Loading...
PC - Minutes 02-17-82CITY OF ROSEMEAD 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION FEBRUARY 17, 1982 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER - The Study Session was called to order by Chairman Ritchie at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room of Rosemead City Hall, 8838 Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. 2. ROLL CALL - Present: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Lowrey, Mattern Absent: None Ex Officio: Kress, Carmona, de Zara 3. MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED - Condominium Ordinance The discussion began with consideration of the language submitted by Mr. Carmona to replace Section 9106.26 (D) (3). During,this discussion, the question of when in the plan review process a proposed encroachment would be presented to the Commission. After further discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission to add the following as Section 9106.26 (D) (3): "A minor encroachment to Paragraph (2) may be granted providing that such encroachment is limited.to a maximum of three (3) feet and also providing that an equal building area is recessed to maintain the average distances between buildings." Section 9106.27 Landscaping, (A) (1) (a) was considered,with regard to the 10% landscape requirement. It was suggested that perhaps this was not stated clearly enough. The Commission then amended Page 6, Line 4 to read: . .provided for the ultimate coverage of no less that 10% area devoted to landscaping, or. . In addition, subparagraph (d) was amended as follows: . make use of moisture sensors and controlled timing devices. The Commission also discussed the parking section of the Ordinance. Mr. Carmona stated that the section on Subterrean Parking would be included in the Parking Ordinance, and reference to that section made within the Condominium Ordinance. He further stated he anticipated this section to be ready for the Commission's consideration within two to three weeks. Commissioner Schymos suggested that Section 9106.29 Storage and Utility Space, be amended to set forth dimensions of the storage space. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding this suggestion, and it was the consensus of the Commission not to set forth dimensions, but to specify that the storage space is to be located within the dwelling unit. Line 9, Page 7 was then amended to read: . .unit exclusive of closets and cupboards within the living space of the dwelling unit. In addition, Chairman Ritchie requested that a provision be included allowing for the future installation of solar water heaters. Accordingly, the following was added to Line 12, Page 7: utility space for a washer and dryer; and, adjacent to the conventional hot water heater, a floor area of 2~' X 2'2' X 8' high for a solar hot water storage tank." There was a discussion regarding how binding the provisions of this ordinance are. Mr. Kress stated that the provisions of this ordinance are development standards provided for guidance to the staff and developers. Also discussed was the approval process, the installation of solar water heaters, and the possible legal complications regarding solar heating installation in condominiums. Planning Commission-Minutes Study Session - February 17, 1982 Page Two Section 9106.30 Open'Space was considered by the Commission and it was suggested by Commissioner Schymos that the developer be allowed to include a portion of the required setbacks to fulfill the open space requirements. The Commission added the following to.this section: "Open space shall be exclusive of required front yard setback, required side yard setback, vehicular accessways, off-street parking areas, and private bal- conies located above the floor level or second floor level of the appurtenant residential unit; provided, however, that 50% of the required sideyard setback may be included in the required open space." Section 9106.31 Trash was discussed by the Commission with regard to the feasibility of setting forth a minimum size for trash enclosures, and the minimum number of bins to be required. After a lengthy discussion, the Commission amended Line 24 Page 7 by deleting "trash and garbage", and substituting "refuse"; and Line 25, Page 7 by deleting, at a minimum of twenty (20) cubic feet per unit. There was then a lengthy discussion regarding requiring the installation of fencing prior to the construction of the structure. Many matters were considered in this regard, including the possibility that the fence might block construction or prevent large equipment from entering the construction site. Also considered were the nuisances of construction.to adjacent property owners, such as noise and dust. It was the consensus of the Commission to include the following in Section 9106.32: "A six-foot-high, masonry block fence shall be constructed around the property periphery, prior to the start of building construction, and be in accordance with Section 9106.25. . The Commission then considered the possibility of regulating exterior sidings. It was suggested that they could review this matter under the design review process; however, Mr. Kress stated that they could not specify the type of siding to be used. Section 9106.34 Driveway Requirements was discussed with regard to drainage considerations. It was the consensus of the Commission to amend this section as follows: Line 9, Page 8 - The deletion of the word, "unobstructive" and replacement with "unobstructed". Line 14, Page 8 - Deletion of the words, "approved by", and replacement with "subject to the approval of". Section 9106.36 Roofing was discussed regarding the possible deletion of the prohibition of wooden shake and shingle roofs, and replacement with the re- quirement that all roofing materials be UL approved as Class A, fireproof. After a lengthy discussion of the subject, it was the consensus of the Commission to leave in, "Wooden shake or. shingle roofs are prohibited," and add, "Roofing materials shall be U.L. approved, Class A fireproof." Section 9106.37 Plan Approval was reviewed by the Commission, and consideration was given to the process to be utilized for plan approval. Mr. Kress advised the Commission to review a flow chart of the approval process for clarification. Mr. Carmona was then directed to submit a flow chart to the Commission for their review and information. `T Section 9106.38 Condominium Conversions There was a lengthy discussion regard- ing this section, and Mr. Kress expressed his desire to review and submit some changes to this section. He further advised the Commission that this section should set forth more specific requirements for conversion of existing buildings into condominiums. After further consideration of this matter, it was the con- sensus of the Commission to require that all structure proposed for condominium conversion be required to comply with Section 9106.28, Parking and Section 9106.30, Open Space. The following amendment was then adopted: Planning Commission Minutes Study Session - February 17, 1982 Page Three Line 14, Page 9 - Deletion of "Sections 9106.20 through 9106.39" and replacement with "Sections 9106.28, Parking and 9106.30, Open Space". In addition to this amendment, Mr. Kress stated that he would review this section and submit new language to the Commission, where he felt it was necessary. Section 9106.39 Development Submission Standards. Mr. Carmona stated that the review process should consist of the following process: 1. Design concept plan review; 2. Tentative tract approval; 3. Precise development plan review; The following amendments were incorporated into this section: Line 16, Page 9 - Deletion of the word "Said", and replacement with "An", and insertion of "for a precise development plan" between "application", and "shall". In subparagraph (E), it was suggested that the Commission add that the C,C, & R's include a provision allowing the City to enforce certain portions of the C,C, & R's, should the homeowners association fail to do so. Mr. Kress was then directed to draft the appropriate language and submit it for the Commission's review and approval. Chairman Ritchie then reviewed the items to be prepared by staff and submitted for the Commission's consideration and approval. They were: 1. Subterranean parking section 2. Uniform Building Code definition of "roof" 3. Roofing material standards 4. Specific standards for condominium conversions 5. Flow charts of the approval process 6. Building height illustrations 7. Parking illustrations and profiles There was then a discussion regarding the date these matters were to be sub- mitted to the Commission, and the time-frame for the approval of the Condominium Ordinance. 4. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, Chairman Ritchie adjourned the study session at 11:00 p.m.