Loading...
PC - Minutes 03-31-82CITY OF ROSEMEAD 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MARCH 31, 1982 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER - The study session was called to order by Chairman Ritchie at 6:30 p.m., in the Conference Room of Rosemead City Hall, 8838 Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. 2. ROLL CALL - Present: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Mattern Absent: Lowrey Ex Officio: Kress, Carmona, de Zara 3. MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED - Parking Ordinance Garage Sale Ordinance A. Parking Ordinance The discussion began with the consideration of Appendix A-1, which illustrates the striping of parking spaces. Several amendments were made to Appendix A-1, Parking Area Circulation. Among the changes were: (1) Change the note at the bottom of the page to read, "No allowance has been made for columns in this depiction." (2) Deletion of "(i.e., large car)", and "(i.e., small car)" from the illustrations of the standard size and small car parking requirements. (3) Removal of the car symbols from the public alley parking illustrations, and insertion of, "Minimum space requirement is 10' X 20'." (4) Addition of, "3 inch stripe and spacing of 6 inches between stripes for a total of 12 inches overall." Mr. Carmona then advised the Commission that, upon further review of the proposed Parking Ordinance, he discovered two points which he felt should be considered by the Commission. They were: (1) The increase in aisle width would place space limitations on the developers of commercial and industrial developments, making it difficult to meet the parking requirements. (2) By increasing the small car parking space size, they were limiting the space available to satisfy the parking requirements on all types of developments. The Commission then considered the possible intrusion of light standards or support poles into the required parking space. After further consideration of this matter, it was the consensus of the Commission to add the following to Section 9122.9 (D): "Support columns or lighting standards shall not intrude into the required dimensions." In addition, the Commission considered the possible shortening of the required length of small car parking. During this discussion, it was agreed that the enforcement of small car parking was difficult in retail and commercial developments. Therefore, it was the consensus of the Commission that small car parking not be allowed in retail/commercial developments. There was lengthy consideration given to the handicapped parking provisions. Mr. Kress explained that this type of requirement was set forth by the State of California, and the city regulations could not take precedent over the state requirements. In addition, the Commission discussed the enforcement of these requirements and the inspection procedures utilized to determine compliance with the state law. After this discussion, it Planning Commission Minutes Study Session - March 31, 1982 Page Two was the consensus of the Commission to delete the handicapped parking illustrations from the proposed ordinance, and insert a reference to the State of California requirements into Section 9122.9 (F), as follows: "The state handicapped provisions of Title 24, California Administrative Code, shall be followed together with those minimum handicapped requirements as expressed within this Chapter." The Commission also considered the effect this ordinance will have on the proposed Condominium Ordinance. In addition, the Commission considered the proposed maximum grade of 15%, and the best way of reviewing the sub- terranean parking and ramping. After careful consideration of this matter, and the formula provided by the City Engineer's office, it was the consensus of the Commission to refer the review of ramping and subterranean parking to the City Engineer's office. Mr. Kress then suggested that the ordinance include a statement refering to "the illustrations on file in the City Engineer's office", and to add the following statement: "No grade shall be greater than 15%." There was then a discussion regarding what stage in the review process the grading will be reviewed and whether the City Engineer will approve the grading/ramping plans, or make a recommendation to the Commission for their approval. Landscaping was the considered with regard to limiting landscaping to a maximum of four feet in height for mature trees and shrubs, and the possibility of referring landscaping plans to the Director of Recreation and Parks for review and approval. Accordingly, the following was added to the Parking Ordinance: "Landscape plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for the review and approval of the Director of Recreation and Parks." CONDOMINIUM ORDINANCE There was consideration by the Commission given to the memorandum dated March 30, 1982 containing the City Engineer's comments on the Draft Condominium Ordinance. Among the matters considered was the prohibition of wooden shake or shingle roofs in condominium developments. Mr. Kress stated his concern with the limitation of roofing materials applying exclusively to condominiums, and the conflict with the Uniform Building Code. He addressed the Commission with regard to the state requirements for amending the Uniform Building Code and the procedure and findings required for such an amendment. He further stated that the.Uniform Building Code was a state law, and as such, could not be exceeded or minimized by a city ordinance. There was then a lengthy discussion regarding this matter. Mr. Kress advised the Commission that they could discourage the use of wooden roofing materials, but they could not prohibit their use. During the discussion regarding the City Engineer's comments, the Commission also accepted the City Engineer's recommendation for the addition of the following to Section 9106.20 1., C, (1): "(1) A map showing the.topography of the site included in the proposed zone at 1-foot contour intervals on areas of a gross slope of less than five percent (5%), at 2-foot contour.levels, in areas of from five to twenty percent (5% - 20%) gross slope, and at 5-foot contour intervals on slopes exceeding twenty percent (20%) gross slopes." It was also the consensus of the Commission to add a statement to Section 9106.34 stating that the 26-foot wide, 13' 6" unobstructed vertical clearance standard for driveways is not required for subterranean parking. Planning Commission Minutes Study Session - March 31, 1982 Page Three Further, the Commission agreed to add a statement in the Condominium Ordinance stating that the use of wooden roofing materials is dis- couraged. B. Garage Sale Ordinance Chairman Ritchie stated that the discussion of the Garage Sale Ordinance would be postponed due to the lateness of the hour. 4. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, Chairman Ritchie adjourned the study session at 10:40 p.m.