Loading...
PC - Minutes 05-03-82CITY OF ROSEMEAD 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 3, 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 in the Council Chambers of Rosemead City Hall, 8838 Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Lowrey. The Invocation was delivered by Commissioner Schymos. 2. ROLL CALL - Present: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Lowrey, Mattern Absent: None Ex Officio: Kress, Dickey, Carmona, de Zara 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Study Session, March 31, 1982 Regular Meeting, April 5, 1982 Regular Meeting, April 19, 1982 It was moved by Commissioner Mattern, seconded by Commissioner Schymos, to approve the Minutes of March 31, 1982 as printed. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None ! Abstain: Lowrey Commissioner Lowrey requested that the record show that he abstained from voting because he was not present at the study session. Commissioner De Cocker then requested a clarification on Page 5 of the Minutes for the April 5, 1982 meeting. He requested that Page 5 be amended to reflect that the applicant for Conditional Use Permit 82-243 had verbally agreed to move the site of the classroom structure ten feet (10') to the west and five feet (5') to the south. There being no objections by the Commission, the amendment requested by Commissioner De Cocker was so ordered. It was moved by Commissioner De Cocker, seconded by Commissioner Lowrey, to approve the Minutes of April 5, 1982, as amended by Commissioner De Cocker. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Ritchie, Lowrey, Mattern Noes: None Abstain: Schymos Commissioner Schymos requested that the record show that he abstained from voting because he was not present at the meeting of April 5, 1982. 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - On items not on the Agenda Loren Wrightmeier 8724 Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California Mr. Wrightmeier addressed the Commission with regard to his objection to the posting of notices on private property. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding this practice. Mr. Carmona stated that this was a posting requirement set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. It was the consensus of the Commission to direct staff to contact the resident/owner of the property to be posted and ob- tain their permission prior to the posting of a notice on private property. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Ritchie requested that anyone wishing to address the Commission with regard to any of the matters to be considered, rise and be administered the oath. The witnesses were administered the oath by the secretary. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - May.3, 1982 Page Two 5.. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 82-4: Rehearing of the request by Saint Joseph Salesian Youth Center for the addition of a religious community building (rectory/residence) to be used in conjunction with an existing youth center on property located at 8301 Arroyo Drive. The memorandum dated April 27, 1982 was presented by Mr. Carmona. During his presentation, Mr. Carmona addressed the Commission with regard to the problems encountered by Saint Joseph Salesian Center in securing a parking agreement with Don Bosco Technical Institute, and the alternate parking plans offered by the applicants. Chairman.Ritchie opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. PROPONENT: Father Paul Capporalli Saint Joseph Salesian Youth Center 8301 Arroyo Drive Rosemead, California Father Capporalli stated that he was on the Board of Directors for Don Bosco Technical Institute and that one of the reasons for the Board's refusal to enter into the covenant was that the covenant would remain in force even if the property is sold. However, Father Capporalli stated that it was still the in- tention of Don Bosco Institute to honor the unwritten parking agreement, which has been in existance for approximately 27 years. There was then a discussion by the Commission regarding the possibility of drafting an agreement that would not be recorded with the property. Mr. Kress stated that this would be a possibility; however; he could not suggest any type of language for such an agreement without a thorough review of the matter. The Commission then gave lengthy consideration to the alternate parking plans, and the drafting of an agreement that would be acceptable to Don Bosco's Board of Directors. During this discussion, the Commission considered accepting an agreement from Saint Joseph Salesian Center stating that, in the event the parking is no longer available from Don Bosco, Saint Joseph Salesian Center will provide the required 38 parking spaces, and pave the grassy area. Also con- sidered during this discussion was the ingress and egress to the property, and whether or not this is formalized by a written agreement. Father Capporalli stated that ingress and egress is secured by verbal agreement only. Mr. Kress then proposed the addition of the following condition: "The applicant has represented to the Planning Commission that it has the per- mission of Don Bosco Technical Institute to use parking spaces on the Don Bosco property. Any change in the current arrangement between Don Bosco Technical Institute and the Salesian Center shall be reported by the applicant, the Salesian Center, to the Planning Department within ten (10) days of the effective date of said change. Upon receiving such notification, the Planning Department shall schedule a hearing to require full parking to be provided according to Code standards." The Commission then considered requiring a letter from Don Bosco Technical Insti- tute acknowledging, and agreeing to, this condition. It was the consensus of the Commission that written acknowledgement of the condition would be acceptable in lieu of a written parking agreement. Mr. Kress then advised the Commission to direct the Director of Planning to forward a letter to Don Bosco's Board of Directors notifying them of the action by the Commission, and expressing the City's desire to be informed of any changes in the parking arrangement. He stated that this would be more appropriate, since they could object to the condition if they did not agree, and the Commission would not be imposing a condition on a third party not involved in the requested project. The Commission then stated their agreement with Mr. Kress' suggestion. There was then a discussion regarding the letter dated March 26, 1982 from the applicants, informing the City of their inability to secure a parking agreement. Chairman Ritchie requested that this.correspondence be made a part of the record for this evening's proceedings. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - May 3, 1982 Page Three The Commission also considered adding a condition for the parking of any future construction. However, Mr. Kress stated that, due to the P-D zoning, any future construction would be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission, and parking for any future construction could be considered at that time. It was moved by Commissioner Mattern, seconded by Commissioner Lowrey, to approve Planned Development Review 82-4, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report labled, "Revised - March 15, 1982", with the replacement of Condition No. 1, as read by the City Attorney, and Condition 2 and 3 as stated in the Staff Report. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Lowrey, Mattern Noes: None There was then a discussion regarding approval of the Negative Declaration for this project. Mr. Kress stated that the Negative Declaration considered at the time of the original approval was still applicable, and therefore, it was not necessary to reapprove a Negative Declaration. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82-244: Request by Alhambra Psychiatric Hospital for the establishment of a psychiatric hospital on property located at 4705 Rosemead Boulevard, to be used in conjunction with an existing psychiatric hospital located at 4619 Rosemead Boulevard. The Staff Report dated April 27, 1982 was presented by Mr. Carmona, and the recommendation for conditional approval was made. During his presentation, Mr. Carmona stated that there was also a zone change request for the same site, scheduled for May 17, 1982. Chairman Ritchie opened the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to address the Commission with regard to this matter, the public hearing was closed accordingly. Commissioner De Cocker requested this matter be continued because his review of the subject property revealed many inconsistencies on the. plot plan, such as the number of parking spaces, sizes of parking spaces, insufficient widths for ingress and egress, location of the stand-by generator, gas meter, water system connection, and insufficient parking for the square footage of the proposed addition. For these reasons, Commissioner De Cocker requested that the applicants be directed to redraft the plot plan using a standard architectural scale, and resubmit the plans to the Commission. In addition, he requested a more detailed analysis of the number of required parking spaces from staff. Chairman Ritchie stated that his review and survey of the subject property con- curred with Commissioner De Cocker's findings. He further cited some examples supporting Commissioner De Cocker's comments, and stated his agreement with con- tinuing this public hearing to a later date. Mr. Carmona then stated that he would request that the applicants have the new.plan drafted by a professional architect or engineer, based on a survey of the property. It was the consensus of the Commission to continue this matter, and request a new plan, drafted by a professional architect/engineer. Commissioner Mattern also requested more detailed dimensions be included on the new plan. Chairman Ritchie reopened the public hearing at 8:50 p.m. and stated that this matter would be continued to the regular meeting, June 21, 1982. There was then a discussion regarding the scheduling of the zone change hearing. It was the consensus of the Commission that the zone change hearing be conducted as scheduled, at the May 17, 1982 meeting. 7. PARCEL MAP 41807: Request by Edmond Cheng, Cheng & Associates, for the subdivision of an existing lot into three (3) separate parcels for property located at 8714 Valley Boulevard and 8719 Steele Street. The Staff Report dated April 26, 1982 was presented by Mr. Carmona and the recommendation for conditional approval was made. During his presentation, Mr. Carmona explained the background of this project, and stated that a general Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - May 17, 1982 Page Four plan amendment in the subject area made this parcel map request in conformance with the General Plan. Chairman Ritchie opened the public hearing at 8:58 p.m. PROPONENTS: Mae Canastro 200 West Mission Drive San Gabriel, California Mr. Loren Wrightmeier 8724 Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California Mrs. Canastro addressed the Commission with regard to her request. Also, she expressed her agreement with the conditions, with the exception of the required sidewalk and fire hydrant installations. Accordingly, she requested a waiver of sidewalk installation and fire hydrant installation. Further, she requested clarification of Condition No. 5, addressing itself to compliance with the current building code for the structure at 8719 Steele Street. Mr. Carmona stated that this requirement is necessary to insure that the existing dwelling complies with minimum Building Code requirements, and will require the inspection by the city building inspector. There was also a discussion by the Commission regarding the sidewalk waiver request. Mrs. Canastro also inquired regarding the demolition of three existing structures prior to recordation of the final map. Mr. Carmona stated that the demolition of the structures would have to be completed prior to the final recordation, and in preparation for the construction of the commercial structure. Mr. Wrightmeier addressed the Commission with regard to the installation of the fire hydrant. He stated that there had been a fire hydrant in the vicinity of the subject parcel,. but it had been relocated. Chairman Ritchie closed the public hearing at 9:15 p.m. Commissioner De Cocker requested that the portion of Condition No. 3 stating, . The wooden fence shall be a similar, or of the same, material as the rest of the neighborhood and shall have steel supports set in concrete. . be deleted. There being no objections by the Commission, Condition No. 3 was amended to read as follows: "The perimeter property lines of the newly created lots will be provided with a six-foot block wall, as required between commercial and residential zones, prior to the recordation of the parcel map." The Commission then considered the installation of the fire hydrant. Among the matters considered was the approximate cost of it's installation, which was estimated to be approximately $1,000, the location ofthe proposed fire hydrant, the ultimate benefits to the property and surrounding neighborhood, fire flow requirements and Fire Department recommendations, and the absence of a fire hydrant on Steele Street. The cost of the installation of the sidewalks was.also considered, as well as the possibility of an assessment district for installation of the sidewalks in the near future. Mr. Dickey stated that there were no plans for street improvements to this area in the forseeable future. It was the consensus of the Commission to waive the sidewalk requirement, and require the installation of the fire hydrant, due to the fire flow requirements, and the lack of a fire hydrant on Steele Street. Mrs. Canastro stated that he objected to the installation of the fire hydrant because it would place an undue financial burden on her. The Commission added Condition No. 8, waiving the sidewalk requirement, which reads as follows: Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - May 3, 1982 Page Five "8. Waive sidewalk requirement in City Engineer's recommendation, Engineering- Road, Paragraph A." The Commission also expressed concern with the proposed drainage, and drainage plan. Accordingly, Condition No. 4 was deleted and replaced with the following: "Drainage easements are tentatively required. Provide a drainage plan showing how the drainage from Lot 1 will be conducted through Lots 2 and 3." The Commission also requested clarification of Condition No. 6, requiring the saving of a tree on Lot 3. It was brought to the attention of the Commission that there is no tree existing on Lot 3. Mr. Carmona stated that this would be clarified. It was moved by Commissioner De Cocker, seconded by Commissioner Schymos, to approve the filing of a Negative Declaration for Parcel Map 14807, with the findings that: (A) the Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with state and local guidelines for the preparation of environmental documents; (B) 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 Mattern, to approve Parcel Map 14807, subject to Conditions 1 through 8, as amended. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Lowrey, Mattern Noes: None Chairman Ritchie called a recess at 9:50 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:00 p.m. 8. ZONE AMENDMENT TO ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE - SECTION 9181: Review of Ordinance No. 542 which requires a conditional use permit for the installation/operation of cogeneration equipment. The memorandum dated April 27, 1982 was presented by Mr. Kress, and the recommendation for approval was made. Chairman Ritchie opened the public hearing at 10:05 p.m. OPPONENT: Juan Nunez 2702 Del Mar Avenue Rosemead, California Mr. Nunez stated that he was opposed to the adoption of this ordinance because of his concern that this would encourage the establishment and operation of cogeneration facilities in and around residential areas. He further requested a distance limitation for the establishment of cogeneration facilities in close proximity to residential zones. Chairman Ritchie closed the public hearing at 10:15 p.m. Mr. Kress then addressed Mr. Nunez's concern by stating that the adoption of this ordinance would insure that each proposed cogeneration facility, regardless of it's size, would be subject to a public hearing and review and approval by the Planning Commission. Mr. Kress further stated that he would recommend that each proposal be reviewed on it's own merits, rather than placing blanket restrictions, such as distance limitations, on all such projects. Commissioner Schymos expressed his support of the Ordinance; however, he stated that the language contained within the Ordinance appeared to exclude residential cogeneration facilities. There was then a discussion by the Commission regarding possible deletions or additions of language to make it clear that residential projects are not ex- cluded from the provisions of this Ordinance. Mr. Kress.then requested that this matter be continued to May 17, 1982, in order to give him an opportunity to