Loading...
PC - Minutes 04-20-811- • CITY OF ROSEMEAD 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA i i ! PLANNING COMMISSION ' REGULAR MEETING APRIL 20, 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 Cleveland. The Invocation was delivered by Commissioner De Cocker. 2. ROLL CALL - Present: De Cocker, Cleveland, Lowrey, Ritchie, Mattern Absent: None Ex Officio: Kress, Dickey,Carmona,.Fernandei 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Meeting, March 16, 1981 It was moved by Commissioner Cleveland, seconded by Commissioner De Cocker, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting, March 16, 1981, as printed. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Cleveland, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: 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 Mr. Clifford H. Marker, Vice President Sav-On Drugs, Inc. 1500 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California Mr. Marker stated that he was representing Sav-On Drugs, Inc. in their request for Conditional Use Permit 81-219. In addition, he stated that he wished to address the Commission with regard to the conditions of approval for that permit. Chairman Lowrey advised Mr. Marker to wait and address the Commission during the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Lowrey announced the matters scheduled for public hearing at this meet- ing and requested that anyone wishing to address the Commission regarding any of these matters, rise and be administered the oath. The witnesses were administered the oath by the secretary. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81-218: Request by Cheng-Kun Lai for the continued sale of alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption in conjunction with an existing liquor store, known as "Casa De Liquor", and located at 2525-29 North San Gabriel Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The Staff Report dated April 20, 1981 was presented by Mr. Carmona, and the recommendation for conditional approval was made. In addition, Mr. Carmona re- quested that the following condition be added: "All conditions requiring action of the applicant shall be accomplished within thirty (30) days of approval." Chairman Lowrey opened the Public Hearing at 7:40 p.m.. Seeing no one wishing to address the Commission, the Public Hearing was closed accordingly. Chairman Lowrey then asked if the applicant was present. Representatives for Mr. Lai indicated that he was out of town and that they were asked to represent him. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - April 20, 1981 Page Two They further stated that Mr.' Lai understood, and agreed to all conditions set forth. Commissioner Mattern then stated that there were conditions existing upon the property that could be improved upon. He-then uequested the addition of the following.condition: 11. The chain link enclosures around'the compressors on the north side of the building, and the chain link storage area on the northwest corner of the lot shall have slats installed for visual relief. He also requested the addition of the following condition: 12. The area behind the house and the store on the north side shall.be kept clear and clean and shall not be used for any storage. Commissioner Mattern stated that he was adding Condition No. 12 because this area should be kept clear as a fire'exit, and because it was unsightly. In addition to the addition of two conditions, Commissioner Mattern stated that he would like to add that the chain link swing security gate should be replaced because it is an eyesore, and protrudes onto the sidewalk. He also stated that it was substandard in width. He requested. that thegate be replaced with an ornamental, wrought-iron gate that would slide and protrude into the right-of-way no more than four inches. Chairman Lowrey asked if there were any objections by -.the -Commission to the addition of the conditions requested by Commissioner Mattern.' Hearing none the conditions were added. There was then a review of the conditions for verification. Commissioner Mattern repeated the conditions as follows: 11. The chain link enclosures around the compressors on the north side of the building, and the chain link storage area on'the northwest corner of the lot shall have slats installed for visual relief. 12. The area behind the house and the store on the north side shall be kept clear and clean and shall not be used for any storage. This is an exit. Chairman Lowrey -thenasked if Condition No. 2 addressed the same matter as Condition No. 12. There was then a discussion regarding these conditions, and Mr. Kress stated that Section 5401-5415 addressed the maintenance of the property. It was determined'by the Commission that Condition No. 12 was not necessary. Accordingly, Commissioner Mattern withdrew Condition No. 12 and requested that the following be added in it's place: 12. The chain link security gate shall be removed and a more aesthetically pleasing, sliding security gate may be installed, provided that it pro- trudes no more than four inches from the front of the store. He then stated that he was requesting the condition because the present gate infringed upon the sidewalk approximately nine to twelve inches, and was an eyesore. Chairman Lowrey asked if anyone had any objections to the addition of this condition. Hearing none, the addition of Condition No. 12 was so ordered. Mr. Kress then recommended that the thirty days allowed for compliance with all conditions begin from the date the Affidavit of Agreement is signed and received by staff. He added that this would allow for the appeal period. The Commission concurred with this suggestion. The applicant's representative then requested a copy of all the conditions of of approval in written form. He was informed that he would receive the requested items in the mail. It was moved by Commissioner Mattern, seconded by Commissioner Ritchie, to approve Conditional Use Permit 81-218, subject to the conditions recommended by staff and the addition of Conditions 10, 11, and 12. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes:- De Cocker, Cleveland, Lowrey, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - April 20, 1981 Page Three 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81-219: Request by Sav-On Drugs, Inc. for the continued sale of alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption'in conjunction with an existing drug/department store, known as "Sav-On Drug Store", and located at 8225 East Garvey Avenue. The Staff Report dated April 20, 1981 was presentedby Mr. Carmona and the recommendation for conditional approval was made. During his presentation, he informed the Commission that he had been advised that a -trashbailer was being installed inside the stockroom of.Sav-On Drug Store, and therefore, was requesting the deletion of Condition No. 2. He also stated-'that'COndition N.._4 was;shated as'such-to make-the-applicant aware that the City would remove the graffiti that was visible from the public right-of-way, but they would be responsible for the removal of the rest of the graffiti. In addition, Mr. Carmona requested the addition of the following condition: "All conditions requiring the action of the applicant shall be accomplished within thirty (30) days of acceptance of conditions through'the Affidavit<as outlined in Condition No. 9." Mr. Carmona further stated that the trailer referred to in the Staff Report had been granted a conditional use permit, and was not connected to the operation of Sav-On Drug Store in any way. There was then ashort discussion regarding the trailer on the lot, and the conditional use permit granted for this trailer. Chairman Lowrey opened the Public Hearing at 8:00 p.m. PROPONENT: Mr. Clifford H. Marker, Vice President Sav-On Drugs, Inc. 2401 Beaumont Drive Beverly Hills, California Mr. Marker stated that he was representing Sav-0n Drugs in this matter. It was then brought to the adtention.,of.the Commission that Mr. Marker had not been administered the oath. Mr. Marker was then administered the oath by the secretary. Mr. Marker then stated that the information that he had received regarding the trailer was that Sav-On Drugs had no authority or connection with it. He fur- ther stated that the trailer had been removed from the site, and was present during tax season only. In addition to this, he informed the Commission that there had not been a sale of Sav-On Drugs, but a merger with the Jewel T Corporation. He also stated that there were no changes in the operation of the company or the Board of Directors. Mr. Marker also informed the Commission of the willingness of Sav-On Drugs to comply with all conditions, with the exception of Condition No. 8 regarding the trailer. He requested deletion of this Condition based on his previous testimony. He also stated that the matter of the revolving sign would have to be agreed upon by Mr. Beach, since he-was the property owner and the sign also advertised Beach's Market. Mr. Kress then asked if the trailer had been removed from the site. Mr. Marker stated that the employee's of the drugstorehad informed him that it had been removed. Mr. Kress then recommended that Condition No. 8 be deleted. Mr. Kress then stated.-that,=..in_regard to the revolving sign, this problem could possibly take more than thirty days to resolve; however, it was mainly a problem between the landlord and tenant. Mr. Marker then expressed his concern in this matter, since he did not wish to jeopardize the granting of the conditional use permit or Sav-On's lease on the property. Chairman Lowrey closed the Public Hearing at 8:10 p.m. Commissioner Ritchie then stated that, to the best of his recollection, the trailer had been granted a conditional use permit on a yearly basis. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - April 20, 1981 Page Four Commissioner Cleveland agreed with Commissioner Ritchie that the granting of the conditional use permit on a yearly basis had been the usual procedure. Commissioner De Cocker then inquired if it was customary to grant a conditional use permit for a ten year period. Mr. Carmona stated that this was possible since this was a major use in the City. He also informed Commissioner De Cocker that there had been another conditional use permit granted for this length of time. Commissioner De Cocker then asked how long Sav-On had occupied the site. Mr. Carmona informed him that Sav-On had existed on the site since 1972. ;Commissioner Ritchie then requested a clarification of Condition No. 4, which addressed graffiti on the site, and asked if the graffiti would be removed without charge. Mr. Carmona then informed Commissioner Ritchie that the City had a graffiti removal program to remove graffiti from places in the public's view. He stated that this program would be utilized to remove the graffiti from areas on the sight visible from the street, and Sav-On would be respon- sible for the remainder of the graffiti. Commissioner Ritchie then requested that this condition be re-worded in order to make the intent clear. Mr. Kress then suggested that and that the City will remove all graffiti within or seen from the public right-of-way" be deleted from'this-condition. He also suggested that the applicants could be informed of the graffiti removal program in the notification of action letter. The Commissioners were in agreement with this suggestion, and Condition No. 4 was amended to read: "The walls of all structures on the subject property are to be removed of all graffiti within thirty (30) days of approval, and are to be maintained in a graffiti-free state." it was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded by Commissioner Cleveland, to approve Conditional Use Permit 81-219, subject to the deletion of Conditions 8 and 2, the addition of Condition No. 9, and the amendment to Condition No. 4. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Cleveland, Lowrey, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None 7. ZONE CHANGE 81-123: Consideration of a change of zone, from R-3, Heavy Multiple Residential, to R-3D, Heavy Multiple Residential, Design Overlay, for property located at 3899 Walnut Grove Avenue and 8514-16-18 Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The Staff Report date April 20, 1981 was presented by Mr. Carmona, and the recommendation for approval was made. During his presentation, he informed the Commission that a letter of protest had been received from Mrs. Margaretta Ladyman; however, he also stated that in speaking with her he had clarified the intention of the Design Overlay zone, and she no longer had any objections. Chairman Lowrey opened the Public Hearing at~8:15-p.m. Mr. Marvin Jorgenson 8543 Guess Street Rosemead, California Mr. Jorgenson inquired what the design overlay zone involved. Mr. Carmona then explained the design review process to Mr. Jorgenson. Mr. Kress added that the design overlay zone would not allow the property owner to do any more than the present R-3 zoning did, but would add an additional review process by the Plan- ning Commission. Mr. Jorgenson then thanked the Commission for allowing him to inquire with regard to this matter. He further stated that he and several others in the area were opposed to the construction of a high-density development on the lot be- cause of possible problems with access to and from the site, and the small size of the lot. Chairman Lowrey closed the Public Hearing at(8:20 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - April 20, 1981 Page Five Commissioner Cleveland stated that he fully supported this change of zone on the property. It was moved by Commissioner Cleveland, seconded by Commissioner Ritchie, to approve Zone Change 81-123, and the Negative Declaration. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Cleveland, Lowrey, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None 8. ZONING AMENDMENT: Consideration of the proposed Mobilehome/Manfactured Housing Ordinance to be adopted for the purpose of establishing standards and procedures for the use of such housing in residential zones within the City of Rosemead. <Chairman Lowrey opened the Public Hearing at 8:25 p.m. Mr. Kress reviewed the changes in the Ordinance for the Commission. The changes were as follows: -Page 1, Section 1: Insertion of the word "family" into the definition of dwelling. -Designation of the new chapter addressing Mobilehomes/Manufactured Housing as Chapter XXII-A. -Rearrangement of the design review process as follows: A. Application requirements B. Design Review by the Planning Commission C. Decision -Addition of the following to Section 9123.3(A)-Application Requirements: "An application will be considered incomplete and will not be set for review by the Planning Commission until all the required information is on file in the Planning Department." Mr. Kress stated that this was added to insure that the Planning Commission has all necessary information supplied to them prior to the public hearing. -Deletion of portion of sentence which permits mobilehomes approved by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, from Section 9123.3 (A) (1). -Addition of No. 6, as requested by the Planning Commission, as follows: "For previously used and/or occupied mobilehomes. or manufactured housing, the applicant must submit a pest and termite report indicating the absence of all pests and rodents in the proposed dwelling." -Addition of the following to Section 9123.3(C): 11 . . .pursuant to the criteria of subsection B'hereof. He then informed the Commission that any denial would have to be based upon the criteria outlined in subsections A,B, or C. -The addition of an appeal fee in an amount to be adopted by the City Council. He also stated that the City Council would be asked to set a fee for the design review process. -Change in Section 9123.5, first sentence, "Application for determination of compatibility of mobilehome use of any lot zoned for single-family dwellings." Mr. Kress then stated that he would prefer that this Ordinance be adopted as a non-urgency ordinance. In addition to this, Mr. Kress stated that this could be reviewed at a later date, should problems arise with this Ordinance. Chairman Lowrey asked if anyone present wished to address the Commission. Seeing no one wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed at 8:35 p.m. Commissioner Ritchie then stated that he would like to add the following to Section 9123.3(A)(1): and had not been altered in violation of applicable codes." Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - April 20, 1981 Page Six He stated that the mobilehomes may be altered by the owner after the approval was given, causing it to be in violation of the County Codes. Mr. Kress then stated that if,this provision. was to be added, it would have to be more specific. He also asked who would be performing the inspections to make this determination. There was then a discussion regarding the possible alterations, and the specific codes that could be.violated. Commissioner Ritchie stated that wiring, con- version of rooms into non-conforming uses, and removal of weight-bearing partitions were a few of the possibilities. Mr. Kress then offered the following as an alternate suggestion: 11 . . .and has not been altered so as to make it ineligible for HUD insignia." Commissioner Ritchie then suggested that "insignia" be substituted with "cer- tification". All Commissioners were in agreement, and the following was added: 11 . . .and has not been altered so as to make it ineligible for HUD. certification." Commissioner Ritchie then stated that he would like to substitute the following in Section 9123.3(A)(6): "Any mobilehome that is to be moved from an existing location shall be subject to the conditions under the relocation Ordinance." He stated that he felt this should be considered by the Commission because conventional houses being relocated into the City were required to apply for a relocation permit, and in order to be fair, he felt that mobilehomes should be subject to the same regulations. In addition, he stated that this Ordinance would be applicable to mobilehomes. There was then a discussion regarding the items to be considered in the review of mobilehomes under the provisions of the Relocation Ordinance. Commissioner Ritchie defended his position by reviewingitems.contained within the Relocation Ordinance and Mobilehome Ordinance that are similar. Commissioner Ritchie also stated that since this City had a Relocation Ordinance regulating relocation of dwellings within the City, he felt that it should be utilized and made applicable to mobilehomes as well. Mr. Kress then stated that this was the reason for the design review provision. He further stated that there was nothing in the Relocation Ordinance that was not contained in the Mobilehome Ordinance which would add to the decision-making process or criteria standards. In addition, Mr. Kress stated that making mobile- homes subject to the Relocation Ordinance might place the Commission in a position of denying a request under one standard, and approving the same case under another. There was then a discussion by the Commission regarding the requirements set forth in SB 1960. Commissioner Mattern then asked if it was possible to have a re-inspection by HUD to be certain that the mobilehome was still eligible to bear the certification. Mr. Carmona stated that he did not know, but he would investigate the matter. Commissioner Mattern then stated that he agreed with Commissioner Ritchie's position on incorporating the Relocation Ordinance into the Mobilehome Ordinance. There was then a discussion regarding who would inspect the mobilehomes for safety. Commissioner Mattern stated that in the Relocation Ordinance, there was a provision allowing the 'inspection of,the interior of the dwelling. Mr. Carmona then stated that the building inspector could not inspect the interior of the structure, only it's foundation. In addition, he stated that, according to state regulations, the inspector would only be allowed to inspect the foundation, and hook-up of the mobilehome. Commissioner Mattern stated that he would still like to have the Relocation Ordinance provision added, to serve as a warning. Mr. Kress again stated that the Commissioners had failed to point out any differences between the Relocation Ordinance and Mobilehome Ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - April 20, 1981 Page Seven Commissioner Mattern then stated that during an earlier discussion of the proposed Ordinance, it had been agreed by the Commission to include the Relocation Ordinance. He then requested the Commission be polled on the matter. Mr. Carmona then offered the Commission an example of the possible conflicting decisions that may result if the Relocation Ordinance were incorporated into the Mobilehome Ordinance. Commissioner Ritchie then stated that he would like to offer the following as an alternate proposal: "For any mobilehome/manufactured housing that is to be moved from an existing location the applicant must submit a pest and termite report indicating the absence of all pests and rodents in the proposed dwelling." He stated that this, in conjunction with the addition of the provision prohibiting alteration of the dwelling so as to make it ineligible for the HUD certification, could be utilized for control standards. Mr. Kress then stated that all of the mobilehomes would be moved from an exist- ing location, and asked for the reasoning behind this type of provision. There was then a discussion regarding the differences between new and used mobile- homes, and the necessity of having this type of certification submitted for a new mobilehome. Commissioner Ritchie stated that he did not wish to require this from a mobile- home that had not been inhabited. He was only concerned with mobilehomes that had been occupied while at another location. He then suggested that the word "used" be inserted into the sentence. Commissioner Mattern then suggested that a mobilehome could be uninhabited and still become infested. Mr. Kress then stated that the mobilehomes would still be subject to review by the Planning Commission to determine that it was harmonious with the surrounding properties. - Commissioner Cleveland stated that he felt that there was adequate control in regard to the used mobilehomes in No. 6 since the state had set forth limitations on this type of inspection. He also stated that the ordinances offered pro- tection as far as the placement on the proposed dwelling. It was moved by Commissioner Cleveland to approve the Mobilehome/Manufactured Housing Ordinance, as submitted. There was then a discussion regarding the inclusion of the proposed amendments. Commissioner Cleveland then stated that he did not wish to amend the Ordinance in any way. Mr. Kress then requested that the changes agreed upon earlier in the discussion be included; however, he also stated that he was recommending that the Commission not include the Relocation Ordinance provision. There was then a discussion regarding Section 9123.3(A)(6). It was suggested that "and/or occupied" be inserted between "used and ."mobilehomes", to read as follows: "For previously used and/or occupied mobilehomes or manufactured housing, the applicant must submit a pest and termite report indicating the absence of all pests and rodents in the proposed dwelling." Commissioner Cleveland then stated that he would agree to incorporate the changes in his motion for approval of the Ordinance. Commissioner De Cocker then seconded the motion by Commissioner Cleveland. Commissioner Cleveland then stated that his motion included the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Mattern then requested a review of the changes to be incorporated into the Ordinance. Mr. Kress then reviewed the changes. Commissioner Ritchie then stated that the reason for his suggestion to incorporate the Relocation Ordinance into the Mobilehome Ordinance was because of the potential problems, should this be allowed to get out of hand. He also expressed his hope that this Ordinance would contribute to the improvement of the City. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - April 20, 1981 Page Eight ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CLEVELAND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DE COCKER, FOR APPROVAL OF THE MOBILEHOME/MANUFACTURED HOUSING ORDINANCE, AS AMENDED, AND THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Cleveland, Lowrey, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None 8A. PC RESOLUTION 81-14 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, ADOPTION OF A. CITY-WIDE ZONING AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR THE USE OF MOBILEHOMES/MANUFACTURED HOUSING IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES WITHIN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD. Mr. Kress read the Resolution by title only. It was moved by Commissioner Mattern, seconded by Commissioner Ritchie, to waive further reading and adopt PC Resolution 81-14. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Cleveland, Lowrey, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None OTHER BUSINESS 9. MODIFICATION TO SECTION 8110: Request for a waiver of the sidewalk requirement for property located at 4110 Loma, Rosemead, California. The memorandum dated April 20, 1981 was presented by Mr. Carmona. Mr. Dickey addressed the Commission with regard to this request. He stated that it would be in the best interest of the community to require the installation of the sidewalk because the street connects Valley Boulevard and Mission Drive, and is used by many school-age children and teenagers as access to both Rosemead Park and Rosemead High School. Commissioner Ritchie then stated that his understanding was,that the property had been,cited by the County for rehabilitation. This would require that it be brought up to Code. He further stated his opinion that the property would be extremely difficult to bring into compliance, since it was in such bad con- dition. He then asked if the County Department of Rehabilitation required that the entire structure be brought into compliance withall existing Codes. Mr. Carmona stated that only certain items are cited by Rehab, and only those items are required to be repaired and brought into compliance. It was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded by Commissioner Mattern, to deny the request for a waiver of the sidewalk requirement for property located at 4110 Loma. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Cleveland, Lowrey, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None. 10. PC RESOLUTION 81-12 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONOF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, A CHANGE OF ZONE, FROM P-PARKING TO R-2, LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3037 NORTH PROSPECT AVENUE, ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA. (ZONE CHANGE 81-122) Mr. Kress read the Resolution by title only. it was moved by Commissioner Cleveland, seconded by Commissioner De Cocker, to waive further reading and adopt PC Resolution 81-12. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Cleveland, Ritchie, Lowrey Noes: Mattern Commissioner Mattern stated that he voted against the Resolution because he had been in favor of changing the zone to R-1. He further stated that he was concerned with the schools, enforcement, and other problems associated with high-density areas. In addition to this he stated that he felt the density in the area should be lowered. 11. PC RESOLUTION 81-13 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81-217, ALLOWING THE PLACEMENT OF A TEMPORARY TRAILER ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8515 GARVEY AVENUE, ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - April 20, 1981 Page Nine Mr. Kress read the Resolution by title only. It was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded by Commissioner De Cocker, to waive further reading and adopt PC Resolution 81-13. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Cleveland, Lowrey, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE: On any matter Chairman Lowrey asked if anyone present wished to address the Commission. No one came forward. 13. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS AND STAFF None of the Commissioners or members of the staff wished to address the Commission. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, Chairman Lowrey adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m.