Loading...
PC - Minutes 11-01-82CITY OF ROSEMEAD 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DATE.`. ~2~!P./...1: .12 NOVEMBER 1, 1982 MTNUTF.S iy 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 Commissioner Schymos. The Invocation was delivered by Commissioner Mattern. 2. ROLL CALL - Present: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Mattern Absent: Lowrey (excused) Ex Officio: Kress, Dickey, Carmona, Tang, de Zara 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting, October 18, 1982 Commissioner Schymos requested that the Roll Call Vote for Item No. 8, Page Four of the subject Minutes be amended to show that he voted against the adoption of PC Resolution 82-31. .A , There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the adoption of resolutions, and the correct way to. vote on actions and subsequent resolutions. Mr. Kress stated that the members of the Commission should vote the same way on the resolution as they did at the original hearing, because the resolution was the;formah documentation of the action taken by the Commission at the public hearing. Commissioner Mattern then requested that his vote on PC Resolution 82-31 be changed to a "no" vote as well. Chairman Ritchie then requested that Page Two, paragraph 3 be amended to add that he had explained to Mr. Cappuccio that he had one year from the date of the approval to record the final parcel map, and two additional years extension time, should he be unable to record the map in the allotted one year time period. Chairman.Ritchie-furbher-requested.an amendment to the..extension request for Conditional Use Permit 81-232, Page Three, the last paragraph to show that he had advised the opponents that they could appeal this decision to the City Council within ten days. There being.no objections by the Commission, the amendments were so ordered. It was moved by Commissioner Mattern, seconded by Commissioner De Cocker, to approve the Minutes of October 18, 1982 as amended. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes:. De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Mattern . Noes: None Absent: Lowrey 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 foreward. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 82-6: Request by the California Christian Home for the construction of a connecting passageway between two existing buildings on property located at 8417 East Mission Drive, Rosemead, California. The witnesses were administered the oath by the secretary. The staff report dated October 13, 1982.was presented by Mr. Carmona. During his presentation, Mr. Carmona suggested that the two parking spaces that would ai... Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - November 1, _1982 Page Two be lost when the walkway is enclosed,.might possibly be saved if the walkway were to be relocated 5 feet to the south of the present location. Mr. Carmona also recommended approval of the request. Chairman Ritchie opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m PROPONENTS: Mr. Glenn Stryker 4902 Earle Avenue Rosemead, California Mr. Claude L. Senefeld Inslee, Senefeld, Puchlik & Associates 3142 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90010 Mr. Stryker informed the Commission that he was representing the California Christian Home in their request. Further, he stated that there were many matters to be considered in the implementation of Mr. Carmona's suggestion that the walkway be moved 5 feet to the south of the property. Mr. Senefeld stated that he was the architect working on the project. Mr. Senefeld stated that the enclosure.of the walkway was being requested mainly for the safety of the nursing staff making night rounds. Further, he stated that he was reasonably sure that the suggestion by staff could be implemented easily, since this relocation might prove more harmonious with an addition planned in the future. He agreed to work with staff in this matter, and again assured the Commission that he was more than willing to cooperate with staff to find a solution that was agreeable to both the City and the California Christian Home. Chairman Ritchie closed the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the proposed relocation of the walkway. It was the consensus of the Commission that the relocation of the walkway not be added as a condition; however, staff was directed to.pursue the suggestion and work with the applicants to investigate it's feasibility. It was moved by Commissioner Mattern, seconded by Commissioner De cocker, to recommend approval of, Planned DevelopmentReview 82-6 to the City Council. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None Absent: Lowrey The Commission requested that staff and the applicants work together to implement the proposed relocation, and this portion of the discussion, and the amended plan, be submitted to the City Council at the time of that body's consideration. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82-250: Request by Edward S. Chuen for the continued sale of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with an existing liquor store, known as "Casa De Liquor", and located at 2525 North San Gabriel.Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The staff report dated October 13, 1982 was presented by Ms. Tang, and the recommendation for conditional approval of the request was.made. Chairman Ritchie opened the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed accordingly. There was a lengthy discussion by the Commission regarding various areas on the subject site that need to be upgraded or repaired. Among the matters considered were the debris on the roof of the structure, the chicken wire enclosure surrounding the compressors, the electrical wiring, and the absence of flood lights in the parking area. There was also discussion regarding the possible relocation of the trash bin enclosure, and repair of the existing trash en- closure. Also, the Commission considered the need for restuccoing of the storage building, and the possible rental of this structure to an unrelated business; as wel.l.:.as the excessive number of signs in the windows. The Commission stated it's opinion that there appeared to be a violation of Section 9906 of the Sign Ordinance. The Commission also considered whether or not.Mr. Chuen could implement all the conditions within thirty days. It was the consensus that this would not be Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting ovemb_er 1, 1982 Page Three possible, and 60 days time was considered. Mr. Chuen agreed that 60 days would be adequate. During the discussion, the Commission.amended the following conditions to address their various concerns. 2. The trash receptacle is to be properly enclosed and screened to.the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 6. The subject property,shall be maintained in a clean, litter-free state in accordance with Sections 5401-5415 of the Rosemead Municipal Code. This includes the removal of glass and other debris from both parking areas on the property, the abutting sidewalks, and the roof area. 10. All.conditions requiring the action of the applicant shall be accomplished within sixty (60) days of approval. In addition, the Commission added the following conditions: 12. The chain link enclosures around the compressors and air conditioners on the south side of the building, and around the storage area on the northwest corner.of the lot shall provide an enclosure and visual relief to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 13. South side of the storage building shall be restuccoed. 14. Install photoelectric sensors that will turn the flood lights on at dusk and off at dawn. 15. Signing.shall conform to the Sign Ordinance, Section 9906 of the Rosemead Municipal Code. Chairman Ritchie asked the applicant_if'he understood and agreed to all conditions added and amended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Chuen stated that he did. Chairman Ritchie also reviewed the amended.conditions so that the applicant would have a.clear understanding of what was being required. Mr. Chuen again stated his agreement and understanding of.the conditions. Chairman Ritchie also inquired who the property owner was. Mr. Chuen stated that it was Mr. Cheng Kun Lai. The applicant was then directed to contact Mr. Carmona regarding the implementation of the various conditions, and if possible, to include Mr. Laiin the meeting with staff.' Mr. Chuen then addressed the Commission regarding the problem with graffiti on the property. Mr. Dickey stated that he would inform Mr. Carmona of the proper procedure to follow to acquire the services of the City's graffiti. removal program. It was moved by Commissioner Mattern, seconded by Commissioner Schymos, to approve Conditional Use Permit 82-250, subject to the amendments to Conditions 2,. 6, and 10, and the addition of Conditions 12, 13, 14, and 15. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None Absent: Lowrey OTHER BUSINESS 7. PC RESOLUTION 82-32 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD GRANTING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PARCEL MAP 14755. (A ONE-LOT SUBDIVISION INTO TWO SEPARATE PARCELS.) Mr. Kress read the resolution by title only. .It was moved by Commissioner Mattern, seconded by Commissioner De Cocker, to waive further reading and adopt PC Resolution 82-32. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None Absent:. Lowrey Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - November 1, 1982 Page Four 8. PC RESOLUTION 82-33 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AMENDING PC RESOLUTION 81-38, AND GRANTING AN EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81-232. FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CHURCH ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3926 RIO HONDO AVENUE, ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA. Mr. Kress read the resolution by title.,only. Chairman Ritchie requested that the word "noon" be added to Section 4, Condition No. 2, third paragraph, after "12:00 p.m." There was a short discussion by the Commission regarding this request. There being no objections by the Commission, the amendment was so ordered. It was moved by Commissioner De Cocker, seconded by Commissioner Mattern, to waive.-further reading and adopt PC Resolution 82-33, subject to the amendment to Section 4, Condition No. 2. * ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, ~QlvxmQs Ritchie, Mattern Noes: -Noon- Schymos Absent: Lowrey 9. PC RESOLUTION 82-34 - 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 SECTION 9106 OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL,CODE WHICH REGULATES MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE R-3 ZONE. Mr. Kress read the resolution by title only. It was moved by Commissioner Mattern, seconded by Commissioner De Cocker, to waive further reading and adopt PC Resolution 82-34. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None Absent: Lowrey 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. Draft Arcade Ordinance Chairman Ritchie informed the Commission that he had directed staff to schedule this matter for public hearing.at the November 15, 1982 regular Planning Commission meeting. He asked if there was any discussion by the Commission regarding the draft ordinance,.dated October 71 1982. Commissioner Schymos.requested that Page 3, Section 9185.2 (e) (4) be amended by adding, . or fraction thereof". There was a discussion by the Commission, and.it was the consensus that this amended be adopted. Section 9185.2 (e) (4) now reads as follows: "4. 31 or more machines 1 attendant for each 10 machines plus 1 security guard for each 20 machines, or fraction thereof." There was then a lengthy discussion by the Commission regarding Section 9185.4, Relief from Mandatory Conditions. Chairman Ritchie asked Mr. Kress if this section was necessary. Mr. Kress stated that it should not be deleted, since this would provide a means for the Commission to approve a.variance for a business that might not meet all standards set forth in the Code, and yet be otherwise acceptable. Chairman Ritchie stated that since there was already a provision for zone variances elsewhere in the Code, he did not feel that this section was necessary. He also cited Section-:8110 as being an example of an excessive number of variance requests, because a similar provision is included in Section 8110 as well. *Amended by the Planning Commission, November 15, 1982. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting -November 1, 1982 Page Five After further discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission to leave this section in the draft ordinance. Mr. Kress also informed the Commission that the.numbering on the October 7, 1982 draft ordinance has been changed so that it would correspond to the numbering in the existing Zoning Code. B. Mr. Carmona stated that staff was preparing background material for submittal to the Commission pertaining to the non-conforming section of the Code, conversion of residential uses into commercial uses, and used car. lots. He also expressed his desire to schedule a study session to consider amending these sections. C. Mr. Carmona informed the members of the Commission that the requested copies of SB 1534,.(the Granny Housing Bill), had arrived. He then submitted the copies to the Commission. Chairman Ritchie requested that the members of the Commission start files on this subject so that information could be compiled for consideration in the near future. D. Commissioner Mattern asked if overgrown weeds., Mr.-Carmona rehabilitation section of the Mattern to contact staff with problem exists, and it would resolution. there were any provisions for the control of stated that this would fall under the Building Department. _He advised Commissioner information on any properties where this )e referred to the Rehab Inspector for E. Chairman Ritchie requested that a study session be scheduled for consideration of the proposed Zoning Ordinance. After a discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission to conduct a study session on the proposed Zoning Ordinance on November 18, 1982. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, Chairman Ritchie adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m.