Loading...
PC - Minutes 10-19-81CITY OF ROSEMEAD 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 19, 1981 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 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of Rosemead City Hall, 8838 Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Ritchie. The Invocation was delivered by Chairman Lowrey. 2. ROLL CALL - Present: De Cocker, Schymos, Lowrey, Ritchie, Mattern Absent: None Ex Officio: Reisman, Dickey, Carmona, de Zara 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting, October 5, 1981 Commissioner Ritchie requested that the discussions for Conditional Use Permits 81-233 and 81-234 go into more detail in citing the reasons for the denial of the requests. He stated that he felt that this was necessary in order to accurately reflect the matters considered by the Commission. Specifically, he requested a mention of the petition submitted opposing the issuance of Conditional Use Permit 81-233 and the number of existing businesses in the area selling alcoholic beverages. In addition, he requested that the reasons be set forth in the Resolutions submitted to the Commission for formal adoption. There being no objections by the Commission, the amendments were so ordered. It was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded by Commissioner Mattern, to approve the Minutes of October 5, 1981, as amended. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: Lowrey Chairman Lowrey stated that he abstained from the vote because he was not present at that meeting. 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE: On items not on the Agenda Chairman Lowrey asked if anyone present wished to address the Commission. No one came forward. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. TENTATIVE TRACT 42312: Request by Winifred Saunders for the subdivision of an existing lot, located at 3853 Muscatel Avenue, into seven (7) single-family residential lots. The Staff Report dated October 19, 1981 was presented by Mr. Carmona, and the recommendation for approval was made. During the presentation, Mr. Carmona requested the following amendments: -Requirement of a swale and drainage easement for Lots 1, 2, and 3. -Installation of one street light. Chairman Lowrey opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. The witnesses were administered the oath by the secretary. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - October 19, 1981 Page Two PROPONENT: Mrs. Winifred Saunders 3853 Muscatel Avenue Rosemead, California Mrs. Saunders stated that she was the applicant and was present to answer any questions by the Commission with regard to her request. Chairman Lowrey closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. _ There was a lengthy discussion regarding requiring a drainage device to direct the water flow of Lots 1, 2,.3, and 4 towards Muscatel Avenue. Commissioner Ritchie stated that he felt this would be necessary due to the loss of absorbtion caused by the covering of the ground. Also considered during this discussion was the use of a swale and drainage easement, and the proposed drainage plan which called for the drainage to be natural and directed to the rear of the property. Commissioner Ritchie stated that he would like to require, as a condition of approval, a provision for the drainage easement to be recorded with the final tract map, and a review of the drainage plan; prior.to final tract map recordation. Commissioner Schymos then stated his opinion that the water should be drained into the cul-de-sac and then directed onto Muscatel Avenue. He also suggested that the property be graded to direct the water in the desired direction. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the drainage pattern of the property, the effect that grading would have on the cost-of the project, the necessity for the grading requirement, and Commissioner Ritchie's concern with protecting Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 from excessive water. The Commission also considered Commissioner Ritchie's suggestion for a drainage easement. In addition, there was a discussion regarding the absence of a proposed drainage.plan. - Chairman Lowrey called a recess at 8:15 p.m. due to problems with the tape recorder. The meeting reconvened at 8:25 p.m. The discussion continued with regard to the variances requested to the setbacks. Commissioner Ritchie requested clarification of the setback requested for Lot 7. Mr. Carmona stated that the 10 foot setback indicated on the tract map was correct. A lengthy discussion then continued regarding the placement of the homes on the lots in order to achieve the smallest amount of variance possible, and the allowance of a larger setback in the rear yard in order to provide as much outdoor living space as possible. Commissioner Schymos expressed his opinion that the five-foot garage setback should be increased, and the.rear yard setback reduced to ten feet, in order to increase the front yard setback to 20 feet for Lots 1, 2, and 3. In addition to this,.he stated that Lot 6 could be required to meet the same standards, and increase the garage setback to 25 feet and the dwelling setback to 20 feet. He further indicated that Lot 5 could be subject to the same requirement, thereby reducing the need for a variance to Lot 7, only. Commissioner Schymos also in- quired regarding the status of the street just west of Muscatel. He requested information regarding the City's intention to make this street a through-street. There was then a discussion regarding the maintenance of the street, and Mr. Dickey indicated that it was a private street and not a dedicated public right-of- way. Commissioner Schymos then stated that the matter should be researched and clarified prior to the Commission making a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Dickey then advised the Commission to defer a decision on this matter until the additional information could be obtained. The Commission then considered continuing the matter. It was the consensus of the Commission to defer the vote on the zone variance consideration and tract map consideration, but continue with the discussion in an attempt to resolve other areas of concern. The con- sideration of vacation of the street continued with Commissioner Schymos reviewing the history of the street for the rest of the Commission. Commissioner Schymos also requested information regarding the Subdivision Map Act and Department of Real Estate, and compliance with the laws governing this type of subdivision. Mr. Carmona offered an explanation of the Subdivision Map Act process. Commissioner Schymos then suggested that the Commission be provided with information regarding Planning Commission Minutes Regular. Meeting - October 19, 1981 Page Three the street, the restrictions imposed by the Department of Real Estate, and the possibility of approving the request and making that approval contingent upon the determination that this subdivision would not interfere with any street plans. Commissioner Mattern suggested the addition of a condition-that this map be approved, providing that the proposed" development of both the street and the houses did not interfere with each other. Mr. Reisman then suggested the following to address this concern: "Approval is contingent upon there being no conflict or potential conflict between this subdivision and a proposed street, easement, or right-of-way through the subdivision." There was a discussion regarding the proposed condition, and the applicant was asked if the continuance of the matter would cause an untimely delay to the project. Mrs. Saunders indicated that it would not. It was the consensus of the Commission to continue this matter. Since no one in the audience had left the Council Chambers, Chairman Lowrey reopened the public hearing at 8:55 p.m. The Commission was polled regarding the reduction of the rear yard setbacks on Lots 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 to 10 feet providing a 25 foot setback to the garages and an 20 foot setback to the dwellings. Commissioners Ritchie and Mattern expressed their disagreement, and Commissioner Ritchie offered an alternate solution. Commissioner Schymos again expressed his disagreement and the basis for his opinion. Commissioner Ritchie then proposed a condition requiring the homes to be placed on Lots 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 so that there would be a 25 foot driveway to the garage, and that the structure on Lot 7 be situated such that there would be a 3 foot setback behind the garage. There was then a discussion regarding the proposed condition, and Commissioner Schymos' suggestion that the setbacks for the garages should be 25 feet for Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. During this discussion the applicant was asked what type of homes were being considered. Mr. Wayne Saunders was administered the oath by the secretary. PROPONENT: Mr. Wayne Saunders 3907 North Muscatel Avenue Rosemead, California Mr. Saunders answered various questions by the Commission regarding the proposed development of the lots. The following condition was proposed by Commissioner Ritchie: "Lots 1 and 2 will require a 25 foot setback for the garage and a 15 foot rear yard setback; Lot 3 shall have a 10 foot minimum setback to the rear of the gar- age with the remainder of the setback to be 15 feet; Lot 4 will require no variance; Lot 5 shall require a minimum of 15 foot setback and a 25 foot driveway; Lot 6 shall have a 25 foot setback for the garage, and a minimum of 10 feet setback behind the garage; and Lot 7 shall have a 20 foot setback for the driveway and a 5 foot setback for the rear of the garage." The Commission was then polled regarding the addition of the condition, and it was the consensus of the Commission to add this to the conditions of approval. The discussion regarding the drainage then continued. Mr. Carmona proposed the following condition: "The drainage of Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 shall drain to Muscatel by utilization of a drainage device, (i.e., swale constructed as part of the block wall footing), It shall be required to be installed per the City Engineer's corrections and approval, prior to the acceptance of the final map." Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - October 19, 1981 Page Four There being no objections by the Commission, the addition of the condition was so ordered. Commissioner Ritchie then requested the addition of the following items: (1) Add the variance of lot width of Lot 6 facing the street for inclusion in the requested variance. (2) Change the section on the chart where it stated that a 15-foot setback is requested to 10 feet, since 10 feet is the correct amount. (3) Clarify the location of the sewer. (4) Remove the wording regarding the proposed natural drainage from the original tentative tract map. Commissioner Ritchie also requested the following additions to the conditions of approval: "A street light shall be installed at the west end of the new street." Condition No. 4 regarding the block wall fence: . .there shall be steel supports set in concrete. and the 6-foot block wall shall be 6 feet high from the adjacent property line. . There being no objections by the Commission, the aforementioned changes were so ordered. Commissioner Ritchie then inquired regarding the one year time requirement for installation of improvements. Mr. Carmona stated that a performance bond would be required of the developer and the City would construct the street utilizing those bonds, should the developer fail to comply with this condition in the given time. There was then consideration given to the performance bonds, and where the performance bond is required. Commissioner Ritchie requested that if this was not stipulated in the report, that it be added as a condition of approval, as follows: "A performance bond for the installation of the street shall be posted by the applicant. If the applicant fails to install the street within one year from the date of approval of the final tract map, the performance bond shall be utilized by the City for the installation of the street." Commissioner Ritchie also requested the same type of stipulation for the peripheral block wall fence. Mrs. Saunders then inquired what her obligation would be should she decide not to subdivide her property. Mr. Carmona stated that the street would have to be installed as a result of this subdivision being recorded with the County Recorder; however, if the map did not record, the lot would remain intact and undeveloped. He further cautioned her that the approval would expire, and then the subdivision would become subject to the process again, if she failed to record in the given time. Staff was directed to include the proposed changes, deletions, and additions in the next staff report regarding this request. It was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded by Commissioner Mattern, to approve the filing of a Negative Declaration for Tract 42312, and the findings. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Lowrey, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None It was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded by Commissioner Mattern that the Commission approve the request for Zone Variance 81-98, as described in Tentative Tract Map 42312, as modified, and the findings. There was then a discussion regarding the motion on the floor. Mr. Reisman stated that this motion and decision would only be a tentative approval, and the final approval would be formalized by the adoption of a resolution; however, the approval or conditions could not be amended in any way at the time of adoption of that resolution. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - October 19, 1981 Page Five Commissioners Ritchie and Mattern then withdrew their motion for approval. It was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded by Commissioner Mattern, to con- tinue the approval of Zone Variance 81-98 to November 2, 1981, to allow an investigation of the street consideration. Commissioner Schymos then stated that he wished to remind Mr. Carmona that the Commission was requesting information from the Department of Real Estate as well as information regarding the street. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Lowrey, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None It was moved by Commissioner Schymos, seconded by Commissioner De Cocker, to continue the approval of Tentative Tract 42312 to November 2, 1981. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Lowrey, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None OTHER BUSINESS 6. MODIFICATION TO SECTION 8110: Request by Robert Cristler for a waiver of the sidewalk requirement for property located at 2517 Dubonnet. The memorandum dated October 19, 1981 was presented by Mr. Carmona. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the request for a waiver. Commissioner Schymos stated that there were other sidewalks existing on this street, and recommended that the waiver not be granted. Commissioner Mattern expressed his opinion that the waiver should be granted. It was moved by Commissioner Schymos, seconded by Chairman Lowrey, to deny the request for a waiver of the sidewalk requirement for property located at 2517 Dubonnet. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: Schymos, Lowrey Noes: De Cocker, Ritchie, Mattern It was moved by Commissioner Mattern, seconded by Commissioner Ritchie, to grant the request for a waiver of the sidewalk requirement for property located at 2517 Dubonnet. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: Schymos, Lowrey MODIFICATION TO SECTION 8110: Request by Jose and Irene Ortega for a waiver of the.sidewalk requirement for property located at 3437 Rockhold. The memorandum dated October 19, 1981 was presented by Mr. Carmona. Commissioner Schymos made a statement regarding this request and proposed that a bond for installation of the improvement be required. Chairman Lowrey polled the Commission with regard(to requiring a bond to be posted. It was the consensus of the Commission to deny the request for a waiver and accept a bond for the improvement. It was moved by Commissioner Schymos, seconded by Commissioner Ritchie, to deny the request for a waiver of the sidewalk'installation andirequire a bond to be posted for the improvement. There was then further discussion by the Commission regarding the amount of the bond to be required, and Mrs. Ortega's opposition to posting a bond. Mr. Dickey addressed the Commission with regard to the assessment district process for achieving the installation of street improvements. Mrs. Ortega stated that the posting of a bond would create a financial hardship for her and her family. Commissioner De Cocker stated his opinion that the waiver should be granted. It was moved by Commissioner De Cocker to grant the request for a waiver of the sidewalk for property located at 3437 Rockhold. The motion died for lack of a second. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - October 19, 1981 Page Six It was moved by Commissioner Schymos, seconded by Commissioner Ritchie, to deny the request for a waiver of the sidewalk, and require the posting of a bond for the installation of the improvement. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: Schymos, Lowrey, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: De Cocker MODIFICATION TO SECTION 8110: Request by Don Y. Webb for a waiver of the re- quired installation of full street improvements on property located at 3648 Chariette. Mr. Dickey informed the Commission that at the last Council meeting, the Council had accepted a petition requesting the installation of curb, gutter, and driveway approach for the entire street. He also stated that owner of record had signed the petition, which was contrary to this request. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the estimated time the improvements would be installed. Mr. Dickey stated that this would be requested for the next fiscal year budget. It was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded by Commissioner Schymos, to deny the request for a waiver of full streetimprovements for property located at 3648 Chariette, and require the posting of a bond for the installation of the full street improvements. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Lowrey, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None 7. PC RESOLUTION 81-36 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81-233 FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8810 EAST GARVEY AVENUE, ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA. Mr. Dickey read the Resolution by title only. It was moved by Commissioner Schymos, seconded by Commissioner De Cocker, to waive further reading and adopt PC Resolution 81-36. Commissioner Ritchie then requested that this Resolution be amended to describe the specific considerations and reasons why the conditional use permit was denied. The reasons were the petition submitted by the residents in the area, and the existing number of businesses selling alcoholic beverages in the area. Mr. Reisman then recommended that the adoption of the resolution be deferred, until such time the requested amendments could be incorporated into the Resolution. It was agreed by the Commission that this Resolution would be adopted at the next regular meeting, November 2, 1981. Commissioners Schymos and De Cocker then withdrew their motion for approval. 8. PC RESOLUTION 81-37 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81-234 FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9423 VALLEY BOULEVARD, ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA. Mr. Dickey read the Resolution by title only. Commissioner Ritchie requested that the adoption of this Resolution be deferred until November 2, 1981 for the same reasons cited in the discussion of the previous Resolution. Commissioner Schymos expressed his disagreement with the inclusion of all the specific reasons for denial. There was then a discussion regarding the appeal process utilized by the City Council in considering an appeal. There being no objections by the Commission, the adoption of PC Resolution 81-37 was deferred to November 2, 1981. 9. PC RESOLUTION 81-38 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81-232 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CHRUCH ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3926 RIO HONDO AVENUE, ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA. Mr. Dickey read the Resolution by title only. In addition, the Commission was informed that an appeal had been filed with the City Clerk. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - October 19, 1981 Page Seven It was moved by Commissioner De Cocker, seconded by Commissioner Ritchie, to waive further reading and adopt PC Resolution 81-38. Commissioner Mattern requested that Condition No. 7 under Section 4 be clarified by adding . as measured from the adjacent property. between the words "wall" and "decreasing". There being no objections by the Commission, the amendment was so-ordered. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: Schymos Absent: None Abstain: Lowrey Chairman Lowrey stated that he abstained from the vote because he was not present at the last meeting. 10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE: On any matter Juan Nunez 2702 Del Mar Avenue Rosemead, California Mr. Nunez.addressed the Commission with regard to Section 8110, and the assessment process utilized by the City for-the installation of street improvements. 11. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS AND STAFF A. Mr. Carmona informed the Commission that the City Council had authorized their attendance at the seminar on December 7 and 8. He requested that the members of the Commission wishing to attend notify staff within the next few weeks. Commissioners Schymos, Ritchie, and De Cocker indicated that they would be attending. B. Commissioner Mattern stated that he would like to clarify statements made by Mrs. Saunders earlier in the evening. He stated that he commented that the project has merit; however, Mrs. Saunders had misinterpreted the statement to mean that this project would be approved. Further, he stated that he did not guarantee, or promise that this project would be approved. C. Commissioner Ritchie requested the scheduling of study sessions for the Condominium Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance. After a short discussion, a study session was scheduled for Monday, October 26, 1981 at 7:00 p.m. to consider the Condominium Ordinance. D. Chairman Lowrey congratulated Commissioner Ritchie on his reappointment to the Planning Commission. Chairman Lowrey also stated that Commissioner Ritchie has been an asset to the Planning Commission. E. Commissioner Schymos made a statement regarding the assessment process utilized by the City, and the posting of bonds to guarantee that the improvements will be installed. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, Chairman Lowrey adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m., to the Study Session scheduled for Monday, October 26, 1981, at 7:00 p.m.