Loading...
PC - Minutes 01-07-81CITY OF. ROSEMEAD 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION JANUARY 7, 1981 MINUTES 1 2 3 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. ROLL CALL - Present: De Cocker, Absent: None Ex Officio: Carmona, Lowrey, Cleveland, Ritchie, Mattern Fernandez MATTERS DISCUSSED - Condominium Ordinance The discussion began with the consideration of Commissioner Lowrey's concerns Item No. 2 - Parking Requirements. During the discussion, the results of the Condominium Parking Survey, and the previous recommendation (two parking spaces for one bedroom units; 2', parking spaces for two bedroom units; 3 parking spaces for three bed- room units, etc.) were discussed. Commissioner Ritchie expressed his concern with the recommended parking requirement being too large, and Commissioner De Cocker also expressed his opinion that it may not be adequate in smaller developments. Mr. Carmona then addressed the Commission with regard to the results of the Condominium Parking Survey. In addition, he stated that addressing the problems of stroage in garages in the C,C, & R's would also help the on- site parking problem. After further discussion of this matter, Commissioner Mattern suggested that the required parking be raised by # space per additional bedroom. Commissioner Ritchie then stated the following formula: "One or two bedroom units-2p, spaces. For each additional bedroom, a space additional guest parking, i.e.; 3 bedrooms - 3 spaces; 4 bedrooms - 3'~ spaces, etc." There was then a discussion regarding the adequacy of small car parking, trading off of possible open space and recreational facilities for additional guest parking, allowance of space for back-up of vehicles, and subterranean parking. After this discussion, staff was directed to incorporate the guest parking formula,,as stated by Commissioner Ritchie, into the draft of the new condominium ordinance. 3. DESIGNATION OF GUEST PARKING TO EACH UNIT Commissioner Lowrey expressed his concern with guests using all on-site parking and not leaving on-site parking for residents. However, it was pointed out that residents are provided with parking in their garages. There was then a discussion with regard to placing guest parking in closer proximity to the units it serves. It was suggested that placement of guest parking-be within 100 feet of the units it serves. Commissioner Mattern also suggested that-the guest parking be "zoned" according to the units it serves as follows: Parking Area "A" serves "A" building. Parking Area "B" serves "B" building. It was the consensus of the Commission that a percentage of the guest parking be placed in close proximity to the units it is to serve, and the Planning Commission Minutes Study Session - January 7, 1981 Page Two remainder placed elsewhere in the development. This matter was then referred to staff for incorporation into the draft of the Ordinance. Consideration of Commissioner De Cocker's Concerns 1. DEFINITION OF "ADEQUATE" TRASH CONTAINERS There was.a..discussion regarding the size and capacity of the trash dumpsters. Commissioner De Cocker informed the Commission that the average size of the dumpsters was 200 cubic feet, which can serve approximately ten (10) units. Also discussed was the placement of the trash.dumpsters. It was the consensus of the Commission that trash containers should be placed within 150 foot proximity to the units it serves, and that the proposed placement of the trash dumpster should be set forth on the plot plan. In addition, it was suggested by Commissioner Mattern that a minimum of 200 cubic feet of trash container be required per ten dwelling units. Mr. Carmona was asked to investigate this matter further; however, the Commission was in agreement that "adequate" should be defined as a minimum number of cubic feet per dwelling unit.: 2. PLACEMENT OF LARGE TRASH DUMPSTERS IN THE STREET DURING CONSTRUCTION Mr. Carmona stated that this is prohibited but that permits could be taken out, usually through the public works department. Consideration of Commissioner Mattern's Concerns 1. OPEN SPACE - EXCLUSION OF BALCONIES FROM OPEN SPACE Commissioner Mattern expressed his desire to exclude balconies from open space. There was then a lengthy discussion regarding'definition of private and common space, allowing developers to include balconies as a percentage of open space, the possibility of defining balconies as private open space, and the combination of private and common open space allowed in the existing Ordinance. Also discussed in conjunction with this matter was the utilization of easements over the common area owned by the Condominium Association to provide open space for the exclusive use of the occupants of a unit. Mr. Carmona illustrated this for the Commission and informed the Commission of differences between condominium developments and planned unit developments. Item No. 2 - Definition of Private and Common Open Space was also discussed. In this regard, it was suggested by Commissioner Mattern that private open space be defined as open space for the exclusive use of the adjacent dwelling unit. In addition, the definition of the word "appurtenance" was discussed, and it's applicability considered. It was agreed that the following would be utilized for the definition of private open space: "Area designed and maintained for the exclusive use of the appurtenant dwelling unit." 4. ADJOURNMENT - Chairman Cleveland adjourned the meeting to the next Study Session, scheduled for January 9, 1981, at 7:00 p.m.