject to the conditions outlined in Staff Report PC#66-38, with conditions "2" and "4" modified to read as follows: "2 That a bond be posted with the City of Cypress guaranteeing removal. of the sales office, play area, and parking area which will not ultimately be used with the total development of Tract 4377 This bond amount shall be established by the City staff The drainage, as shown, is not approved "4 The parking area, as indicated on the plan, shall be of asphaltic concrete striped and maintained in an orderly manner." Commissioner Hickey then stated he felt condition number 2 should be changed to agree with the opinion of the City Attorney, that being to study the present bonds to see if they would cover the items mentioned in condition 2 then if they were not covered require a bond Commissioner Hickey then stated that he felt condition number 6 did not apply to the use of the homes being used for models after the Conditional Use Permit expires Mr Goldin explained that drainage plans for the entire tract, including those homes used as models, had been approved by the City Engineer under the Tract Map 4377. Commissioner Worley stated he wished to stay with his original motion and asked for the question The following roll call vote was taken AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Borders, Ferreira, Holden, Worley, and Baroldi NOES• 1 COMMISSIONERS• Hickey ABSENT 0 COMMISSIONERS None Commissioner Hickey then asked that his dissenting opinion, which he expressed prior to voting be entered into the record that he felt the opinion of the City Attorney should be considered PUBLIC HEARING RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO C-196; REV PETER C CASLIN, PASTOR, ST. IRENAEUS CATHOLIC CHURCH: The Secretary announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for conditional use permit to allow a carnival for a three day period June 10 1966 to June 12, 1966, inclusive, on property generally located at 9201 Grindley Street requested by Rev Peter C Caslin, Pastor, St Irenaeus Catholic Church, P 0 Box 347 Cypress, California, known as Conditional Use Permit No C-196 The Chairman declared the public hearing open The Secretary then read Staff Report PC#66-39 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed use No one addressed the Commission speaking in favor or in opposition to the request Commissioner Worley asked about the City's liability in case of any accident during the carnival The City Attorney advised the Commission that the City would not be held liable for any such accident. Commissioner Holden then asked if the City would be responsible for providing special or extra police protection The City Attorney stated that special policemen would not be provided, only possible additional patroling of the area if the number in attendance required There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was then moved by Commissioner Borders, seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 327 approving Conditional Use Permit No C-196, subject to the conditions outlined in Staff Report PC#66-39. The following roll call vote was taken. TO WIT. ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARING RE: VARIANCE NO V-231; PETER D GORZEMAN BY ROBERT M GALLOWAY: The Secretary of the Planning Commission announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for variance from the Zoning Ordinance No 90 to permit structures to be closer than five feet (5') to the property line, specifically, to permit garages to be constructed with a three foot (3') side yard for a minimum of six feet (6') between adjacent garages• also requesting a ten foot (10') setback for garages not entered from the front (i e side entrance) on property generally located at the northeast corner of Walker Street and Ball Road, requested by Robert M Galloway, 504 N Newport Blvd , Newport Beach, California, for Peter D Gorzeman, 9922 Walker Street, Cypress, California, owner of property, known as Variance No. V-231. The Secretary then read a letter from the applicant withdrawing the Variance and then informed the Commission that the only action necessary would be to receive and file the communication It was then moved by Commissioner Worley seconded by Commissioner Borders and unanimously carried the communication be received and filed CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 5957; STARDUST LANDS, INC . The Secretary stated the next item of business was consideration of Tentative Tract Map No 5957, consisting of 132 R-1 lots, 28 2 acres, generally located at the southwest corner of Orange and Walker Street, requested by Stardust Lands, Inc , 1665 South Brookhurst, Anaheim. The Secretary then read Staff Report PC#66-40 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff's recommended conditions The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the map Mr Richard Owen, representing Stardust Lands Inc. addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the proposed subdivision, explaining a display his company had prepared entitled "Comparison of House Design and Lot Size' and "Exhibit "A" and distributing some brochures on type of homes they are building in other cities He then stated that they were in agreement with the conditions recommended by the City staff In regard to the smaller lot size, Mr Owen listed other cities that allow a lot size of 5,000 sq ft and reminded the Commission that they had recently approved two other subdivisions for the City under the Optional Design Standards, which is what they had proposed to build under. The Commission and Mr Owen discussed the type of homes that would be constructed in the tract The City Attorney then read the requirements of the City Code regarding the processing of a tract map under the Optional Design Standards, specifically Sections 25-53 to 25-56 inclusive Commissioner Borders stated he felt there should be a park located within the subdivision, rather than the applicant's proposal of acquiring park land or donating funds for park development amounting to 6% of the value of the R-1 portion of the tract being used in the area of the community park which would be located approximately 600' away from the southeasterly corner of the subdivision Commissioner Hickey asked if all the conditions of the City Code for building under Optional Design Standards had been met in the case in question, regarding land area required, gross density, etc The staff informed Commissioner Hickey that it was the Commission's duty to determine whether the tract map met the conditions of the Code Commissioner Hickey then stated he felt recommended condition number 3 should read "A 6' high block wall approved by the City staff ...." Commissioners Worley and Baroldi stated they felt the suggested additional phrase in condition 3 "approved by the City staff" should not be added to the condition Commissioner Baroldi then stated that, because of the applicant s past performance in constructing fences, the added phrase was not necessary Commissioner Worley stated he felt the existing Building Code would cover the construction of the block wall The City Attorney then read other sections of the City Code regarding Optional Design Standards and again read some of the conditions that must be met to construct under Optional Design Standards Commissioner Borders stated he did not feel the tract met the requirements of the City Code in providing new or unique plans except the treatment of the sidewalks, which he was very much in favor of The Secretary then stated that the Planning Commission could require the funds for use in an existing park site within the neighborhood Mr Owen then stated he felt the amount of funds required would not buy enough land to create a nice park, but could be used to improve the existing park site within the neighborhood. Commissioner Worley then stated he felt it would be in the best interest of the City to require the funds rather than another park, which would take land off of the tax rolls Commissioner Hickey then asked if the word "neighborhood' had been used in the City Code, and, if so, if the Code gave a definition of the word The City Attorney again read the section of the Code which included the word "neighborhood' The Secretary of the Commission then explained that the usual definition of "neighborhood" was "a combination of several subdivisions commercial areas, parks, and schools' , all these making up a "neighborhood". Commissioner Baroldi stated he felt he would like to see the proposed homes adjacent to the Civic Center rather than leave the land fallow Commissioner Borders stated he felt the Code stated that the park should be located within the neighborhood within the subdivision and he felt they should not differ from that Commissioner Hickey stated he felt the Code should be more specifically stated adding a provision about areas near the subdivision being improved when they are in close proximity. He then stated he was not in favor of the park being located within the tract Mr Owen stated he felt funds to improve a park within the area would be best, and stated that they would be agreeable if the Commission wished to require the funds to be spent within a certain proximity of the tract boundaries The City Attorney then informed the Commission that they could recommend to the City Council that a change he made in the Ordinance to clarify the Optional Design Standard section It was then moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and carried the Commission approve Tentative Tract Map No 5957, subject to the following conditions 1 Walker and Orange Streets shall be dedicated and fully improved in accordance with the General Plan for the City of Cypress. 2 Drainage fees shall be paid in accordance with the Master Plan of Drainage 3 A 6 high block wall shall be constructed along Walker Street, the full south tract boundary from Tract 5223 to Walker Street, and along the boundary of all the C-0 zoning adjacent to the proposed single-family uses 4 Orange Avenue parkways shall be planted in accordance with the Park and Parkway Policy of the City of Cypress A sprinkler system shall be provided, the design and location shall be approved by the City Engineer 5 Drainage shall be solved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 6 Access rights along all single-family lots backing up or siding on Walker Street shall be dedicated to the City of Cypress 7. All interior streets shall be fully improved and dedicated to the City 8 Street light energy charges shall be paid 9 Street tree fees shall be paid 10 All interior tree wells shall be bricked in 11 The street trees on the interior streets shall be of a fifteen (15) gallon size The street tree fees shall reflect the fifteen gallon size 12 All 56 and 60 streets shall have 40 of paving curb to curb 13 All 47' streets shall be improved as indicated by Tentative Tract 5957 14 k ttree foot (3') parkway easement shall be granted to the City immediately behind the sidewalks on all 47' streets excepting this 3' parkway shall not be more than 8' from the curb line 15 The centerline of "A" Circle and Hanford Dr shall be at right angles 16 Street lights and fire hydrants shall be located back of the sidewalks where sidewalks are adjacent to curbs 17 The developer shall either acquire park land as approved by the City, with the land area being equivalent to 6% of the gross area of the residential area of the Tract or donate funds equivalent to 6% of the value of the gross residential area of the Tract 18 All homes shall be constructed with a 20' rear yard unless otherwise approved by the City staff 19 If funds are collected, the use of such funds shall be limited to the improvement of existing park sites in the immediate neighborhood of the subdivision Commissioner Borders again stated he felt the map did not meet any of the requirements of the Code as it now exists The City Attorney then stated that if the subdivision complies with the Optional Design Standards of the City Code, it will comply because of the fact that it adds to the park facilities within the area by the developer contributing money for the development of a park within the area The following roll call vote was taken on the motion to approve. AYES. 5 COMMISSIONERS: Ferreira, Hickey, Holden Worley and Baroldi NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Borders ABSENT. 0 COMMISSIONERS• None CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATION OF CITY OF CYPRESS APPLICATION FOR URBAN BEAUTIFICATION GRANT: The Secretary announced the next item of business was continuation of consideration of the City of Cypress Application for Urban Beautification Grant He then explained that the necessary action the Planning Commission must take in order to proceed with the Application was the adoption of a Resolution stating the Commission had found the Beautification Program and proposed activities to be fully consistent with the long-range planning objectives of the City of Cypress He read the proposed Resolution to the Commiss ion It was then moved by Commissioner Worley seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 328 which states the Commission's findings that the Beautification Program and proposed activities are fully consistent with the long-range planning objectives of the City of Cypress The following roll call vote was taken. TO WIT: ALL AYES ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 9:55_ m. J \=A. CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST SECRETAR 1.F THE ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS HELD June 2, 1966 The Planning Commission of the City of Cypress met in regular session on Thursday June 2 1966 at 7:30 p m in the Council Chambers, 5311 Orange Avenue, Cypress, California, Chairman Baroldi presiding PRESENT: Borders, Ferreira, Hickey, Holden, Smith, Worley, and Baroldi ABSENT. None Also present were. City Attorney, James Erickson, Public Works Director/ City Engineer, Art Schatzeder• and Secretary of the Planning Commission, George R Putnam ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. There were no oral communications presented at this time INTRODUCTION OF NEW COMMISSIONER Chairman Baroldi introduced new Planning Commissioner John W. Smith who had been appointed by the City Council to fill the unexpired term of Carl De Pietro, who had resigned due to illness CONSIDERATION OF RENEWAL OF HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT NO. 18, R. M. BREES The Secretary stated the first item of business before the Commission was consideration of renewal of Home Occupation Permit No 18, o allow the use of a portion of a home for an office, located at 5501 Cynthia Circle requested by R M Brees, 5501 Cynthia Circle, Cypress, California The Secretary then read Staff Report PC#66-41 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval For a two year period, and being subject to the other two conditions originally imposed It was moved by Commissioner Smith seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried to approve the renewal of Home Occupation Permit No 18, subject to the conditions as outlined by the staff The following roll call vote was taken. TO WIT• ALL AYES CONSIDERATION OF RENEWAL OF HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT NO. 19, MARCEL E. HUARD. The Secretary stated the next item of business was consideration of renewal of Home Occupation Permit No 19 to allow the use of a portion of a home as an office for a refrigeration service business, located at 5781 Lime Avenue, requested by Marcel E Huard, 5781 Lime Avenue, Cypress, California The Secretary then read Staff Report PC#66-42 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation that the permit be renewed for a period of two years, subject to the conditions originally imposed on said permit It was moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner Hickey and unanimously carried to approve the renewal of Home Occupation Permit No 19, subject to the conditions as outlined by the staff The following roll call vote was taken; TO WIT ALL AYES June 2, 1966 PUBLIC HEARING RE. AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 90, SECTION 125 22 CHRISTMAS TREE SALES., AMENDING SUBSECTION A The Secretary of the Commission announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance No 90 Section 125 22 CHRISTMAS TREE SALES- amending Subsection A' to read as follows. "A. That authorization for such use has first been granted by the Planning Department Initiated by the Cypress Planning Commission The Chairman declared the public hearing open The Secretary then read Staff Report PC#66-43 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman then asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed amendment No one appeared in favor of the amendment and no protests were heard Commissioner Baroldi stated he was in favor of the proposed amendment, as he felt the staff was capable of reviewing and authorizing such uses and, by doing so, would save time for the applicant, as well as for the City Council Commissioner Worley stated he felt the requests should be considered before an official body of the City Commissioner Smith stated he disagreed with Commissioner Worley, that he felt because it was a temporary use, the staff should process the applica- tions He further stated that, if the change proved to be unsatisfactory, he felt it could always be changed back to require City Council approval Commissioner Hickey stated he could see Commissioner Worley's point The point being, what if the staff denied one or two requests? What would be the applicant's recourse in such a case? Could they appeal to some other body? The Secretary read the Criteria for Christmas Tree Lots from the Zoning Orcinance, and stated that, as the requirements are now set forth, the City Council must issue the permit if the applicant meets all the Criteria of the Zoning Ordinance The City Attorney reaffirmed the Secretary's statement Commissioner Smith asked if the Planning Commission could recommend approval of the amendment with a provision being made so, if the request was denied by the staff, it could be appealed to the Planning Commission and/or City Council The City Attorney replied that the Commission could recommend that a provision be inserted for an appeal by it being set forth in the Resolution recommending approval He stated the procedure would be for the Commission to adopt a Resolution recommending adoption of the Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance as proposed with the addition of a provision for appeal to the City Council There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Borders and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 329 recommending approval of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance No. 90 Section 125 22 CHRISTMAS TREE SALES., amending Subsection "A' to read as follows "A That authorization for such use has first been granted by the Planning Department ", AND further recommending that the City Council consider adding a provision for appeal The following roll call vote was taken TO WIT ALL AYES .Trine 2 19hh PUBLIC HEARING RE, AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 90, SUBSECTION "W' OF SECTION 114.2 PERMITTED BUILDINGS AND USES - The Secretary of the Commission announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance No. 90 Subsection "W" of Section 114 2 PERMITTED BUILDINGS AND USES , to read as follows Mobile Home Courts, minimum area three (3) acres, maximum density fifteen (15) mobile homes per acre, subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit." Initiated by the Cypress Planning Commission The Chairman declared the public hearing open. The Secretary then read Staff Report PC#66-44 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed amendment No one appeared speaking in favor of the proposed amendment and no protests were heard Commissioner Smith asked what the difference in density was between the R-4 and H -C zoning districts in regard to mobile home courts The Secretary explained the difference between the R-4 and H -C zoning district regulations in reference to trailer parks Commissioner Hickey stated it was his personal opinion that mobile home courts in the H -C zone were an outgrowth of old mobile home courts that being that they were used for the temporary parking of trailers, whereas the use today is to park the trailers for a long period of time in most cases He stated he did not feel such a use should be allowed in the H -C (Highway Commercial) zone Commissioner Smith asked Commissioner Hickey if he had a possible solution to the trailers being parked in one court for a long period of time Commissioner Hickey stated that possibly a condition could be added setting forth a certain time limit that the trailer may be parked He then stated he did not feel there was anything the Planning Commission could do at this meeting The Secretary explained the difference between what the mobile home industry called "independent" and "dependent" trailers. He then stated he felt, with the new requirement of the Use Permit, the Planning Commission would have more control over what type trailers would be allowed in each mobile home court. Commissioner Borders stated he felt the Secretary had covered what he had in mind, and, he further felt the use was in keeping with the H -C zone There being no written communications and no oral protests the Chairman declared the public hearing closed Commissioner Smith stated he felt the density requirement had been worked out very well Commissioner Worley stated he felt the only item before the Commission was whether they wished to place a requirement of a Conditional Use Permit on mobile home courts in the H -C (Highway Commercial) zone He then asked the staff's reason for asking for the amendment requiring the Conditional Use Permit Ju -le 2. 1966 The Secretary stated the proposed amendment would give the Planning Commission more control over the layout, amount of open area landscaping, etc , of mobile home courts in the H -C zone and stated a Conditional Use Permit was already require for such a use in the R-4 (High Density Multiple - family Residential) zone It was then moved by Commissioner Borders, seconded by Commissioner Hickey and carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 330 recommending approval of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance No 90, Subsection Id" of Section 114 2 PERMITTED BUILDINGS AND USES• to the City Council to read as follows Mobile Home Courts, minimum area three (3) acres, maximum density fifteen (15) mobile homes per acre, subject to the issuance of a Concitional Use Permit ' Commissioner Boreers stated he thought the Commission should have more control over architecture, landscaping, and circulation in regard to mobile home courts Commissioner Worley stated he felt any property owner who wished to have a trailer park would not create a bad development, because it would be his livelihood He then stated he felt there should be more density allowing more trailers per acre. Commissioner Borders stated that he felt with the area needed for streets and circulation in such a cevelopment, the maximum of 15 mobile homes per acre would work out best Commissioner Smith asked Commissioner Borders what he thought the minimum width and depth of a trailer space should be Commissioner Borders explainer his thoughts on the minimum size of a trailer space Commissioner Hickey stated he had secondee the motion bec ause it would upgrade the Zoning Ordinance by requiring a Conditional Use Permit and he further felt the Ordinance should be reviewed to determine if any further changes or additions should be made The following roll call vote was taken• AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS Borders, Ferreira, Hickey, Holden, Smith, and Baroldi NOES. 1 COMMISSIONERS: Worley ABSENT • 0 COMMISSIONERS None PUBLIC HEARING RE. ZONE CHANGE NO. Z-14' , LARWIN FUND: The Secretary announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for amendment to the Zoning Ordinance No 90 to change the zone from C-0 (Commercial Office) to C-1 (Neighborhood Stores) on property generally located at the southwest corner of Ball Road and Moody Street requested by Larwin Fund, 9300 Wilshire Blvd , Beverly Hills, California, known as Zone Change No Z -14R The Chairman reclaree the public hearing open The Secretary then read Staff Report PC#66-45 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of denial Mr Lee Goldin, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission, speaking in favor of the proposed rezoning stating that they were in a position to develop the property and did not feel the fact that an adjacent piece of property had not developed, should keep another property owner from developing his property. He further stated they felt the proposed zoning was the best zoning for the property No one appeared speaking in opposition. Commissioner Hickey stated he felt the Commission had to try to keep a proper balance in zoning and not zone each piece of property to commercial when it is asked for because it will 'reduce taxes" He felt that somebody somewhere had to make a valid judgment regarding such cases .Tiro i 1 QAA The City Attorney advised the Commission that zoning has as its principal function the protection of adjacent land uses and businesses and by its own nature has inherent within a certain amount of monopolistic characteristics and aspects He then advised the Commission that they may zone for the protection of adjacent land uses and businesses as long as they do not create a monopoly in the classic sense of a monopoly Commissioner Smith asked why the proposed use had not been considered for the soitheast corner of Moody and Ball, which was already zoned C-1 Mr Goldin replied that it depended upon the lessee and stated that his company had considered every piece of commercial they owned in the City before asking for more commercial zoning Commissioner Hickey suggested to Commissioner Smith that another reason why the lessee of the applicant had wanted the particular corner in question might be that the traffic flow was greater, with easy ingress and egress Commissioner Borders suggested that the Commission might change the southwest corner of Moody and Ball to C-1 and then change the southeast corner to C-0 in place of the existing C-1, stating he felt that might be the logical solution Mr Goldin stated that with the inability to develop the C-0 they already had, the solution suggested would leave them with more C-0 zoning, which might not be developed He then stated he felt the highest and best use of the property on the southeast corner was as it was presently zoned C-1 therefore he would be against the trade of zones as suggested Commissioner Worley asked if there was an existing block wall adjacent to the R-1 zoning abutting the area in question The Secretary replied that there was an existing block wall fence Commissioner Worley then stated he felt the tenant of the service station if that was the proposed use, would want a block wall around his use also thus creating an alley between the zones therefore he was against the request Mr Goldin stated that no block wall wouldle constructed between the C-1 and C-0 zone if approved Commissioner Baroldi asked if the area requested could be reduced if the proposed use was a service station The Secretary replied that the reduction might hamper the function of a service station, that the area requested was the normal size for a service station Commissioner Baroldi then asked if the tenant did not want the other corner which was already zoned C-1 Mr Goldin replied that the tenant definitely did not want the other corner Commissioner Hickey stated he felt the tenant probably thought the subject corner was best due to the traffic flow He also stated he felt the possible solution might be the trading of zones on each corner The Commission asked the Secretary if the area of both corners was the same The Secretary stated that the southeast corner, which was zoned C-1, was somewhat larger than the southwest corner, which was under consideration There being no written communications and no oral protests the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was moved by Commissioner Hickey that the Commission adopt a Resolution recommending denial of Zone Change No Z-148 and recommending the zoning on the southeast corner, which was C-1, be traded with the zoning on the southwest corner, which was C-0 June 2. 196 The City Attorney advised the Commission that the only action that co -ad be taken now was to act on the item before them which was Zone Change No Z-148 He then stated that, after that action was taken, then the Commission could direct the staff to initiate a change of zone, if the Commission so desired The City Attorney then advised the Commission that due to new legislation, if the Commission recommends approval of a zone change, then it must go on to the City Council for consideration however, if the Commission denies the zone change it does not automatically go on to the City Council for consideration, but must be formally appealed to them in order to bring the item before them, otherwise the Commission s denial is final Commissioner Hickey then withdrew his motion Mr Goldin then stated he did not feel it was proper swap' zones It was moved by Commissioner Hickey, seconded by Commissioner Borders and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 331 denying Zone Change No Z-148, by the following roll call vote. TO WIT• ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARING RE. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO C-197, PETER VAN RUITEN. The Secretary announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for conditional use permit to allow the construction of a mobile home park on property generally located at the southeast corner of Bloomfield and Lincoln in the H -C (Highway Commercial) zone, requested by Peter Van Ruiten, 9432 S Bloomfield, Cypress, California, known as Conditional Use Permit No C-197 The Secretary then reported that he had received a written request for a continuance of thirty days from the applicant, and proceeded to read the letter The Chairman declared the public hearing open It was moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and unanimously carried to continue the public hearing for consideration of Conditional Use Permit No C-197 until the first meeting in July which would be July 7, 1966 PUBLIC HEARING RE. VARIANCE NO. V-232, HOWARD B & ETHEL M CURRY The Secretary announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for variance to allow a six foot (6 ) block wall fence to be built to the side property line on property generally located at 6154 Fred Drive, requested by Howard B & Ethel M Curry, 6154 Fred Drive, Cypress California known as Variance No V-232 The Chairman declared the public hearing open The Secretary then read Staff Report PC#66-47 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman then asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed variance Mr Curry, applicant, addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the request Mrs Raymond Gomez 6164 Fred Drive Cypress addressed the Commission stating she was a neighbor of Mr Curry s and was in favor of the variance There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed Commissioner Hickey stated he was in favor of the variance in question June 2 1966 • Commissioner Holden asked the applicant about the gate shown on his plot plan and asked if it would be proper to ask the applicant to obtain a permit to break the curb, in order tC' move his boat, or boat trailer, over the curb, through the gate, and into the backyard Mr Curry stated he planned to use two wooden blocks to get the boat or boat trailer, over the curb Commissioner Hickey then stated he was not aware of the gate when he had stated he was in favor of the variance and went on to state that he felt the driveway and gate would defeat the whole purpose of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that had recently been passed by the Commission and City Council He also stated that some child or other pedestrian might be hit while Mr Curry was backing into or coming out of the gate in the fence Commissioner Borders stated he felt that the problem of gates had been created before when other properties in the City located on corners had constructed such gates and used the same for the purpose the applicant was requesting He further stated he felt there should be no more traffic hazard in the case in question than in the other areas of the City he had mentioned, where it was allowed Commissioner Worley stated he felt the City Engineer might require the applicant to put in a driveway, which might be expensive Commissioner Hickey stated he felt that the fact that such gates were being constructed in other areas of the City did not condone the Planning Commission approving such a hazardous use Commissioner Smith asked if a motion to approve could add a condition that the existing west wall must remain The staff advised Commissioner Smith that such a condition could be added Commissioner Baroldi asked what would happen to the restrictions put on the variance if the home were sold The City Attorney advised Commissioner Baroldi that the City had a form that the applicant would be required to sign, stating that the wall must come down, or he made to comply with the Code requirements, if certain changes were made and this signed form is recorded with the County Recorder for the property in question and remains in effect regardless of who owns the property Commissioner Borders suggested that a possible solution would be to move the gates to a different location in the fence and add a condition that 'no curb break may be added" The applicant stated that the location of the gates proposed by Commissioner Borders might be prevented by the height of the grade of his lot, and, possibly would ruin some of his landscaping Commissioner Baroldi asked the applicant if it would be agreeable with him if the Commission granted the Variance with the condition that 'there shall be no curb break and no vehicle may drive over the sidewalk" Mr Curry replied that he would be in favor of the conditions that "no curb break may be constructed and no vehicle may drive over the sidewalk' It was moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Ferreira to approve Variance No V-232 subject to the conditions outlined in Staff Report PC#66-47 with the following added conditions: "3 No automobile or truck traffic shall be allowed for ingress or egress through the gate or over the sidewalk as indicated on the plot plan 4 No driveway is allowed from the gate 5 The existing westerly wall shall remain " Commissioner Smith stated he felt the inside wall should remain June 2, 1966 The City Engineer suggested to the Commission that they add a condition that "if any damage to the curb or sidewalk is caused, the owner shall agree to repair any such damages" Commissioner Hickey stated he felt condition number 5 should not be included, that the applicant should be allowed to remove the fence Commissioner Borders stated he did not feel the existing west wall should he required to remain The following roll call vote was taken on the motion to approve subject to the conditions of the staff report with the addition of conditions 3 through 5. AYES. 3 COMMISSIONERS. Ferreira, Holden and Smith NOES• 4 COMMISSIONERS• Borders, Hickey, Worley, and Baroldi ABSENT 0 COMMISSIONERS None Motion failed to carry It was then moved by Commissioner Hickey, seconded by Commissioner Borders and carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 332 approving Variance No V-232 subject to the conditions of Staff Report PC#66-47, with the addition of the following conditions: 3 No automobile or truck traffic shall be allowed for ingress or egress through the gate or over the sidewalk, as indicated on the plot plan 4 No driveway is allowed from the gate The following roll call vote was taken: AYES 5 COMMISSIONERS Borders, hickey, Holden, Worley, Baroldi NOES. 2 COMMISSIONERS Ferreira and Smith ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Mr Jack Leneker, 4504 Middlebury, Cypress, addressed the Commission regarding a comment made about the owner of property obtaining financing for trailer parks during the discussion of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding Mobile Home Courts earlier in the meeting He stated that he had information that the mobile home manufacturers were doing ciuite a bit of financing of trailer parks and there was no problem obtaining such financing DISCUSSION OF STUDY OF REGULATIONS FOR MOBILE HOME COURTS. Commissioner Hickey suggested that the Commission direct the staff to look into the regulations for mobile homes in the Zoning Ordinance, especially in regard to dependent and independent types of trailers, financing etc. to see if the Ordinance3need updating The Commission generally agreed that the study should be made and the Chairman so directed the staff ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Commission the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 9.40 p F THE PLANNING COMMISSION �L. CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS HELD June 16, 1966 The Planning Commission of the City of Cypress met in regular session on Thursday, June 16, 1966, at 7 30 p m in the Council Chambers located at 5311 Orange Avenue, Cypress, California, Chairman Baroldi presiding. PRESENT- Ferreira Hickey Holden, Smith, Worley and Baroldi ABSENT Borders Also present were. City Attorney, James Erickson, Public Works Director/ City Engineer A W Schatzeder• and Secretary of the Planning Commission, George Putnam MINUTES - It was moved by Commissioner Hickey seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and unanimously carried, the Minutes of May 26, 1966 he approved as mailed ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - There were no oral communications presented at this time CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO 6222, JOHNNY JOHNSON Tentative Tract Map No 6222, consisting of 169 lots 27 50 acres, generally located between Walker Street and Grindlay Street, approximately 600 feet north of Orange Avenue, requested by Johnny Johnson, 8151 Orangethorpe Avenue, Buena Park California was presented for consideration by the Commission COMMISSIONER FERREIRA REQUESTED PERMISSION TO LEAVE THE PODIUM DUE TO THE FACT HE WAS THE OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE COMMISSION GRANTED HIS REOUEST The Secretary of the Commission presented a communication from the applicant, Mr Johnny Johnson requesting that this item he continued to allow sufficient time to solve the drainage problems in the area of the proposed subdivision The Secretary of the Commission explained that the drainage problems in the area were in connection with the extension of the Newman Street Storm Drain and the 2-A Drainage Area in general He further explained that the present facilities in the 2-A Drainage District were adequate only to drain properties that are presently developed, or that have maps filed and have entered into an agreement with the City for construction of the drainage facilities. The Sec- retary stated that, in order to obtain adequate drainage for this area, it would he necessary to provide facilities to route water from Newman Street through a drain to he constructed across the subject property and ultimately into an existing channel In addition to the drainage problem in this area, the Secretary stated that there was a redesign problem to be resolved in connection with the half streets which have been proposed for the tract The Secretary explained that the City previously had rejected any half streets, therefore the streets proposed in this tract would have to conform to City standards It was moved by Commissioner Worley seconded by Commissioner Hickey and unanimously carried that consideration of Tentative Tract Map No 6222 he continued until the meeting of July 21, 1966, to allow sufficient time to resolve drainage and design problems The following roll call vote was taken - AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS Hickey, Holden Smith Worley, and Baroldi NOES 0 COMMISSIONERS. None ABSENT 2 COMMISSIONERS• Borders and Ferreira COMMISSIONER FERREIRA RETURNED TO HIS CHAIR ON THE PODIUM CONSIDERATION OF ABANDONMENT OF ALLEYS, INITIATED BY CYPRESS PLANNING COMMISSION. The abandonment of alleys hounded by Lincoln Avenue on the south Electric Street on the west, Philo Street on the north and Walker Street on the east was presented to the Commission for consideration The Secretary of the Commission pointed out the location of the two alleys proposed for abandonment to the Commission Commissioner Worley stated that he thought at least one of the alleys, the east -west alley, should remain and should be increased in width to 30 feet to allow an area for delivery trucks to make deliveries to the establishments located along the alley The Secretary of the Commission replied that in order to improve the alley, condemnation proceedings would have to be initiated and the process was long and involved and the results would serve no purpose He stated that it appeared that the alleys in question were a waste of property that could be used to benefit the City The Secretary then stated that delivery trucks would still be able to obtain egress and ingress to establishments off Electric Street It was moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner Holden and unanimously carried that the staff he directed to make a study of the area proposed for abandonment and submit their comments and recommendations to the Planning Commission, to he considered at its meeting of July 7, 1966 The following roll call vote was taken: TO WIT ALL AYES GENERAL DISCUSSION RE: C -C (COMBINING CIVIC CENTER) ZONING IN VICINITY OF CYPRESS JUNIOR COLLEGE. The Secretary of the Planning Commission introduced discussion in reference to establishing a C -C (Combining Civic Center) zone in the vicinity of the Cypress Junior College and reported that the purpose of this type of zoning was to enable the City Council and Planning Commission to exercise control over architecture and structures proposed in this zone The Secretary stated that the C -C zone would act as an overlay zone for the existing C-2 (General Commercial) zoning as well as other zones in the area surrounding the Junior College the advantage of this being that any construction proposed in the commercial area or other uses surrounding the site, and located within the C -C Zone, would have to comply with the architecturaland structural requirements of the City The Secretary further stated that any requirements would be in cooperation with adjacent jurisdictions in which the zoning lies namely, Buena Park, and the County of Orange Following discussion of the area and the present zoning, it was moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried to direct the Staff to make a study of the area in the vicinity of the Cypress Junior College, which would encompass areas in the County of Orange, City of Buena Park, as well as in the City of Cypress, and report their comments and recommendations regarding possible C -C zoning to the Planning Commission The following roll call vote was taken TO WIT• ALL AYES RESOLUTION RE. CHANGING REGULAR MEETING PLACE OF THE CYPRESS PLANNING COMMISSION The Secretary of the Commission reported that the Commission would be required to change their regular meeting place to another location in order to allow construction of the Civic Center to proceed on property presently occupied by the Council Chambers The City Attorney stated that the procedure would be to adopt a Resolution setting forth the location of the new meeting place, which was to be the Oxford Junior High School, located at 5172 Orange Avenue, Cypress It was moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner Hickey, and unanimously carried that Resolution No 333 be adopted changing the regular meeting place of the Planning Commission from the present Council Chambers, located at 5311 Orange Avenue, to the Oxford Junior High School, located at 5172 Orange Avenue, to be effective July 1st, therefore, as of the next Planning Commission meeting July 7 1966 The following roll call vote was taken. TO WIT: ALL AYES ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, it was moved by r C Commissioner Ferreira seconded by Commissioner Smith and unanimously carried the meeting adjourn at 8.10 p m AT F TH ''L' ING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN OF E PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE PLANNINC COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS HELD July 7, 1966 The Planning Commission of the City of Cypress met in regular session on Thursday, July 7 1966, at 7 30 p m in the Council Chambers, 5172 Orange Avenue Cypress, California, Chairman Baroldi presiding PRESENT: Borders Ferreira, Hickey, Holden, Smith, Worley, and Baroldi ABSENT. None Also present were. City Attorney Leonard Hampel Assistant Civic Engineer, James Williams representing the Engineering Department, and Secretary of the Planning Commission, George R Putnam MINUTES. Commissioner Hickey stated that a correction should be made in the Minutes of .June 2nd, 1966,on page 6, paragraph 6 under the Public Hearing on Zone Change No Z-148 the word 'value" should replace the word 'valid in the last sentence It was then noved by Commissioner Hickey seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried, the Minutes of June 2, 1966 be approved as corrected It was then moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and unanimously carried the Minutes of June 16 1966 he approved as mailed ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr John Kennedy addressed the Commission requesting that Item No 7 on the .Agenda pertaining to the abandonment of a one foot strip along Evergreen Avenue, he moved up on the Agenda to be considered as Item No 1 Commissioner Worley suggested that anyone else in the audience who wished to address the Commission on any other matter under the Oral Communications portion of the Agenda not connected with the proposed abandonment, should address the Commission at this time Mr Joseph Zambelle, 4517 Lemon Avenue, Cypress, addressed the Commission stating his opposition to the proposed abandonment proceedings The Chairman of the Commission explained to Mr Zambelle that the Item that he was speaking about was to be considered as the first Item on the Agenda There were no further Oral Communications presented at this time In response to Mr John Kennedy's request, it was moved by Commissioner Borders, seconded by Commissioner Hickey and unanimously carried that the Commission move Item No 7 on the Agenda to be considered as Item No 1 The following roll call vote was taken. TO WIT. ALL AYES CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED ABANDONMENT OF A ONE FOOT STRIP ON NORTHERLY SIDE OF EVERGREEN AVENUE AND EASTERLY SIDE OF EVERGREEN DRIVE, IN TRACT 5337• The Secretary of the Planning Commission addressed the Commission explaining the action the Planning Commission could take, stating the action was required by Section 65402 of the State Planning Act and asked the City Attorney to explain said Section The City Attorney addressed the Commission and read portions of Section 65402 of the State Planning Act stating that the only question before the Commission at the present time was whether or not the proposed street vacation would be in conformity with the Master Plan of the City that the Commission's action would he advisory and a public hearing would he required before the City Council prior to any abandonment Mr Roger York, 9522 South Walker Street, Cypress, asked several questions in reference to the proposed abandonment The Secretary of the Commission explained how and why this action was before the Commission Commissioner Baroldi asked the Secretary to explain the City Council action The Secretary explained the Council's action Mr. York stated he understood that it had to be set into motion before either side could do anything. The Secretary replied that Mr York was correct Commissioner Baroldi asked if the St Irenaeus Church had an attorney that could or should be at the meeting Mr York stated he had expected the Church's Attorney to be present, however, stated it was obvious that he was not present Commissioner Baroldi then asked if the Church s Attorney and the City Attorney could meet during the interim period, as the Commission had forty days before action must be taken on the matter Mr York replied that the Church's Attorney had requested a meeting with the City Attorney It was then moved by Commissioner Smith to continue consideration of the abandonment until the first meeting in August in order to allow time for the Attorneys to meet Commissioner Baroldi asked if the continuation would be within the forty day period in which they had to act. The staff replied that the first meeting in August would be before the forty day period had expired Commissioner Baroldi asked Mr York, as the representative of the people present, if he understood the explanation of the Planning Commission's position in regard to the only action they were required to take Commissioner Baroldi asked Mr York if the continuance to allow the Attorneys time to meet would be agreeable with the majority of the people he represented Mr York replied that the Church had requested such a meeting at the City Council meeting, therefore, he saw no reason why it should not be acceptable Commissioner Hickey seconded the motion made by Commissioner Smith Commissioner Hickey asked the City Attorney to explain the motion and the forty day period in which action must be taken, and, to also explain the courses of action the Commission could take He then stated the Commission was taking the two weeks to allow more time for study of the matter He stated he would like the City Attorney to explain what the motion meant. The City Attorney proceeded to explain that the Commission had forty days from the date of the meeting in which to forward their opinion to the City Council, and the information obtained during the meeting between the Attorneys would he brought out and certainly could he considered by the Commission in rendering their advisory opinion to the Council He stated that it was his understanding of the motion that it was to allow the time for the meeting between the Attorneys, from which more information could be obtained and brought back to the Commission for consideration Upon a question from the audience as to when the item would be before the Commission again the Commission replied that it would he the first meeting in August which was August 4th The Chairman asked for a roll call vote on Commissioner Smith's motion to continue the consideration of the abandonment until the first meeting in August, in order to allow time for the Attorneys to meet, which had been seconded by Commissioner Hickey The following roll call vote was taken. TO WIT • ALL AYES After the Planning Commission had taken action, the following people addressed the Commission asking various questions in regard to the City's action on the proposed abandonment Mr Cluck - No address given Mr Mazur, 4961 Lemon Avenue, Cypress Mrs Eileen Lowe 4421 Nestle Avenue, Cypress Mr John Kennedy - No address given Mr York (who had already addressed the Commission) Mrs Patricia Rice, 5411 Bishop Street Cypress Mr G B Fassard - No address given The Planning Commission and staff answered the questions presented by the above listed people and indicated they felt that, in the period previous to the meeting of August 4th, the meeting between the Church and City's staff could hopefully solve the problem COMMISSIONER HICKEY REQUESTED A RECESS AND IT WAS GRANTED AT 8:20 P M THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER AT 8.30 P M , ALL COMMISSIONERS BEING PRESENT CONSIDERATION OF HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT NO 7 - RENEWAL #2; MR MARION T JUSTICE• The Secretary announced the next item of business was consideration of a request to renew a home occupation permit which allows the use of a home as an office for a contractor, located at 9632 Salisbury Lane, requested by Mr Marion T Justice, 9632 Salisbury Lane Cypress California known as Home Occupation Permit No 7 - Renewal 4#2. The Secretary of the Commission read Staff Report PC#66-48 for Home Occunation Permit No 7 - Renewal #2 which outlined the nature of the request the fact that a complaint had been received during the past year regarding Mr Justice storing equipment and materials in his yard and an inspection of the premises conducted by the Planning Department had found no such storage; and the staff recommendation of approval Mr Justice, applicant, addressed the Commission stating he had two of his neighbors present who would testify in his behalf if the Commission so desired Commissioners Holden and Hickey asked what the nature of the complaint received against Mr Justice had been The Secretary explained that the complaint received had not been from one of the applicant's neighbors but from an occupant of a residence approximately half to three quarters of a mile away, the complaint regarding storage of materials and equipment in the yard had proved to be unfounded upon inspection of the premises Upon a question from the Commission, Mr Justice's neighbors on north and south, who were present at the meeting stated they had no objection whatsoever to his operation It was moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner Holden and unanimously carried to approve the Renewal of Home Occupation Permit No 7 subject to the following conditions* 1 That the permit be issued for a period of no longer than one year, when, at such time the staff will make a report to the Planning Commission concerning the applicant s adherance to all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance 2 That all building, zoning, and other regulations he complied with The following roll call vote was taken* TO WIT: ALL AYES CONSIDERATION OF HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT NO. 21 - RENEWAL #1; OTTIS E. BRADLEY: The Secretary announced the next item of business was consideration of a request to renew a home occupation permit which allows the applicant to conduct a "Cleanup, Hauling & Dirt Moving" business from a home located at 10331 Angela Avenue, Cypress, requested by Ottis E Bradley, 10331 Angela Avenue Cypress California known as Home Occupation Permit No 21 - Renewal #1 The Secretary read Staff Report PC#66-49 which outlined the nature of the request• the fact that two or three complaints had been received within the past year regarding the parking of heavy equipment on the new property, and the staff recommendation that a hearing be held and immediate property owners notified of the request for the extension of Home Occupation Permit at which time they could be heard, as well as the applicant, on the subject of whether to renew the Permit or not Commissioner Hickey asked what the Home Occupation Permit was for The Secretary replied that the business conducted was a cleanup of new tracts, etc Mr Bradley, applicant, addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the request Commissioner Baroldi asked what size the trucks were that Mr Bradley used in his business Mr Bradley stated there was one 3/4 ton truck and one 1/2 ton truck. Commissioner Hickey stated he felt, because there were complaints in the past, that a hearing should be held to hear any such complaints It was then moved by Commissioner Hickey and seconded by Commissioner Holden to continue consideration of the Renewal of Home Occupation Permit No 21 to the next regular meeting of the Commission, July 21, 1966, to allow time for the immediate property owners to be notified of the hearing on the renewal Commissioner Smith asked that a modification be made to the motion to allow the applicant to continue his business until the next meeting, when further action would he taken Commissioner Hickey, who had made the motion, agreed to the modification Commissioner Bolden then stated he felt a condition should be attached if the renewal was approved, to have the property checked occasionally to determine if the applicant was meeting all the conditions of approval Commissioner Hickey stated he did not feel the Planning Commission was a policing body, that the hearing would allow the neighbors, who had observed the applicant's operation all year, to appear if they had any objections, as well as allowing the applicant Mr. Bradley to speak in his behalf The following roll call vote was taken on the motion to continue to the next meeting for a hearing, meanwhile allowing the applicant to continue his business until further action is taken: TO WIT ALL AYES CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF ACTION RE: ZONE CHANGE NO Z-147, INITIATED BY CYPRESS PLANNING COMMISSION: The Secretary announced the next item of business was a continuation of review of action regarding Zone Change No Z-147, to rezone approximately 38 acres of property from R-1 (One -family Residential) to P -C (Planned Commercial) generally located at the southwest corner of Ball Road and Valley View Street, initiated by the Cypress Planning Commission The Secretary of the Commission reviewed previous action that had been taken originally by the Planning Commission as reported in Staff Report PC#66-50 in which the staff recommended that the Commission forward a report to the City Council asking that they take affirmative action in rezoning the southwest corner of Ball Road and Valley View Street to a Planned Commercial (P -C) zoning district to reserve adequate land resources for the future development of a sub -regional shopping center within the City of Cypress. Ms Lizzie Knox real estate broker, addressed the Commission stating she had been working on the sale of the subject property and had two good prospects for a sub - regional shopping center, but stated she would be more likely to sell the property if it were zoned Planned Commercial Mr Jack Leneker Acting President of the Cypress Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Commission, stating the Chamber had received several inquiries from developers who would like to develop the subject property with such a shopping center Mrs Virginia Stonebreaker resident of Cypress, addressed the Commission, sneaking in favor of the rezoning of the property to Planned Commercial, stating she would like to see a large shopping center in that area Mr Leonard Kolasian addressed the Commission asking if the Harvey property was already zoned commercial The Chairman replied it was not Commissioner Hickey stated he was in favor of recommending approval of the Zone Change to the City Council Commissioner Smith also stated he was in favor of the change of zone Commissioner Worley stated he felt the property in question was a prime area and that the commercial zoning across the street would be another drawing factor Commissioner Baroldi asked the Secretary if he had received any answer from the Arlan Company in regard to the letter sent by the Commission asking for information in regard to the development of their property The Secretary stated that he had not received any answer to the communication It was then moved by Commissioner Hickey, seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and unanimously carried the Commission again recommend approval of Zone Change No Z-147 to the City Council to change the zone from R-1 (One -family Residential) to P -C (Planned Commercial) on the southwest corner of Ball Road and Valley View Street to reserve adequate land resources for the future development of a sub -regional shopping center within the City of Cypress The following roll call vote was taken: TO WIT• ALL AYES REPORT RE. ZONE CHANGE NO Z-148, LARWIN FUND. The Secretary announced the next item of business was a report regarding Zone Change No Z-148 to change the zone from C-0 (Commercial Office) to C-1 (Neighborhood Stores) on property generally located at the southwest corner of Ball Road and Moody Street requested by Larwin Fund, 9300 Wilshire Blvd , Beverly Hills, California which had been referred hack to the Planning Commission from the City Council The Secretary of the Commission read Staff Report PC#66-51 which outlined the past action taken on the subject Zone Change. Mr Lee Goldin, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the proposed change of zone He stated that, at the meeting where Zone Change No Z-148 had been considered and deniad which was for the immediate 150' x 150' corner, he had thought most of the concern the Planning Commission had mentioned in their reason for denial was the property which would be left on the corner in the C-0 zoning if the corner were rezoned C-1 therefore his company had submitted the subject Zone Change requesting that the remaining portion of the corner he rezoned also to C-1, thus rezoning the entire corner if both zone changes were approved Commissioner Hickey expressed his concern about losing C-0 (Commercial Office) zoning in the area if the zone change were granted Mr Goldin stated he felt that C-0 zoning required a larger area than included in the subject property Commissioner Baroldi asked Mr Goldin if his feelings were still the same regarding the swapping of zones on the southwest and southeast corners of Moody and Ball Road, changing the C-0 zoning to the southeast corner and the C-1 zoning to the southwest corner Mr Goldin stated that he did not feel his company could develop C-0 zoning on the southeast corner Mr Goldin stated that the tenant did not want the southeast corner, only the southwest corner of Moody and Ball Road Commissioner Borders stated he did not feel the proposal was in good planning and C-0 zoning, as it now existed, was more in conformance with the General Plan The Secretary stated that the Planning Commission's action was to report back to the City Council their recommendation following further consideration Commissioner Hickey asked the Secretary, if the Zone Change were approved, what it would do to the City's supply of C-0 (Commercial Office) zoning The Secretary replied that such a change would deplete the supply of C-0 zoning in the City by approximately one acre Commissioner Smith asked if the City could initiate zone change procedures on the southeast corner of Moody and Ball Road The Secretary replied that they could do so In closing his argument, Mr Goldin again informed the Commission that his company did have a lessee for the southwest corner of Moody Street and Ball Road for an area of 150' x 150', for a service station It was then moved by Commissioner Borders, seconded by Commissioner Holden and carried to report to the City Council that the Commission concurred with their previous action, that being recommending denial of Zone Change No Z-148 The following roll call vote was taken. AYES. 6 COMMISSIONERS. Borders, Ferreira, Hickey, Holden, Worley, Baroldi NOES. 1 COMMISSIONERS: Smith ABSENT. 0 COMMISSIONERS• None CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING RE. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO C-197, PETER VAN RUITEN. The Secretary announced the next item of business was continuation of a public hearing to consider an application for conditional use permit to allow the construction of a mobile home park on property generally located at the southeast corner of Bloomfield and Lincoln in the H -C (Highway Commercial) zone, requested by Peter Van Ruiten 9432 S Bloomfield Cypress California known as Conditional Use Permit No C-197 The Chairman announced that it was a continuance of the public hearing, therefore, the public hearing was still open The Secretary read Revised Staff Report PC#66-46 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval Mr. Donald Bendetti 4165 Chestnut Long Beach addressed the Commission stating he represented the applicant, as a partner in Americana Land Associates, proposed developer of the mobile home park, and spoke in favor of the proposed use He stated the applicant was ready, willing, and anxious to comply with all the conditions recommended in the Staff Report except conditions #4 and #5 which they questioned Mr Paul Pitts, 4162 Pearson Drive, Huntington Beach, partner. in Americana Land Associates, addressed the Commission stating he felt condition. #4 which required the smallest single mobile home unit to he 12' by 60' would create an economic hardship on the park He stated that mobile home parks usually will not accept units less than 10 by 50 , he had never heard of a restriction requiring a minimum of 12' x 60' He submitted a letter supporting his statement from David F Lyon, Park Development Director of the Trailer Coach Association Mr Pitts also stated condition #5 requiring two trees per trailer space was not desirable Mr Bendetti stated the trees would not render a benefit to the trailer space, hut, stated they would be willing to put the same amountof money for the extra tree per space into the landscaping of the entire park, or place the extra tree else- where on the property within the park Commissioner Hickey asked what type of identification sign there would be for the trailer park and inquired about the amount of storage for boats and travel trailers Mr Pitts stated they would cut down on the number of trailer spaces, if need be, to have an adequate storage area In reply to the question regarding the type of sign, Mr Pitts stated it would be an attractive double-faced plastic sign. Mr Robert Zamboni, 15573 Paramount Blvd Paramount, Architect for the proposed development addressed the Commission offering to answer any questions they might have Commissioner Borders stated he felt the style of the park and layout was an old fashioned grid pattern and too symetrical. He also felt the number of trees was not sufficient Mr Zamboni replied that they had left some of the planting and landscaping of the individual spaces up to the individual renter He also stated the reason for the grid pattern was economical Commissioner Borders then asked about trash facilities being provided Mr Zamboni stated that the trash facilities would he provided, but were not shown on the plan submitted, he indicated to the Commission the proposed location of the trash facilities on the plan Commissioner Borders asked if the applicants felt one laundry area would be sufficient Mr Zamboni replied that there would be two laundry areas that beside the one specified on the plan, there would be one located within the recreation building Commissioner Baroldi asked the staff about the drainage problem in the area being resolved. The Secretary stated that was why the recommended condition had been attached requiring the drainage to be solved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer Commissioner Hickey suggested the matter be postponedin order to study and discuss the various items that had arisen. Mr Bendetti stated the applicant and representatives would agree to such a postponement if the Commission wished to do so, and stated they could present a precide landscaping plan on each type of space. Commissioner Baroldi asked what the staff s feeling was on the request for reduction of the size of the smallest trailer unit allowed The Secretary stated he felt the suggestion about postponing the item was a good one and would allow time for the staff to study the information presented by Mr Pitts in regard to the size of the trailer units, which was new information to the staff Mr George Smith 8271 Carob Street Cypress addressed the Commission regarding the traffic problem that would he created by the development, and, asking why the drive-in theater that had been proposed for the subject property, on which a special election was held by the City, had not been developed The Secretary explained that the proposed development of the drive-in did not proceed because of problems the proposed developers had He also explained that the staff had taken the traffic problem into consideration before recommending approval, and felt the relocation of the entrance to the park would alleviate some of the problems Commissioner Borders stated he felt, since several problems had arisen, the item should be continued Mr John Kennedy addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the proposed trailer park development, stating he did not feel there would he as much a problem with a trailer park as there would he with a drive-in theater Mrs Boston, 1110 E. 1st Street, Norco, addressed the Commission speal-ing in favor of the proposed development as an adjacent property owner, stating she did not feel there would be more of a traffic problem than a residential development would create Commissioner Baroldi stated he felt the concern in regard to traffic, had been the moving of trailers in and out of the park Mr Peter Van Ruiten applicant, addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the proposed development and giving the history of his property, listing the various types of uses that had been proposed for the subject property There being no further written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was moved by Commissioner Worley and seconded by Commissioner Ferreira the Commission adopt an appropriate Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No C-197 subject to the conditions outlined in Revised Staff Report PC#66-46 with the following changes in conditions 4 and 5 '4 The smallest single mobile home unit to be 10' by 50' 5 One 15 gallon tree per trailer space shall be planted " Commissioner Worley then stated he was not in favor of the additions mentioned during the meeting being added to the recommended conditions Commissioner Hickey asked Commissioner Worley to reconsider his motion to add to condition 415 the phrase "and all other landscaping be approved by the City staff ' , and add condition 4127 to read. "27 The trash facilities shall be solved to the satisfaction of the City staff." Commissioner Worley again stated he did not feel the additions were necessary that it should be left up to the applicant Commissioner Smith then urged CommissiovrIcrley to agree to the additions to the conditions Commissioner Worley stated he felt the items already required as conditions pertained to safety, therefore, he felt they should be required however the landscaping did not pertain to safety The following roll call vote was taken on Commissioner Worley's motion which had been seconded by Commissioner Ferreira to approve Conditional Use Permit C-197 subject to modified conditions AYES 3 COMMISSIONERS: Ferreira Worley, and Baroldi NOES 4 COMMISSIONERS• Borders Hickey Holden and Smith ABSENT. 0 COMMISSIONERS. None Motion failed to carry It was then moved by Commissioner Borders seconded by Commissioner Hickey and carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 334 approving Conditional Use Permit No C-197, subject to the conditions outlined in Revised Staff Report PC#66-46 with the following changes and additions. 4 The smallest single mobile home unit to be 10' by 50' 5 One 15 gallon tree per trailer space shall be planted " AND ADDING: '27 The trash facilities shall be solved to the satisfaction of the City staff 28 All landscaping plans shall be approved by the Planning Department " The following roll call vote was taken AYES 6 COMMISSIONERS. Borders Ferreira Hickey Holden, Smith, Baroldi NOES. 1 COMMISSIONERS• Worley ABSENT. 0 COMMISSIONERS None THE CHAIRMAN DECLARED A RECESS AT 10:30 P M THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 10 40 P M , ALL COMMISSIONERS BEING PRESENT REPORT FROM SECRETARY OF COMMISSION RE. ABANDONMENT OF ALLEYS, BOUNDED BY LINCOLN, ELECTRIC, PHILO, AND WALKER STREETS. The Secretary announced the next item of business was a report regarding the abandonment of alleys bounded by Lincoln Avenue on the south, Electric Street on the west Philo Street on the north, and Walker Street on the east The Secretary then stated, if the Commission wished they could postpone action until a written report could be prepared Commissioner Worley stated he was in favor of taking action at this time, and was in favor of the abandonment of the alleys The Secretary then pointed out the location of the alleys proposed to be abandoned Commissioners Borders and Smith asked if a subsurface study had been completed on the alleys in question The Secretary replied that, if the Commission wished to, they could mention this to the City Council upon making their recommendation• however their only action was to determine whether they felt the proposed abandonment would be in conformance with the adopted General Plan He stated no study had been made as yet, but, if the abandonment proceeded, the study would be made prior to final action It was moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner Borders and unanimously carried to postpone consideration of the abandonment of the alleys to the next regular meeting of the Commission, July 21, 1966 The following roll call vote was taken: TO WIT ALL AYES REPORT FROM SECRETARY OF COMMISSION RE: REZONING NORTHERLY PORTION OF TRACT 5957 The Secretary announced the next item of business was a report regarding the rezoning of the northerly portion of Tract No. 5957 which is generally located at the southwest corner of Walker Street and Orange Avenue, to delete the C -C (Combining Civic Center) zoning The Secretary then reported on the history of the zoning of the property in question, stating the staff felt the C -C zoning should be deleted because the development of the property was to be single-family residences bounded by a block wall fence therefore, the City should not require the approval of the architectural plans prior to allowing the tract to be built He then informed the Commission that the action the staff recommended was to initiate proceedings to rezone that portion of the tract to delete the C -C zoning It was moved by Commissioner Hickey, seconded by Commissioner Worleyand unanimously carried to initiate proceedings to rezone that portion of Tract 5957 zoned C -C (Combining Civic Center) to delete said C -C zoning The following roll call vote was taken TO WIT ALL AYES REQUEST FROM COMMISSIONER WORLEY RE: ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS Commissioner Worley addressed the Commission asking permission to miss the next one or two meetings as he would he on vacation The Commission granted Commissioner Worley's request 0 C REPORT FROM COMMISSIONER BORDERS RE. PARKWAY STUDY Commissioner Borders reported to the Commission his progress in the preparation of a study regarding the landscaping of parkways on the City streets He reported the study was well underway and he hoped to have something to present at the next meeting of the Commission ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the Chairman 111 declared bile meeting adjourned at 10:50 p CHAIRMAN 0 THE PLANNING COMMISSION F ' H 'LANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS HELD July 21 1966 The Planning Commission of the City of Cypress met in regular session on Thursday, July 21, 1966, at 7:30 p m. in the Council Chambers, 5172 Orange Avenue Cypress California, Chairman Baroldi presiding PRESENT Ferreira, Holden, Smith, and Baroldi ABSENT. Borders, Hickey and Worley Also present were City Attorney, Leonard IIampel, Public Works Director/ City Engineer, A W Schatzeder, and Secretary of the Planning Commission, George R Putnam ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications presented at this time CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATION & SPECIAL HEARING RE. RENEWAL OF HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT NO 21, OTTIS E BRADLEY: The Secretary announced the first item of business was continuation of consideration and special hearing regarding the renewal of Home Occupation Permit No 21, which allows Mr Ottis E Bradley to conduct a "Cleanup Hauling, & Dirt Moving" business from his home located at 10331 Angela Avenue Cypress, California The Secretary read Staff Report PC#66-52 which stated that the item had been continued at the last meeting in order that adjacent property owners could be notified that a special hearing would he held in reference to an extension of Mr Bradley's Home Occupation Permit Mr Bradley addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the extension and stating the complaints mentioned at the last meeting that had been received against him were not true No one appeared speaking in opposition to the renewal Mr Norm Wallenfang, 10311 Angela Avenue, Cypress, addressed the Commission stating he was a neighbor of Mr Bradley's and had no objection to his operation. It was moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and unanimously carried the Commission approve Home Occupation Permit No 21 - Renewal #I1 subject to the following conditions* 1 That a business license shall be obtained 2. This permit is granted until July 1 1967 at which time the Planning Commission may review the application for an extension of the time limit 3 No equipment from the business shall he kept on the premises The following roll call vote was taken TO WIT• ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARING RE. HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT NO. 21, R. E. HAGELSTEIN The Secretary announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for home occupation permit to allow the use of a home located at 4251 Garnet Avenue as an office for receiving telephone calls and maintaining company hooks for an equipment rental business known as "CERCO" Contractors Equipment Rental Co , requested by R E Hagelstein 4251 Garnet Avenue, known as Home Occupation Permit No 27 The Secretary read Staff Report PC#66-53 which outlined the nature of the business to be conducted, the staff recommendation of approval and the recommended conditions The Chairman declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed permit. No one addressed the Commission speaking in favor or in opposition to the permit There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was moved by Commissioner Ferreira, seconded by Commissioner Smith and unanimously carried to approve Home Occupation Permit No 27, subject to the conditions of Staff Report PC#66-53, by the following roll call vote. TO WIT. ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARING RE: ZONE CHANGE NO Z-149; LARWIN FUND. The Secretary announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for amendment to the Zoning Ordinance No. 90 to change the zone from C-0 (Commercial Office) to C-1 (Neighborhood Stores) on property generally located at the southwest corner of Ball Road and Moody Street, requested by Larwin Fund 9300 Wilshire Blvd , Beverly Hills, California, known as Zone Change No Z-149 The Secretary then read Staff Report PC#66-54 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of denial The Chairman declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed change of zone Mr Lee Goldin, representing the applicant spoke in favor of the proposed change of zone and requested approval Commissioner Smith asked Mr Goldin in lieu of the fact that the change in zoning on the immediate corner was denied by the Planning Commission and City Council, what the purpose of the subject Zone Change was Mr Goldin reminded Commissioner Smith that the City Council did not deny the Zone Change Z-148, they had referred it hack to the Planning Commission for a report, and then would be considered by the City Council at their next meeting He further stated that they had wanted to tie the whole piece of land into the Zone Change which, they felt, would be the best solution Commissioner Smith asked Mr Goldin about the trading of the C-0 (Commercial Office) and C-1 (Neighborhood Stores) zoning on the corners of Moody and Bali, reminding him that in the past there had been objection from the aptlicant to such a trade He then informed the applicant that the trade was brought up in order to keep a balance of zoning in the area He then asked what opposition the Larwin Company had to such a trade Mr Goldin replied that they only had a commitment for development on the southwest corner, not the southeast corner and stated he felt he would be less than honest in asking for such a trade because he then could not guarantee development of either corner Mr Goldin then went on to give various facts in support of his statements made in explaining why the applicant was against such a trade The Secretary informed the Commission that the C-1 zoning district does allow most of the C-0 uses allowed in the C-0 zone Commissioner Baroldi asked Mr. Goldin if he had a definite tenant for the 150' x 150' immediate corner of Ball Road and Moody, and if he had definite tenants for the area of the Zone Change in question, surrounding the immediate corner Mr Goldin explained why they had submitted an application on the remaining portion adjacent to the corner stating that he had thought the Commission had indicated that they might be in favor of Zone Change Z-148, for the immediate corner if the Zone Change had included the whole corner Commissioner Holden stated he felt the surrounding development had not created a definite demand for such zoning and he did not feel the Commission should go against the General Plan at this time Commissioner Smith asked the staff if the Commission could pass the Zone Change on to the City Council without a recommendation from the Planning Commission. The City Attorney advised Commissioner Smith that the Commission could not do so, they were required to take some action on every zone change. There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was moved by Commissioner Holden seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 335 denying Zone Change No Z-149, by the following roll call vote. TO WIT- ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARING RE. ZONE CHANGE NO Z-150; ALBERT C SYKES: The Secretary announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for amendment to the Zoning Ordinance No 90 to change the zone from R-3 (Multiple -family Residential) to C-1 (Neighborhood Stores) on property generally located east of the northeast corner of Valley View Street and Orange Avenue known as 6131 Orange Avenue requested by Albert C Sykes, 15756 Woodruff Avenue, Bellflower, California known as Zone Change No Z-150 The Secretary then read Staff Report PC1166-55 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval. The Chairman declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed change of zone. Mr Don Schaffer addressed the Commission stating he represented the applicant, Mr Sykes and Dr Robert MacDonald, proposed developer of the medical center to be placed on the property in question Mr Schaffer spoke in favor of the zone change and stated he would like to exhibit plans of the proposed medical center He then displayed the rendering of the proposed center and proceeded to explain the facility to the Commission The Secretary advised the Commission that the rezoning of property should not be based on a proposed development of the property, only whether the zoning would he proper No one addressed the Commission speaking in opposition to the change of zone Commissioner Holden inquired about the location of the alley referred to in the staff report The Secretary pointed out the location of the alley and stated it was a dead end alley. Commissioner Baroldi inquired about the 'subterranean" parking that had been proposed as mentioned by Mr Schaffer Mr Roy Keiger designer of the proposed development addressed the Commission stating Mr Schaffer had been mistaken in calling the proposal "subterranean parking, that some of the parking was located below portions of the buildings in areas which would normally be the first floor of a two story building Mr Schaffer then introduced Dr Robert MacDonald, D M D , who was going to develop the medical center The Secretary again advised the Commission that they should not consider the development plans There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was moved by Commissioner Ferreira, seconded by Commissioner Holden and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 336 recommending approval of Zone Change No Z-150 to the City Council by the following roll call vote. TO WIT. ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARING RE: ZONE CHANGE NO. Z-151, INITIATED BY CYPRESS PLANNING COMMISSION. The Secretary announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider a change of zone to delete a C -C (Combining Civic Center) zone on property approximately 100 in width by 1 000' in length running parallel with Orange Avenue from approximately 200 southerly thereof beginning at Walker Street and running westerly, initiated by the Cypress Planning Commission, known as Zone Change No Z-151 The Secretary then read Staff Report PC#66-56 which explained the reason for initiation of the zone change and included the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed change of zone Mr Robert C Kay 1665 So Brookhurst Avenue, Anaheim addressed the Commission, stating he represented Stardust Lands, Inc , developer of Tract 5957, and speaking in favor of the change of zone to delete the C -C overlay zoning No one appeared speaking in opposition to the zone change There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner Smith and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 337 recommending approval of Zone Change No Z-151 to the City Council by the following roll call vote TO WIT. ALL AYES CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 6222; JOHNNY JOHNSON. The Secretary announced the next item of business was consideration of Tentative Tract Map No 6222 consisting of 169 lots, 27 50 acres generally located between Walker Street and Grindlay Street, approximately 600 feet north of Orange Avenue, requested by Johnny Johnson, 8151 Orangethorpe Avenue Buena Park California The Secretary then reported that the subject map had been revised and the maps only recently received, therefore the report and conditions had not yet been written He stated the staff recommendations would be to continue consideration till the next meeting, August 4th Commissioner Smith asked if the continuance would be automatic due to the fact that there would he no quorum to vote on the continuance because it was Commissioner Ferreira s property therefore, he would have to abstain from voting The City Attorney advised Commissioner Smith that some action should be taken in order to continue consideration and would only require a majority of those Commissioners present It was moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Holden and carried to continue consideration of Tentative Tract Map No 6222 until the next regular meeting of the Commission August 4th 1966 CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 6276, LARWIN COMPANY The Secretary announced the next item of business was consideration of Tentative Tract Map No 6276 consisting of 98 lots approximately 19 acres generally located on the northeast corner of Orange Avenue and Bloomfield Street, requested by Larwin Company, 9300 Wilshire Blvd , Beverly Hills, California The Secretary then reported that revisions were being made to the map, therefore, no conditions had been written as yet and the map was going to be submitted under the Optional Design Standards of the Subdivision Ordinance He then stated if the Commission would like, the applicant might wish to explain why the proposed development was going to be unique The Secretary went on to explain some of the unique conditions of the mpa, such as a park for the development owned by the property owners within said development and the fact that the lots would meet the mifnimum width and depth required by the Zoning Ordinance but not the minimum lot area Commissioner Baroldi then asked what action would he proper for the Commission at this time The Secretary replied that the staff recommendation would be to continue consideration until the next meeting to allow time to study the revised Map and prepare a staff report It was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and unanimously carried to continue consideration of Tentative Tract Map No 6276 until the next meeting of the Commission August 4th, 1966 CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATION OF ABANDONMENT OF ALLEYS BOUNDED BY LINCOLN ELECTRIC, PHILO, AND WALKER STREETS: The Secretary announced the next item of business was continuance of consideration of the abandonment of alleys bounded by Lincoln Avenue on the south, Electric Street on the west Philo Street on the north and Walker Street on the east The Secretary read Staff Report Pd#66-57 which outlined the past action taken, then reported that additional information regarding utilities located in the alleys had been received therefore the staff recommendation was to postpone action on the matter to allow time for research The City Attorney then reported that his office could not give a legal report until a complete title report had been obtained, which was in the process It was moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and unanimously carried to postpone consideration of the abandonment of the alleys until such time as the City Attorney can determine the legal status of the title to the alleys ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to co efore the Commission, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 1 .m CHAIRMAN OFATHE PLANNING COMMISSION AT SECRETAR •F E 'LANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS HELD August 4, 1966 The Planning Commission of the City of Cypress met in regular session on Thursday August 4 1966 at 7:40 p m in the Council Chambers, 5172 Orange Avenue, Cypress California Chairman Baroldi presiding PRESENT. Borders, Ferreira, Hickey, Holden, Smith, Worley, Baroldi ABSENT. None Also present were City Attorney, James Erickson Assistant Civil Engi- neer, James Williams, representing the Engineering Department City Manager Darrell. Essex. and Secretary of the Planning Commission, George R Putnam MINUTES It was moved by Commissioner Hickey that the Minutes of July 7 1966 be approved. The motion was seconded by Chairman Border and unanimously carried It was then moved that the Minutes of July 21 1966 he approved as mailed Commissioners Borders, dickey, and Worley abstained from voting since they did not attend the July 21st meeting The motion to approve the Minutes of July 21, 1966, was seconded by Commissioner Smith ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. There were no oral communications TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 6222, 160 LOTS, 27 50 ACRES --JOHNNY JOHNSON. The Secretary of the Planning Commission read report PC#66-58 to the Planning Commission concerning Tentative Tract Map 6222 and all the conditions that were listed Three additional conditions were added to the list They were as follows. 27 The developer shall attempt to maintain a 2 percent grade 28 A drainage easement shall be provided from the church property as required 29 There shall be a lot "A" along the east line of lot 95 northerly to the boundary of the tract and shall extend from that point in the westerly direction to lot 94 The following conditions were changed to read as follows. 6 The ornamental concrete block wall shall extend northerly on Grindlay Street to "F." Avenue adjacent to the Civic Center property and shall be approved by the Architectural Control Committee of the City 10 The developer shall be reimbursed for all master plan drainage facility expenditures above 6% of the value of the gross area of the Tract 22 Street lights, fire hydrants and water meters shall be located in hack of the sidewalks where the sidewalks are adjacent to the curb Street lights shall have 8 foot arms Commissioner Ferreira requested to he excused from the discussion and voting since he owns the subject property Chairman Baroldi then inquired if Mr Johnny Johnson was present He stated that he was and Chairman Baroldi then requested him to proceed to the front to answer any questions that might he posed The Secretary of the Planning Commission then presented maps of the subject tract for review and discussion Chairman Baroldi inquired if there were any questions at this time. Commissioner Borders stated that Condition 14 did not contain a requirement as to how often the tree wells would be placed The Secretary stated that this would be on the established policy of every 40 feet Commissioner Hickey inquired of Mr. Johnson if his intent was that a decrease in lot size would result if an underground drainage ditch is provided Mr Johnson then explained the drainage plans that were shown on the map, He also stated that the underground drains would be an asset to the community. Commissioner Hickey then inquired of Mr Johnson as to how the under- ground drainage would be placed through the properties that would not be located in the tract Mr Johnson indicated that it has not been worked out yet Commissioner Smith asked Mr Johnson what assurance would the City have that he wouldn't be required to place a pipe from the end of the cul-de-sac and leave a section which would possibly become a ditch since an agreement has not been reached with the property owner in that area The Secretary of the Planning Commission stated that the pipeline would have to provided since the drainage has to be approved by the City Engineer and provision must he made for this pipe if the map is approved Considerable discussion followed concerning the area through which the underground pipeline would pass The discussion then proceeded to the size of the lots and the requirements and the dedication of certain areas for park and recreation purposes Commissioner Holden inquired concerning the cost to the City for the underground pipeline The Secretary explained that the developer would be reimbursed for any expenditure over 6 percent or the cost of the master drainage facility The Secretary explained that the costs would be covered under Drainage District 2-A Discussion then followed concerning the type of peripheral fence to he used around the tract The Secretary stated that the reason for the fence requirements was that the tract would he located by the Civic Center and provisions were to he made to the most desirable approach tothe Civic Center It was moved by Commissioner Worley that Tract 6222 be approved The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hickey Commissioner Holden then inquired if all the lots meet the minimum requirements The Secretary stated that under the optional design there is no minimum therefore the requirement was placed that the rear yards must he a minimum of 20 feet Further discussion followed by various members of the Commission concerning the lot sizes Commissioner Hickey then raised questions concerning how far under- ground the lines would he placed The Secretary then proceeded to answer his questions with the assistance of Mr Williams, Assistant Civil Engineer Considerable discussion followed on the questions raised by the Commissioners The Staff proceeded to clarify several of the questions After further discussion Commissioner Borders stated his opinions in favor of the lay -out of the streets traffic circulation, and the under- ground drainage Mr Richard Parker 4662 Ashbury Street, Cypres4, addressed the Comm- ission concerning the pipe going through the north property He inquired if the property owners would be reimbursed The Secretary stated that the developer of the tract would have to pay for the pipes and drainage fees and he reimbursed for everything over 6 percent The following roll call vote was taken on the motion to approve Tentative Tract Map 6222 subject to the conditions as amended AYES• Borders, Hickey, Holden, Smith, Worley, and Baroldi NOES None ABSTAINED. Ferreira ABSENT- None TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 6276, 98 R-1 LOTS, 19 ACRES (LARWIN COMPANY) The Secretary of the Planning Commission read report PC#66-59 concern- ing Tentative Tract Map No 6276, submitted by the Larwin Company, 9300 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills California The Secretary presented a letter that had been received from the property owner Mr Peter Van Ruiten asking that no action he taken on the map until August 27, 1966 A discussion was held concerning a continuance of the tract map under the 40 days, which would run to the first of September The City Attorney stated that the property owner cannot ask for a continuance but the Commission may do so if they so desire Chairman Baroldi then inquired of Mr Lee Goldin representative for the Larwin Company, if he would object to a continuance He indicated that he would object to a continuance He also stated that Mr Van Ruiten was at the last Planning Commission meeting and he did not express any disagreement and he was present when the map under question was informally discussed with the Commission Mr Goldin also read an agreement between the Larwin Company and Mr Van Ruiten stating that the Larwin Company can act as Mr Van Ruiten's agent in this matter Commissioner Hickey stated that it was his opinion that the Commission should proceed with the business at hand Commissioner Borders also expressed his agreement to covering the matter at this meeting Commissioner Worley also expressed his anproval to proceed The Secretary then proceeded to read the staff report and the 28 requirements Condition 10 was changed to add "and water meters ' Condi- tion 13 was changed to read "re -graded" instead of graded Chairman Baroldi indicated that Commissioner Ferreira would be re - seated with the Commission at this time The Secretary then presented a map for the Commission to view and offered an explanation of the map to the Commission. Commissioner Smith raised a question concerning the 5 foot setbacks The Secretary then offered an explanation of the setbacks Chairman Baroldi raised a question concerning Condition 4 on the list of conditions The Secretary stated that the 2 percent should he changed to read 2 percent Mr Essex stated that a clarification should be made that there is a conflict on the maps on the requirements to centerline The typical sections as shown on the map are not approved Chairman Baroldi inquired if there were any questions Commissioner Borders stated that he was concerned about the fact that it was not stated in Condition 25 that the tree wells should he 4 feet by 4 feet and that they would be approved by the necessary denartments The Secretary stated that this was an improvement within the public right of way and falls under the jurisdiction of the Public Works Director They would have to comply with City Standards Commissioner Borders inquired of Mr Goldin as to what the park would consist of Mr Goldin explained the plans for the development of the park and stated that the final plans would have to he approved by the City Commissioner Smith asked Mr Goldin what the estimated cost for the development of the park in the subdivision area would he. Mr Goldin stated that the plans called for approximately S50,000 Mr Martin McCarney, 5551 East Karen Avenue, Cypress, addressed the Commission concerning the size of the lots The Secretary then clarified the question on the size of the lots and the minimum requirements Mr McCarney then inquired if there were any lots that were 84 feet by 60 feet The Secretary stated that there were none Further discussion followed from various members of the Commission in regard to the lots on the cul-de-sac streets and the plot plan with the 5 foot setbacks Mr Goldin then spoke in favor of the development and listed the advantages to the City for such a development He then stated that he would like to speak on Conditions 8 and 24 He pointed out that these conditions were improper and he recommended that Condition 8 be deleted and that Condition 24 be changed to state that the developer shall pay the drainage fees. He recommended on Condition 14 the conditions should he stricken since all street improvements have to conform to the City Engineer's request The Secretary stated that the condition should not he deleted as the City is in the process of considering its own street lighting If it is the policy at the time of recordation of the final map the condition should apply On Condition 24, this had been discussed with the City Attorney Darrell Essex informed Mr Goldin and the Commission that both conditions 8 and 24 were decisions of the Staff at the Staff Meeting and were both subject to review by the City Attorney He stated that it would he appropri- ate for the City Attorney to render his decision at this time The City Attorney stated that he would have to agree with the developer in this instance After stating his reasons for the decision, he indicated that on Condition 8 it would be proper to strike the phrase following the "comma," and in Condition 24, strike the provisions after the words drainage fees ' Mr Erickson then indicated that the requirements under Condition 14 were proper if it is the policy of the City Commissioner Holden stated that Condition 14 should not be deleted until there is further study Considerable discussion followed concerning the paving to centerline The Secretary stated that Condition 13 was placed on the map to prevent any problems in connection with the different grades that might occur at the centerline Discussion then followed concerning the location of the park. Commission- er Holden stated that the park should be located in the center of the devel- opment Mr Goldin informed him that several plans had been discussed concerning this and it was decided that the best location for the park would be at the site as indicated on the map Considerable discussion followed concerning the park and the open fences versus the block wall fences It was moved by Commissioner Hickey that Tract 6276 be approved with the changes as recommended by the City Attorney on Conditions 8 and 24 and the deletion of Condition 14 as is and include Condition 29 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Borders The following roll call vote was taken: AYES Borders, Ferreira, Hickey, Smith NOES. Holden, Worley, Baroldi ABSENT: None The City Attorney stated that the motion failed since it is necessary to have five votes for approval Chairman Baroldi stated that the matter was then still before the Commission A motion was made by Commissioner Hickey for a five minute recess. The motion was seconded and passed by unanimous approval The meeting was called to order 10:05 a m by Chairman Baroldi The City Attorney informed the Commission that since the motion was denied they may approve the map subject to the conditions outlined, or any other conditions or the discussion may be continued until the expiration of the 40 day period Further discussion was held concerning areas of disagreement on the tract map A motion was made by Commissioner Hickey to re -submit the map to the Staff for further consideration Discussion followed concerning the relocation of the park The motion to re -submit the map for further discussion and consideration by the Staff was seconded by Commissioner Smith The following roll call vote was taken• AYES. Ferreira, Hickey, Holden, Smith, Baroldi NOES• Borders Worley ABSENT None ABANDONMENT OF ONE FOOT (1') STRIP ON NORTHERLY SIDE OF EVERGREEN AVENUE AND EASTERLY SIDE OF EVERGREEN DRIVE, IN TRACT 5337 The Secretary of the Planning Commission presented Staff Report PC#66-60, and explained the progress that had been made on the issue Since the problems appeared to have been resolved, no further action was necessary ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Commission the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 10 20 p m CHAIRMAN OF HE PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST CRETAR ISF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS HELD August 18 1966 The Planning Commission of the City of Cypress met in regular session on Thursday, August 18, 1966, at 7.33 p m , in the Council Chambers, located at 5172 Orange Avenue, Cypress, California Vice Chairman Borders presiding VICE CHAIRMAN BORDERS DECLARED A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AT THIS TIME TO ALLOW OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, NOT YET PRESENT, TO ARRIVE VICE CHAIRMAN BORDERS CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER AT 7:38 P M PRESENT Borders, Ferreira, Holden and Worley ABSENT: Hickey Smith and Baroldi Also present were City Attorney, James Erickson• Public Works Director/ City Engineer, A W Schatzeder• and City Manager/City Clerk, Darrell Essex MINUTES: It was moved by Commissioner Worley and seconded by Commissioner Ferreira that the Minutes of August 4, 1966 be approved as mailed COMMISSIONER BAROLDI ARRIVED AT 7:39 P M AND TOOK HIS CHAIR ON THE PODIUM The Vice Chairman informed Chairman Baroldi there was a motion on the floor to approve the Minutes of the Meeting of August 4, 1966 as mailed THE VICE CHAIRMAN THEN TURNED THE GAVEL OVER TO THE CHAIRMAN, WHO PRESIDED OVER THE REMAINDER OF THE MEETING The Chairman called for a vote on the motion and it was unanimously carried ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. There were no oral communications presented at this time PUBLIC HEARING RE. HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT NO 28; JAMES B & NORMA C. THIGPEN• The City Manager announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for home occupation permit to allow the use of a home located at 10471 Christopher Street for telephone sales for a business composed of selling and installing Frantz Oil Filters and "Econopure' Water Filters, requested by James B and Norma C Thigpen dba 'Amron Distributors", 10471 Christopher Street Cypress California known as Home Occupation Permit No 28. The Chairman declared the public hearing open The City Manager read Staff Report PC#66-62 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed permit Mrs Norma Thigpen, applicant, addressed the Commission explaining the proposed business In response to questions from Commissioners Borders and Worley in reference to storage and telephone soliciting, Mrs Thigpen indicated that only small cartridge refills for the water filters would be stored and that no telephone soliciting would he made from her home There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed. It was moved by Commissioner Worley seconded by Commissioner Borders and unanimously carried to approve Home Occupation Permit No 28, subject to the conditions outlined in Staff Report PC#66-62 The following roll call vote was taken. TO WIT: ALL AYES COMMISSIONERS HICKEY AND SMITH ARRIVED AT 7 43 P M AND TOOK THEIR CHAIRS ON THE PODIUM PUBLIC HEARING RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO C-198; CYPRESS SCHOOL DISTRICT. The City Manager announced the next item of business was a public hearing to consider an application for conditional use permit to allow the construction of an elementary school to serve 400 children, consisting of 10 classrooms, 2 kindergartens, administrative office library and cafeteria/multipurpose room, on property generally Located at 5851 Newman St , referred to as Cypress School Site #16, requested by Cypress School District, 5282 Lincoln Avenue Cypress, California, known as Conditional Use Permit No C-198 The Chairman declared the public hearing open The City Manager read Staff Report PC#66-61 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed use No one appeared speaking in favor or opposition to the proposed use permit At the request of Commissioner Hickey, the City Manager explained the reasons for condition number 2 regarding the improvement of Camp Street Commissioners Baroldi and Smith expressed concern regarding the lack of participation at the hearing by a representative from the School District Commissioner Borders stated that the plan submitted to the Planning Commission did not contain adequate information for a Planning Commission decision Following a discussion regarding the school construction, the City Attorney reviewed the legal position of the School in reference to the application for a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Hickey stated that, although he would prefer that a representative of the School District he present at the meeting, the Commission could proceed to impose the conditions that they felt were required as had been the case in previous actions on home occupation permits and other matters where no one was present to represent the applicant Commissioner Worley stated that in his opinion the Commission should consider the Staff Report and review the conditions that should he imposed on the School District Commissioners Borders and Hickey indicated that the plot plan submitted was not adequate and suggested that action be deferred until such time as additional information is made available There being no written communications and no oral protests the Chairman declared the public hearing closed Commissioner Hickey stated he would like to make a motion to postpone consideration The City Attorney adivsed the Commission that, if they wished to continue consideration, he would recommend that they reopen the public hearing to allow the submission of further information at such time as the matter was reconsidered by the Commission Commissioner Hickey withdrew his motion With the unanimous consent of the Commission, the Chairman declared the public hearing open It was then moved by Commissioner Hickey, seconded by Commissioner Borders and unanimously carried to continue the public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No C-198 until the September 15th meeting of the Commission In answer to a question from members of the Commission regarding the time limit in which the Commission must take action on a conditional use permit the City Attorney advised the Commission that they must take action within forty (40) days from the date of the initial hearing, which, in this case, was held at this meeting Commissioner Hickey requested that a more adequate plot plan be submitted, either by the School District or by the staff The following roll call vote was taken on Commissioner Hickey's motion to continue the public hearing until the second meeting in September that being September 15, 1966, which had been seconded by Commissioner Borders. TO WIT: ALL AYES CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 6276, LARWIN COMPANY The City Manager announced the next item of business was continuation of consideration of Tentative Tract Map No 6276 consisting of 98 lots approximately 19 acres, generally located at the northeast corner of Orange Avenue and Bloomfield Street, requested by Larwin Company, 9300 Wilshire Blvd , Beverly Hills, California The City Manager read Staff Report PC#66-63 which outlined the past action taken on the Tentative Map and contained information relating to park sites He then informed the Commission that, since the time the report was prepared two additional revised maps had been submitted to the staff, one deleting the park The Chairman asked if a representative of the applicant was present Mr Lee Goldin addressed the Commission representing the applicant, stating they would like to proceed with the map as revised showing Lots 99 and 100, but listing them as the park site to comply with the 6% requirement for park purposes required by the City He further stated they still objected to recommended conditions 8, 14, and 24 Following discussion regarding the time limit of the Map submitted, Commissioner Smith made a motion to deny the original Map submitted for Tentative Tract Map No 6276, which was seconded by Commissioner holden Commissioner Hickey spoke in opposition to the motion and stated that the original Tract Map, in his opinion, should be approved, in that there was no other park within a reasonable distance from this Tract Commissioner Borders suggested wording the condition to add "to the satisfaction of the City Engineer' Commissioner Smith stated he would agree The Public Works Director suggested that the condition be amended to read 'Minimum improvements shall be to centerline" Commissioner Baroldi stated he felt condition number 14 should remain as recommended by the staff Commissioner Worley stated he agreed with Commissioner Baroldi that it should be imposed as recommended Commissioner Smith stated he had agreed to add "Improvements shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer", but still did not agree to the condition stating "to centerline The City Manager informed the Commission that the staff would agree to the condition stating "Minimum improvements shall be to centerline" Commissioner Smith restated his motion on condition 14 to read as follows "14 Bloomfield and Orange Avenue to be dedicated and improved in accordance with the General Plan Improvements shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer " Commissioner Holden seconded Commissioner Smith's motion to approve the original Map subject to the conditions as amended Commissioner Hickey then stated he agreed with Commissioner Smith that the improvements should be left up to the City Engineer The following roll call vote was taken on Commissioner Smith's motion to approve the original Tract Map 6276 subject to the condition that all lots be 5,000 sq ft and the conditions listed in Staff Report PC#66-59 as amended, which had been seconded by Commissioner Holden AYES• 2 COMMISSIONERS• Ferreira and Smith NOES 5 COMMISSIONERS Borders, Hickey, Holden, Worley, and Baroldi ABSENT 0 COMMISSIONERS None Motion failed to carry It was then moved by Commissioner Borders, seconded by Commissioner Worley and carried to approve the original Tentative Tract Map No 6276, dated "Received July 28 1966" subject to the condition that "All lots shall be a minimum of 5,000 sq ft " and the conditinns of Staff Report PC#66-59, as written, amending conditions 8, 10, 13, and 25, and adding condition 29, to read as follows. 8 The developer may be required to provide a City owned street lighting system "10 Street lights fire hydrants, and water meters shall be located back of the sidewalks where the walk is adjacent to the curb with 8 arms on the street lights " "13 Orange Avenue and Bloomfield to be graded, if required, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer " 25 The developer shall pay drainage fees ' "29 Development rights of the park shall be dedicated to the City " The following roll call vote was taken AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: Borders, Ferreira, Hickey, Holden, Smith, and Worley NOES- 1 COMMISSIONERS• Baroldi ABSENT 0 COMMISSIONERS• None REPORT FROM CITY MANAGER RE: JOINT MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION• The City Manager reported that the City Council had requested a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to be held on August 29, 1966, at 7.30 p m in the Cypress County Water District Building 9471 Walker Street Cypress and advised the Commission that at such time as they adjourn the meeting, they should adjourn it to that date, time, and palce ADJOURNMENT. It was moved by Commissioner Worley and seconded by Commissioner Borders that the meeting be adjourned to August 29th, at 7.30 p m in the Cypress County Water Distrcit Building Commissioners Hickey and Borders requested that the Master Street Tree Planting Program be placed on the Agenda for the joint meeting between the Planning Commission and City Council The City Manager stated that the report would be placed on the Agenda A unanimous vote was cast in favor of adjourning the meeting to August 29th, at 7.30 p m , in the Cypress County Water District Building The meeting adjourned at 9.30 p m ATTEST. CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RETA IF 'LANN 'G COMMISS ON MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE CYPRESS CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD August 29, 1966 The Cypress City Council held an adjourned regular meeting on August 29 1966 in the Cypress County Water District Building 9471 South Walker Street Cypress California at 7.30 p.m. Mayor Frank P Noe presiding PRESENT Councilmen Bowen, Harvey, Kanel, McCarney, and Noe ABSENT: None Also present were City Manager/City Clerk Darrell Essex, City Attorney James Erickson, Public Works Director Arthur Schatzeder, Planning Director George Putnam, and members of the Cypress Planning Commission The Mayor then turned the meeting over to Chairman of the Planning Commission Leo Baroldi Chairman Baroldi called the adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order PRESENT Commissioners Borders, Holden, Smith, Worley, and Baroldi ABSENT Commissioners Ferreira and Hickey COMMISSIONER FERREIRA ARRIVED AT 7.33 P M. The Chairman of the Commission then deferred to Councilmanic procedures for the conduct of the balance of the meeting RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION General discussion was held regarding the relationship between the City Council and Planning Commission, during which the City Attorney outlined the duties and powers of the Planning Commission as set forth in Chapter 2 of the City Code COMMUNICATIONS. General discussion was held regarding the current methods of communication between the staff, Planning Commission, and City Council COMMISSIONER HICKEY ARRIVED AT 8:00 P M It was requested that the Commission be provided with copies of the periodic Progress Reports submitted to the City Council REVIEW OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. Following a general review of the development of the City by the Planning Director, discussion was held regarding the future development program It was requested that a summary of the Planning Director's report regarding the percentage of land zoned for development in the community be submitted to members of the Council and Commission ANNEXATIONS: Following a brief summary by the City Manager of potential areas adjacent to the City subject to annexation, a general discussion was held regarding the various methods which could be used to annex a part or all of the adjacent unincorporated area Mayor Noe declared a recess at 9.20 p m The meeting was called back to order at 9 25 p m , all Councilmen and Commissioners being present Further discussion was held regarding the areas of potential annexation, and it was suggested that prior to continuation of this discussion that the City Attorney review the preliminary study relating to Parks and Recreation PARK AND RECREATION STUDY The City Attorney reviewed his preliminary studies on the various methods which could be used to exclude the City from the Park and Recreation District General discussion was held regarding the exclusion procedures as related to annexation of unincorporated area now falling within the boundaries of the Cypress Park and Recreation District At the conclusion of the discussions regarding the Park and Recreation District, a poll was taken which indicated that a majority of the Council and Commission favored the annexation of the entire County unincorporated area MASTER PLAN OF STREET TREES: Commissioner Borders reviewed his study of the Master Plan of Street Trees for the City and concluded that the City Council should consider the employment of a qualified landscape architect to prepare this type of study ITEMS OF MUTUAL CONCERN- Commissioner Worley requested that a review he made of the parkway plans on the south side of Orange Avenue, west of Holder, to allow for a cement parkway General discussion was held regarding the recent salary approved by the Council for the Planning Commission members Following discussion of the benefit of the joint meetings it was moved by Councilman Harvey seconded by Councilman Bowen and unanimously carried, that the joint meetings be held in the future on a quarterly basis The staff was advised of potential traffic hazards at the corner of Juanita and Ball and at a dead-end street of Barkley Square which contained a sign advertising an adjacent tract The staff indicated that further investigation would be made of these problems ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the City Council, it was moved by Councilman McCArney, seconded by Councilman Kanel, and unanimously carried, to adjourn the meeting at 10:47 p m There being no further business to come before the Commission, it was moved by Commissioner dickey, seconded by Commissioner Borders and unanimously carried to adjourn the meeting at 10.48 pm ATTEST. 44L4/1"/)L / MAYOR ARY THE ANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS HELD September 1, 1966 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cypress was called to order at 7:32 p m on September 1 1966 in the Council Chambers located at 5172 Orange Avenue Cypress by the Chairman of the Planning Commission, Leo Baroldi PRESENT: Smith and Baroldi ABSENT. Borders Ferreira Hickey, Holden, and Worley Also present were. City Attorney, James Erickson; and Secretary of the Planning Commission George R Putnam? THE CHAIRMAN DECLARED A RECESS AT 7 33 P M IN ORDER TO ALLOW TIME TO DISCUSS THE LACK OF A QUORUM CHAIRMAN BAROLDI CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER AT 7 34 P M At 7.35 p m the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned to the next regular meeting of the Commission September 15 1966 at 7 30 p m , due to lack of a quorum also stating the items that were to be considered by the IiiiCommission at this meeting would be consi4 d at that time ko: 1 (.° AMPs. 7 A 7tc.g.e. SECRETARY CHAIRMAN 0 THE PLANNING COMMISSION TH ANNING COMMISSION *c See Minutes of September 15, 1966 meeting MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS HELD September 15, 1966 The Planning Commission of the City of Cypress met in regular session on Thursday, September 15, 1966, at 7.30 p m , in the Council Chambers, located at 5172 Orange Avenue Cypress California Chairman Baroldi presiding PRESENT. Ferreira, Hickey, Holden, Smith, Worley, and Baroldi ABSENT: Borders Also present were City Attorney, Len Hampel, Civil Engineer Associate, Gerald M Hendricks, representing the Engineering Department; and Secretary of the Planning Commission George R Putnam. MINUTES It was moved by Commissioner Hickey seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and unanimously carried the Minutes of August 18, 1966 be approved as mailed Commissioner Baroldi stated there was a correction to be made in the Minutes of September 1 1966 that being the addition, under the listing of those present other than Commissioners, of 'Civil Engineer Associate, Gerald M Hendricks, representing the Engineering Department" It was then moved by Commissioner Baroldi, seconded by Commissioner Smith, and carried by same who had been the only Commissioners in attendance at said meeting to approve the Minutes of September 1, 1966 as corrected ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: There were no oral communications presented at this time CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING RE. CONDITIONAL TICE PERMIT NO C-198; CYPRESS SCHOOL DISTRICT: The Secretary announced this was the time and place for the continuation of the public hearing to consider an application for conditional use permit to allow the construction of an elementary school to serve 400 children consisting of 10 classrooms, 2 kindergartens, administrative office, library, and cafeteria/multipurpose room, on property generally located at 5851 Newman Street, referred to as Cypress School Site #16, requested by Cypress School District 5202 Lincoln Avenue Cypress California known as Conditional Use Permit No C-198 The Secretary then reviewed the past action that had been taken and the staff recommendation, which had been for approval The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to sneak for or against the proposed use No one addressed the Commission speaking in favor or opposition Commissioner Baroldi then stated it was still his feeling that someone from the School District should be present to represent them Discussion followed regarding the past action taken, which had been to postpone consideration by continuing the public hearing until this date in order to obtain a more descriptive plot plan The recommended conditions were also discussed Commissioner Worley stated he felt the only action the Commission could take would be to impose the conditions, from there on it was up to the School District There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed There was some discussion regarding recommended condition number 3 regarding drainage of the property, especially in regard to whether the School District was aware of the proposed condition and what would he involved. The staff pointed out to the Commission that a copy of the Staff Report had been mailed to the District. It was then generally decided to leave the enforcement of the condition if imposed up to the Engineering Department however the Commission requested the Department to contact the District and explain the condition It was moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 338 approving Conditional Use Permit No C-198, subject to the conditions of Staff Report PC#f66-61 Commissioner Hickey suggested the motion should include amending condition number 2, as discussed, to read as follows 2 Camp Street shall be dedicated from the centerline south and shall be improved in a logical terminus with a dead end street provided in an amount allowed by the State These improvements shall he subject to the approval of the City staff ' Commissioner Worley stated he agreed and amended his previous motion to include amending condition number 2 as outlined by Commissioner Hickey Commissioner Ferreira, who had seconded the original motion, agreed to the amended motion The following roll call vote was taken on the amended motion TO WIT. ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARING RE. MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. C-137, ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF L A BY REV. PETER C CASLIN, PASTOR, ST IRENAEUS PARISH: The Secretary announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for revising the traffic pattern to comply with new street locations on the plot plan of Conditional Use Permit No C-137, for 9201 Grindlay Street, St Irenaeus Catholic Church & School, requested by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of L A , 1500 W 9th Street, Los Angeles, California, (Reverend Peter C Caslin, Pastor, St Irenaeus Parish authorized agent), known as Modification of Conditional Use Permit No C-137 The Chairman declared the public hearing open The Secretary then read Staff Report PC#66-66 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed Modification No one addressed the Commission speaking in favor or in opposition to the proposed Modification Commissioner Hickey asked the staff if the Modification of the Use Permit was in lieu of the dedication of the one foot strip on Evergreen that had been discussed in the past The City Attorney explained that the Modification was necessary to bring the Conditional Use Permit up to date with what the Church had constructed and regulating the traffic was a proper condition for the Modification There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was then moved by Commissioner Ferreira seconded by Commissioner Hickey and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 339 approving Modification of Conditional Use Permit No C-137, subject to the conditions outlined in Staff Report PC#66-66 with modification of condition number 4 to read as follows* "4 If the most westerly drive on the north side of Evergreen Avenue is not used the driveway shall he removed and replaced with a standard curb, gutter, and sidewalk " The following roll call vote was taken TO WIT. ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARING RE: VARIANCE NO. V-233, DELL HOMES, INC , (LARWIN COMPANY): The Secretary announced the next item of business was a public hearing to consider an application for variance from the Zoning Ordinance No 90, Section 107 6, Subsection 'C' , to allow construction of an aluminum screened pool enclosure over a swimming pool, covering more of the renuired rear yeard than allowed and encroaching into the required 10' rear yard setback, on property generally located at the southeast corner of Valley View Street and Orange Avenue, known as Lot No 27 of Tract No 4377, requested by Dell Homes, Inc , (Larwin Co ), 9300 Wilshire Blvd , Beverly Hills California known as Variance No V-233. The Chairman declared the public hearing open The Secretary then read Staff Report PC#66-67 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed Variance Mr Keith French, Landscape Architect, 4822 Larwin Ave , Cypress, addressed the Commission stating he represented the applicant, and proceeded to submit pictures of the proposed structure to the Commission for their review Commissioner Smith asked how close the structure would come to the rear property line Mr French replied that the structure would be approximately 5'4" from the rear property line There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed Following a suggestion from the Secretary of the Commission to delete the word 'aluminum' from recommended condition number 1, it was moved by Commissioner Smith seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and generally agreed to do so Commissioner Holden then stated he felt a time limit should be placed on the Variance because future adjacent property owners might object to the location of the structure The Secretary of the Commission and the City Attorney explained to Commissioner Holden that the reason he had given for putting a time limit on the Variance would not he sufficient reason to add a condition limiting the time of the Variance Commissioner Holden then asked if the structure limiting light and air circulation, as it would, could he taken into consideration The Secretary replied that the limitation of light and air circulation would be a valid consideration The City Attorney then read the section of the City Code pertaining to reasons for which a Variance could he revoked, stating the future adjacent property owners would have that much recourse if the subject property owner violated the Variance The Secretary suggested that it would be possible to add a condition that "Within one year after the initial sale of the property within 300' of the subject property, if a complaint is received, a hearing shall be held to determine if the structure is a nuisance ' The City Attorney proceeded to explain the section of the City Code that sets forth what items the Commission may consider prior to taking action on said Variance He then stated that the subject property itself and surrounding properties should be given more consideration than future property owners Commissioner Holden then stated he felt a condition should be added to state "No windows shall be added in the future" It was then moved by Commissioner Hickey and seconded by Commissioner Smith to adopt Resolution No 340 approving Variance No V-233 subject to the conditions of Staff Report PC#66-67 as amended to read as follows '1 That only the fiberglass screening shall be attached to the supports " Conditions 2 & 3 as stated in Staff Report PC#66-67 Add. '4 No window glass or solid materials shall he added to the existing screening in the future 5 At the time of the sale of the house, the fence, irrigation system, and landscaping now existing shall he installed to serve only the lot under consideration for this Variance " Commissioner Worley stated he would like condition number 1 to remain as originally recommended which had the word 'aluminum' inserted before 'supports Commissioner Hickey stated he was neutral on the question of whether the word "aluminum" should or should not be inserted in condition 1 The following roll call vote was taken on Commissioner Hickey's motion. AYES• 3 COMMISSIONERS• Ferreira, Hickey, and Smith NOES 3 COMMISSIONERS Holden, Worley, and Baroldi ABSENT 1 COMMISSIONERS Borders Motion failed to carry It was then moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner Baroldi and carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 340 approving Variance No V-233 subject to the conditions outlined in Staff Report PC#66-67 as originally recommended, with the addition of conditions 4 and 5 to read as follows: "4 No window glass or solid materials shall be added to the existing screening in the future 5 At the time of the sale of the house the fence irrigation system and landscaping now existing shall he installed to serve only the lot under consideration for this Variance The following roll call vote was taken on the motion: AYES• 4 COMMISSIONERS Hickey, Smith, Worley, and Baroldi NOES 2 COMMISSIONERS Ferreira and Holden ABSENT 1 COMMISSIONERS. Borders PUBLIC HEARING RE: VARIANCE NO V-234; MELVEN CENSER. The Secretary announced the next item of business was a public hearing to consider an application for variance from the Sign Ordinance to allow the erection of a double-faced 10' x 10' temnorary subdivision directional sign on property generally located on the west side of Valley View Street, approximately 250' south of Orange Avenue, requested by Melven Censer 5321 Vineland, North Hollywood, California known as Variance No V-234 The Chairman declared the public hearing open The Secretary then read Staff Report PC#66-68 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to sneak for or against the proposed Variance Mr William D Forbes addressed the Commission stating he represented the applicant, and spoke in favor of the requested Variance Mr Forbes requested that the Commission and staff reconsider condition number 1, regarding the location of the sign being 70' westerly of the centerline of Valley View Street HIe stated his company would be willing to post an additional bond to cover the cost of relocating the sign at such time as the street is widened, if the City would allow them to place the sign twenty feet (20') hack from the street The Secretary of the Commission informed Mr Forbes and the Commission that the owner of the property was planning to develop and improve the street within the next nine months Mr Forbes stated in view of the situation he would withdraw his request There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was moved by Commissioner Hickey, seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 341 approving Variance No V-234 subject to the conditions outlined in Staff Report PC#66-68 The following roll call vote was taken. TO WIT: ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARING RE. VARIANCE NO V-235 z MELVEN GENSER: The Secretary announced the next item of business was a public hearing to consider an application for variance from the Sign Ordinance to allow the erection of a 10 x 10 temporary subdivision direction sign on property located in an R-1 (One -family Residential) zoning district approximately 370' north of Fred Drive, on the east side of Valley View Street, immediately adjacent to the north boundary of Tract No 4994, requested by Melven Censer, 5321 Vineland, North Hollywood California known as Variance No V-235 The Chairman declared the public hearing open The Secretary then read Staff Report PC#66-69 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval. The Secretary then informed the Commission that the Company had installed an illegal sign on the east side of Valley View Street that had been brought to his attention by the Building Department who had inquired if a condition could be placed on the Variance in question that the existing illegal sign be removed The City Attorney advised the Commission that, as the illegal sign was not located on the same property as the sign in question, it would not he proper to add such a condition He further stated the Commission could not hold up the subject Variance because of an illegal sign on another property The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed Variance Mr William Forbes addressed the Commission representing the applicant, apologizing for the illegal sign and stated he would guarantee that the sign would be removed by the following Friday and would not he replaced until the proper permits and inspections had been obtained Mr Forbes requested that recommended condition number 1, regarding the location of the sign in relation to the centerline of Valley View Street, he amended to allow the sign to be placed closer to the street than the recommended 80 and stated they would he willing to post an additional bond to cover the cost of relocating the sign at such time as the street is widened. The Secretary stated the staff would be willing to reduce the setback from 80' to 65' Mr Hendricks, of the City Engineer's office addressed the Commission reporting that the placement of the sign closer to the street might cause a problem of vision clearance for traffic from Fred Drive Mr Dan Walker also representing the applicant, addressed the Commission stating if the sign were placed at the 80 setback as recommended by the staff with the height limit of 20', the homes located south of the site would obscure the view of the sign for traffic traveling on Valley View Street north to the model site and thus would defeat the purpose of the sign Considerable discussion followed regarding the setback that should be required There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was then moved by Commissioner Worley seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 342 approving Variance No V-235 subject to the conditions outlined in Staff Report PC#66-69, with the amendment of condition number 1 to read as follows• '1 The sign shall be located sixty-five feet (65') easterly of the centerline of Valley View Street " The following roll call vote was taken• TO WIT. ALL AYES CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATION OF ABANDONMENT OF ALLEYS IN VICINITY OF LINCOLN AVENUE, ELECTRIC STREET, PHILO STREET, AND WALKER STREET• The Secretary announced the next item of business was continuation of consideration of abandonment of alleys bounded by Lincoln Avenue on the south Electric Street on the west Philo Street on the north, and Walker Street on the east He then proceeded to report on the past action that had been taken on the proposed abandonment outlining the information that had been presented in Staff Report PC#66-64 regarding the subsurface structures and the report from the City Attorney that no serious legal problem had been found in his review of the proposed abandonment He further reported that there had been requests from property owners adjoining the North/South alley asking that the Commission not recommend abandonment of that alley at the present time because it is used for ingress and egress to parking areas used by present occupants of the adjoining uses He reported that the staff, after considering these requests would now recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the East/West alley be abandoned with a provision being made for a 15' utility easement It was moved by Commissioner Worley seconded by Commissioner Hickey and unanimously carried that the Commission recommend to the City Council that they proceed with the abandonment of the East,West alley, provided that a 15' easement for maintenance of public utilities is provided and retain the North/South alley thereby determining that the abandonment of the East/West alley is not contrary to the Master Plan pf Streets and Highways The following roll call vote was taken: TO WIT ALL AYES REPORT FROM SECRETARY OF COMMISSION RE. CIVIC CENTER ZONING IN VICINITY OF CYPRESS JUNIOR COLLEGE: The Secretary announced the next item of business on the Agenda was a report regarding Civic Center (C -C) zoning in the vicinity of the Cypress Junior College He asked the Commission to postpone consideration of the report at this time in order to allow more information to be prepared for submittal to the Commission for use in their study It was moved by Commissioner Hickey seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried to postpone consideration of the Report from the Secretary of the Planning Commission regarding the Civic Center zoning in the vicinity of the Cypress Junior College until the next regular meeting of the Commission, October 6, 1966 ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION CHANGING MEETING PLACE OF PLANNING COMMISSION. The Secretary reported that the next item of business was adoption of a Resolution changing the meeting place of the Planning Commission to the Cypress County Water District building located at 9471 South Walker Street, Cypress California The Secretary explained the change was necessary due to the fact that the facilities now being used as the Council Chambers, the Oxford Junior High School Cafetorium, had become inappropriate now that school was in session It was moved by Commissioner Ferreira, seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 343 changing the meeting place of. the Cypress Planning Commission to the Cypress County Water District, 9471 South Walker Street, Cypress, California, to be effective upon adoption of the Resolution ORAL COMNUNICATIONS Mr Douglas Gallant addressed the Commission stating he represented Kaufman & Broad, 10889 Wilshire Blvd Los Angeles and informed the Commission that a conflict in the interpretation of the Sign Ordinance of the City had arisen in regard to three signs, for which the Company had requested building permits to erect at their model site at the northeast corner of Walker Street and Ball Road and the Building Superintendent had informed him that the only possible appeal of the staff s decision the Company had would be to the Planning Commission Mr Gallant then stated the problem had arisen regarding the printed copy that was to appear on the signs and asked if the City had control over the copy to be placed on signs The City Attorney replied that in some areas the City did have control over the copy and in others they did not Mr Gallant explained that their proposal was to erect the three signs side by side with copy running from sign to sign The Secretary of the Commission then addressed the Commission explaining the requirements of the Sign Ordinance in regard to the size and number of signs that would be allowed on the property in question and explained that he and the Building Superintendent had interpreted their proposal of the three signs with a common copy running from sign to sign as attempting to create the effect of a 300 square foot billboard, which was not permitted by the Sign Ordinance on the property in question The City Attorney addressed the Commission explaining Section 23-4 of the City Code which pertained to the Planning Commission reviewing an interpretation or determination that had been rendered by a member of the City Staff Commissioner Hickey stated he felt the Commission should decide whether or not to discuss the copy of the sign or restrict the discussion to the sign structures themselves He also asked if the Commission could make any decision without the item being placed on the Agenda The staff replied that the Commission could place the item on the Agenda if they wished to take action. Commissioner Smith asked what the definition of a sign was, according to the Code, was it a structure of copy The City Attorney replied that it could he both, a structure and copy Commissioner Hickey stated that, in his opinion he would consider the three signs as being one, 300 square foot sign The staff and Commission then asked Mr Gallant if he wished to formally appeal the staff's interpretation and decision and have it placed on the Agenda Mr Gallant replied that they did want to appeal the staff's decision It was moved by Commissioner Worley seconded by Commissioner Smith and unanimously carried to place the appeal of the staff's decision on the Agenda at this time Mr Gallant reviewed the information he had submitted previously on the interpretation of the Sign Ordinance that the staff had rendered The Secretary of the Planning Commission then presented his interpretation of the Sign Ordinance, that being that construction of the three signs in as close a proximity as proposed with the copy running from sign to sign would present the same effect as a 300 square foot billboard and as a 300 square foot billboard is not permitted, he determined that they were attempting to defeat the purpose of the Sign Ordinance. He stated one point that he had based his determination on was that they could not take any one of the three signs and place it elsewhere on the property, standing alone and have it make sense The City Attorney then stated that the Code limited the number of signs and the size, and confirmed the Secretary's statement regarding the purpose and intent of the Ordinance being taken into consideration when rendering a decision Mr William Sillcott, representative of Kaufman & Broad, 10889 Wilshire Blvd , Los Angeles addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the three signs being allowed In answer to a question from the Commission as to the Company's intention in regard to the signs, Mr Sillcott admitted that they were attempting to present the effect of a 300 square foot billboard by constructing the signs in close proximity with copy running from sign to sign The Commissioners then each voiced their opinion regarding the appeal. The City Attorney then advised the Commission that the action they would take would be either in favor or not in favor of the staff's interpretation of the Sign Ordinance It was moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Hickey and unanimously carried the Commission support the staff in their interpretation of the Sign Ordinance in regard to the signs in question The following roll call vote was taken: TO WIT. ALL AYES Mr Gallant asked if the Commission's decision could be appealed to the City Council The City Attorney replied that there was no provision for appeal of the Planning Commission's decision in this case, as the Planning Commission was the Board of Appeals ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business to cobefore the Commission, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned .t� Op m EST• SECRETA'''0'' I PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS FIELD October 6 1966 The Planning Commission of the City_ of Cypress met in regular session on Thursday, October 6, 1966, at 7 45 p m , in the City Council Chambers, located at 9471 South Walker Street, Cypress California Chairman Baroldi presiding PRESENT. Borders, Hickey, Holden, Smith, Worley, and Baroldi ABSENT: Ferreira Also present were City Attorney, Len Ilampel, Civil Engineer Associate, Gerald M Hendricks, representing the Engineering Department; and Secretary of the Planning Commission, George R Putnam MINUTES It was moved by Commissioner Borders, seconded by Commissioner Smith and unanimously carried the Minutes of September 15 1966 be approved as mailed It was then moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner Borders and unanimously carried the Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission of August 29, 1966 he approved as mailed ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. There were no oral communications presented at this time PUBLIC HEARING RE. HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT NO 29; DONALD L LARIVEE: The Secretary announced this was the time and place for a public hearing to consider an application for home occupation permit to allow the use of a single-family dwelling to accept phone calls and do book- keeping for a laundry and dry cleaning machine repair service located at 5702 Vnrcella Avenue, requested by Donald L Larivee, 5702 Marcella Avenue, Cypress, California, known as Home Occupation Permit No 29 The Chairman declared the public hearing open The Secretary the read Staff Report PC##66-70 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval. The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed permit Mr. Larivee applicant addressed the Commission speaking in favor of his request, and informed the Commission that in the near future he would be changing his service vehicle, which had been reported as a station wagon, to a pickup truck There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed Commissioner Hickey asked if the applicant would, at any time, bring any of the dry cleaning or washing machines home to work on them Mr Larivee replied that the machines he serviced were too large to bring to his home Commissioner Hickey then asked the applicant if there would he any storage of equipment and/or materials on the premises, particularly if any flammable materials would be stored Mr Larivee replied that the storage of equipment and/or materials would be minimal and mostly contained on the service vehicle and no flammable materials would be stored Commissioner Worley pointed out that the Criteria stated in the Zoning Ordinance for Home Occupation Permits prohibits the storage of equipment and/or materials on the premises The City Attorney then read the section of the Criteria that Commissioner Worley had mentioned, and pointed out that portion which states "No storage that would be detrimental or hazardous" is allowed. It was then moved by Commissioner Worley, seoonded by Commissioner Hickey and unanimously carried the Commission approve Home Occupation Permit No 29, subject to the conditions outlined in Staff Report PC1166-70 by the following roll call vote* TO WIT. ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARING RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. C-199, VALIANT INVESTMENT CO. The Secretary announced the next item of business was a public hearing to consider an application for conditional use permit to allow the construc- tion of a neighborhood shopping center, to include a major supermarket and service stores, in a P -D (Planned Development) zone, on property generally located at the southeast corner of Bloomfield Street and Ball Road requested by Valiant Investment Company, 9300 Wilshire Blvd , Beverly Hills, California, known as Conditional Use Permit No C-199 The Chairman declared the public hearing open The Secretary then read Staff Report PC1166-71 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed use Mr Lee Goldin addressed the Commission, representing the applicant and asking for clarification of recommended condition number 3 regarding the dedication and improvement of Bloomfield Street and Ball Road Considerable discussion followed in regard to condition number 3 in reference to whether the developer had previously posted a cash deposit with the City to cover the improvements required by condition number 3 Commissioner Hickey suggested a provision he added to condition number 3 which would state that the paving to centerline would only he required if not already covered by the approval of the adjacent Tract No 6052 or other agreements previously made between the developer and the City There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was moved by Commissioner Hickey seconded by Commissioner Borders and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 344 recommending approval of. Conditional Use Permit No C-199 to the City Council, subject to the conditions outlined in Staff Report PC#66-71 amending condition number 3 to read as follows* "3 Bloomfield Street and Ball Road shall he dedicated and fully_ improved in accordance with the Master Plan of Streets and Highways Paving shall be to the centerline of Bloomfield Street and Ball Road That portion of this condition in reference to paving to the centerline shall only be imposed if not already covered by the approval of Tract No 6052 or other agreements previously made between the developer and the City of Cypress " The following roll call vote was taken TO WIT: ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARING RE: VARIANCE NO V-236, LOS ALAMITOS RACE COURSE (FRANK VESSELS, JR PRES.)• The Secretary announced the next item of business was a public hearing to consider an application for variance from the Sign Ordinance to allow the erection of a sign in excess of the height limit of 30', to advertise the Los Alamitos Race Course, to be located on the north side of Katella Avenue approximately 300' westerly of the east track entrance requested by Los Alamitos Race Course (Frank Vessels Jr , Pres ), 4961 Katella Avenue, Los Alamitos, California, known as Variance No V-236 The Chairman declared the public hearing open The Secretary then read Staff Report PC#66-72 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval and stated a second condition should be required that "No flashing or blinking lights are permitted " The Chairman then asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed variance Mr Floyd 11 Johnson, 4961 E Katella Avenue, addressed the Commission stating he represented the applicant, and spoke in favor of the request Mr Al J McBride representing the Cypress Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the pronosed mriance There being no written communications and no oral protests the Chairman declared the public hearing closed Commissioner Baroldi stated he felt flashing or blinking lights should not be prohibited The Secretary explained to the Commission the reason for the condition being recommended was that the fact the sign is close to an intersection would create a danger if flashing or blinking lights were allowed on the sign as it could cause confusion to traffic traveling on Katella Avenue when they approach the sign, especially on a foggy night The City Attorney advised the Commission that the City Code prohibits flashing, blinking lights or animated signs within 200 of an intersection He also advised the Commission that the only item that should he under consideration at this time was the Variance before the Commission which was to consider the height limit of the sign- they should not discuss the possibility of granting a variance on the prohibition of flashing or blinking lights or animated signs, as required by the City Code, at this time, a separate variance application for that purpose would he required to vary from that requirement Commissioner Hickey asked, if the Commission granted the requested variance in height limitation of the sign, would they be setting a prece- dent for other businesses that might desire additional height in their signs The City Attorney replied that granting of a variance did not set a precedent, each application is considered on its own merits It was moved by Commissioner Worley seconded by Commissioner Holden and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 345 approving Variance No V-236, subject to the conditions outlined in Staff Report PC##66-72 with the addition of condtion number 2, to read as follows 2 No flashing or blinking lights are permitted " The following roll call vote was taken: TO WIT: ALL AYES Mr McBride addressed the Commission asking the City Attorney is the City Code in reference to the condition prohibiting flashing or blinking lights or animated signs within 200' of an intersection specified the type of intersection, as Siboney Street ran into Katella and stopped. The City Attorney read the section of the City Code Mr McBride referred to, which simply stated 'intersection" CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 6318; LARWIN COMPANY. The Secretary announced the next item of business was consideration of Tentative Tract Map No 6318, consisting of 12 3 acres 69 Lots generally located at the northeast corner of Moody Street and Cerritos Avenue reciuested by Larwin Company 9300 Wilshire Blvd , Beverly Hills, California The Secretary then read Staff Report PC#66-73 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval Mr Dick Bowen, 4292 Nestle Avenue, Cypress, addressed the Commission asking if the developer would be required to place a street tree on every lot within the subdivision The staff replied it would depend on the first layout of the subdivision but it was the usual requirement. Mr Bowen then stated he hoped that a Master Plan of Street Trees would be adopted in the near future which would change the requirement, especially because of the subdivisions being developed under Optional Design Standards which had narrower lots He stated in such a case a tree placed on each lot resulted in trees appearing to be too close, thus not benefiting the appearance of neighborhood, but detracting from the appearance Mr Lee Goldin addressed the Commission representing the applicant, stating they were in agreement with the majority of the conditions recommended by the staff with some exceptions, which he would list Mr Goldin requested that Cerritos Avenue he deleted from condition number 1, and explained the past action that had been taken on Cerritos Avenue. He informed the Commission that his company had dedicated 65' and constructed the improvements on Cerritos Avenue in the past, per an agreement with the City He also requested that condition number 7 regarding the existing drainage ditch along Cerritos Avenue being concrete lined, be deleted He asked that the phrase "attempt to maintain" be added to condition number 17 regarding the minimum street grades He asked that condition number 26, regarding drainage on the map, as shown, not being approved, be deleted, as he felt it was covered sufficiently in condition number 2 which stated "Drainage shall he solved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer" He then requested that condition number 24, regarding improvements to centerline being constructed on Cerritos Avenue and Moody Street he amended to delete Cerritos Avenue for reasons previously stated in his request for modification of condition number 1 Mr IIendricks, representing the Engineering Department explained the reason the Department had requested Cerritos Avenue he included in the conditions Considerable discussion followed between Mr Goldin Mr Hendricks the staff and the Commissioners regarding the recommended conditions related to the dedication and improvement of Cerritos Avenue In answer to a request for his opinion, the City Attorney stated that the condition was valid He further stated• however that without further study he could only adivse the Commission that it would he a proper condition if the subdivision would generate traffic on the streets in question The Secretary of the Commission stated that he felt the consideration of the Tract should be postponed to allow additional time to research the legality of the condition and the past improvements mentioned The City Attorney stated that he would like the opportunity to research the legality of imposing the condition Considerable discussion followed regarding the possible postponement of consideration It was then moved by Commissioner Borders to continue consideration of Tentative Tract Map No 6318 until the next meeting of the Commission October 20th, 1966 Mr Goldin addressed the Commission stating, in view of the City Attorney's ruling although they still objected to condition 24 they would like to request approval of the Tract Map at this meeting and not postpone the action Commissioner Hickey then seconded Commissioner Border s motion to postpone action to the next regular meeting of the Commission, October 20th, 1966 Mr Goldin again stated they objected to the conditions previously mentioned The following roll call vote was taken on the motion to postpone action until the next regular meeting of the Commission, October 20th, 1966• TO WIT. ALL AYES CONSIDERATION OF ABANDONMENT OF EAST SIDE OF BLOOMFIELD, SOUTH OF BALL ROAD. The Secretary of the Planning Commission announced the next item of business was consideration of the abandonment of the east side of Bloomfield Street, south of Ball Road. He then read Staff Report PC#66-74 which outlined the reason for the proposed abandonment- that Bloomfield Street originally had been classified as a primary highway, which had required dedication of a 50 half section right-of-way at the time of the original subdivision of the property, since that time however, Bloomfield Street had been reclassified as a secondary street, therefore, the necessary half section was only 42', thus necessitating the return of the 8 wide easterly strip to the property owner He then reported that the staff recommendation was that the Planning Commission find that the proposed abandonment is in conformance with the Master Plan of Streets and Highways and recommend the abandonment to the City Council Mr Hendricks Civic Engineer Associate, reported to the Commission that the Engineering Department had submitted the proposed abandonment to the utility companies and had received one reply, from the Edison Company, who had asked that their existing public utility easement over the entire strip be reserved It was moved by Commissioner Worley seconded by Commissioner Smith and unanimously carried the Commission find that the proposed abandonment is in conformance with the Master Plan of Streets and Highways and recommend approval of the abandonment, reserving the existing utility easement, to the City Council The following roll call vote was taken. TO WIT• ALL AYES CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATION OF REPORT RF. CIVIC CENTFP. ZONING IN VICINITY OF CYPRESS JUNIOR COLLEGE. The Secretary announced the next item of business was continuation of consideration of a report regarding Civic Center (C -C) zoning in the vicinity of the Cypress Junior College The Secretary then reported that, due to the preparation of the Beautification Program sufficient time to prepare an adequate report had not been available, therefore, he would request that the item be postponed until such time as the report has been prepared It was moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner Smith, and unanimously carried to postpone consideration of the report regarding the Civic Center zoning in the vicinity of the Cypress Junior College until such time as an adequate report has been prepared WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FROM CYPRESS JUNIOR WOMEN'S CLUB RE: "CANDIDATE'S NIGHT" - The Secretary read a written communication addressed to the Planning Commission from the Cypress Junior Women's Club inviting the members of the Commission to attend "Candidate's Night", October 21, 1966 The Chairman directed the Secretary to receive and file the communication ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at • S p m ATTEST SECRETARY •'' E ING COMMISSION 1 CHAIRMAN OF HE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS HELD October 20, 1966 The Planning Commission of the City of Cypress met in regular session on Thursday October 20 1966, at 7 30 p m , in the Council Chambers located at 9471 South Walker Street, Cypress, California Chairman Baroldi presiding PRESENT. Borders Ferreira, Hickey, Holden, Smith, Worley, and Baroldi ABSENT None Also present were• City Attorney, James Erickson, Civil Engineer Associate Gerald M Hendricks, representing tihe Engineering Department - and Secretary of the Planning Commission, George R Putnam. MINUTES• It was. mved by Commissioner Hickey seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried the Minutes of October 6, 1966 be approved as mailed ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications presented at this time PUBLIC HEARING RE. ZONE CHANGE NO. Z-152, LARWIN FUND. The Secretary announced this was the time and place for the public hearing to consider an application for amendment to the Zoning Ordinance No 90 to change the zone of a certain parcel of land from C-2 (General Commercial) to R-1 (One -family Residential), generally located at the north- east corner of Moody Street and Cerritos Avenue requested by Larwin Fund, 9300 Wilshire Blvd Beverly Hills California, known as Zone Change No Z-152 The Chairman declared the public hearing open The Secretary then read staff report PC#66-75 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval He pointed out to the Commission the various facts the staff had taken into consideration before making their recommendation that the zone be changed from C-2 to R-1 The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed zone change No one addressed the Commission speaking in favor or to opposition to the requested change of zone There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed The Secretary then stated a signed petition had been received cnnsisting of approximately fifteen property owners adjacent to the subject zone change objecting to said change of zone, just prior to the meeting Upon the advise of the City Attorney, the Chairman re -opened the public hearing in order to receive the petition The Secretary then presented the petition to the Commission reporting it contained the names of fiteen property owners in the vicinity of the subject zone change objecting to the proposed change of zone He also stated they had not given any reason for their objection, merely stated they objected The members of the Commission examined the petition There being no further written communications and no further objections, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed Discussion followed regarding the need for commercial zoning in the area under discussion It was moved by Commissioner Holden that the Commission deny Zone Change No Z-152 to change the zone from C-2 to R-1 as he felt the change to R-1 was not warranted at this time Commissioner Worley seconded the motion and the following roll call vote was taken. AYES 3 COMMISSIONERS. Ferreira, Holden, Worley NOES. 4 COMMISSIONERS. Borders, Hickey, Smith and Baroldi ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Motion failed to carry It was then moved by Commissioner Borders seconded by Commissioner Hickey and carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 346 recommending approval of Zone Change No Z-152 to the City Council, by the following roll call vote. AYES• 4 COMMISSIONERS• Borders Hickey Smith and Baroldi NOES 3 COMMISSIONERS Ferreira, Holden, and Worley ABSENT. 0 COMMISSIONERS. None PUBLIC HEARING RE: VARIANCE NO V-237; MAIDEN -FAIR CORP , (MELVEN CENSER, INC., AUTHORIZED AGENT) The Secretary announced the next item of business was a public hearing to consider an application for variance from the Sign Ordinance to allow the erection of one double-faced 10' x 20' subdivision directional sign on property generally located 70' east of the centerline of St Alban Street and 54' north of the centerline of Cerritos Avenue requested by Maiden -Fair Corp , 9300 Wilshire Blvd , Beverly Hills, California, (Melven Genser, Inc , 5321 Vineland, No Hollywood, authorized agent), known as Variance No V-237 The Chairman declared the public hearing open The Secretary then read Staff Report PC#66-76 which outlined the nature of request and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed variance Mr Dan Walker, representing Melven Genser, authorized agent, addressed the Commission stating the applicant would agree to all the conditions recommended by the staff There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 347 approving Variance No V-237, subject to the conditions oulined in Staff Report PC#66-76 The following roll call vote was taken TO WIT ALL AYES CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 6318, LARWIN COMPANY The Secretary announced the next item of business was continuation of consideration of Tentative Tract Map No 6318, consisting of 12 3 Acres 69 Lots, generally located at the northeast corner of Moody Street and Cerritos Avenue, requested by Larwin Company, 9300 Wilshire Blvd Beverly Hills, California The Secretary proceeded to explain the previous action taken on the Map and explained that the recommended conditions had been revised since the last consideration by the Commission He also advised the Commission that recommended condition number 11 regarding the improvement of the Master Plan drainage ditch along Cerritos Avenue, had been deleted, as the staff and developer had worked out the problem by negotiating a way to obtain a covered ditch rather than the open ditch required by the Master Plan of Drainage He also outlined some changes in the recommended conditions and advised the developer that the staff would he expecting some unique treatment of the design of the parkway on Cerritos Avenue Mr Rosenthal representing the applicant, addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the new proposals Discussion was held in reference to condition number 21 about the allocation of funds for park development and/or the construction of drainage facilities Commissioner Borders stated he felt the small parks were very successful and beneficial• however, in this case he felt the close proximity of the subject Tract to the Moody Park would allow some of the funds mentioned in said condition number 21 to be used to help solve the drainage problem He also stated, however, that he agreed with Commissioner Hickey that a certain maximum percentage of the 6% requirement should be set. Commissioner Smith asked if the staff had taken into consideration in amending their recommended condition the fact that the subdivider would be benefited by the change as he would he receiving 5' of additional lot depth if the City required the drain to he put underground fact The Secretary of the Commission replied that the staff was aware of that Further discussion was held in regard to the recommended conditions. It was moved by Commissioner Borders seconded by Commissioner Smith and unanimously carried the Planning Commission approve Tentative Tract Map No 6318, subject to the following conditions. 1 Moody Street and Cerritos Avenue shall be dedicated in accordance with the Master Plan of Streets and Highways and improved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer 2 All vehicular access rights along Moody Street and Cerritos Avenue adjacent to the residential property shall he dedicated to the City of Cypress 3 Delete street sections from map 4 All streets shall have 36 feet of pavement on interior streets 5 Street grades shall he 0 2% minimum, if possible 6 Advance street light energy charges shall he paid 7 The developer may be required to provide a City owned street lighting system 8 Property line radii shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer 9 Drainage shall be solved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer 10 All drainage fees shall be paid 11 Any necessary easements required by the City Engineer shall be provided 12 All lots shall drain to the front street with a one percent (1%) minimum slope 13 An ornamental concrete block wall shall he constructed along all residential lots hacking up or siding on Moody Street and Cerritos Avenue This wall shall be constructed around the remaining commercially zoned property 14 Any required retaining walls shall have footings designed for an extension to an ultimate six feet (6') in height 15 Five foot (5 ) sidewalks are permitted adjacent to the curb on interior streets 16 All fire hydrants meters, shall be installed behind sidewalks 17 A sprinkler system shall he installed in the parkway on Moody Street, design and location to be approved by the City Engineer 18 Street trees shall be of a fifteen (15) gallon size Payment of the fees shall reflect the size of the trees 19 The service station shall he included as a Hart of the Tract and assigned a lot number. 20 The blue border shall he extended to include the corner and total extent of ownership, including the service station 21 The developer shall grant to the City an amount of money equal to 6% of the value of the land for park and drainage purposes These funds shall be used for the purchase and/or improvement of a park site in the immediate neighborhood of the subject Tract and for the construction of an underground storm drain on the north side of Cerritos Avenue the design and location of this drain shall he approved by the City Engineer 22 The tract is approved subject to the changing of the zoning from C-2 to R-1 23 Landscaping design and irrigation system on Cerritos Avenue shall be approved by the Planning Department. The following roll call vote was taken. TO WIT• ALL AYES ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Baroldi declared the meeting adiourr-• at 8 45 p m CHAIRMAN OF IE PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST, -"ETA:, OF TI' PLANNING COMM SSION MINUTES OF THE PLANNINC COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS HELD November 3, 1966 The Planning Commission of the City of Cypress met in regular session on Thursday November 3, 1966, at 7 30 p m , in the Council Chambers, located at 9471 South Walker Street, Cypress, California, Chairman Baroldi presiding PRESENT Borders, Ferreira, Hickey, Holden, Smith, Worley, and Baroldi ABSENT. None Also present were• City Attorney James EPickson, Civil Engineer Associate, Gerald M Hendricks, representing the Engineering Department; and Secretary �f the Planning Commission, George R Putnam MINUTES. It was moved by Commissioner Worley seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and unanimously carried the Minutes of October 20 1966 be approved as mailed ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. There were no oral communications presented at this time PUBLIC HEARING RE. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO C-200, NORTH ORANGE COUNTY JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICT: The Secretary of the Planning Commission announced the first item of business was a public hearing to consider an application for conditional use permit to allow the construction of a junior college, known as Cypress Junior College on property generally located south of Lincoln Avenue east of Valley View Street, north of Orange Avenue, and west of Holder Street, requested by North Orange County Junior College District, 1000 North Lemon Street, Fullerton, California, (L W Wheatley Admin Assistant, authorized agent) known as Conditional Use Permit No C-200 The Chairman declared the public hearing open The Secretary reported to the Commission that Mr Wheatley applicant had contacted him prior to the meeting asking that the public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No C-200 be postponed as he could not be in attendance The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed use No one addressed the Commission speaking in favor or fin opposition to the request It was moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried the Commission continue the public hearing for Conditional Use Permit No C-200 until the next meeting of the Commission, November 17th 1966. The following roll call vote was taken. TO WIT. ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARING RE: VARIANCE NO V-238; HERMAN R PATTON: The Secretary announced the next item of business was a public hearing to consider an application for variance from the Zoning Ordinance No 90 to allow the construction of a six foot (6') block wall fence ro the sidewalk on a reverse corner lot, located at 9627 Kathleen Drive requested by Herman R Patton, 9627 Kathleen Drive, Cypress, California, known as Variance No V-238 The Chairman declared the public hearing open The Secretary of the Commission then read Staff Report PC#66-78 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed variance Mr Patton, applicant, addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the request and inquiring if the recommended condition number 3 which prohibited automobile and truhk traffic ingress and egress through the gate or over the sidewalk, would keep him from allowing the equipment that will he used to build his swimming pool ingress and egress The Secretrary of the Commission advised Mr Patton that he could apply for a permit during the time the pool was under construction No one addressed the Commission speaking in opposition to the request In answer to an inquiry from Commissioner Hickey regarding what the adjacent neighbor's feelings were regarding the wall, Mr Patton replied that they were participating in half of the cost of the construction of the wall and had also written a letter stating they had no objections to the placement of the block wall The Secretary of the Commission informed the Commission that the original of the letter from the neighbors had been received with the application for the Variance and was a part of the file There being no further written communications and no oral protests, Chairman declared the public hearing closed. It was moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner Hickey and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 348 approving Variance No. V-238 subject to the conditions outlined in Staff Report PC#66-78 The following roll call vote was taken TO WIT: ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARING RE. VARIANCE NO. V-239, LOS ALAMITOS RACE COURSE The Secretary announced the next item on the Agenda was a public hearing to consider an application for variance from Chapter 23, Article I, Section 23-16 of the Cypress City Code to allow an animated horse on the top of a sign, and to allow the sign to be located 58 easterly of the centerline of Siboney Street, requested by Los Alamitos Race Course, 4961 Katella Avenue, Los Alamitos California, (M E Reynolds, Secy-Treas , authorized agent), known as Variance No V-239 The Secretary reported to the Commission that the applicant had submitted a written communication withdrawing the Variance; therefore, no action was necessary CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 6221, ELLIS PETER MILLER The Secretary announced the next item of business was consideration of Tentative Tract Map No 6221, consisting of 47 lots, 8 0 acres, generally located on the north side of Orange Avenue 674' easterly of Moody Street, requested by Ellis Peter Miller 10889 Wilshire Blvd Los Angeles (Engineer - R M Galloway & Associates 504 N Newport Blvd. Newport Beach) The Secretary then read a letter from the Engineer for the subject tract, requesting a continuance of consideration until the next meeting of the Commission It was moved by Commissioner Ferreira, seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried to continue consideration of Tentative Tract Map No 6221 until the next meeting of the Commission November 17th 1966 CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 6321, ELLIS PETER MILLER. The Secretary announced the next item on the Agenda was consideration of Tentative Tract Map No 6321 consisting of 59 lots, 9 6 acres, generally located 665 north of the centerline of Orange Avenue and 689' westerly of the centerline of Denni Street, requested by Ellis Peter Miller, 10889 Wilshire Blvd , Los Angeles, (Engineer -R M Galloway & Associates 504 N Newport Blvd Newport Beach) The Secretary then stated that the letter presented under the previous item requesting continuance of consideration, also include a request for continuance of consideration for the subject Tract No 6321 It was moved by Commissioner Borders seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried to continue consideration of Tentative Tract Map No 6321 until the next regular meeting of the Commission, November 17th, 1966 CONSIDERATION OF ABANDONMENT OF THE SOUTH SIDE OF ORANGE AVENUE, 330 FEET EAST OF WALKER STREET. The Secretary announced the next item of business was consideration of the proposed abandonment of the south side of Orange Avenue, 330 feet east of Walker Street He read a report from the Engineering Department which described the proposed abandonment as an 85' long strip of the southerly 20' of Orange Avenue located 330' east of Walker Street- outlined the reason for the proposed abandonment the fact that the utility companies had been notified and had no objections to the abandonment, and the Department's recommendation that the 20' wide strip be vacated It was nabved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner Borders and unanimously carried the Commission recommend to the City Council that the 20' strip be abandoned and find that it is in conformance with the Master Plan of Streets and Highways The following roll call vote was taken TO WIT ALL AYES CONSIDERATION OF ABANDONMENT OF A FIVE FOOT STRIP OF PROPERTY ON THE NORTHERLY SIDE OF CERRITOS AVENUE, ADJACENT TO TENTATIVE TRACT 6318 The Secretary informed the Commission that a request had been submitted from the developer of Tentative Tract Map No 6318 that the City abandon the 5' strip of property on the northerly side of Cerritos Avenue, on the south boundary of Tract 6318, so they may proceed with development of the Tradt as soon as possible He advised the Commission that if they wished to consider the request at this time they could do so by making a motion to place it on the Agenda It was moved by Commissioner Borders, seconded by Commissioner Hickey and unanimously carried to place the proposed abandonment of the northerly 5 of Cerritos Avenue, adjacent to Tract 6318, on the Agenda for consideration The Secretary of the Commission then reported on the reason the abandonment of the five foot strip had been proposed• that being the construction of an underground storm drain on the north side of Cerritos Avenue rather than the open ditch that hdd been proposed, would allow the use of the five foot strip of property by the developer, if abandoned, thus allowing additional footage in the rear yards of those lots backing to Cerritos Avenue He stated the staff recommendation was that the Commission recommend approval of the proposed abandonment to the City Council and find that it is in conformance with the Master Plan of Streets and Highways It was moved by Commissioner Worley seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and unanimously carried that the Commission recommend to the City Council that the five foot strip on the northerly side of Cerritos Avenue, adjacent to Tract 6318 be abandoned and that the Commission finds that it would be in conformance with the Master Plan of Streets and Highways The following roll call vote was taken - TO WIT. ALL AYES ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Baroldi declared the meeting adjou d at 7:47 p.m 1111, CHAIRMAN OF HE PLANNING COMMISSION ATTES S C TAR 1 THE PLANNING CO i S$ION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS HELD November 17 1966, The Planning Commission of the City of Cypress met in regular session on Thursday, November 17, 1966, at 7.30 p m , in the Council Chambers located at 9471 South Walker Street Cypress California Chairman Baroldi presiding PRESENT Borders, Ferreira, Holden, Smith, Worley, and Baroldi ABSENT. Hickey Also present were• City Attorney- Leonard Hampel Civil Engineer Associate, Gerald M Hendricks, representing the Engineering Department, and Secretary of the Planning Commission, George R Putnam MINUTES It was moved by Commissioner Ferreira, seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried the Minutes of November 3 1966 be approved as mailed ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: There were no oral communications presented at this time CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. C-200, NORTH ORANGE COUNTY JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICT The Secretary announced this was the time and place for the continuation of the public hearing to consider an application for conditional use permit to allow the construction of a junior college known as Cypress Junior College, on property generally located south of Lincoln Avenue, east of Valley View Street, north of Orange Avenue, and west of Holder Street, requested by North Orange County Junior College District, 1000 North Lemon Street, Fullerton, California, (L W Wheatley Admin. Assistant authorized agent), known as Conditional Use Permit No C-200 The Chairman denounced that the public hearing was still open The Secretary of the Commission reviewed Staff Report PC#66-77 and the action taken at the last meeting of the Planning Commission He then presented the plot plan of the ultimate facilities of the College and described the proposed layout The Secretary advised the Commission that, as of the last meeting, discussion of the proposed Condition recommended in the Staff Report with the representative of the District and the City Attorney had led to an amendment of the original condition with the condition now reading. "The Junior College District shall participate equally with the City of Cypress in the cost of any future signalization along streets adjacent to the College site required principally because of traffic generated by the Cypress Junior College, as permitted by law ' The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed use No one addressed the Commission speaking in favor or in opposition to the requested Use Permit The Secretary asked the Commission for any comments they might have regarding the layout Commissioner Baroldi stated that, as he had mentioned previously he was opposed to the proposed location of the athletic fields on Holder Street, as it would place all of the traffic from any sporting events on two secondary streets; the other being Orange Avenue There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 349 approving Conditional Use Permit No C-200, subject to the following condition: "The Junior College District shall participate equally with the City of Cypress in the cost of any future signalization along streets adjacent to the College site required principally because of traffic generated by the Cypress Junior College, as permitted by law The following roll call vote was taken: TO WIT: ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARING RE. VARIANCE NO. V-240; COLUMBIA OUTDOOR ADVERTISING. The Secretary announced the next item of business was a public hearing to consider an application for variance from the Sign Ordinance to allow the erection of an 8' x 12' subdivision directional sign on property generally located on the south side of Cerritos Avenue at Walker Street, requested by Columbia Outdoor Advertising, 14575 East Firestone La Mirada California (Sam Ormont 4366 Alcoa St , Los Angeles, owner of property), known as Variance No V-240 The Chairman declared the public hearing open The Secretary then read Staff Report PC#66-80 which outlined the nature of the request, the fact the sign was illegally constructed by the apnlicant after they had been informed by the Superintendent of Building and Safety that a building permit could not be obtained until they had received permission from the Planning Commission through the procedures outlined in the City Code, and recommended conditions if the Variance were approved The Secretary presented further information that had been obtained by the Building Department in a conversation with the representative of the sign company regarding another sign within the City that had been erected without benefit of a building permit or variance• said information being that the representative had stated that the company would apply for a variance for the sign being discussed if the Commission granted the variance to be considered at this meeting (V-240) The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the requested variance Mr Harry Fulton representing Columbia Outdoor Advertising, addressed the Commission explaining what he felt were "extenuating circumstances" which had led to the erection of the sign without benefit of a building permit and the necessary variance There being no written communications and no oral protests the Chairman declared the public hearing closed The City Attorney reminded the Commission that under the City Code, before granting any Variance, the Commission must find that the requirements of the Code would create a hardship on the applicant if he were required to meet them Mr Fulton addressed the Commission stating the hardship in the case before the Commission at this time would he that no developer can have off-site signs under the present ordinances of the City The City Attorney replied that he did not feel this would constitute a legal hardship It was moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner Holden and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution No 350 denying Variance No V-240 by the following roll call vote: TO WIT. ALL AYES PUBLIC HEARING RE: VARIANCE NO. V-241, NILE HOMES, INC . The Secretary of the Commission announced the next item of business was a public hearing to consider an application for variance from the Zoning Ordinance No 90 Section 107 6 A, to allow the reduction of the front yard setback requirement to fifteen feet (15') on Lots 24 through 34 inclusive, of Tract No 6318, generally located at the northeast corner of Moody Street and Cerritos Avenue requested by Nile homes, Inc , 9300 Wilshire B1.vd , Beverly Hills California, known as Variance No V-241 The Chairman declared the public hearing open The Secretary read a portion of Staff Report PC#P66-81 outlining the nature of the request, however, explained to the Commission that the applicant had been advised by F H A , after the staff report had been written, that they would not approve a ten foot (10') front yard setback, therefore, the staff still recommended approval of the Variance, but a change would be made in the recommended condition, to read as follows. 'The distance from the property line to the front of the garage shall be a minimum of eighteen feet (18') and the distance from the property line to the front of the house shall be a minimum of fifteen feet (15') " The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed variance Mr Lee Goldin, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the requested variance. There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed Commissioner Worley stated he felt the front yard setback should remain at twenty feet (20'), as problems would arise with residents narking their cars in the driveway, and, with the driveway being less than twenty feet the car would project into the sidewalk area obstructing pedestrian traffic Commissioner Smith stated he felt with the twenty foot setback a greater number of people would not park their car in the garage but on the driveway thus creating a more cluttered appearance which would detract from the neighborhood Mr Goldin stated the extra footage in the rear yard would be a great advantage because the homes in question would be those most likely to have swimming pools constructed Mr Hendricks, representing the Engineering Department, pointed out to the Commission the possible safety hazard for pedestrians if vehicles were parked in the driveway and projected into the sidewalk area. Mr Goldin addressed the Commission regarding similar developments in other areas which were successfully operating with smaller setbacks than those requested under the subject variance Commissioner Borders stated he felt the recommended eighteen foot (18 ) setback from the property line to the garage would he adequate It was moved by Commissioner Borders to approve Variance No. V-241 subject to the recommended condition, as amended Motion died for lack of a second Commissioner Borders then restated his argument in favor of the Variance stating the recommended setback would conform to the F H A standards Commissioner Borders again moved to approve Variance No V-241, subject to the recommended condition, as amended The motion was seconded by Commissioner Smith and the following roll call vote was taken: AYES. 4 COMMISSIONERS Borders, Ferreira, Smith, and Baroldi NOES. 2 COMMISSIONERS. Holden and Worley ABSENT. 1 COMMISSIONERS• Hickey CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 6221; ELLIS PETER MILLER: The Secretary announced the next item of business was continuation of consideration of Tentative Tract Map No 6221, consisting of 47 Lots, 8 0 Acres, generally located on the north side of Orange Avenue 674' easterly of Moody Street, requested by Ellis Peter Miller, 10889 Wilshire Blvd , Los Angeles, (Engineer -R M Galloway & Associates, 504 N Newport Blvd , Newport Beach California) The Secretary then presented a written communication from R M Galloway, Engineer for the subject Tract requesting withdrawl of the subject Map It was moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and unanimously carried the communication be received and filed It was then moved by Commissioner Worley seconded by Commissioner Borders and unanimously carried to grant the withdrawl Of Tentative Tract Map No 6221 from consideration CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 6321; ELLIS PETER MILLER: The Secretary of the Commission announced the next item of business was continuation of consideration of Tentative Tract Map No 6321, consisting of 59 Lots 9 6 Acres generally located 665' north of the centerline of Orange Avenue and 689 westerly of the centerline of Dennis Street requested by Ellis Peter Miller, 10889 Wilshire Blvd , Los Angeles, (Engineer - R M Galloway & Associates, 504 N Newport Blvd , Newport Beach, California) The Secretary then reported that the written communication previously read under consideration of Tentative Tract 6221 also requested withdrawl of Tentative Tract Map No 6321 It was moved by Commissioner Worley seconded by Commissioner Smith and unanimously carried to receive and file the communication It was then moved by Commissioner Borders seconded by Commissioner Holden and unanimou&ly carried to grant the withdrawl of Tentative Tract Map No 6321 from consideration REPORT FROM SECRETARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION RE: PROPOSED CIVIC CENTER (C -C) ZONING IN VICINITY OF CYPRESS JUNIOR COLLEGE. The Secretary presented a zoning map of the City showing the proposed Civic Center (C -C) zoning in the vicinity of the Cypress Junior College to the Commission for their comments He also reported that the staff was going to contact the City of Buena Park to determine if they would work with the City of Cypress in attempting to establish some type of control over the area adjacent to the College within their City Commissioner Worley advised the Commission and staff that as an adjacent property owner, he had been notified by the City of Buena Park that a public hearing was to be held before their Planning Commission, November 23rd, regarding the construction of a church school on the east side of Holder Street, north of Orange Avenue in the City of Buena Park• which would fall within the area under discussion He stated he felt the staff should investigate the matter as it would affect the area adjacent to the Junior College It was the general opinion of the Commission that the staff be directed to contact the City of Buena Park and advise them of the City's intention to establish architectural control in the area in the vicinity of Cypress Junior College The Secretary stated he would contact the City of Buena Park and advise them accordingly ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Mr L W Wheatley, representing the North Orange County Junior College District, addressed the Commission regarding the first item on the Agenda, Conditional Use Permit No C-200 apologizing for being late, and asking what action had been taken on the item The Secretary advised Mr Wheatley that the Commission had unanimously approved the Conditional Use Permit subject to the amended condition, as had been previously discussed with Mr Wheatley Mr Wheatley stated he had a written communication regarding the condition he had discussed with the Secretary and asked that it be included in the subject file It was moved by Commissioner Smith seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried to receive and file the communication ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, Chairman Baroldi declared the meeting adjour e• at 8.42 p m ATTEST: CRETARY THE P ANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN OF '-IE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS HELD December 1, 1966 The Planning Commission of the City of Cypress met in regular session on Thursday December 1, 1966, at 7 30 p m ,in the Council Chambers, located at 9471 South Walker Street, Cypress, California, Chairman Baroldi presiding PRESENT: Borders, Ferreira, Hickey Holden, Smith, Worley and Baroldi ABSENT. None Also present were. City Attorney, James Erickson, Civil Engineer Associate, Gerald M Hendricks, representing the Engineering Department. and Secretary of the Planning Commission George R Putnam MINUTES It was moved by Commissioner Borders seconded by Commissioner Holden and unanimously carried the Minutes of November 17 1966 be approved as mailed ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. There were no oral communications presented at this time PUBLIC HEARING RE: VARIANCE NO. V-242, LARWIN COMPANY The Secretary announced the first item of business was a public hearing to consider an application for variance to allow the reduction of front yard setbacks on Lots 2 30 37 38 45 47 49 50 52 thru 58 inclusive 80-83, inclusive, 85 thru 87 inclusive, 89, 90 and 91, 83 thru 98 inclusive of Tract No 6276, generally located at the northeast corner of Orange Avenue and Bloomfield Street requested by Larwin Company, 9300 Wilshire Blvd , Beverly Hills California known as Variance No V-242 The Chairman declared the public hearing open The Secretary of the Commission read Staff Report PC#66-82 which outlined the nature of the request and the staff recommendation of approval The Chairman asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the proposed variance. Mr Arthur Rosenthal, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission speaking in favor of the request and explained the applicant's reason for requesting the Variance• in order to allow the larger model to be placed on the lots There being no written communications and no oral protests, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed It was moved by Commissioner Smith to adopt Resolution No 352 approving Variance No V-242 for the reduction of sideyard setbacks on Lots 22 and 29 of Tract No 6276 and the reduction of the front yard setback for Lots 21 30 37 38 45 and 80 subject to the conditions recommended in Staff Report PC#66-82 He stated he had made the motion for those lots alone because he felt those were the only lots that critically needed the variance due to the size of the hourse to be placed upon the lots Commissioner Worley addressed the Commission stating he felt there should be a twenty fobt (20') driveway Commissioner Holden also stated he felt it should be a twenty foot minimum Commissioner Smith addressed the Commission explaining that he did not want to inflict a hardship upon the developer and that was the reason he had made the motion to approve the reduction of front yard setback on the six lots mentioned Comm1csioner Baroldi stated he did not approve of the developers asking for substandard lots and then saying they could not place the houses on the smaller lots, therefore, needed a Variance The Secretary explained that it had been the staff s request that the developer place the larger units in the tract Commissioner Borders seconded Commissioner Smith's motion, but stated he was unhappy with the solution and hoped in the future there would be better planned communities under the Optional Design Standards Commissioner Hickey stated he felt in the future when maps for approval under Optional Design Standards are submitted, the houses should be plotted on the lots The Secretary informed the Commission that the staff and the City Attorney were in the process of working on proposed amendments to the Optional Design Standards and one of the proposed amendments was to require a plot plan showing the location of the houses on the lots The following roll call vote was taken on Commissioner Smith's motion to adopt Resolution No 352 approving Variance No V-242 for the reduction of sideyard setbacks on Lots 22 and 29 of Tract 6276 and the reduction of the front yard setback for Lots 21, 30, 37, 38, 45, and 80, subject to the condition recommended in Staff Report PC#66-82• which had been seconded by Commissioner Borders TO WIT. ALL AYES REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. C-145, REQUESTED BY ROBERT H GRANT & COMPANY The Secretary of the Commission announced the next item of business was consideration of a request for extension of time for the use of three existing signs originally allowed under Conditional Use Permit No C-145, which was granted to Columbia Outdoor Advertising on February 25 1963 said signs generally located on the north side of Ball Road, west of Walker Street, on the west side of Moody Street, south of Camp Street, and on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, approximately 495' west of the centerline of Denni Street requested by Robert H Grant & Company 1665 So Brookhurst Street Anaheim, California The Secretary then read Staff Report PC#66-83 which outlined the nature of the request the fact the applicant had requested an extension of time on one of the six signs originally allowed under the Conditional Use Permit, that a field investigation had noted that three of the six signs were remaining and all three advertised the same tract of homes, that the applicant stated there were still twenty homes within said tract to be sold and the extension of time would help complete the sale of the remaiming lots and the staff recommendation of approval It was moved by Commissioner Worley, seconded by Commissioner Holden and unanimously carried the Commission adopt Resolution 353 granting an extension of time for the use of the three existing signs originally allowed under Conditional Use Permit No C-145 subject to the conditions outlined in Staff Report PC#66-83 The following roll call vote was taken: TO WIT. ALL AYES DISCUSSION RE: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING MOBILE HOME COURTS. The Secretary of the Commission outlined the proposed changes in the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to mobile home courts Commissioner Borders stated he felt further investigation should be made into the minimum number of spaces per court Discussion was held in reference to the proposed amendments It was moved by Commissioner Holden seconded by Commissioner Ferreira and unanimously carried to set a public hearing for consideration of proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance No 90, pertaining to Mobile Home Courts, for the first regular meeting in January, 1967 REQUEST FOR REDUCTION OF REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THREE LOTS IN TRACT NO 6289, KAUFMAN & BROAD The Secretary explained that a problem had arisen on three of the lots within Tract No 6289 in regard to the required rear yard setback He advised the Commission that they could approve the reduction of the rear yard because the Tract was an Optional Design subdivision He pointed out that the property line between Lots 75 and 76 would have to be realigned• therefore it would require a small subdivision permit It was moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried to place the item on the Agenda for consideration at this time The Secretary proceeded to explain that Lots 41 and 46 would have enough yard to the side and rear if the rear yard setback were reduced but on Lot 75 the staff recommended the reduction subject to a small subdivision permit being obtained increasing the total lot area of Lot 75 by readjusting the east boundary line of Lot 75 adjacent to Lot 76, which would be subject to staff approval It was moved by Commissioner Hickey, seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried to approve the reduction of rear yard setbacks for Lots 41, 46, and 75 of Tract 6289 with Lot 75 being subject to a small subdivision being obtained The following roll call vote was taken TO WIT ALL AYES ADJOURNMENT. . There being no further business to come before the Commission Chairman Baroldi declared the meeting adjourned at p m AT CHAIRMAN OF HE PLANNING COMMISSION SECTHE NING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS HELD December 15 1966 The Planning Commission of the City of Cypress met in regular session on Thursday, December 15, 1966, at 7.30 p m in the Council Chambers, located at 9471 South Walker Street Cypress, California, whereupon all members present moved to the City Manager's office at City Hall, 9737 South Walker Street, Cypress Vice Chairman Borders called the meeting to order at 743 p m PRESENT Borders, Ferreira, Hickey, Smith, and Worley ABSENT Holden and Baroldi COMMISSIONER BAROLDI ARRIVED AT 7 47 P M AND TOOK HIS CHAIR ON THE PODIUM VICE CHAIRMAN BORDERS TURNED THE MEETING OVER TO CHAIRMAN BAROLDI, WHO PRESIDED OVER THE REMAINDER OF THE MEETING Also present were City Attorney, Leonard Hampel, Civil Engineer Associate, Gerald M Hendricks, representing the Engineering Department. and Secretary of the Planning Commission, George R Putnam MINUTES. It was moved by Commissioner Hickey, seconded by Commissioner Borders and unanimously carried the Minutes of December 1 1966 be approved as mailed ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. There were no oral communications presented at this time CONSIDERATION OF REVISED CONDITION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 5957; PACESETTER HOMES. The Secretary announced the first item of business was consideration of a revised condition for Tentative Tract Map No 5957 requested by Pacesetter Homes 4540 Campus Drive Newport Beach California He read Staff Report PC#66-84 which outlined the original condition, proposed change, and the reason for the requested change, which would reduce the amount of donation of land and/or funds from 6% to 3% of the value of the gross residential area of the tract Mr J W Klug, Pacesetter Homes, addressed the Commission explaining the reason for the requested change in the condition The Secretary of the Planning Commission reviewed the new Tentative Map for the Commission Commissioner Borders stated he was concerned that the map did not plot the house location on each lot The City Attorney informed the Commission that the only action before them was the reduction of the requirement for a donation of land and/or funds in the amount of 6% of the gross residential area of the tract not with the placement of the homes on the lots Commissioner Hickey indicated it was his understanding that there was no reduction of the percentage of donation required in relation to the amount of footage per lot The City Attorney then informed the Commission that the percentage of donation required was at the discretion of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hickey asked Mr Hendricks if the street layout of the new map was the same as the map previously approved by the Commission Mr Hendricks replied that the street layout was the same Members of the Commission expressed their desire to have complete plot plans of the subdivisions presented for their consideration in the future, if any deviation in approved tract maps is presented It was moved by Commissioner Borders, seconded by Commissioner Smith and unanimously carried to amend condition #17 as originally imposed upon Tentative Tract Map No 5957 to read as follows: "17 The developer shall either acquire park land as approved by the City, with the land area being equivalent to 3% of the gross area of the residential area of the Tract, or donate funds equivalent to 3% of the value of the gross residential area of the tract." on the basis that the lot size has been increased to 5500 sq ft rather than 5000 sq ft and the fact that the subdivision is located near a large park The following roll call vote was taken. TO WIT ALL AYES CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO GENERAL PLAN OF STREETS AND HIGHWAYS RE. ORANGEWOOD AVENUE The Secretary announced the next item of business was consideration of a proposed amendment to the General Plan of Streets and Highways regarding Orangewood Avenue The Secretary then read Staff Report PC#66-85 which outlined the proposal to indicate a portion of Orangewood Avenue as a secondary highway and the staff recommendation that the Commission set the matter for public hearing Mr Milt Anderson, representing Voorheis - Trindle & Nelson City Engineers for the City of Los Alamitos addressed the Commission advising them that Orangewood Avenue, within the City of Los Alamitos had been indicated as a secondary highway in that City's General Plan It was moved by Commissioner Hickey seconded by Commissioner Borders and unanimously carried to advertise a public hearing to be held at the next regular meeting of the Commission, January 5th, 1967, to consider the proposed amendment to the General Plan of Streets and Highways to indicate Orangwood Avenue as a secondary highway from the Bolsa Chica Channel easterly to Valley View Street DISCUSSION RE. ALLOWING POLICE IMPOUND YARDS TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY• The Secretary announced the next item of business was discussion in reference to allow police impound yards to be located within the City of Cypress Following general discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Borders seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried to advertise a public hearing to be held at the next regular meeting of the Commission January 5th, 1967 to consider allowing police impound yards to be located within the City of Cypress CORRECTION OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 21, 1965 MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Secretary advised the Commission that a discrepancy had been discovered in the Planning Commission Minutes of October 21, 1965 in regard to a change of street names in Tract No 5337 and outlined the correction that should be made in order to clarify the street names within said tract It was moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Worley and unanimously carried to clarify said Planning Commission Minutes of October 21 1965, regarding a change of street names within Tract 5337 to read as follows "CONSIDERATION OF CHANGING STREET NAMES 'BARKLEY AVENUE' AND 'BARKLEY DRIVE' IN TRACT 5337 The Chairman announced this was the time for consideration of changing two street names, specifically, "Barkley Avenue" and "Barkley Drive", in Tract No 5337 to avoid confusion with the existing "Barclay Drive" in Midwood Manor The Secretary of the Planning Commission read Staff Report PC#65-90 which outlined the reason for the changes• because of the other existing 'Barclay Drive" and the staff recommendation that the street name "Barkley Avenue' in Tract No 5337 be changed to "Evergreen Avenue" and "Barkley Drive" be changed to "Evergreen Drive" It was moved by Commissioner De Pietro, seconded by Commissioner Baroldi and unanimously carried to approve changing the name "Barkley Avenue in Tract No 5337 to "Evergreen Avenue" and the name 'Barkley Drive" to "Evergreen Drive" ' REVIEW OF LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR CIVIC CENTER: The Secretary of the Commission presented the landscaping plans for the Civic Center to the Commission for their review No action was required. ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the *01. ilChairman declared the meeting adjourned at 1 ;7 p m ATTEST: ) CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ECRETAR i.F THE `LANNING COMMISSION