Loading...
PC - Minutes 03-26-811 1 CITY OF ROSEMEAD J 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MARCH 26, 1981 MTMTTTF,S 1. CALL TO ORDER: The Study Session was called to order by Vice-Chairman Ritchie at 6:00 p.m., in the Conference Room of Rosemead City Hall, 8838 Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. 2. ROLL CALL - Present: Ritchie, Mattern, De Cocker, Lowrey, Cleveland Absent: None Ex Officio: Carmona,"'Fernandez 3. MATTERS DISCUSSED: Condominium Ordinance Chairman Lowrey requested that the Minutes reflect that Vice-Chairman Ritchie conducted this Study Session, since Chairman Lowrey had arrived late. The discussion began with a continuance of the discussion regarding driveway paving standards, Section 9106.36. Section 9106.36 - Driveway Requirements Among the matters considered by the Commission were the driveway paving stand- ards. Mr. Bill Coffman stated that the driveway paving standards set forth by the Commission were greater that those.of the County of Los Angeles Street Paving Standards. He further added that the subsoil should be compacted to a 908 density for adequate load bearing conditions. There was then a discussion by the Commission regarding the compaction standards. It was then decided to amend Line 2, Page 5 as follows: "(1) The subsoil shall be compacted to 908 density for adequate load bearing conditions." In addition to this, the amount of base material for paving was discussed. In the present Ordinance, it was stated that the paving standard was 4" of AC over 4" base material crushed aggregate. It was then decided to amend Line 4, Page 5 as follows: "(2) Four inches of AC over six inches base material crushed aggregate; or six inches of concrete." Section 9106.37 - Distance to Swimming Pools The Commission agreed that there had been no problems with this section as written. However, there was a discussion regarding the possiblity of adding jacuzzis or spas to this. It was the consensus of the Commission that this was not necessary, and this Section was approved as written. Section 9106.38 - Plan Approval. There was.a discussion regarding the number of copies developers are required to submit with the application. However, Mr. Carmona stated that the number was sufficient and it was decided that 20 copies would still be required. Also discussed was Line 13,which, as written, limited the requirements listed to those projects in the R-3 zone. It was amended by deleting in the R-3 zone. . . There was also a discussion regarding the necessity of Lines 19 through 24. It was stated that this part of the section was to specify what was to be reviewed. After further discussion, it was the decision of the Commission to delete the language on Line 18, beginning with "In evaluating. . through Line 24. Sebsection B of Section 9106.38. now reads as follows: Planning Commission Minutes Study Session - March 26, 1981 Page Two (b) The Director of Planning shall prepare a report on the proposed plan and set the matter for review by the Planning Commission. Section 9106.39 - Condominium Conversions There was a lengthy discussion regarding the change in the State laws of notification for condominium conversions. Mr. Carmona addressed the Commission in this regard. It was decided to amend Line 25 by deleting "Residential", and Line 26 by deleting "in the R-3 zone". Also, there was a lenghty discussion regarding the definition of "tenant" and "occupant". It'was decided by the Commission to in- sert the following where applicable: "tenant and/or legal occupant". The entire section reads as follows: 119106.39 Condominium Conversions. Condominium conversions shall be subject to the application and approval of a conditional use permit pursuant to the pro- visions of Section 9186 of the Rosemead Municipal Code. In addition to those notified of public hearing in accordance with Section 9186, all tenants and/or legal occupants then occupying the proposed conversion site shall be notified in writing of the public hearing. A complete list of tenants and/or legal occupants shall be supplied to the Planning'.I5epartment by the applicant. These requirements in no way diminishes the responsibility of the applicant to comply with all state and county requirements. All proposed condominium projects, in addition to meeting the Building Code requirements, shall comply with Sections 9106.20 through 9106.39 of this Chapter." Section 9106.40 Development Standards was also discussed in,:conjunction with Section 9106.39. There was a disucssion regarding requiring a "precise" site plan, then asking for an estimate of the square footage. Commissioner De Cocker stated that he felt the mord "estimate" should be deleted from this section. Line 3, Page 6 was then amended to read: "(a) The square footage of each unit and number of bedrooms in each unit." Line 6, Page 6 was also amended by adding "and delineation" between "layout" and "of", "and private" was inserted between "common" and "areas". Line 6 now reads: "(b) The lay out and delineation of all common and private areas." Subsection C was also amended to add "as described in Section 9106.32 of this Chapter." to the end of the existing sentence. There was then a discussion regarding the defining of facilities and amenities. However, it was the consensus of the Commission that this was not necessary. In addition to this, Mr. Carmona asked the Commission if they would like to have both a graphic and written explanation on the plans submitted for their review. The Commission agreed that this would be satisfactory, and directed Mr. Carmona to submit language for this requirement to them. Line 10 was amended as follows: "(e) The layout of all private and guest parking spaces to be used in con- junction with each condomonium unit." Further, Line 14 was amended as follows: "(g) trash enclosure locations and construction details." There was then a discussion regarding the landscape plans to be submitted. It was the decided to add a reference to Section 9106.30, which addressed itself to landscaping requirements. In accordance with this, Line 15 was amended as follows: "2. Concept landscaping, irrigation, and lighting plans, as outlined in Section 9106.30 of this Chapter." Planning Commission Minutes Study Session - March 26, 1981 Page Three There was then a discussion regarding the building elevations and what the Commission wanted the plans to illustrate. It was the consensus of the Com- mission that they would like to see the proposed elevations, in relation- ship to the adjacent properties. Subparagraph 3, Lines 16 and 17 were then amended to read: "Building elevations, expressing the type of building materials, finish ex- terior treatments, architectural treatment, and colors to be used. Elevations shall reflect adjacent properties in relationship to the subject property." Subparagraph 4, Lines 18 and 19 were also amended to require illustration of the proposed walls and fences, and their elevations. The following amendment was added: "Location, height, and type of all walls and/or fences in relationship to existing adjacent grade levels; including cross-sections." Mr. Carmona then stated that cross-sections would allow the Commission to view the proposed height of the wall both from the interior of the project and from the exterior. There were also changes in Line 22, the deletion of "homeowners" and the-in- sertion of "owners"; and Line 26 to delete the word "private". It was the consensus of the Commission that the rest of the ordinance was acceptable, however, there was then a discussion regarding the addition of items of concern to the Commissioners, that had been previously overlooked. Among these items, it was requested that a subsection "e" be added to Paragraph 5, which addresses itself to the C,C, and R's. The new section "e" is to require provisions in the C,C, and R's for restricting parking to designated parking areas only. There was also a lengthy discussion regarding the addition of a new section addressing drainage priorities. Mr. Carmona then added that he felt developers could be guided as to their drainage plans if this were included. The drainage priorities agreed upon by the Commission are: 1. Natural historic flow 2. Natural and mechanical 3. Mechanical The Commission agreed that this would be helpful to developers, and Mr. Carmona was directed to draft language to this effect. In addition to this, it was suggested by Mr. Carmona that the findings required for approval be listed in the Condominium Ordinance. There was then a discussion regarding the findings necessary to appr6ve-ordeny a project. The Commission also considered the possibility of imposing developmental fees in areas that show-potential. drainage problems. It was suggested as a means of securing the needed improvements: for adequate-drainage:. It'was further explained: that by requiring developers to install the necessary improvements, the existing system could be improved and the cost shared by'several developers. This would also be less costly. ' There was then a discussion regarding the means in which to impose such a fee. Mr. Carmona suggested that the Planning Commission, as a whole, should approach the appropriate agency. It was then agreed that this matter would be considered at the next regular Planning Commission meeting, under "Matters from City Officials and Staff". There was a discussion regarding matters that had been omitted, and the possibility of creating a new section (9106.41) addressing itself to development standards. After further review of how best to accomplish the establishment of development standards, it was suggested by Commissioner Ritchie that the present Section 9106.40 Development Standards be deleted from Line 13, Page 5 along with the Planning Commission Minutes Study Session - March 26, 1981 Page Four word "conversions". In addition, "conversions" was replaced with "projects", and the title of Section 9106.40 was amended to "Development Submission Standards". The new section reads as set forth below: "9106.40 Development Submission Standards. All proposed condominium project applications shall be accompanied by 20 copies of a precise development plan showing the following details. . Also discussed in this regard was the ability of existing structures being able to comply with the standards of this Ordinance. Commissioner Mattern then stated that the following items were omitted in the draft of the Ordinance, and requested that they be included in the next draft: 1. Posting of signs prior to final building inspection. 2. Steel supports for wooden fences. 3. Recommendations for security systems. 4. Prohibiting.wooden shake or shingle roofs. Also discussed in this regard was the possiblity of prohibiting wooden shake or shingle sidings. It was then decided to define "roof" for clarity in deter- mining where developers could utilize wood. It was suggested that roof be defined as anything that is not a vertical wall. Commissioner De Cocker then stated that he would like to add a provision reflecting the Commission policy that developments over three units require the undergrounding of utilities. In addition to this, he requested that a pro- vision be included addressing the placement of mailboxes within the projects. He was then informed that the placement of mailboxes was controlled by the Postal Service Regulations, which require that the mail boxes be accessible from the street. It was then decided to add a statement to the effect that the placement of mailboxes shall be in conformity with the Postal Service Regulations. Commissioner De Cocker inquired regarding the feasibility of requiring developers to install residential fire sprinkler systems in the garages. There was then a discussion regarding the reliability of these systems and the concern that they may go off when there is no fire thereby flooding the dwelling unit. It was stated that since the sprinklers would be in the garage, rather than in the dwelling units, flooding of the homes would not be a problem. It was the con- sensus of the Commission to include this in the new Ordinance. Chairman Lowrey then asked if there was a possibility of adding sump pumps to drain the overflow of water. away from the street in cases such as a resident washing his car. He was informed that thew would probably not be feasible, since sump pumps were used mainly to drain rain water and channel it into the storm drain system. Oommissioner Mattern then requested that the Commission reconsider the prohibit ing of renters in condominium developments. There was further discussion regarding listing the findings of approval in the Condominium Ordinance. 4. ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion to come before the Commission, the Study Session was adjourned to the next Study Session, April 2, 1981, at 6:00 p.m.