Loading...
PC - Minutes 04-02-81CITY OF ROSEMEAD 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION APRIL 2, 1981 MTN77TR.S 1. CALL TO ORDER: The Study Session was called to order by Chairman Lowrey at 6:00 p.m., in the Conference Room of Rosemead City Hall, 8838 Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. 2. ROLL CALL - Present: De Cocker, Cleveland, Lowrey, Ritchie, Mattern Absent: None Ex Officio: Carmona, Fernandez 3. MATTERS DISCUSSED: Condominium Ordinance Mr. Carmona submitted the second draft of the'COndominium Ordinance to the Commission. He then addressed the Commission regarding the changes that had been incorporated into this draft. In addition, he informed the Commission that the provision for security systems had been inadvertently ommitted but would be included in the final draft. He also stated that the provision for subterranean parking was not included and that he would like to include this section in the General Provisions Section of the Zoning Ordinance to make it applicable to all :zones. In addition to this, he stated that the setbacks had not been consolidated into this draft, but would be added in the final draft. Chairman Lowrey stated that Pages 1 and 2, up to line 31 appeared to be correct. However, Commissioner Ritchie stated that Line 15 on Page 1 should specify "Condominium Ordinance" in the reference to "this Chapter". He requested that "Condominium Ordinance" be inserted between "chapter" and "shall". After a discussion by the Commission Line 15 was amended as follows: 11 . . .the provisions of this chapter (Condominium Ordinance) shall be used as general development guidelines." Commissioner De Cocker then inquired if commercial condominiums had been addressed in this draft. Mr. Carmona stated that provisions for this type of development had been included on Page 3, Lines 2 through 7. There was then a discussion regarding the inclusion of the word "plane" in the definition of roofs. Commissioner Mattern expressed his reasons for not wishing to have roofs defined as planes. There was then a lengthy discussion regarding this matter. It was the consensus of the Commission to leave the definition as submitted. Mr. Carmona then requested that the Commission review the commercial condominium section. After a review of that section, Chairman Lowrey stated that he was satisfied with it. There was then a discussion by the Commission regarding the minimum lot size provision. Mr. Carmona stated that this had been included to prevent the division of small lots to create even smaller lots. Also dis- cussed was the subdivision process for commercial condominiums, the C,C, 6 R's for commercial condominiums, and the inclusion of the maintenence provision in the commercial condominium C,C, 6 R's. The Commission then began a review of the new Section 9106.25-Maximum Building Heights. After reviewing the new section, the Commissioners were not clear on the restrictions this section set forth. Mr. Carmona illustrated the principle for the Commission. Commissioner Ritchie then stated that this section did not control the allowable height of the first floor level. There was a lengthy discussion regarding the limitation on the height of the first floor level, and the possibility of adding a section addressing this problem. Commissioner Ritchie offered the following: "(b) Entry way, dwelling unit entrance, and/or first floor level shall be limited to two (2) feet in height, as measured from grade. Grade shall mean the same as defined in Section 9106.25(a)(1)." Planning Commission Minutes Study Session - April 2, 1981 Page Two There was then a discussion regarding means of controlling the entire first floor level of a project, and the effect this provision would have on projects not facing the adjacent property line. Mr. Carmona then suggested the following addition to the section proposed by Commissioner Ritchie: 11 . . .which are facing or are contiguous to adjacent property lines. There was then a discussion of this suggestion, and it was the consensus of the Commission-to add that portion of the sentence. The section now reads as follows: "(b) Entry ways or dwelling unit entrance and first floor levels which are facing or are contiguous to adjacent property lines shall be limited to two (2) feet in height, as measured from grade. Grade shall mean the same as defined in Section 9106.25(a)(1)." There was then a discussion regarding the height of walls. It was the consensus of the Commission to add the following to Page 4, Line 11 of the Second Draft: "Any combination of retaining wall and fence heights. . . This was added to prevent the developers from placing a wall/fence on top of a retaining wall, resulting in an extremely high wall when viewing it from the dajacent property. It was also requested to change fence to wall wherever applicable, and to change the allowable interior wall height from ten feet to nine feet. Section 9106.26-Front Yard Setbacks was discussed with regard to the effect that the front yard setbacks would have on subterranean parking. Mr. Carmona informed the Commission of his intention to draft this into the section on Subterranean Parking. Section 9106.27-Side Yard Setbacks and Section 9106.28-Rear Yard Setbacks were reviewed by the Commission. After a short discussion regarding these sections, it was the consensus of the Commission that these sections were acceptable as submitted. 4. ADJOURNMENT There was a short discussion;-regarding the scheduling of the next study session. It was decided to tentatively schedule it for April 9, 1981 at 6:00 p.m., and confirm this date at the regular meeting, April 6, 1981. Accordingly, Chairman Lowrey adjourned the Study Session to the regular meeting, April 6, 1981, at 7:30 p.m.