Loading...
PC - Minutes 12-06-82CITY OF ROSEMEAD 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 6, 1982 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER - The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead was called to order by 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 Chairman Ritchie. The Invocation was delivered by Commissioner De Cocker. 2. ROLL CALL - Present: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Lowrey, Mattern Absent: None Ex Officio: Kress, Dickey, Carmona, Tang, de Zara 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting, November 15, 1982 Study Session, November 18, 1982 It was moved by Commissioner Lowrey, seconded by Commissioner De Cocker, to approve the Minutes of November 15, 1982 as printed. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Lowrey, Mattern Noes: None It was moved by Commissioner Schymos, seconded by Commissioner Mattern, to approve the Minutes of November 18, 1982 as printed. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Lowrey, Mattern Noes: None 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - On items not on the Agenda Chairman Ritchie asked if anyone present wished to address the Commission. No one came forward. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. PARCEL MAP 15311: Request by Leona Hanson for the subdivision of an existing lot, located at 9023 Ralph Street, into two (2) separate parcels. The staff report dated November 23, 1982 was presented by Mr. Carmona. During his presentation, Mr. Carmona requested that Condition No. 3 be modified to require that the trellis structure located on the proposed lot be demolished at the time of sale of the new lot. A recommendation for approval was made. Chairman Ritchie opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed accordingly. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the condition of the existing garage. Also considered by the Commission was the means in which to assure compliance with Condition No.-3. Mr. Carmona stated that a document could be recorded with the final parcel map stating that the demolition of the trellis was a condition of sale. He stated that this condition would appear in the title report during escrow. Commissioner Schymos expressed his opposition to this document being recorded, since it was his opinion that the trellis violated no set back requirements, and would have to be demolished in order to build on the new lot. Chairman Ritchie polled the Commission on the recording of said document. It was moved by Commissioner De Cocker, seconded by Chairman Ritchie, to direct the City Attorney's office to prepare a document for recordation, requiring the demolition of the trellis structure on the newly created lot as a condition of sale. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Lowrey Noes: None Abstain: Mattern Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - December 6, 1982 Page Two Chairman Ritchie declared said motion duly carried, and the amendment to Condition No. 3, and the direction to the City Attorney, were so ordered. There was then a discussion regarding Condition No. 2 which requires the install- ation of fencing on the interior property line and perimeter of the lots. Chairman Ritchie requested information on the bond process, which was allowed by Condition No. 2. Mr. Carmona gave a lengthy.explanation of the bond process and how the bond is used to construct the improvements if the property owner fails to do so within the specified length of time. Commissioner Schymos then expressed his.`opposition to requiring fencing, since both property would be zoned R-1. He stated his opinion that fencing should only be required in the case of two properties with different zoning designations. There was then a discussion by the Commission regarding this matter. It was moved by Commissioner Schymos,.seconded by Commissioner Matter, to delete Condition No. 2. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: Schymos, Mattern Noes: De Cocker, Ritchie, Lowrey Chairman Ritchie declared that the motion failed due to lack of a majority, and staff was directed to allow Condition No. 2 to remain as stated in the staff report dated November 23, 1982. It was moved by Commissioner De Cocker, seconded by Commissioner Schymos, to approve Parcel Map 15311, for the subdivision of an existing lot into two separate parcels, subject to the modified conditions and findings contained in the staff report dated November 23, 1982. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Lowrey, Mattern Noes: None Chairman Ritchie then inquired regarding the adequacy of the proposed 87foot driveway. Mr. Carmona stated that it would be adequate, since it would serve a single interior lot, and would not be a fire lane. 6. ZONE VARIANCE.82-103: Request by Michael.Mangana for a zone variance to Section 9104.7 related to lot street widths, for property located at 3154 Muscatel Avenue. The staff report dated November 30, 1982 was presented by Mr. Carmona. During his presentation, Mr. Carmona informed the Commission that the Fire Department was requiring that the flag strip be widened to 15 feet rather than 13 feet as proposed. He stated that the additional two feet would not effect the parcel map since there was adequate room to accommodate this requirement. Chairman Ritchie opened the public hearing':at,8:15 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed accordingly. Commissioner Schymos stated that he was not in favor of granting this variance because the Commission has allowed this type of development in the past, utilizing Planning Commission policy. He further stated that he could not support this request because a variance from the required 50 foot lot width to a 15 foot lot width was too great. However, he did express his support of the proposed parcel map for the same property. There was a lengthy discussion by the Commission regarding this proposed zone variance and subdivision. Among the matters discussed were past Commission approvals of this type of subdivision, and consideration of methods that could be utilized.to approve this request without granting a variance. Mr. Kress expressed his opinion that.the proposed subdivision could not legally be granted without first granting a variance. There was then a discussion by the Commission regarding setting a precedent for this type of request. Mr. Kress stated that the Commission should consider each request on it's own merit. There was then a discussion by the Commission regarding the addition of a clause in the resolution of approval, stating that there were specific reasons why this particular variance was being granted. Mr. Kress agreed to add a statement to the findings of approval, stating that this variance was granted while a flag lot ordinance was being.developed, and that the request was consistent with Commission policy in reviewing these matters. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - December 6, 1982 Page Three Mr. Carmona also suggested that a finding be added that the proposed variance was granted because the proposed development would not violate any building development code requirements;. also, the proposed variance and subdivision would leave adequate building pad area for the development of new residential units; and, there would not be an adverse effect to the surrounding properties because of this variance; however, future applications would have to be considered for cumulative effects of this type of.development and variance approvals.to determine if they would cause adverse effects on the surrounding properties. There was then further discussion by the Commission regarding the findings suggested by Mr. Carmona, and the interpretation of the law as it now stands. It was moved by Commissioner Lowrey, seconded by CommissionerMattern, to approve the filing of a Negative Declaration in this matter with.the findings that:. (a) the Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the State and local guidelines for the preparation of environmental documents; and (b) the project could not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Ritchie, Lowrey, Mattern Noes: Schymos It was moved by Commissioner Lowrey, seconded by Commissioner Mattern, to approve Zone Variance 82-103, subject to the findings contained in the staff report dated November 30, 1982, and the additional findings proposed by the Planning Commission Chairman and agreed to by the City Attorney and Director of Planning. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Ritchie, Lowrey, Mattern Noes: Schymos Chairman Ritchie requested the findings be included in the minutes of this meeting. The applicable findings are as follows: 1. That the Commission recognizes the need to establish a Zoning Ordinance governing flag lot developments, and intends on developing such ordinance within the near future. 2. That as an interim means of evaluating flag lot developments, the Commission's .existing policy of specific criteria is appropriate for development requests ona case-by-case basis. 3. That the proposed subdivision exceeds both minimum code and policy criteria for building lot area requirement and that, in this case, an approval of a variance for lot width (street frontage) is in keeping with such criteria. 4. That the granting of a variance will allow for the development of two new single-family homes and will not create an adverse effect on surrounding properties because of the limited scope of the proposal; however, the Commission is committed to reviewing such developments for potential cumulative effects. 5. That the variance was subject to conditions of approval (reference Parcel Map 15448), assuring that the zoning adjustment was not the granting of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations placed upon other properties within the vicinity and.zone. 6. That special circumstances exist, with respect to lot size and property condition that the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other. properties in the vicinity. 7. That the granting of such variance will not adversely effect the compre- hensive General Plan. 8. Based on an initial study, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and Rosemead Resolution 79-77, (the City's local environmental guidelines). Commissioner Schymos requested that staff be sure to reflect his no vote correctly in the Minutes. Chairman Ritchie called a recess at 8:50 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - December 6, 1982 Page Four The meeting reconvened. at 9:08 p.m. 7. PARCEL MAP.15448:- Request by Michael.Mangana for the subdivision of an existing lot, located.at 3154 Muscatel Avenue, into.two separate parcels. The staff report dated November 29, 1982 was presented by Mr. Carmona. He stated that the proposed flag strip was modified from 13 feet fo 15 feet to comply with the.Fire Department recommendations. The recommendation for conditional approval was made. Chairman Ritchie opened the public hearing at 9:09 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed accordingly. Mr. Kress recommended-that the findings being incorporated into Zone Variance 82-103 be incorporated into this parcel map as well. There being no'objections by the Commission, Chairman Ritchie ordered the special findings incorporated into this parcel map as recommended by the City Attorney. There was then a discussion by the Commission regarding the plot plan. Mr. Carmona stated that the plot plan.would become part of the parcel map. Chairman Ritchie then reminded the applicant that any variance from the approved plot plan would have to be approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Mangana stated that he understood. It was moved by Commissioner Lowrey, seconded by Commissioner De Cocker, to approve the filing of a Negative Declaration in this matter with the findings that: (a) the Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the State Viand local guidelines for the.preparation of environmental documents; and, (b) the project could not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Ritchie, Lowrey, Mattern Noes: Schymos It was moved by Commissioner Lowrey, seconded by Commissioner Mattern, to approve Parcel Map 15448, subject to the findings and conditions contained in the staff report dated November 29, 1982, and the addition of the findings included as part of the approval of Zone Variance 82-103 for the same property. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Ritchie, Lowrey, Mattern Noes: Schymos Commissioner Schymos stated that inasmuch as he was opposed to the zone variance being granted for.this property, he also voted against the parcel map approval. However, he wished to state for the record.that he was not opposed to granting the subdivision approval,'he was-just opposed to the zone variance. 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82-252: Request by Angelina Martinez and Maria Valdez for the continued sale of alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption in con- junction with an existing convenience market/delicatessen, known as "La Campanita Deli", and located at 2428 North San Gabriel Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The staff report dated.November 29, 1982 was presented by Ms. Tang, and the recommendation for conditional approval was made. Chairman Ritchie opened the public hearing at 9:17 p.m. The witness was administered the oath by the secretary. PROPONENT: Angelina Martinez 2425 Findlay Avenue Monterey Park, California Ms. Martinez stated that she was present to answer any questions by the Commission. She also stated that she is one of the applicants and operators of the market. Chairman Ritchie closed the public hearing at 9:19 p.m. F Commissioner Schymos stated that he supported the granting of this conditional use..Dermit request because the property was maintained in an orderly and clean Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - December 6, 1982 Page Five condition. Further, he informed the Commission that half of the garage structure would be used~to enclose the trash bin and the other half would be used for the employee parking. Commissioner P Cocker inquired if any of the conditions imposed on the previous conditional use permit had been imposed on this request. Ms. Tang stated that the staff had.1reviewed the previous permit for compliance, and found that they had all been complied with. There was then a'discussion regarding the applicability of the previous conditions. During the discussion, the Commission proposed the addition of the following conditions,.taken from the previous conditional use permit: i 7. Consumption of alcoholic beverages or food on the premises shall not be allowed.1 8. Provide means to monitor the refrigerator per approval of the Director of Planning: 9. All signs shall be maintained in good condition and repair and shall pose no hazard to public safety statues, standards and ordinances, as mandated in Section 9902 (g) of the Zoning Ordinance. j Ms. Martinez asked for clarification of the added conditions. Chairman Ritchie stated that the conditions were being added as precautionary reminders of what is allowed under this conditional use permit. Ms. Martinez then stated her agreement and I understanding of the conditions. It was moved by Commissioner Mattern, seconded by Commissioner De Cocker, to approve Conditional Use Permit 82-252, subject to Conditions 1 through 9, as amended. ROLL CALL VOTE -.Ayes: 'De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Lowrey, Mattern Noes: None OTHER BUSINESS 9. PC RESOLUTION 82-37 -A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO PART XX - CONDITIONAL.USE PERMITS, OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE. Mr. Kress read the resolution by title only. It was moved by Commissioner.Schymos, seconded by Commissioner De Cocker, to waive further reading and adopt PC-Resolution 82-37. . Chairman Ritchie requested that the resolution be amended so that the title would reflect that this resolution is'recommending approval of the arcade ordinance to the City Council. Chairman Ritchie also expressed his concern with the public notification for this zoning amendment, because the title of the resolution did not specifically state that this was for the adoption of the arcade ordinance. There being no objections by the Commission to Chairman Ritchie's request, the amendment was so ordered, and the title amended to read: "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO PART XXV - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, REGARDING AMUSEMENT ARCADES." Commissioners Schymos and De Cocker withdrew their motion for adoption of the resolution. It was moved by Commissioner Schymos, seconded by Commissioner De Cocker, to waive further reading and adopt PC Resolution 82-37, as amended. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie,' Lowrey, Mattern Noes: None Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - December 6, 1982 Page Six 10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - On any matter Chairman Ritchie asked if anyone present wished to address the Commission. No one came forward. 11. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS AND A., Mr. Carmona clarified the means in which the public was notified with regard to the Arcade Ordinance resolution. B. Mr. Carmona polled the Commission regarding their attendance at the Southern California Planning Congress meeting, scheduled for December 9, 1982. C. Mr. Carmona requested that a study session be scheduled for December 22, 1982 to review the proposed Zoning Ordinance. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding this matter. It was the consensus of the Commission to schedule a study session to consider the proposed Zoning Ordinance on December 22, 1982 at 6:00 p.m. D. Commissioner De Cocker stated that a report had been given to the Planning Commission regarding the Garvey Liquor Store. He stated that substantial compliance had been achieved; however, the applicant had failed to install a photo electric sensor on the lights in the parking lot. Staff was directed to contact the applicant and advise him that this had to be completed. E. Commissioner Schymos stated that he would like clarification from Mr. Kress regarding the voting on adoption of resolutions. Mr. Kress stated that in adopting the resolution, the members of the Commission should vote the same way they had voted at the public hearing. He stated that this was be- cause the resolution was a formal document confirming the action of the Commission at the public hearing. There was a lengthy discussion regarding this matter. Chairman Ritchie polled the Commission on how they wished to handle the voting on adoption of resolutions. It was the consensus of the Commission that, in order to be consistent, the Commissioners will always vote on the resolution the same way the voted at the public hearing. In the case of a member being absent from the meeting the public.hearing was held, that member should abstain from voting on the resolution. F. Chairman Ritchie stated that he would like to review all future Planning Commission agendas before they are printed and distributed to the Commission. There was a lengthy discussion by the Commission regarding this matter. Chairman Ritchie inquired of Mr. Dickey how.the Mayor reviews the City Council agendas. Mr. Dickey stated that the City Council agendas were prepared solely by the City Manager.. He added that the-mayor did not.review.and approve the Council agendas prior.to their publication and distribution.. Chairman Ritchie then.stated that he was directing staff to notify him when the draft agenda is completed so that he could review the matters scheduled. He also stated that this policy would remain effective for all future chair- men. There was then a discussion regarding possible complications with agenda delivery due to the Chairman's policy, and notification requirements. There was also further discussion regarding the power of the Chairman to schedule matters or remove them from the agenda. Mr. Carmona stated that he would object.to the chairman removing.items from the agenda or rescheduling them, after public notice had been given. Mr. Carmona further stated that this was in the purview of the Director of Planning and not the Planning Commission Chairman. Chairman Ritchie stated that he did not wish to have veto power over matters scheduled for hearing, he merely wanted to be apprised of what was being scheduled and heard prior to the agendas being printed and submitted to the Planning Commission. Mr. Carmona then stated that he did not object to informing the Chairman of what was scheduled; however, he would object should the Chairman indicate Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - December 6, 1982 Page Seven that he wished to exercise-:veto power over the matters scheduled for hearing by the Commission. Chairman Ritchie then agreed that the Director should determine which applications are ready for.public hearing and schedule.the matters accordingly while the Chairman will be apprised of what is. being scheduled prior to the printing of the agenda and submitting to the Commission. Chairman Ritchie also stated that he did not wish to schedule matters for hearing, he merely wanted to review the agendas prior to distribution. Staff was then directed to contact the Chairman when the draft agendas are prepared so that he can review the items scheduled with staff. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, Chairman Ritchie adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m. to the next regular meeting December 20, 1982 at 7:30 p.m.