Loading...
PC - Minutes 03-09-81CITY OF ROSEMEAD 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MARCH 9, 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: De Cocker, Lowrey, Cleveland, Ritchie, Mattern Absent: None Ex Officio: Carmona, Fernandez 3. MATTERS DISCUSSED - Condominium Ordinance The discussion began with remarks by Mr. Carmona regarding the incorporation of the changes requested by the Commission into the existing ordinance. He further stated that Mr. Kress had offered some comments regarding the changes. Also discussed was the way in which the draft:of the new ordinance would be reviewed. It was decided that the draft would be read line by line, and comments by the Commissioners would be discussed. Mr. Carmona stated that Mr. Kress had recommended that Section 9106.20 - Condo- minium Subdivision be rewritten. There was then a discussion with regard to this section and the proposed rewriting. During the discussion, Commissioner Mattern requested that Line 5, Page 1 be amended to read . well designed and viable blend of improvements with common and/or private open space." Included in this discussion was the consideration of changing all R-3 zoned property to R-3D. In addition to this, the P-D zone was discussed. Among the matters discussed in this regard were the P-D ordinance taking precedence over the Condominium Ordinance, the differences between the two ordinances, the merits of the P-D Ordinance for large developments, the possibility-of referencing sections of the Condominium Ordinance to the P-D Ordinance, and the expiration dates of the tract maps filed under the P-D Ordinance. Also discussed was the density allowed in both the Condominium Ordinance and the P-D Ordinance. Staff was directed to review the P-D Ordinance for areas of conflict with the Condominium Ordinance, and the possibility of utilizing the Condominium Ordinance as guide- lines in the P-D Ordinance. There was also discussion with regard to the Design Review process and the preliminary plan check process, which takes place between staff and the developers prior to the submission of a tentative tract. Also discussed were commercial condominiums. It was suggested by Mr. Carmona that guidelines be set forth for these types of developments. Staff was then directed to draft and submit to the Commission, a provision for commercial condominium developments. Also during the discussion of condominium developments adjacent to an R-1 zone, Line 18, Page 1 was amended as follows: 11 . .(d) Condominium projects shall be subject to the Design Review provisions of Sections 9119-9119.6, prior to the consideration of any tentative map.under the Subdivision process." Under Section 9106.21 - Definitions Pertaining to this Part Only, it was requested by Commissioner Ritchie that "co op" be defined and inserted between "3. condo- minium conversion", and "5. open space". The possibility of drafting a separate ordinance addressing the development of commercial condominiums was again dis- cussed, along-with the minimum square footage requirements for condominiums, recommendations by the Fire Department for set backs, the cost of subterranean parking, and the density of the City of Rosemead. Section 9106.24 - Floor Requirements was discussed with regard to the definition of "bedroom". Mr. Carmona stated that this was an important consideration, since the parking requirements were set forth according to the number of bedrooms. Planning Commission Minutes Study Session - March 9, 1981 Page Two contained in each unit. He also suggested that this be placed in the general definition section of the Zoning Ordinance and referred to in the Condominium Ordinance. There was also a lenghty discussion regarding the definition of "bedroom". Mr. Carmona was then directed to draft and submit a definition of "bedroom" to the Commission. Section 9106.22 Lot Area was discussed with regard to the frontage of lots in relation of the effect it may have on the design of a project. After this discussion, Line 7, Page 2 was amended to read: 11 . . .for a residential condominium unit, and have a minimum street frontage of 75 feet." It was also decided by the Commission, that since "bedrooms" will be defined in another section, Line 14, Page 2 should be amended to refer to the section where the adopted definition will be. Line 14, Page 2 will read as follows, with the appropriate section inserted: 11 . . .For each bedroom, as defined in Section an additional 200 square feet." Section 9106.25 Building Height Maximum was discussed at length. There was discussion regarding the deletion of Lines 15 through 28, Page 2, and what should be inserted in it's place. During the discussion, commissioner Ritchie and Commissioner De Cocker stated that they would be in favor of prohibiting subterranean parking. Also considered was the reference point from which the maximum building height would be measured. Commissioner Ritchie then suggested the maximum height should be 35 feet from existing and natural grades. In addition to this, various means of controlling the construction of subterranean parking were suggested by Mr. Carmona and discussed by the Commission. There was then further discussion with regard to the allowed density and the possibility of reducing this to decrease the need for additional parking. 4 There being no further business to come before the Commission, Chairman Lowrey adjourned the Study Session at 9:00 p.m., to the next Study Session, March 12, 1981.