Loading...
PC - Minutes 03-18-81CITY OF ROSEMEAD 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MARCH 18, 1981 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER - The Study Session was called to order by chairman Lowrey in the Conference Room of Rosemead City Hall, 8838 Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. 2. ROLL CALL - Present: Cleveland, De Cocker, Lowrey, Ritchie, Mattern Absent: None Ex Officio: Carmona, Christianson, Fernandez 3. MATTERS DISCUSSED - Condominium Ordinance Inspector Gene Woolfe, Los Angeles County Fire Department, was present to address the Commission regarding the driveway recommendations and to answer any questions by the Commission. Section 9106.35 - Building Length Limitations Commissioner Ritchie stated that this section was satisfactory to him. The rest of the Commission concurred with Commissioner Ritchie. Section 9106.36 - Driveway Requirements There was a-lengthy discussion regarding the recommendations of the Fire Department. Inspector Woolfe answered various questions by the Commission regarding recommended length and width of the driveways, and the clearance to the sky. Inspector Woolfe stated that the recommendations of the Fire Department were flexible. In addition to this, he informed the Commission that a 20% slope of the driveway ramp was acceptable to the Fire Department., however, the Fire Department relied on the recommendation of the County Engineer. In answer to a question regarding the 26-foot driveway recommendation, Inspector Woolfe stated that this was not made for turn-around purposes, but was the minimum working area around the fire truck. He then explained the procedure utilized.to determine this figure. There was also a discussion regarding the clearance to the sky. Inspector Woolfe stated that a slight overhang of 3 feet was acceptable; however, a large overhang of 6 feet would not be acceptable. Also discussed was the recommendations of the Fire Department regarding security gates. Inspector Woolfe stated that security gates had not posed a special problem in gaining access to the fire. He further informed the Commission of the various methods used to gain access to a property that had security gates installed. There was then a discussion by the Commission regarding infringement of the 26-foot driveway width, and the definition of driveway. Mr. Carmona then stated that the 26 foot driveway width could also be considered as a back-up area for vehicles. Chairman Lowrey also asked Inspector Woolfe about grading of the property, and what effect the slope would have as far as,.access to the property. Inspector Woolfe stated that 208 slope would still not pose a problem as far as access. There was then a discussion regarding the Fire Department recommendations. Inspector Woolfe stated that the recommendations made by the Fire, Department should-not be considered conditions of approval, since the Fire Department served only as an advisory agency to the City. In addition to this, he stated that there were sheets handed out to developers regarding Access Standards, and Fire Flow Standards. Mr. Carmona then asked Inspector Woolfe if it would be possible to obtain copies of the standards for review by the Commission. Inspector Woolfe also informed the Commission of the procedure utilized for deter- mining the fire flow requirements of a tract. There was then a discussion regarding fire flows, and the factors considered when the recommended fire flow is lowered. Chairman Lowrey asked Inspector Woolfe if the Fire Department had any concerns with the problems associated with grading of properties. Inspector Woolfe then stated Planning Commission Minutes Study Session - March 18, 1981 Page Two that the only time the Fire Department was called upon is when they are asked to provide sandbags to properties experiencing flooding in a heavy rain. There was then a discussion regarding Section 9106.27 - Side Yard Setbacks. Commissioner Ritchie asked if the side yard setback requirements included the drive- way, or if the 10 to 15 feet required was in addition to the driveway width. Section 9106.27 - Side Yard Setback There was a lengthy discussion regarding this section of the Ordinance. Commissioner Ritchie requested that a decision be made regarding using the term "driveway" or "vehicular accessway". Commissioner Mattern then suggested that the term "drive- way should be defined. There was then lenghty discussion regarding the definition of "driveway", and where the definition should be placed. Mr. Carmona suggested that it be placed in the General Provisions Section of the Zoning Code. Also discussed by the Commission were the paving requirements. Inspector Woolfe stated that the Fire Department did not require paving of the entire area, as long as the access was available. After further discussion, it was decided to add the definition of driveways/vehicular accessways to Section 9106.21, as follows: "Vehicular accessways and/or driveways.- A private way for the use of vehicles and pedestrians." Commissioner Mattern then stated that he would like to add a separate paragraph to define the reference point and limit the height of fencing. After further discussion regarding Commissioner Mattern's suggestion, it was de- cided to add this to Section 9106.25 - Building Height Maximum. There was then a lengthy discussion regarding this section. The following was agreed upon by the Commission: "A. Maximum building height: Two and one-half (211) stories, or thirty-five feet, whichever is less. B. Fencing and/or walls: No fence or wall of any kind shall exceed 6 feet in height from the existing grade or adjacent property, whichever is the lesser elevation." There was also a lengthy discussion regarding the addition of sub-section C, addressing itself to first floor/ground floor elevations. In addition to this, Commissioner Mattern stated that he felt this should be defined because of possible invasion of privacy on the adjacent property owners. The other matters discussed included the best method to be utilized to minimize this problem. Various methods mentioned were limitations on grading and setbacks, and requiring-;block walls to surround the entire project. It was the consensus of the Commission to add the following: "A cinder block wall shall be constructed around the entire periphery." 4. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Lowrey adjourned the Study Session to the next Study Session, March 26, 1981, at 6:00 p.m.