Loading...
PC - Minutes 03-16-81r: ' t i i CITY OF ROSEMEAD 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 16, 1981 MTNiITF.S 1. CALL TO ORDER - The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead was called to order by Vice-Chairman Ritchie 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 De Cocker. The invocation was delivered by Commissioner Mattern. 2. ROLL CALL - Present: De Cocker, Cleveland, Ritchie, Mattern Absent: Lowrey (excused) Ex Officio: Dickey, Carmona, Christianson, Fernandez 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting, March 2, 1981 It was moved by Commissioner Cleveland, seconded by Commissioner Mattern, to approve the Minutes of March 2, 1981, as printed. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Cleveland, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None Absent: Lowrey Vice-Chairman Ritchie then stated that the Minutes of the Study Session, March 9, 1981 were not completed in time for this agenda, and they would appear on the next Agenda, April 6, 1981. 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE: On items not on the Agenda Edmond Mar 2702-2708 New Avenue Rosemead, California Mr. Mar addressed the Commission on behalf of Kim Mar. He stated that he had been informed that the consideration of Parcel Map 14095 had been continued to this evening's meeting, but the matter did not appear on the Agenda. He then requested an explanation. Mr. Carmona stated that, due to problems with the parcel map, the consideration of the matter had been tabled by the Planning Commission until such time as the problems could be resolved. He further stated that a new notice would be issued at such time as the matter could be rescheduled, and requested that Mr. Mar contact him in his office the following day. PUBLIC HEARINGS Vice-Chairman Ritchie announced the Public Hearings, and requested that anyone wishing to address the Commission with regard to any of the matters, rise and be administered the oath. The witnesses were administered the oath by the secretary. 5. ZONE VARIANCE 81-94 AND DESIGN REVIEW 81-4: Request by Alfredo T. Ganzon for a zone variance to Sections 9114.3, 9104.4, and 9121.24, materials for required separation wall, and sideyard setbacks, of the Rosemead Municipal Code; and con- sideration of the development plans for property located at 2703 Stingle Avenue. Vice-Chairman Ritchie opened the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m. PROPONENTS: Alfredo T. Ganzon Alice Ganzon 13401 Telegraph Road 13401 Telegraph Road Whittier, California - Whittier, California Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - March 16, 1981 Page Two Mr. and Mrs. Ganzon addressed the Commission with regard to their proposal. Commissioner Cleveland asked the applicants if they agreed to all the changes made in their conditions of approval, and Commissioner De Cocker asked if the applicants had any objections to removing the old chain link fence and installing a new chain link fence on the north and south property lines, instead of installing the solid, cement block wall. Mr. and Mrs. Ganzon both indicated their agreement. Vice-Chairman Ritchie then asked that Mr. Carmona present the staff recommendation for this proposal. Mr. Carmona informed the Commission that staff was recommending approval of this matter, since consultations with the applicants and staff had resulted in a greatly improved plan. Commissioner De Cocker then asked if the other Commissioners were in agreement regarding the installation of the chain link fence instead of the block wall. Commissioner Cleveland then stated his agreement. ,Vice-Chairman Ritchie then asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the. Commission in opposition to this request. Seeing no one, the public hearing was closed at 7:50 p.m. Commissioner Mattern then expressed his concern with constructing the building on the property line, since the existing R-1 use could possibly remain for a-long time. He also expressed his opinion that the plan should be reversed on the lot, placing the building on the opposite side of the lot. In addition to this, he stated that Condition No. 4 should be amended so that it becomes a directive instead of an option. Mr. Carmona then explained that this condition was written because the staff wanted to require some type of window treatment that would be harmonious with the building. Commissioner Mattern then suggested.that the condition be modified to require re- view and approval of the window treatment by the Planning Department. In addition to this, Commissioner Mattern stated that he would like to add the following as Condition No. 7: 7. Phase IZ project area to be maintained free of debris, weeds, and unsightly growths, and shall not be utilized for any type of storage. Commissioner Mattern then stated his opposition to this plan because of the place- ment of the building. He further stated that he would not protest this matter if the plan were reversed on the lot. He asked Mr. Ganzon if he would agree to reverse the plan. :Mr. Ganzon then replied that he would object, since the place ment of the building on the other side of the lot would not be conducive to his business. Commissioner Mattern then requested that a condition be added requiring a five- foot setback from the property line. There was also discussion regarding the wall to be constructed across the property, 65 feet from the front property line. Commissioner Mattern suggested that a chain link fence could be used"instead of the block wall. He further requested that this be added as a condition. Vice-Chairman Ritchie then asked Commissioner De Cocker if he wished to add a condition requiring installation of a new chain link fence on the north and south property lines, and Commissioner De Cocker stated that he did. Vice-Chairman Ritchie then asked the applicants why they wished to install a wooden fence, fifteen feet in length. Mr. Ganzon stated that they would prefer to installation of the chain link fence. Vice-Chairman Ritchie then asked the applicants how big a set back they were proposing, from the front property. Mr. Ganzon then stated that the set back would be five feet. Vice-Chairman Ritchie then requested that this be added as a condition. There was then a discussion by the Commission regarding the formal application for the zone variance. Mr. Carmona stated that the application had been omitted from the staff report because he did not feel that it was complete. There was also a question regarding the request and Mr. Carmona read the requests on the application. Vice-Chairman Ritchie then polled the Commission with regard to the conditions added. He began with Commissioner Mattern's request to change the location of the building to the opposite side of the lot, or provide a 5 foot setback and -a block Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - March 16, 1981 Page Three wall on the north side, from the property line on the west. Commissioner De Cocker, Commissioner Cleveland, and Vice-Chairman Ritchie opposed this. The Commission was then polled on Commissioner De Cocker's request for the in- stallation of a 6-foot chain link fence on the north and south property lines. Commissioner.=Cleveland and Vice-Chairman Ritchie supported this request. The Commission was polled regarding adding Commissioner Mattern's Condition No. 7. It was the consensus of the Commission to add this condition. Vice-Chairman Ritchie polled the Commission regarding the addition of Condition No. 8, which reads as follows: 8. Building to be constructed a minimum of five feet from the front property line with landscaping, as shown on the plan. All Commissioners present were in agreement to adding this condition. There was then a discussion regarding the proposed amendment to Condition No. 4, which was stated as follows: 4. That the owners shall provide decorative, color coordinated shutters or window treatment; and shall be reviewed by the Planning Department for approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All Commissioners present agreed to this condition. Also discussed was the absence of a condition requiring the landscaping of the Phase II project area. Mr. Carmona stated that the Commission was polled at the last meeting, and it was the consensus of the Commission that the cost for land- scaping be investigated and the findings reported to the Commission. Mr. Carmona stated that a tentative cost for landscaping of the subject property was between $3,000 to-$5,000. It was then the consensus of the Commission that the cost was prohibitive. Commissioner Mattern then stated that he would comply with the wishes of the Commission, even though it was his opinion that most of the cost was for the installation of sprinkler systems. Vice-Chairman Ritchie then asked Mr. Carmona for an explanation of Condition No. 2. There was a discussion regarding the drainage from the roof of the building and the possibility that it would drain on to the property line. Vice-Chairman Ritchie then requested that the condition be amended as follows: 2. The metal building shall be provided with an increased (2 foot) overhang and an eight-inch facia gutter, around the entire periphery. Commissioner Mattern then requested that the Commission reconsider the possible' detrimental. effects of requiring a 2 foot overhang. Commissioners De Cocker and Cleveland both expressed their disagreement with Commissioner Mattern's suggestion. Commissioner Mattern then requested a clarification on whether the overhang would be from the roof line or the base of the building. Vice-Chairman Ritchie then stated that the face of the building would be 2 feet from the property line, the overhang of the roof would be a few inches from the property line, and the gutter would prevent water from draining onto the adjacent property. He further explained that the drainage would-be toward the street. It was moved by Commissioner Cleveland, seconded by Commissioner De Cocker, to approve Zone Variance 81-94 and the Design Review, subject to the amendments_to Conditions 2 and 4, and the added conditions. There was then a discussion regarding the Negative Declaration, and Mr. Carmona advised the Commission that this project was a categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act. Vice-Chairman Ritchie then requested that the secretary read back all the amended conditions and added conditions. They were read back, and approved by the Commission, as follows: 2. The metal building shall be provided with an increased (2-foot) overhang and an eight inch facia gutter around the entire periphery. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - March 16, 1981 Page Four 4. That the owner shall provide decorative, color-coordinated shutters or window treatment, and shall be reviewed by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of the building permits. 7. Phase II project area is to be maintained free from litter, drbris and weeds, and shall not be used for storage. 8. Building to be constructed a minimum of five feet from the property line with landscaping as shown on plans. Vice-Chairman Ritchie then stated that the following condition should also be in- cluded. 9. A new, six-foot chain link fence shall be installed along the north and south property lines. Commissioner Mattern then requested that the installation of a chain link fence across the property be added as a condition. There was then a discussion regarding the installation of the fence, and whether or not this should be added as a con- dition. It was then the decision of the Commission to include the following as a condition of approval: 10. A chain link fence shall be located across the property approximately 65 feet from the front property line, as shown on the approved plot plan. Vice-Chairman Ritchie then called for the vote on the motion by Commissioners Cleveland and De Cocker for approval of Zone variance 81-94 and the Design Review. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Cleveland, Ritchie Noes: Mattern Absent: Lowrey 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81-214: Request by Mohammad Igbal Chudchry for the estab- lishment of an arcade on property located at 3163 North San Gabriel Boulevard. The Staff Report dated March 16, 1981, was presented by Mr. Carmona and the recom- mendation for denial was made. Mr. Carmona stated that the recommendation was based on the opinion that this use did not serve the best interest of the com- munity, and because of the mixed land uses. Vice-Chairman Ritchie opened the Public Hearing at 8:25 p:m. PROPONENTS: Edwardo De La Cruz 415 East Harvard Glendale, California Mohammad Iqbal Chudchry 744 East Mission Drive San Gabriel, California Mr. De La Cruz addressed the Commission with regard to the absence-of problems with juveniles during the operation of the Circle K Convenience Market, and the operation of the proposed business. Mr. Chudchry also addressed the Commission with regard to the operation of the previous business, the proposal, and the possibility of expanding the use to include a convenience market on the site at some future date. in addition to this, Mr. Chudchry stated that he did not feel that this business would have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood, since there were other establishments in the area that could also generate the same types of problems anticipated by staff. OPPONENT: Mr. Danilo Arrighi 909 East Norwood Place Rosemead, California Mr. Arrighi stated that he was representing the property owners and residents of the area. He further informed the Commission of the detrimental effects that an operation of this type would have on the neighborhood. He cited concern with vandalism, graffiti, loitering, and gang-related activity in the area. In addition to this, he presented a petition signed by residents of the area, requesting that this proposal be denied. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - March 16, 1981 Page Five Vice-Chairman Ritchie closed the Public Hearing at 8:35 p.m. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the testimony of the witnesses, and the petition submitted by Mr. Arrighi. Commissioner Mattern also stated his agreement with the comments made by Mr. Arrighi, in that this type of business would not be in the best interest of the residents of the area. There was also a discussion regarding the absence of a Negative Declaration. Mr. Carmona stated that under the provisions of the California Enviornmental Quality Act, a Negative Declaration was not required when the recommendation was for denial of the request. \It was moved by Commissioner Mattern, seconded by Commissioner Cleveland, to accept the recommendation of staff for denial of Conditional Use Permit 81-214, on the basis of incompatible land use. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Cleveland, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None Absent: Lowrey Vice-Chairman Ritchie then informed the applicants that they could appeal this decision by the Planning Commission to the City Council within ten days. 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81-215: Request by Union Federal Saving and Loan Association for the placement of a temporary trailer on property located at 9001-9005-9007-9007 Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. Vice-Chairman Ritchie asked that anyone wishing to address the Commission approach the podium. PROPONENT: Mr. Ronald Spignolio Senior Vice-President, Union Federal 11579 Seminole Circle Northridge, California Mr. Spignolio addressed the Commission with regard to the conditions recommended by staff, and Union Federal's agreement to comply with all conditions as set forth. Vice-Chairman Ritchie then requested that staff present their report and recom- mendation. The Staff Report was then presented by Ms. Christianson, and the recommendation for conditional approval was made. Commissioner Cleveland asked Mr. Spignolio if the subject property had been pur- chased by union Federal Savings and Loan, and Mr. Spignolio stated that it had not. However, he did state that,. since the property had not been offered for purchase, a master lease had been executed. Vice-Chairman Ritchie then inquired regarding the effect of the lease on the future use. Mr. Spignolio also informed the Commission that there were problems with the present site, and for this reason, the bank was seeking to relocate. He also anticipated full occupancy of the subject site within one year, at which time, the temporary trailer would no longer be re- quired. Vice-Chairman Ritchie then asked Mr. Spignolio if there were any plans to land- scape the front of the trailer, and which businesses were to remain in operation. Mr. Spignolio then replied that there were plans to landscape the front of the trailer. Vice-Chairman Ritchie also inquired regarding the relocation of the bus stop presently existing in front of the site. Mr. Spignolio indicated that there had been correspondence with the Rapid Transit District in this regard but no officials documents had been signed. There was then a lengthy discussion re- garding this matter, as well as the relocation of the existing trash container, sprinkler, and the traffic survey for this property. Mr. Richard Santos 140 Palmetto Drive Pasadena, California Mr. Santos addressed the Commission regarding their questions regarding the traffic survey, and bus stop. He informed the Commission that research was being conducted regarding the relocation of the bus stop, and that a report had Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - March 16, 1981 Page Six been submitted to them indicating,.the effects the proposed parking plan would have on this intersection. In addition, he stated that a preliminary review of the relocation of the City-owned sprinkler control had been done, but they had not obtained approval. Ms. Christianson then stated that these matters would be discussed and reviewed at the time of building permit issuance. Commissioner De Cocker then inquired regarding the number of customers utilizing the facility, and Mr. Spignolio stated that it was approximately 20 customers per hour. In addition to this, Commissioner De Cocker expressed his concern with the ingress and egress on Valley, and his concern that customers would be tempted to utilize the Valley entrance to exit. He further asked if there was a reciprocal agreement in effect for use of the parking facilities by other businesses. Mr. Spignolio then stated that there was no such agreement in effect, however, he would not be opposed to one. OPPONENT: Mr. Robert Peterson 9001 Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California Mr. Peterson stated that he, was the present owner and tenant of Bob's Pharmacy. He further requested that the Planning Commission give consideration to the fact that he held a lease on the subject property, and that the applicants had also leased the site. In addition, he stated that the applicants had indicated to him that they intended to remodel one of the buildings for the pharmacy's use, but this did not seem to be their intention. He further stated his opposition to this project based on the location of a drive- way located within 20 feet of a major intersection, the..proposed parking plan, and that one year's time would not be sufficient for the applicants to occupy the site. He indicated to the Commission that he did not intend to surrender his right to the property, and that he would investigate the possibility of closing the rear of his site to through traffic... Vice-Chairman Ritchie closed the Public Hearing at 9:00 p.m. It was suggested by Mr. Dickey that this matter be continued to the next regular meeting to allow the parties involved to meet with the Arroyo Group. He stated that the Arroyo Group had been contracted to investigate business revitalization on major commercial thoroughfares in the City. There was then a discussion regarding Mr. Dickey's suggestion. Commissioner Cleveland stated that he did not feel there was sufficient information submitted to render a decision. Mr. Spignolio then requested that this matter be acted upon as soon as possible, since the present lease in the Rosemead Square Shopping Center would expire in May. Commissioners Cleveland and Mattern then expressed their support of a continuance of this matter. Vice-Chairman Ritchie also suggested that during the period of the continuance, the applicants attempt to secure definite approval of the agencies involved. There being no further discussion by the Commission, Vice-Chairman Ritchie re- opened the Public Hearing on Conditional Use Permit 81-215, and continued the matter to April 6, 1981. Vice-Chairman Ritchie called a recess at 9:10 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:25 p.m. 8. ZONE CHANGE 81-122: Request by William T. Brunner, Metha E. Brunner, William G. Brunner, Daniel L. Brunner, and Violet T. Haddad, for a change of zone from P- Parking, to R-2, Light Multiple Residential, for property located at 3037 Prospect Avenue. The Staff Report dated March 16, 1981 was presented by Mr. Carmona, and the recommendation for approval was made. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - March 16, 1981 Page Seven Vice-Chairman Ritchie opened the Public Hearing at 9:25 p.m. PROPONENT: Mr. William Brunner 547 East Thelborn Covina, California Mr. Brunner addressed the Commission regarding the request for a change of zone. He further stated that with the present P zone, development of the property was limited. Commissioner Mattern inquired if there was a building plan in mind, and if the applicants would object to changing the zone to R-1 instead of R-2. Mr. Brunner stated that they.did not have a development plan, but they would object to the R-1 zoning. There was then a discussion regarding the number of units that would be allowed under the R-1 and R-2 zone. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:30 p.m. Commissioner Mattern then stated that he would agree to change the zone to R-1 but did not agree with the request for R-2. He further stated that the R-1 zone would be in conformance with the proposed Land Use Element. He then re- quested that the Commission be polled regarding this matter. Commissioner De Cocker then inquired if the surrounding properties in the area were zoned and developed according to R-2 standards. Mr. Carmona stated that they were. Vice-Chairman Ritchie then stated that there had been many problems associated with development under the Deep Lot Ordinance, and stated his agreement with Commissioner Mattern. He also cited the proposed change in the Land Use Element as the basis for his opinion. Mr. Daniel Brunner 3032 Prospect .Rosemead, California Mr. Brunner asked the Commission what the difference would be in developing the property under the R-1 or R-2 zone. Vice-Chairman Ritchie stated that it would be in the number of units allowed on the property. Vice-Chairman Ritchie also stated that he did not wish to see further development under the Deep Lot Ordinance. Commissioner Mattern then stated his desire to make a motion to approve Zone Change 81-122, from P-Parking to R-1, Single Family Residential. There was then a discussion regarding Commissioner Mattern's.proposed motion. The applicants then stated their opposition to changing the zone to R-1. Mr. Carmona also addressed the Commission with regard to the number of units that would be allowed under the R-1 and R-2 zones, and Vice-Chairman Ritchie suggested the possibility of subdividing the land. Mr. Carmona then advised the Commission that the motion to change this property's zoning to R-1 was inappropriate, and that if the Commission did not feel that the request was acceptable, the appropriate motion would be to deny the request. He further suggested that the zoning of the property could be changed during the Land Use Element adoption process. He also stated that the application should be considered as submitted, and not amended in any way. Commissioner Cleveland then asked what the zoning of the surrounding properties was, then stated that he did not feel that only one property should be zoned R-1. He then expressed his support of the applicants' request. It was moved by Commissioner Cleveland, seconded by Commissioner De Cocker, to approve Zone Change 81-122, from P-Parking to R-2, Light Multiple Residential, for property located at 3037 Prospect; and to accept the Negative Declaration. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - March 16, 1981 Page Eight There was then further discussion by the Commission with.regard to the number of units that would be allowed on the property, and the possibility that the proposed Land Use Element would not be adopted. Commissioner Mattern then stated that many hours of work had been put in to arrive at the decision to lower the density of the area, and he felt that the Commission should abide by their previous decision. Vice-Chairman Ritchie then asked if there was any further discussion regarding this matter. Hearing none, he then asked the Commissioners to cast their votes. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Cleveland Noes: Ritchie, Mattern Vice-Chairman Ritchie then stated that this matter would be continued to the next regular meeting, April 6, 1981, due to a split vote. He then reopened the Public Hearing at 9:50 p.m. - Commissioner Mattern then requested that the applicants reconsider amending their request for a change of zone to R-1. The applicants stated that they did not wish to amend their request. OTHER BUSINESS 9. MODIFICATION TO SECTION 8110: 3469 Earlswood Drive; Request by Mr. and Mrs. Enio De Gregorio for a waiver of the sidewalk installation on property located at 3469 Earlswood Drive. MODIFICATION TO SECTION 8110: 3402 Rockhold: Request by Mr. and Mrs. Medina for a waiver of the sidewalk installation for property located at 3402 Rockhold. The memorandum dated March 16, 1981 was presented by Ms. Christianson, and the recommendation for approval of both requests was made. Vice-Chairman Ritchie asked if the applicants wished to address the Commission. Mr. Medina then stated that his requested was based on financial hardship and be- cause there were no other sidewalks in the area. Mr. Dickey then informed the Commission that the installation of the sidewalk might best be accomplished in the formation of an assessment district. It was moved by Commissioner Mattern, seconded by Commissioner Cleveland, to grant the requests for waiver of the sidewalk requirements for properties located at 3469 Earlswood and 3402 Rockhold. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Cleveland, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None Absent: Lowrey 10. MODIFICATION TO ZONE CHANGE 80-116: Request by F. Bernard Dennis for a modification to the development plan for property located at 8824 East Mission Drive, Rosemead, California. (Continued from March 2, 1981) The Staff Report dated March 16, 1981 was presented by Mr. Carmona, and the recommendation for approval was made. Commissioner De Cocker stated that he did not object to the parking plan as pro- posed, since a 26 foot driveway was provided. He further stated that his only other request would be to widen the driveway about 5 feet to provide easier ' access from Mission Drive. The applicants stated that there was a street light and a fire hydrant at that location; however, they would do their best to comply with Commissioner De Cocker's request. It was moved by Commissioner Cleveland, seconded by Commissioner De Cocker, to approve the modification to Zone Change 80-116. Vice-Chairman Ritchie then asked if the Commission wished to impose an additional condition addressing itself to the widening of the. driveway. There was then a discussion as to the necessity of the addition of the condition. Commissioner De Cocker then stated that he would like to add the following as a condition: "The northern entrance of the property shall have increased turnino radius to five feet." - Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - March 16, 1981 Page Nine Commissioner Cleveland then stated that if there were no objections, he would like to amend his motion to include the added condition. Commissioner Mattern then stated that he would like to include the following in Condition No. 2: . .which shall incorporate timers and moisture sensors. . Condition No. 2, how_.reads,as.follows: 2. A landscape plan with permanent sprinkler systems, which shall incorporate timers and moisture sensors, shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. Vice-Chairman Ritchie then stated that, in reviewing this request for modification, he had discovered that the first floor would be six feet higher than the adjacent properties. This would allow infringement of the adjacent residents' privacy. He further stated that since this project had been approved previously he could do nothing to prevent this; however, he stated that this would be the last time that he would vote in favor of a project that had proposed grades higher than existing, adjacent grades. Vice-Chairman Ritchie then called for the vote on the motion by Commissioners Cleveland and De Cocker for approval of the modification request. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Cleveland, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None Absent: Lowrey Vice-Chairman'-Ritchie "then stated that he wished to add that if the adjacent properties were of the same built-up grade, he would not oppose the building up of the site. His only concern was with allowing one project to be so much higher than the surrounding properties. 11. MODIFICATION --PARCEL MAPS 12850 AND 12852: Request by Chris Bade for a modification of the proposed site plan for property located at 4211-13 and 4217=19"Rio Hondo Avenue. (Continued from March 2, 1981) The Staff Report and Agreement of Understanding, dated March 16, 1981, were presented by Mr.-Carmona', and the recommendation for approval and acceptance of the Agreement was made. It was moved by Commissioner Cleveland, seconded by(.Vice-ChairmanlRitchie, to approve the Agreement of Understanding for Parcel'Maps 12850 and 12852.- Vice-Chairman Ritchie then asked if the conditions on the Agreement included the 18 foot approach. Mr. Carmona stated that this was recorded with the parcel map. There was then a discussion regarding the width of the approach and the easement on the northern property line. Vice-Chairman Ritchie stated that these were requirements at the time of original approval. After a visual review of the subject parcel maps, Vice-Chairman Ritchie was satisfied that the 18 foot approach was included. Vice-Chairman Ritchie then called for the vote on the motion by Commissioner Cleveland for approval and acceptance of the agreement. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes:' De Cocker, Cleveland, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None Absent: Lowrey 12. PC RESOLUTION 81-8 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF -ROSEMEAD~GRANTING`"CONDITIONAL US_E-PERM_IT'.81-213_ FOR A'BILLIARD-PARLOR -AND GAME ARCADE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9766 EAST VALLEY BOULEVARD, ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA. ."Mr..Dickey read the Resolution by-title only. It was moved by Commissioner De-Cocker; seconded by Commissioner Mattern, to waive further reading and adopt PC Resolution 81-8. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes:- De Cocker; Cleveland, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None" ^ :!Absent: Lowrey- - - " Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - March 16, 1981 Page Ten 13. PC RESOLUTION.81-9 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD GRANTING A ZONE VARIANCE TO-PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1515 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE, ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA. (ZONE VARIANCE 81-93) Mr. Carmona informed the Commission that this Resolution also gave consideration to the design review.in Section 5. Mr. Dickey read the Resolution by title only. It was moved by Commissioner Mattern, seconded by Commissioner'De Cocker, to waive further reading and'adopt PC Resolution 81-9. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: 'De Cocker, Cleveland, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None 14. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE: On any matter Vice-Chairman Ritchie asked if anyone present wished to address the Commission. No one came forward. 15. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS AND A. Commissioner Mattern stated that he would like to qualify his no vote on Item No. 5. He stated that he did not oppose the change of zone or the proposed plan, but he did not agree with the side yard setback and the deletion of the block wall fence on the norther border of Phase I. He further stated that he was basically in favor of the project, but voted against it because of the items mentioned. B. Commissioner Mattern then stated that staff had been asked to submit the appropriate procedure for amending the zoning Code. Mr. Carmona then stated that a zoning code amendment would be subject to the same notification requirements as a zone change. This would include a half-page add in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, or placing the notice in a' general mailing-such as a utility bill. In addition, the requirements would have to be fulfilled ten days prior to the public hearing. Mr. Carmona then suggested that it might be more productive to include several sections of the Code to be amended in one process. He then re- quested that the Commission consider which sections of the Code warranted review and amendment'at this time. C. Commissioner Cleveland requested a Study'Session to be scheduled for the purpose of considering.the Condominium Ordinance. After a short discussion by the Commission, the Study Session was scheduled for March 18, 1981, at 6:00 p.m. D. Commissioner Ritchie asked staff if they had investigated the requirement of a block wall on the Avery Datsun property. He stated that this matter had been brought to the attention of the Commission at a previous meeting. Mr. Carmona then informed the Commission that in his investigation of the matter, he had not found any evidence of thisrequirement ever being im- posed on the applicants... E. Commissioner Ritchie then stated that there had.been some discussion regarding the date the approval of the Planning Commission becomes effective. He then read Section 9183 - Effective Date, which stated that the approval of a conditional use permit did not become final until action by the City Council. He then inquired if the City Council could reverse the decision by the Planning Commission, and what the consequence of an appeal would have on projects that had commenced their business on the basis of a Planning Commission approval. There was then further discussion regarding this matter, and Mr. Dickey stated that.there was in existence, a revised Code amending this section, however, it had not yet been adopted by the City Council. D. Commissioner De Cocker expressed his opinion that the City could not restrict the operation of an existing business because the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - March 16, 1981 Page Eleven Planning Commission. He further questioned whether or not the applicants are allowed to conduct their businesses prior to fulfillment of all con- ditions. Mr. Carmona then stated that after approval of a conditional use permit, the Planning Department staff is responsible for the enforcement of the conditions. Commissioner De Cocker then asked if there was another way of policing this. Mr. Carmona then stated that because of the limited number of people in the Planning Department, it was possible to enforce only the obvious violations and those violations brought to the Department's attention through Citizen's Requests. Also discussed as a means of achieving compliance was the utilization of the revocation procedure in cases where the applicants refused to cooperate and comply. 16. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, Vice-Chairman Ritchie adjourned the meeting to the Study Session, March 18, 1981, at 6:00 p.m.