Loading...
PC - Minutes 10-17-94CITY OF ROSEMEAD 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING October 17, 1994 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER - The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead was called to order by Chairman Lowrey at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Rosemead City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Ortiz. The Invocation was delivered by Chairman Lowrey. 2. ROLL CALL - Present: Loi, Lowrey, Breen, Ortiz Absent (Excused): Ruiz Ex Officio:. Wagner, Price, Lyons, Troyer, Pickett 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular meeting of September 19 and October 3, 1994. (MO) It was moved by Commissioner Ortiz, seconded by Commission Breen to approve the minutes of both September 19 and October 3, 1994. Vote resulted: Yes: Loi, Lowrey, Breen, Ortiz No: None Absent (Excused): Ruiz Abstain: None 4.. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS - City Attorney Stanton Price explained the public hearing process and the right to appeal decisions of the Planning commission to the City Council. 5. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH - The secretary administered the oath to members of the audience wishing to speak. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 24045 & ZONE VARIANCE 94-266 - 9318 Ralph Street - Request from Mike Yoakum and Kent Wu to subdivide an existing parcel into two lots and a zone variance for a 45 foot wide lot in lieu of the required 50 feet and a minor reduction of the side yard requirement for the existing dwelling. Mr. Troyer presented the staff report with the recommendation to approve. It was ascertained that the applicant was in the audience for any questions that the Commission may have. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Addressing the Commission in favor of the request was: Cathy Connen, project engineer representing John Abell, Incorporated, 140 W. Orange Street, Covina. Ms. Connen speaking on behalf of the applicant stated that she would be happy to answer any concerns of the Commission. Addressing the Commission in opposition of the request was: PC Minutes 9-17-94 page 2. John Rauth, 4528 Bartlett, Rosemead, was opposed to the project based on the merit of the project and approval of past variances given by the Commission. He wanted to know the reason why most of the approved projects had to have variances; what good are codes and requirements if anybody can just apply for a variance and be approved. He felt that developers in the City will be requesting all types of variances and eventually codes and requirements will no longer be enforced. Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar, Rosemead, wanted to know the reason why a 45' width lot would be given approval; he felt that a 50' lot should be the requirement in order to meet the standard. Mr. Troyer responded that the current width of the two lots is 100 square feet but because the orientation of the existing home on the lot, the applicant was requesting a variance for a lot width of 45 feet on lot 2, in lieu of the required 50 in order to retain the existing home. If the applicant has a 50 ft. width lot, he'll need to demolish approximately 7 ft. of the current home. Mr. Troyer also explained that not all requests for variances merit approval, only requests staff believe are worthy of granting a zone variance due to difficulties and hardships, and only those that meet the required findings. Given an opportunity for rebuttal, Ms. Connen pointed out that the square footage of 7,875 for lot two, still exceeds the minimum lot size requirement.of 6,000. Because the lot is very deep, a well designed home can easily fit. There being no one else wishing to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Discussion by the Commission: Commission Ortiz had some concern with regards to the variance and side yard. He also would like to know if a flag would be a better choice than a variance to avoid demolition or alterations of the existing dwelling. Mr. Lyons responded that a flag lot could have been recommended but a standard division of property such as the current proposal is preferred. And in this case, since there is so much space between the existing dwelling and the old property line, a flag lot would not be appropriate. The main purpose of a variance is to reduce unnecessary hardships on the public, without negatively impacting the surrounding neighborhood. Regarding the subject application, the applicant would incur a major expense to meet the 50 ft. requirement instead of the 45. For this reason, staff recommended approval of the variance. Commissioner Breen moved to approve the project based on the total area being in excess of 17,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Loi wanted to know if removal of the carport will affect the,exisfing dwelling. Mr. Troyer responded that in addition to.removing the existing garage, the applicant will also be required to remove the existing carport and concrete driveway approach at the front portion of the lot as the proposed property line will affect the driveway and the carport. The applicant was proposing a 10 ft. driveway, and with the removal of the carport and the driveway, the applicant will be able to meet the 3.3 ft. sideyard requirement that he was requesting for in the variance. PC Minutes 9-17-94 page 3. Mr. Price reminded the Commission of a pending motion without a second. Chairman Lowrey stated that he was not in favor of the 3.3 ft. sideyard setback of the project and would, therefore, vote against the project. Motion failed for lack of a second. (MO) It was moved by Commissioner Loi, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz, to deny Tentative Parcel Map 24045 & Zone Variance 94-266. Vote resulted: Yes: Loi, Lowrey, Ortiz No: Breen Absent (Excused): Ruiz Abstain: None Commissioner Ortiz took the opportunity to clarify that the issue for denial was due to not meeting the sideyard requirements. However, the applicant may restudy and resubmit a different configuration to the Commission. City Attorney Stan Price explained the right to appeal process to the applicant. 7. MODIFICATION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (94-7) AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51544 - 8445-8463 Mission Drive - Request from Dolly Leong to modify a previously approved Tentative Tract Map and Planned Development by adding two hundred (200) square feet of floor area to the dwellings on Lots 8 & 9 and to install a 5' wrought iron perimeter fence with electric gate. Mr. Lyons presented the staff memorandum with the recommendation to continue the item to the November 7, 1994 regular meeting. There being no objection, the Chairman so ordered. OTHER BUSINESS 8. EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-598 - Request to continue the operation of a garment manufacturing business located at 8819 E. Garvey Avenue, #A2 & #A# dba Wonder Fashion. Mr. Troyer presented the staff memorandum and recommended a two year extension. Staff stated that applicant was notified verbally and in writing for his presence at tonight's meeting but unfortunately, the applicant was not in attendance. Discussion by the Commission: Commissioner Ortiz was in favor of a continuance to ensure applicant's attendance. The Commission unanimously agreed to continue the item as requested, and the chairman so ordered. 9. PC RESOLUTION 94-22 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD GRANTING APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-614 & PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 94-6 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 909 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD, ROSEMEAD (dba CHARLIE BROWNS RESTAURANT). PC Minutes 9-17-94 page 4. 10. PC RESOLUTION 94-23 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD GRANTING APPROVAL OF PARCEL MAP 22761 II & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-613 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3044-3050 EARLE AVENUE, ROSEMEAD. Mr. Price presented the resolutions by title only. (MO) It was moved by Commissioner Ortiz, seconded by Commissioner Breen, to waive further reading and approve. Vote resulted: Yes: Loi, Lowrey, Breen, Ortiz No: None Absent (Excused): Ruiz Abstain: None 11. ORAL COMMUNICATION FROM THE AUDIENCE - On any matter - None 12. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS AND STAFF - None 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. The next meeting will take place on November 7, 1994, at 7:00 p.m.