Loading...
PC - Minutes 01-09-81CITY OF ROSEMEAD 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION JANUARY 9, 1981 MTN77TF.S 1. CALL TO ORDER'- The Study Session was called to order by Chairman Cleveland at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room of Rosemead City Hall, 8838 Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. 2. ROLL CALL - Present: Lowrey, Cleveland, Ritchie, Mattern Absent: De Cocker (excused) Ex Officio: Carmona 3. MATTERS DISCUSSED - Condominium Ordinance The discussion began with the consideration of Commissioner Mattern's Item No. 3 - Requiring Common Open Space to be Landscaped. Commissioner Mattern stated that at present, the Ordinance only required that landscaping be utilized; however, he would like to define how much was required." Commissioner Ritchie then stated that this was not necessary, since Mr. Carmona added a condition requiring that a landscape plan be submitted and that the landscape plan should be prepared by a registered landscape., architect. In addition, Commissioner'Ritchie stated that this had been addressed previously.at the Study Session of December 1, 1980 and the Study Session of December 15, 1980. 4. SEPARATE STORAGE AREA-(OTHER THAN GARAGES) AND STORAGE SPACE LARGER THAN 120 CUBIC FEET. (Mattern) Commissioner Mattern stated that since many people were using their garages for storage space, he felt that perhaps this indicated that there was a need for larger storage space. Chairman Cleveland suggested that since this matter was addressed in the existing Ordinance, perhaps all that needed to be changed was the amount of cubic feet required. Commissioner Mattern concurred with that suggestion. After a short discussion regarding the size of the garages required by the present Code, it was suggested that 240 cubic feet of storage space would be adequate. The members of the Commission concurred with this suggestion. 5. PAVING REQUIREMENT OF A MINIMUM OF 4" AC OVER 6" BASE OR 6" CONCRETE (Mattern) Commissioner Mattern stated that he wanted the word "minimum" inserted into the paving requirements because he wanted to insure that this would be the minimum required of the developer, and if the developer wished to provide more than this, he would be able to. He then suggested the following language: "All paving shall be at a minimum of four (4) inches of AC over six (6) inch base material crushed aggregate, or six (6) inches of concrete." It was the consensus of the Commission to amend the paving requirements as suggested by Commissioner Mattern. It was also suggested that the Commission include the following: "The subsoil be compacted at 80% density adequate for load bearing conditions." After a short discussion, it was agreed that the following shall be in- corporated into the draft of the new ordinance: Planning Commission Minutes Study Session - January 9, 1981 Page Two "The minimum paving requirements shall be: a. The subsoil shall be compacted at 80% density adequate for load bearing conditions. b. All paving shall be a minimum of 4 inches AC over 4 inch base material crushed aggregate, or 6 inches concrete." There was then a discussion with regard to the paving requirements set forth in the present Ordinance. (4 inches AC over 4 inches base material crushed aggregate or 6 inches concrete); and whether or not this should be-changes to 4 inches AC over 6 inch base. Commissioner Mattern stated that it wasnot his intention to change the paving requirement as set forth; he only wanted to set forth a minimum standard. 6. CONSIDERATION OF SECURITY SYSTEMS (Mattern) There was a short discussion by the Commission with regard to whether or not this should be decided by the condominium association. Commissioner Lowrey stated that he felt this might alleviate problems with police protection; however, he expressed his feeling that perhaps this was out of the City's jurisdiction. Also discussed by the Commission was the type of security systems to be required, types of condominium developments that would not lend them- selves to the.installation of security systems, and the possibility of allowing staff to recommend the installation of a security system, should the design appear to accommodate one. In addition to these considerations, also discussed was access to the guest parking by visitors,..and-the possible hazards involved in case of fire. Mr. Carmona stated the Sheriff's Depart- ment had, in one case, advised the developers of certain types of gates, locks, and lighting to make the development more secure. He suggested that perhaps the Sheriff's Department could be asked to make recommendations. Commissioner Mattern asked if there was a booklet or guidelines available that could be referred to in the condominium ordinance. Mr. Carmona stated that he would look into this matter. Commissioner Ritchie suggested that the Ordinance require locks, bolts, and garage door locks as recommended by the Sheriff's Department. In- clusion of security systems in the C,C, & R's was also discussed as a possible method imposing this requirement on developments. Utilization of lighting to deter crime was also discussed. Mr. Carmona was directed to.investigate this matter further and report back the.findings to the Commission. 7. LIMITATION OF RENTERS IN CONDOMINIUMS (Mattern) There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the infringement on property owners' rights in prohibiting the rental of the condominium units. 10. PROHIBITING OF WOODEN SHAKE OR SHINGLE ROOFS (Mattern) There was a discussion regarding the fire retardant chemicals used on the wooden shake or shingle roofs and the length of time it is effective. Also discussed was thr restriction of architectural design because of the prohibition of wooden roofs. There was also a discussion with regard to building code restrictions, higher insurance rates for these types of roofs, fire department codes and the elimination of wooden shake or shingle roofs. After this discussion, the Commission was polled and it was the consensus that wooden shake and wooden shingle roofs are prohibited in the new Ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes Study Session - January 9, 1981 Page Three Commissioner Ritchie - LIMITING THE LENGTH OF CENTER DRIVEWAYS There was adiscussion by the Commission with regard to the feasibility of limiting the length of the center driveway without placing restriction on the design of a condominium. It was suggested by Commissioner Mattern that the ordinance state that each design submitted would be reviewed and approved by the Commission on its own merit. In this regard, it was suggested by Commissioner Ritchie that there should be a design review process for all condominium projects abutting R-1 property. He also suggested that condominiums be in R-3D zones. There was then a discussion regarding Commissioner Ritchie's suggestions-. Mr. Carmona then addressed the Commission regarding the process and time frame involved in the submittal of a condominium plan, and stated that commissioner Ritchie's suggestion could cause further delays in approval of a tract map. Commissioner Ritchie stated that he did not wish'-to restrict the center driveways but preferred to impose a design review process.to consider each project separately. Commissioner Ritchie then suggested that perhaps it would be best to have a design review process prior to submittal of the tract map, to limit the expenses to the developer. It was the consensus of the Commission that such a process be utilized in the future. Mr. Carmona suggested that it be set forth in the ordinance that any R-3 condominium project next to an R-1 zone be subject to the design overlay process. Commissioner Ritchie then suggested that in the Land Use Element, all R-3 zoned areas be designated as R-3D. In that way, the City would also have control over apartment buildings. There was then a discussion regarding plan check processes utilized in the County and the advantages of having the plan check take placewithn a. local subdivision committee. It was moved by Commissioner Ritchie; seconded by Commissioner Lowrey., to_ direct staff to draft a letter from the Planning Commission to the~City _ Council, recommending the establishment,of a local subdivision committee.- ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: Lowrey, Cleveland, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None Absent: De Cocker (excused) Staff was also directed to make the appropriate changes in.the Land Use Element to designate all R-3 properties as R-3D. Commissioner Ritchie stated that his concern with having all plans submitted to the Commission.prior to scheduling for public hearing was already addressed. He further stated that the plans required were: plot plans, elevation plans, grading and drainage plans, landscape plans, concept plans, and elevation plans of proposed fencing. Commissioner Ritchie also stated that this would take care of the needs of the Commission. Commissioner Mattern stated that he would like to see "amenities and facilities" defined in the ordinance.- He also expressed his concern with providing children with a safe and secure play area. Commissioner Ritchie suggested that "amenities" be defined in the definition section of the Ordinance. There was then a discussion with regard to the use of open space for recreational facilities and the need for these types of amenities, and the advantages of the design. review process, which may provide a means for the Commission to control or request the amenities. In addition, it was suggested by Commissioner Ritchie that the Chairman appoint a design review committee to review the condominium developments and make recommendations to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes Study Session - January 9, 1981 Page Four It was the consensus of the Commission that the appointment of the design review committee be held at the beginning of the new chairman's term. There was a discussion by the Commission with regard to the need for further study sessions to review the existing ordinance and insert the changes. Commissioner Ritchie expressed his opinion that the Commission should review the proposed changes and existing Ordinance. After a discussion, it was decided to schedule another study session on January 19, 1981, prior to the meeting. In addition, staff was directed to draft a list of items considered and adopted by the Commission for submittal to the City Council at the joint study session, January 15, 1981. 4. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, Chairman Cleveland adjourned the Study Session to the Study Session scheduled for January 19, 1981.at 6:00 p.m.