Loading...
PC - Minutes 10-18-82CITY OF ROSEMEAD REV I'S ED ' 8838,.VALLEY BOULEVARD DATE. kY. ll? ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA i PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 18, 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 u.m.,,in the Council Chambers of Rosemead City Hall, 8838 Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Mattern. The Invocation was delivered by Chairman Ritchie. OLL CALL - Present: - - Absent: Ex Offic 3. APPROVAL OF/MINUTES De Cock_e_r, Schymos,-Ritchie, Lowrey, Mattern None io: Reisman, Rankin, Christianson, de Zara - Regular Meeting, October<4,'_1982 Study Session, October 6, 1982 It was moved by Commissioner Lowrey, seconded by Commissioner Schymos, to approve the Minutes of October 4, 1982 and October 6, 1982, as printed. ROLL CALL VOTE- Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Lowrey, Mattern Noes: None - f 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 14755: Request by Anthony and Emma Cappucio for the subdivision of an existing lot, located at 2506 Kelburn Avenue, into'two separate parcels. (Continued from October 4, 1982) The staff report dated October 11, 1982 was presented by Ms. Christianson and the recommendation for conditional approval was made. Chairman Ritchie opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. The witnesses were administered the oath by the secretary. PROPONENT: Louis Cappuccio 1705 San Gabriel Boulevard San Marino, California Mr. Cappuccio stated that he was the applicant in this matter, and requesteda waiver:6r modification of Condition No. 2 which required fencing of the new parcel prior Co recordation of the map. Chairman Ritchie closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding Condition No. 2. It was suggested that the condition be amended to read as follows: "2. The perimeter and proposed interior property lines of the newly created lots shall be fenced with a six foot (6') high masonry or wooden fence. If a wooden fence is installed, the fence shall be supported by steel posts set in concrete. Said fence shall be installed prior to recordation of the parcel map." It was the consensus of the Commission that this modification should be adopted to allow the developer the option of a masonry block or wooden fence. Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 1982 - Regular Meeting Page Two Mr. Cappuccio restated his request for a waiver of Condition No. 2 and stated that the waiver was being requested because he did not wish to invest a large sum of money in the property before acquiring the financing to develop the lot. He expressed his opinion that the installation of fencing would be quite costly. Mr. Anthony Cappuccio then addressed the Commission and requested,that the fencing not be required until such time as the building permits were applied for and issued. * T-14PY-0 was ' ' a' « e' 6ean=ee=en segea4#ng this meeter=t It was moved by Commissioner Lowrey., seconded by Commissioner Mattern, to approve the filing of a Negative Declaration in this matter with the finding that (1) the Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the state and local guidelines for the preparation of environmental documents; and, (2) the project could not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Lowrey, Mattern Noes: None It was moved by Commissioner Lowrey, seconded by Commissioner De Cocker, to approve Parcel Map 14755, subject to the findings and conditions set forth in the Staff Report dated October 11, 1982, and the modification to Condition No. 2, ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Lowrey, Mattern Noes: None Chairman Ritchie once again addressed the issue of the fencing on the property. He stated that this requirement was necessary to ensure that the fencing was installed on the property as required by the City. Further, he stated that by requiring the fencing prior to recordation, the Commission could be assured that the condition would be fulfilled and not.forgotten. Chairman Ritchie also informed the applicants that they.could appeal the decision by the Planning Commission to the City Council within ten.days of this date. 6. EXTENSION.REQUEST - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81-232: Request by Tensho-Kotai-Jingu- Kyo, Southern California Division, for an extension of Conditional Use Permit 81-232, and minor modifications to the conditions of approval, for the establish- ment of a church on property located at 3926 Rio:Hondo Avenue, Rosemead, California. The staff report dated October 11, 1982 was presented by Ms. Christianson and the recommendation for approval.of the extension and modifications to the original conditions of approval was made. Chairman Ritchie opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. The witnesses were administered the oath by the secretary. OPPONENTS: Gail Brown 9424 Steele Street Rosemead, California Delores Quirk 9460 Steele Street Rosemead, California Ms. Brown stated that her parents resided on the property just to the east,of the subject property. She addressed the Commission with regard to the large number of cars parked on the street as a result of the church. She also stated that the congregation members often made noise early in the morning which disturbed her parents. Mrs. Quirk.stated that she lived in the neighborhood and.stated her opinion that since the area was zoned R-1, the .,church should not, be allowed in this neighbor- hood. She also inquired if this was a legal non-conforming use that would be required to convert to a residence in case of it's destruction. Mr. Reisman stated that this use would be permitted to be reconstructed, since it was *Amended by Chairman Ritchie, November 1, 1982. See Page Five for amendment. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - October 18, 1982 Page Three operating under a conditional use permit instead of a zone variance. Further, Mr. Reisman stated that a church was a permitted use in an R-1 zone. PROPONENTS: Mr. Warren Yamada 3926 Rio Hondo Avenue Rosemead, California Mr. Yamada stated that he was the chairman of the church. He addressed the Commission with regard to the requested modifications. Mr. Yamada also answered questions by the Commission regarding the hours and days of religious services, the parking area's adequacy, the number of cars parked in the street during the churchineetings,-and the letter dated'February-2;__1982,-which requested that, the existing wall on the east property line be allowed to remain. Mr. Yamada stated that the wall on the eastern property line was allowed to remain at the request of the property owner, and with the approval of Mr. Carmona, Director of Planning. It was the consensus of the Commission to modify Condition No. 7 in PC Resolution 81-38 to accommodate the neighbor's request regarding the wall. In addressing the other requested.modifications, Mr. Yamada stated that the in- crease in occupancy was being requested to enable them to accommodate the possible and eventual growth of the congregation. Further, he stated that the children are counted as part of the total membership. The Commission was also informed that it was the church's intention to hold the requested special evening meetings on.-those-dates that fall during the week.. Otherwise, the meetings would be held at the regular time. He stated that this was necessary to accommodate members of the church that worked during the day. REBUTTAL: Ms. Brown again stated that it was her belief that the congregation was larger than being represented, and that there was a parking problem in the neighborhood because of the church. Mrs. Quirk stated her objection to the increase in occupancy, and the church being permitted in an R-1 zone. Commissioner Schymos then stated this objection to the church being.granted the requested modifications. He stated his objection to permitting a church to be established in a structure that was intended for a residential use. He also stated his opinion that this church was not serving the citizens of Rosemead since very few of the members resided in Rosemead., There was also a discussion by the Commission regarding the remodeling of the structure for the church use. Chairman Ritchie stated that the meeting area of the structure was separate from the residential portion of the structure, and the residential portion was being occupied by the minister or pastor of the church. Also during this discussion, the Commission considered the request for a larger sign. It was the consensus of the Commission that the sign existing on the building at present was adequate, and the request for a larger sign should be denied. Commissioner Schymos requested that the extension request and the modification request be considered separately. It was moved by Commissioner Mattern, seconded by Commissioner De Cocker, to approve a three year extension to Conditional Use Permit 81-232. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Ritchie, Lowrey,_Mattern Noes: _Schymos It was moved by Commissioner Lowrey, seconded by Commissioner Mattern, to direct staff to prepare and submit a resolution amending Conditions 2, 3, 7 and 11 in PC Resolution 81-38. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Ritchie, Lowrey, Mattern Noes: Schymos *Amended by Chairman Ritchie, November 1, 1982. See Page Five for amendment. Planning Commission Minutes Regular.Meeting - October 18, 1982 Page Four Chairman Ritchie called a recess at 9:10 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:25 p.m. 7. ZONE AMENDMENT - SECTION 9106: Amendments to Section 9106 of the Rosemead Municipal Code which regulates the R-3 zone, multiple family residential. The memorandum dated October 11, 1982 was presented by Ms. Christianson and the recommendation for approval of the Negative Declaration and the amended R-3 Ordinance was made. Chairman Ritchie opened the public hearing at 9:28 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to address the Commission,. Chairman Ritchie closed the public hearing accordingly. It was moved by Commissioner Lowrey, seconded by Commissioner Mattern, to approve the filing of a Negative Declaration in this matter with the findings that. (1) the Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the state and local guidelines for the preparation.of environmental documents, and (2) the project could not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Lowrey, Mattern Noes: None It was moved by Commissioner De Cocker, seconded by Commissioner Schymos, to approve the draft. amendments to the R-3 Ordinance, and recommend to.the City Council that the amendments be adopted. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Lowrey, Mattern Noes: None Chairman Ritchie then requested that the City Council be provided with a copy of the memorandum provided tothe Planning Commission for this hearing. He further requested that the`Council:be provided with a copy of the R-3 Ordinance with the portions which have been amended highlighted so that the Council will be aware of the sections being amended. There being no objections by the Commission, staff was directed to do so. * 8. PC RESOLUTION 82-31 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82-249 FOR THE CONTINUED SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7705 EAST GARVEY AVENUE, ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA. Mr. 'Reisman read the resolution by title only: It was moved by Commissioner Lowrey, seconded by Commissioner Mattern, to waive further reading and adopt PC Resolution 82-31. There was a short discussion regarding the possible amendment of Condition No. 9; however, it was the consensus of the Commission to allow this condition to remain as printed in the subject resolution. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes.: De Cocker, esq Ritchie, Lowrey, Hateemp" None Schymos, Mattern 9. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - On any matter Chairman Ritchie asked if anyone present wished to address the Commission. No one came forward. 10. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALSAND STAFF A. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the adequacy of the notification radius of 300 feet,.- B. Chairman Ritchie requested that the Commission be provided with a copy of SB 1534, which requires cities to allow "granny housing". There was a short discussion of the impact this bill will have in the'City of Rosemead. *Amendment to Roll Call Vote requested by Commissioners Schymos and Mattern on November 1, 1982. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - October 18, 1982 Page Five 11. ADJOURNMENT There-being no further business to come before the Commission, Chairman Ritchie adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. *AMENDMENTS The following.amendments were requested by the Planning Commission at the regular meeting of November 1, 1982: Page Two, Paragraph 3: "There was further.discussion by the Commission regarding this matter; however, it was the consensus of the Commission to allow the condition to remain, as amended, and require the installation of the fencing prior to recordation of the final map. Chairman Ritchie explained to the applicant that he had one (1) year from the date of this approval to record the map, and up to two (2) years additional extension time, should they be unable to record "within the one-year period. Chairman Ritchie went on to explain that this would allow them time to install the fencing prior to the recordation of the final map." Page Three; Paragraph 12: "Commissioner Schymos stated that he was opposed to this request because he did not support the use of a residential structure for a commercial use." "Chairman Ritchie explained to the opponents that they could appeal this decision to the City Council within ten (10) days of this date."