Loading...
PC - Minutes 02-17-81~ y 1 CITY OF ROSEMEAD E 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD DATE March 2, 1981 ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA - i PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 17, 1981 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER - The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead was called to order by Chairman Lowrey 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 Cleveland. The Invocation was delivered by Commissioner De Cocker. 2. ROLL CALL - Present: De Cocker, Cleveland, Lowrey, Ritchie, Mattern Absent: None Ex Officio: Kress, Dickey, Carmona, Christianson 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Study Session, January 9, 1981 Study Session, January 19, 1981 Regular Meeting, February 2, 1981 Chairman Lowrey asked if the members of the Commission had any objections to approving the Minutes under one motion. There were no objections by the mem- bers of the Commission. It was moved by Commissioner Cleveland, seconded by Commissioner De Cocker, to approve the Minutes of the Study Sessions, January 9 and 19, 1981, and the Minutes of the Regular Meeting, February 2, 1981, as printed. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Cleveland, Lowrey, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - On items not on the Agenda. Chairman Lowrey asked if anyone present wished to address the Commission. No one came forward. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Lowrey asked that anyone wishing to address the Commission with regard to items 5 through 9 on this evening's Agenda, rise and be administered the oath. The oath was administered by Ms. Christianson, and the Public Hearings were opened by Chairman Lowrey. 5. EXTENSION REQUEST - TRACT 37066: Request by Wei-Yi Chang/Loren Phillips and Associates for an extension of approval for Tentative Tract Map 37066, located at 2438-2452 New Avenue. The memorandum dated February 17, 1981 was presented by Mr. Carmona, and the recommendation for approval of a six-month extension was made. Chairman Lowrey asked if anyone present wished to address the Commission with regard to this matter. Seeing no one, the matter was then referred to the Com- mission for discussion. It was moved by Commissioner Mattern, seconded by Commissioner Ritchie, to grant the request for a six-month extension of approval for Tentative Tract 37066, located at 2438-2452 New Avenue. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Cleveland, Lowrey, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None 6. EXTENSION REQUEST - PARCEL MAP 12877: Request by Olen Murray Civil Engineers/ Mr. and Mrs. Louis J. Acuna, for an extension of approval for Parcel Map No. 12877, located at 3213 Burton Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting --February 17, 1981 Page Two 'The memorandum dated-'February 5,•1981 was presented by Mr. Carmona, and the recommendation for a six-month extension of approval was made. Chairman Lowrey asked if anyone present wished to address the Commission with regard to this request. Seeing no one, the matter was then referred to the Com- mission for discussion. Commissioner Ritchie asked what type of problems there were with the fire flow. Mr. Carmona stated that he was not sure, however, he believed that the applicants were having trouble meeting the required fire flow. There was then a discussion with regard to the required fire flow and what would be required to bring this parcel map up to the required standard. It was moved by Commissioner Cleveland, seconded by Commissioner Mattern, to grant the request for a six-month extension of approval for Parcel Map 12877, located at 3213 Burton Avenue. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Cleveland, Lowrey, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81-210: Request by Angel Ineguez and Rudy Angel for the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption,`in conjunction with a meat market, known as "Al's Quality Meats", and located at 3357 San Gabriel Boulevard. The Staff Report dated February 17, 1981 was presented by Ms. Christianson, and the recommendation-for conditional approval was made. Chairman Lowrey asked if anyone present wished to address the Commission. Seeing no one wishing to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed and the matter referred to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Mattern stated that he would like to add Condition No. 6, which reads as follows: "Slats shall be. added to the chain-link storage area, outside the main building. on the southeast corner, to provide visual relief." He stated that since this area was used for storage, he felt that slats would hide the materials stored and improve the appearance of the property. There being no objections by the Commission, Condition No. 6 was added to the Conditions of Approval. It was moved by Commissioner De Cocker, seconded by Commissioner Cleveland, to approve Conditional Use Permit 81-210, subject to the conditions recommended by staff, and the addition of Condition No. 6, as requested by Commissioner Mattern. ROLL.CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Cleveland,'Lowrey, Ritchie,-Mattern Noes: None 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81-211: Request by Avery Datsun, Inc. to place a trailer on property located at 8930 Mission Drive, to provide additional office space. The Staff Report dated February 17, 1981 was presented by Mr. Carmona, and the recommendation for conditional approval was made. Chairman Lowrey asked if anyone present wished to address the Commission with regard to this matter. PROPONENTS: Mr. Don De Tora 8868 East Mission Drive Rosemead, California Mr. De Tora addressed the Commission with regard to the installation of the trailer on the subject property. He stated that he was not opposed to this trailer being used as additional office space, since this business was an asset to the community. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - February 17, 1981 Page Three Mr. George Boyd 10245 East La Rosa Drive Temple City, California Mr. Boyd stated that he was the property owner and lc Avery. He stated that he agreed with Mr. De Tora, ai that the placement of the trailer on the property wot lishing his business. Mrs.. Noriega 4310 North Ivar Avenue Rosemead, California Mrs. Noriega addressed the Commission with regard to supposed to be constructed on the property two years wall had not been installed and addressed the Commis blems of unsightliness due to the absence of said wal was not opposed to the installation of the trailer or Mr. De Tora then addressed the Commission with regar Noriega. He stated that he felt that the installati the west side of the property would be an undue burl Chairman Lowrey then closed the Public Hearing and r Commission for discussion. Commissioner Cleveland expressed his opinion in favo use by Avery Datsun. Commissioner Ritchie stated that he would. like to as the request for extension to be submitted sixty (60) There being no objections by the Commission, Conditi as follows: ised the property to Mr. i stated that he believed d aid Mr. Avery in estab- :he brick wall that was ;go. She stated that the :on with regard to the pro- She also stated that she the property. to the suggestions by Mrs. of the wall and paving of on Mr. Avery. the matter to the of the trailer for temporary Condition No. 1 to require ys prior to the expiration. No. 1 was amended to read "This permit shall be granted fora period,'of one (1)~ year. Any extension to this period must be directed to the Planning Commission, in writing, within sixty days of the expiration date." In addition, Commissioner Ritchie requested that Condition No. 4 be amended to allow the applicant thirty days after the installation of the trailer to repair,. the damage to the sidewalks, curb, or driveway. There being no objections by the Commission, Condition No. 4 was amended to read as follows: "Any damage to City sidewalk, curb, or driveways due to the installation of the trailer shall be repaired within thirty days after the installation of the trailer, and appropriate City road permits applied for." Commissioner Ritchie then inquired regarding sanitary facilities in the trailer. He requested that no sanitary facilities be provided, unless properly installed and hooked up to the sewers. There was then a discussion by the Commission with regard to the best way to in- clude this in the conditions of approval. After this) discussion, it was agreed to amend Condition No. 2 as follows: "The applicants shall apply for all appropriate building, electrical, and other applicable permits relative to the installation of the trailer, not to include any on-site plumbing facilities." I Chairman Lowrey then reviewed the changes requested by Commissioner Ritchie. Hearing no objections, the amendments were added. It was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded by Commissioner Cleveland, to grant Conditional Use Permit 81-211, subject to the amendments to Conditions 1, 2, and 4, as requested by Commissioner Ritchie, and the findings. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Cleveland, Lowrey, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - February 17, 1981 Page Four 9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81-212: Request by Circus Vargas, Inc. to conduct a circus on April 6, 7, and 8, 1981, within the parking area of the Rosemead Square Shop- ping Center, located on the southeast corner of Rosemead Boulevard, and Marshall Street. The Staff Report dated February 17, 1981, was presented by Mr. Carmona, and the recommendation for conditional approval was made. Chairman Lowrey opened the Public Hearing. PROPONENT: Mr. Paul Kukie, Area Vice-President Circus Vargas, Inc. 17647 Kitridge Street Van Nuys, California Mr. Kukie stated that he wasrepresenting Vargas Productions, Inc. He also addressed the Commission with regard to the traffic control in the area during the run of the circus, the parking'of trailers and setting up of the tent, and the provisions made for the facilities necessary for the performers and public. In addition, he stated that the clean-up of the property would be accomplished through a contract with A-1 Power Sweeping. Mr. Kukie also stated that a Certificate of Insurance would be provided to the City, as required in the conditions of approval. Chairman. Lowrey then asked Mr. Kress if the insurance policy and agreement were adequate. Mr. Kress stated that they were. In addition to this, Mr. Kukie stated that that the circus routinely provided a surety bond for the clean-up of the property. if Circus Vargas failed to clean up the property, the surety bond would be forfeited. Commissioner Ritchie then asked Mr. Kukie if the matter of traffic control had been discussed with the Sheriff's Department and, if'-so, how this would be accomp- lished. Mr. Kukie stated'-that routinely, meetings were held with all Department heads, and the recommendations would be followed as closely as possible. Mr. Kukie also. stated that Circus Vargas provided their own security to patrol the circus grounds twenty-four fours a day. in addition, they make arrangements for off-duty and reserve officers from the local police department to patrol the residential areas surrounding the circus grounds. Commissioner Ritchie stated that he also believed that the parking area would be severely reduced and asked how this would be dealt with. Mr. Kukie stated that since the circus would be performing during the week, the parking area would not be as full as it would be on a weekend. Commissioner Ritchie then asked where the generators would be placed. Mr. Kukie stated that they were placed nearby the tent. Also, Mr. Kukie stated that there would be qualified trainers near the tents at all times.to insure that no one would wander into the animal area. Commissioner De Cocker also asked if the circus performance would be the only activity taking place in the evening. Mr. Kukie stated that there would be no mechanical rides, sideshows, or separate tents. He further explained where the booths on the midway would be placed, and stated that the entire midway would encompass approximately 120-180 feet. Commissioner De Cocker also asked what time the-activities would cease. Mr. Kukie stated that the activity would most likely cease at approximately 10:15 p.m. Commissioner Ritchie asked if the carnival equipment parked on the site belonged to Circus Vargas. Mr. Kukie stated that it did not. OPPONENT: Mr. Don De Tora 8868 Mission Drive Rosemead, California Mr. De Tora addressed the Commission with regard to the financial guarantees to be provided to the Chamber of Commerce by Circus Vargas. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - February 17, 1981 Page Five it was determined by the Commission that the financial considerations between the Circus and the Chamber of Commerce would have to be worked out between those two groups. Reverend Kennedy 9139 Marshall Street Rosemead, California Mr. Kennedy inquired regarding the nature of the conditions of approval. In addition, he addressed the Commission with regard to,the clean--up of the area, increase in pollution due to the generators, the additional traffic in the area, and the parking situation. He also requested that the Commission give careful consideration to the potential problems and suffering of residents of the area. Mr. Kukie then address the matter of trash brought up by the previous witness. He stated that the workers in the concessions stands are instructed to clear the area of all debris between performances. In addition, on a daily basis, the area is patrolled and cleared of debris. Commissioner Ritchie then asked Mr. Kukie if the office site had been selected and where it would be. Mr. Kukie stated that he was not aware that an office had been selected; however, he stated that it was for use only by the employees of the Circus and not generally used by the general public. He also stated that it would be needed after the last performance, since the clean-up operation would be supervised by circus employees. - It was moved by Commissioner Mattern, seconded by Commissioner Cleveland, to grant Conditional Use Permit 81-212, subject to the conditions recommended by staff and the findings. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Cleveland, Lowrey, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None Chairman Lowrey,called a recess at 8:35 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:45 p.m. OTHER BUSINESS 10. DESIGN REVIEW: Review of development plans submitted by Alfredo T. Ganzon for development of property located at 2703 Stingle Avenue. The Staff Report dated February 17, 1981 was presented by Mr. Carmona, and the recommendation for conditional approval was made. Commissioner Ritchie questioned the adequacy of the proposed parking. Mr. Carmona stated that he believed that the proposed parking would be adequate, and a discus- sion"ensued with regard to the parking requirements of the Code, and various other parking consideration. Commissioner Ritchie then inquired with regard to the extent of the paving for Phase I, and the natural drainage of the property. Mr. Carmona stated that the drainage of the property would be to the southwest for Phase I. He also stated that the drainage for Phase II would be reviewed at a later date. Commissioner Ritchie then inquired with regard to the type of roofing to be utilized and the rain gutter to be place on the structure, and then stated his concern as to the direction the water would run off the roof. In addition, Commissioner Ritchie expressed his desire to have a more detailed plan submitted, since there were many unanswered questions in his mind. Among the matters of concern to him were the proposed drainage of the property, the means in which Phase II would be tied into Phase I, and the parking situation on the lot. Mr. Carmona stated that he could answer some of the questions.in terms of staff's offering of Phase I and II of this project. He then explained various proposals and attempted to answer the questions posed by Commissioner Ritchie. Mr. Carmona also stated that a drainage plan would not be available until the development stage of this project, and if it was the desire of the Commission to review this plan, they could condition this design review to require the submission and approval of the drainage plan, prior to the issuance of building permits. He further stated that should Phase II fail to materialize, building permits could not be issued to another project, due to the Design Overlay imposed on this property. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - February 17, 1981 Page Six Commissioner Ritchie then stated that he agreed`with Mr. Carmona that a fence would not prevent the applicants from using this area for storage. He stated that he felt that the fence would help to discourage this use. In addition, he stated that he agreed that the existing building should be removed. In addition, Commissioner Ritchie also stated that, in the ordinance,it is set- ;forth that any commercial property abutting a residential zone shall have a six- foot block wall separating it from the residential property. He stated that there was no plan submitted for this wall, and that he did not feel the existing chain-link fence was adequate. Commissioner Ritchie also stated that he would like to require that the paving in Phase I of this project shall be extended 75 feet. In addition, he would like to see the block wall installed, and the existing structure demolished or removed. He again stated that he did not feel that he had adequate information to make a decision at this time. There was then a discussion regarding the continuation of this matter. Chairman Lowrey suggested that the Commission be polled in this regard. In addition, to this, the change in drainage due to the paving of the property was discussed, and the construction of the new structure. During the course of the discussion, Commissioner Ritchie stated that he would like to recommend that the block wall -be extended-for the first 75"feet_of the-.property,-in-addition::to some sort of chain link fence. Commissioner Mattern then stated this belief that the 8 foot steback would not be adequate for the entrance of vehicles from Stingle Avenue. He stated that he would prefer to increase this setback to 20 feet, unless the applicants could assure the * Commission that access to the T oP .would be from the-rear o i ?t-.i In addition to this, Commissioner Mattern stated that he would like to see the area beyond the 75 feet of Phase I paved and since it would make the pro- perty harmonious with the property to the south. Mr. Carmona stated that the setback area in front of the building could be fully landscaped to limit access to the property. In addition, Mr. Carmona stated that building permits would not be issued if the areas were not paved, since this is required by the Code. Commissioner Ritchie then stated that to insure that these matters would not be overlooked or forgotten, he would like to add conditions-addressing themselves to these matters. There was then further discussion with regard to Mr. Carmona's suggestion with regard to landscaping the 8 foot setback. It was stated during the discussion that Mr. Carmona's suggestion would also prevent cars from parking across the public right-of-way. Commissioner Mattern then stated that the plot plan submitted by the applicant"= indicated that the area was 65 feet, rather than 75 feet. He asked which was correct. He was informed that 75 feet was the correct measurement. He then requested that the correct measurement be placed on the plan. He also requested that the added recommendations be reviewed by staff. His review of the matters involved the following: installation of a six-foot block wall, paving to the 75 foot line, landscaping for Phase II, and access to the building from the west instead of the east. Commissioner Ritchie then added that the chain-link fence had also been discussed, and Chairman Lowrey stated that the drainage plan was also a consideration. Commissioner De Cocker also stated that it had been indicated that a block wall was to be constructed for the first 75 feet. He-expressed his concern that the property abutting this property would become M-1 prior to the construction of Phase. Il, thereby releasing the applicant from the construction of the block wall along the remainder of the lot. He stated that he would not like to see a new building constructed along side a delapidated fence. Commissioner Mattern then cited Section 9114.5 of the Rosemead Municipal Code which states: "There shall be a solid fence at least 6-feet high, separating the M-1 and R-1 lots." Commissioner Mattern further stated that this would-'imply that the block wall would have to be constructed to the full extent of the property. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - February 17, 1981 Page Seven There was then a discussion with regard to Commissioner De Cocker's comment regarding zoning of the property. Commissioner Ritchie then asked if the Commission could require that the block wall be extended to the rear of the property, since this property is zoned M-1D. Mr. Carmona stated that it would be appropriate at this time to require the block wall to be extended. Mr. Carmona then stated that this had not been suggested by staff, since in the adoption of the Land Use Element, this area would be rezoned from R-1 to M-1D. In addition, he added that if the block wall requirement was imposed, some consideration to the design would have to be given. Commissioner Ritchie then stated that he understood all the requirements could im- pose a. financial burden on the applicant, but he could not vote in favor of a project unless it was an improvement. Commissioner Cleveland then suggested that the suggestions by Commissioner Ritchie be incorporated into the conditions of approval. However, he also stated that due to the number of items suggested, and the various omissions on the plot plan, he would hesitate to render a decision on this matter at this time. Chairman Lowrey then suggested that this matter,be ref_erred.back to staff for further review or approved subject to the addition of various conditions. Commissioners Ritchie and Mattern stated that they would prefer to refer the matter back to staff. Mrs. Ganzon then addressed the Commission with regard to this proposal. She in- formed t_he Commission. that there was a contract for-improvement-of the property, and expressed her concern that the deposit would be lost if this matter were con- tinued for an extended period of time.-In addition to this, Mrs: Ganzon stated that the letter of intent indicated that the entire 65"'x 75' area would be paved and a 50' X 20' building constructed. She did not object to having the drainage plans submitted prior to the issuance of the building permits. Mr. Ganzon then stated that the structure-was designed with two large doors to eliminate the need for electricity during the daylight hours. He also stated that-the.block wall would cause a financial burden, especially since it would have to be removed within a short period of time to allow for construction of the new structure. Commissioner Mattern then stated that he felt that this matter should be continued. There was then a discussion between the applicants and the Commission with regard to the reasons for the continuance, and the recommendation for landscaping of Phase IT. Mrs. Ganzon stated that the expense of landscaping would be great in view of the fact that this area would have to be cleared of the landscaping in order to prepare for Phase II. Commissioner Mattern then questioned the applicants on access to the property. Mr. Ganzon stated that they were proposing access from the front of the property. Commissioner Mattern then stated that perhaps this would pose problems if access from the front of the property were allowed. Chairman Lowrey stated that in view of the problems brought to light, this matter would be continued at the March 2, 1981 regular meeting. Mr. Carmona stated that he would agree to have the review of this matter completed by the next regular meeting, and he asked the Commission if the following items were the items to be reviewed: drainage plan, concept plan, communication on the type of roof to be utilized, resolution ofthe setback area from the property line, landscaping, an indication of the parking areas to be paved, the installation of the block wall and chain---link fence separating the front 75 feet from the rear, and the total landscaping of Phase IT. He also asked the Commission for guidance on the type of landscaping desired for Phase IT. The Commission was then polled with regard to their preference in landscaping. Commissioner De Cocker suggested that perhaps shrubs along the rear fence would soften the look. Commissioner Cleveland stated that complete landscaping of the area may be expensive and suggested that this only be required only if Phase II was not implemented in a years time. (,Chairman.Lowrey stated his agreement with Commissioner Cleveland that perhaps this requirement would be too expensive to the applicant. Commissioner Ritchie also agreed with Commissioner Cleveland and Chairman Lowrey and suggested that perhaps the applicant could secure estimates for landscaping and upkeep of the property and that these estimates could be sub- mitted to the Commission for their consideration prior to 5"final decision in this matter being rendered. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - February 17, 1981 Page Eight Commissioner Ritchie then added that in any case, he would like to see the pro- perty maintained in a clean and litter-free state at all times. In addition to this the applicants were informed that the existing structure would have to be demolished. Commissioner Mattern then stated that he felt the landscaping in question was necessary to allow for visual relief of the residents in the area. He also stated his concern that if this was not required at this time, it would be difficult to achieve later on. Commissioner Mattern then addressed the merits ,,of landscaping in regard to drainage. Commissioner De Cocker then inquired how far the block wall will extend along the property. It was stated that the wall would extend across the rear of the property. He also asked if the front doors would be eliminated to limit access to the rear of the property. Mr. Carmona then stated that the options would have to be re- viewed with the applicant prior to a final decision. Chairman Lowrey then stated that this matter would be continued at the next regular meeting, March 2, 1981. 11. DESIGN REVIEW: Review of development plans submitted by Donald A. Brockman for development of property located at 9201 Lower Azusa Road. The Staff Report dated February 17, 1981 was presented by Mr. Carmona, and the recommendation for conditional approval was made. Commissioner Ritchie then asked various questions pertaining to the type of roof to be used, the paving on the lot and it's proposed extent,,and the possibility of placing gravel on the unpaved portion of the lot. There was then a discussion with regard to the paving and the expense involved in paving the entire lot. Mr. Brockman stated that this would be a financial burden on him, since he planned to construct an office building on that site within 12 to 18 months. During the course of the discussion, Commissioner Ritchie cited Condition No. 5, which states: "That if Phase II does not occur that those temporary,provisio_ns,approved under Phase I (i.e., chain link fence, paving and landscaping) shall be fully improved to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning." Commissioner Ritchie stated that he wished to add . and Planning Commission." to that condition. He asked the applicant if he understood and agreed to comply with all conditions. The applicant indicated that he understood and agreed to comply. In addition, the applicant requested that Condition No. 4 be amended to allow eighteen months to begin construction, rather than 12 months. Commissioner Cleveland stated this opinion in favor of the project, since it would improve an area which had been an eyesore for a lengthy period of time. Commissioner Ritchie then inquired as to the depth of the gravel to be placed on the unpaved portion. Mr. Brockman proposed the placement of two inches of gravel. Commissioner Ritchie then inquired with regard to the availability of sewers and water on the site. Mr. Brockman stated that he was not concerned with this, since there had been a service station on the site previously. There was then a discussion with regard to this matter, and the possibility that the installation of these items would be necessary, making the construction of the office building financially unfeasible. Mr. Brockman requested that Condition No. 1 be amended to eliminate the required ,:mansard roof. : He then explained his alternate proposal. Commissioner Mattern then inquired if the applicant would be allowed to request an extension at the end of the twelve-month period, and he was informed that the applicant would be allowed this option. There was then a discussion with regard to when the twelve month period became effective. Mr. Carmona stated that the twelve-month period became effective from the date of approval unless other- wise specified. Mr. Carmona also stated that, with regard to theimansard`roof,. he felt that this condition could be deleted until Phase IL In addition, he stated that the Commission could grant an extension to the applicant if they felt his reasons for requesting the extension were valid. Chairman Lowrey stated that Condition No. 1 stated that a mansard roof, or materials approved by the Director of Planning, would be acceptable. Therefore, if the pro- posed materials were approved by the Planning Director, they would be acceptable. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - February 17, 1981 Page Nine Mr. Brockman then agreed with this condition. Chairman Lowrey then asked Mr. Brockman if he agreed to all other conditions. Mr. Brockman stated that he would prefer to utilize grape-stake rather than slats in the chain link fence, since it was possible that the slats in the fence would become damaged and detract from the general appearance of the property. He further stated that the grape-stake would be tied to the fence. Condition No. 2 was then amended as follows: "Grape stake fencing to be tied to the chain link fence for screening purposes." Commissioner Ritchie also stated that there was an additional condition, which reads as follows: "The area where proposed office building is to be shall be provided with 2 inches of gravel." In addition, Commissioner Ritchie requested that Condition No. 5 be amended to read: "That if Phase No. 11,7does not occur that those temporary provisions approved under Phase I (i.e., chain link fence, paving and landscaping) shall be fully improved to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and the Planning Com--'' mission." Chairman Lowrey then requested clarification on the time the twelve-month approval period begins. Commissioner Ritchie stated that he felt perhaps twelve months was too short a time and suggested a longer period. Chairman Lowrey then asked if there were any objections-to amending Condition No. 4 as follows: "That Phase II shall be brought back to the Commission for plan review within: 18 months of approval." There being no objections by the Commission, it was so ordered. it was moved by Commissioner Cleveland, seconded by commissioner Ritchie, to approve Design Review 81-3, for property located at 9201 Lower Azusa Road, subject to the conditions as amended. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Cleveland, Lowrey, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None 12. MODIFICATION - PARCEL MAPS 12850 6 12852: Request by Chris Bade for a modification of the proposed site plan for property located at 4211-4213 and 4217-4219 Rio Hondo Avenue. The Staff Report dated February 17, 1981 was presented by Mr. Carmona, and the recommendation for approval was made. Commissioner Ritchie stated that there had/been problems with this property per- taining to the driveways, and the placement of the existing structure on the 28-foot line. He stated that the Commission had imposed conditions on this parcel map addressing themselves to these problems, and questioned why they did not appear on the information provided at this meeting. Mr. Carmona stated that he could not answer-the questions by Commissioner Ritchie, since he had reviewed this parcel maps in terms•of setbacks'; only. Commissioner Ritchie then stated that a lot split requires that the existing structures on the lot be brought up to code, which would then mean that the structures on the property now would not be able to be used. Mr. Carmona stated that he would be glad to investigate the matter of compliance with all conditions. However, he suggested that perhaps the Commission could review the matter before them at this time. There was then further discussion with regard to the omission of the conditions of approval, and the compliance with the conditions, as stated, prior to the final recordation. Commissioner Ritchie then suggested that perhaps this matter would be best con- tinued to the next regular meeting, March 2, 1981. Further discussion ensued with regard to this project. Commissioner Ritchie stated that he wished to have this matter reviewed and brought back to the Planning Commission Minutes Regular. Meeting - February 17, 1981 Page Ten Commission to determine whether or not the direction of the Commission had been followed. In addition, he stated his concern with the easements and narrow width of the driveway, and the request by the Commission for a garage or carport. Chairman Lowrey then asked if there were any objections to continuing this matter to the next regular meeting, March 2, 1981. Hearing no objections, this matter was continued. Commissioner Ritchie then stated that he did not have any objections to the modifications requested, he only wanted this matter investigated. 13. PC RESOLUTION 81-3 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81-208 FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3247 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD, ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA. G- Mr. Carmona read the Resolution by title only. It was moved by Commissioner Cleveland, seconded by Commissioner De Cocker, to waive further reading and adopt. PC Resolution 81-3. - ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Cleveland, Lowrey, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None 14. PC RESOLUTION 81-4 - A'RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81-209 FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3254 SOUTH DEL MAR AVENUE, ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA. Mr. Carmona read the Resolution by title only. It was moved by Commissioner Cleveland, seconded by Commissioner Ritchie, to waive.. further reading and adopt PC Resolution 81-4. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Cleveland, Lowrey, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None 15. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - On any matter Chairman Lowrey asked if anyone present wished to address the'COmmission. Mr. Glenn Clanton 3244 Layburn Drive Rosemead, California Mr. Clanton stated that there was difficulty in hearing what was being said by the Commissioners. There was then a discussion with regard to the public address system. Mr. Clanton then suggested that perhaps if the Commissioners could speak a little louder, there would not be as much difficulty. 16. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS AND STAFF A. Commissioner Ritchie stated his concern with the failure-of ;property owners to follow the direction of the Planning Commission and pave their property as required by the Rosemead Municipal Code. He further stated that he felt the Ordinance should be strictly enforced. B. Referring to the matter of the block wall brought up by Mrs. Noriega during the public hearing, Commissioner Ritchie requested that staff investigate what had been required at the time of the zone change for 8930 Mission Drive. C. Commissioner Mattern asked staff what the status of the investigation of security systems for condominiums was. He stated that staff had been directed to investigate this matter with the Sheriff's Department. Mr. Carmona stated did not have much to offer in this regard. D. Commissioner Mattern also inquired with regard-to the letter, from the Planning Commission to the City Council, recommending the establishment of a local subdivision 'committee. Mr. Carmona stated that the letter had not yet been drafted, however, it had been placed on a list of things to do. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - February 17, 1981 Page Eleven In addition, Mr. Carmona informed the Commission that on February 24, 1981, the City Council would extend the Condominium Moratorium for 120 days. Commissioner Mattern then asked when the letter would be forthcoming. Mr. Carmona stated that an effort would be made to prepare the letter prior to the next meeting. E. Commissioner Mattern also asked that American Directory of Publications be made aware that.the property was not being maintained as required by the Code. He stated that the metal storage building had been damaged, chemicals had been stored out in the open, and there were also some palettes on the property. F. Commissioner Mattern stated that on January 5, 1981 staff had been directed to provide a brief summary of items considered by the City Council pertaining to the Planning Commission. He stated that the Commission had not yet received the requested summary, or the Minutes of the last Council meeting. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding this request. During the course of the discussion, the Commission was polled with regard to the desire of the Commission in this regard. It was the consensus of the Commission that the summary be provided as requested. It was also stated that the summary need not be lengthy in it's content. G. Commissioner Mattern then stated in the Minutes of the Study Session of January 9, 1981, it was stated that the Commission would appoint a Desiga- consisting of two Planning Commissioners, at the beginning of the new chairman's term. He then requested that this be done. After a discussion;-it-was decided that_Commissioners Mat-tern and Cleveland will sit on the Modification Committee, and Commissioners Cleveland and De Cocker will sit on the Relocation Committee. There was then a discussion by the Commission with regard to the function of the It was then stated that Mr. Carmona would review the design with the applicants, and then make recommendations to the Commission. H. Commissioner Mattern then requested clarification of the decision regarding the summary of Council action. It was determined that the Commission was in favor of the summary by a vote of 3 for and 2 against. However, it was again stated that the summary should be brief. 17. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, Chairman Lowrey adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m. * Page 6, Paragraph 5 amended by Commissioner Mattern, March 2, 1981 to read as follows: 11 . . .Commission that access to the building would be from the rear. In addition to this, Commissioner Mattern stated that he would like to see the area beyond the 75 feet of Phase I landscaped, since it would make the property harmonious with the property to the south." Page 11, Paragraph 6 and Paragraph 8 amended by Commissioner Mattern, March 2, 1981 to delete "Design Review Committee" and insert "Design Modification Committee".