Loading...
PC - Minutes 02-16-82CITY OF ROSEMEAD 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION FEBRUARY 16, 1982 MTNUTFS 1. CALL TO ORDER - The Study Session was called to order by Chairman Ritchie at 9:40 p.m., in the Council Chambers of Rosemead City Hall, 8838 Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. 2. ROLL CALL - Present: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Lowrey, Mattern Absent: None Ex Officio: Carmona, de Zara 3. MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED - Condominium Ordinance The discussion regarding the Condominium Ordinance began on Page 4, Line 26, Section 9106.26, Building Setbacks: Chairman Ritchie stated that he was con- cerned with the "alley" type configurations of some of the condominium develop- ments within the City. There was a discussion on how best to encourage the development of projects that are not designed in this manner.. During this discussion, it was suggested by Chairman Ritchie that the garages not be visible from the street. Commissioner Lowrey also stated that he would like to add a provision that any subterranean parking be secured with gates. There was then a discussion regarding requiring, as the front yard set back, 15 feet or 25 feet. Commissioner Schymos suggested the deletion of Lines 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31, and the addition of the following paragraph: "9106.26 Building Setbacks. A. Front Yard Setback. Fifteen (15) feet, minimum. No garage shall be visible from the street." The Commission also amended the title of this section from "Building Setbacks", to "Minimum Building Setbacks". The Commission also considered possible modification of the required side yard setback. Commissioner Schymos suggested that the side yard minimum be reduced to five feet in order to accommodate the additional required parking. After a lengthy discussion of the matter, Chairman Ritchie polled the Commission re- garding the amendment of the side yard setback. It was the consensus of the Commission to require a 10 foot minimum side yard setback, with landscaping. ,,Section 9106.26 (D)-Distance Between Buildings was also discussed with regard to the allowable encroachment. Mr. Carmona stated that this section had been added in order to allow for flexibility in designing a project and still main- tain the average minimum set back. It was the decision of the Commission to delete subsection (D) and request that Mr. Carmona submit different language for their consideration at the next study session. Section 9106.27 Landscaping was considered adequate with the following minor additions: Line 23, Page 5 - Insertion of the word "sensing" between "moisture" and "devices", and insertion of the word "control" between "and" and "timer". This line now reads, . be-landscaped and provided with permanent moisture sensing devices and control timer. . Line 28, Page 5 - Insertion of "for the approval of the Planning Commission", between the words "submitted" and "at", to read, . professional landscape architect shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Commission at the time of. . The discussion regarding the allowable encroachment of distance between buildings then resumed. Commissioner Mattern stated that it was the Commission's intent to eliminate the "row" effect, and encourage staggered building facades. Also considered in this discussion was the best way to encourage this type of develop- ment. Planning Commission Minutes Study Session - February 16, 1982 Page Two 4. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, Chairman Ritchie adjourned the study session at 10:40 p.m. to the study session scheduled for Tuesday, February 17, 1982, at 7:00 p.m. 1 1. CITY OF ROSEMEAD 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 16, 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 p.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 Commissioner De Cocker. 2. ROLL CALL - Present: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Lowrey, Mattern Absent: None Ex Officio: Dickey, Carmona, de Zara 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting, January 4, 1982 Commissioner Schymos requested an amendment on Page 1, paragraph 13. He stated that he would like the word "paid" deleted from the condition added to Conditional Use Permit 81-239. In addition, he requested that the other added condition on Page 2 be amended to read: "No signs indicating the sale of alcoholic beverages shall be visible from the outside of the building." There being no objections by the Commission, the amendments were so ordered. It was moved by Commissioner Schymos, seconded by Commissioner Lowrey, to approve the Minutes of January 4, 1982 as amended. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Lowrey, Mattern Noes: None 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE: On items not on the Agenda Mr. Leno Nardini 7831 Emerson Place Rosemead, California Mr. Nardini inquired how many lanes Garvey Avenue contained. Mr. Dickey stated that it contained two lanes heading east and two lanes heading west. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. PARCEL MAP 14769 AND VACATION OF EASEMENTS: A request by Sepulveda Properties, Inc., and Jennings, Halderman, & Hood for the subdivision of a parcel of land generally located south of the Pomona Freeway and west of San Gabriel Boulevard; and consideration of the abandonment of sewer easements. The Staff Report dated February 8, 1982 was presented by Mr. Carmona, and the recommendation for approval was made. Chairman Ritchie opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. The witnesses were administered the oath by the secretary. PROPONENTS: Mr. James L. Rippy Sepulveda Properties, Inc. 20031 Golden West Street Huntington Beach, California Mr. Hugh Halderman Jennings, Halderman & Hood 540 Golden Circle Drive Santa Ana, California Mr. Rippy and Mr. Halderman answered questions regarding the drainage of the subject property. In answer to questions by Chairman Ritchie, they stated Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - February 16, 1982 Page Two that the drainage from this parcel would be directed onto the abandoned Arroyo Drive, and that it would not drain onto the residential properties in the area. Further, the Commission was informed that there was presently a 9' X 11' storm drain on the site. Chairman Ritchie also inquired if the abandonment note had been placed on the map for the abandonment of the easements, as recommended by the City Engineer. Mr. Halderman stated that this would be accomplished on the final parcel map. The witnesses were also asked if there was a proposed grading plan. The representatives stated that the property was already being graded in con- junction with the Montebello Regional Shopping Center; however, the Com- mission would be reviewing the grading and development plans at a later date. Chairman Ritchie closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Commissioner Schymos requested a clarification of what the Commission was reviewing at this time. Mr. Carmona stated that this was a lot consolidation and abandonment of easements. In addition, he stated that the Commission would be reviewing the development plans for this property at a later date. It was moved by Commissioner Schymos, seconded by Commissioner Matter, to approve Parcel Map 14769, and the vacation of the sewer easements. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Lowrey, Mattern Noes: None It was moved by Commissioner Schymos, seconded by Commissioner Lowrey to approve the supplemental Environmental Impact Report previously adopted by the City of Montebello and City of Rosemead for this project. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Lowrey, Mattern Noes: None 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82-242: Request by James Yang for the establishment of a pre-school on property located at 3220 Del Mar Avenue, Rosemead, California. The Staff Report dated February 8, 1982 was presented by Mr. Carmona, and the recommendation for denial was made. Mr. Carmona stated that his recommendation was based on the project's inability to meet the required findings. - Chairman Ritchie opened the public hearing at 7:57 p.m. The witnesses were administered the oath by the secretary. PROPONENTS: James Yang 7903 Virginia Street Rosemead, California Gail Vallejo 1750 West Main Street Alhambra, California Mr. Yang stated that he wished to submit a new, revised plot plan. He then distributed copies of the new plot plan to the Commission, and offered an explanation of the new proposal. Ms. Vallejo stated that it was her opinion that the pre-school would be an asset to the community. OPPONENTS: Mao Wang 2501 Midwickhill Drive Alhambra, California Leno Nardini 7831 Emerson Place Rosemead, California Mr. Frank Larson 8948 Cortada Rosemead, California Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - February 16, 1982 Page Three Mr. Wang stated that he owned apartments in the vicinity of the proposed project. He expressed his concern with the number of children to attend the pre-school, the long hours of operation, and the noise created by cars driving up and down the driveway. Mr. Nardini expressed his concern with the possibility of increased vandal- ism in the area caused by the school. He addressed the Commission with re- gard.to the problems existing in the neighborhood due to the school in the area. In addition, he expressed his opposition to allowing a commercial venture to be established in a residential area. Mr. Larson stated that he was representing Mary Fortunato, 7829 Emerson Place, who resides in the area. He addressed the Commission with regard to the difficulty encountered by Mrs. Fortunato due to the increased vandalism in the area caused by the students at the neighborhood school. In addition, he stated that Mrs. Fortunato found it very difficult to keep her rental occupied due to these problems. He also expressed his concern that the children would trespass onto the neighboring property if adequate fencing was not installed. PROPONENT REBUTTAL: Mr. Yang expressed his disagreement with the previous testimony. He also stated that he did not believe that there would be a problem with the location of the driveway. He stated that there was a genuine need in the community for this type of development, and expressed his doubt that vandalism in the area would be increased because of the children attending his pre-school. OPPONENTS' REBUTTAL: Mr. Wang requested that the Commission give consideration to the desires of the surrounding property owners. Mr. Larson inquired what type of fencing would be installed on the property. Mr. Nardini questioned the appropriateness of the zoning of the property for this type of development. He also inquired if the zoning on his property would be changed to commercial as a result of this establishment. Mr. Carmona stated that the zoning of Mr. Nardini's lot would remain the same, and that the pre-school was allowed in any zone with a conditional use permit. Further, Mr. Carmona stated that wooden fencing was proposed for the project. There was then further discussion regarding the basis of the recommendation for denial. Chairman Ritchie closed the public hearing,at 8:30 p.m. There was then a discussion by the Commission regarding this project. Commissioner Mattern asked the applicant what the ages of the children would be, if this was a pre-school or a day care center, how much instruction of the children would take place, what type of fencing was proposed, and what the fee for atten- dance would be. Mr. Yang stated that the children would be between ,2 to 5 years of age, and the instruction would depend upon the child's age and development. He also stated that he was proposing a wooden fence, and that the attendance fee would be approximately $35 to $40 per week. Commissioner Mattern then stated that he felt that the plot plan presented with the application was inadequate in that it lacked a sound attenuation plan, an adequate play area, the type of fencing to be used and where it would be placed, a detailed parking plan, and the height of the proposed fencing. In addition, he stated that he would like to have the Fire Department inspect the property and submit a written report of their recommendation and findings. Commissioner Lowrey asked how many teachers would be employed at the pre-school and what the teacher/student ratio would be. Mr. Yang stated that the teacher/ student ratio would be 1 teacher per 20 students. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - February 16, 1982 Page Four Commissioner De Cocker stated that the State of California required 75 square feet of play area per child with safe access to that area. Mr. Yang stated that he was aware of that requirement, and that it had been given consideration in the new plot plan. He then requested that he be allowed to withdraw the original plot plan from consideration by the Planning Commission. There was then a discussion by the Commission regarding this request, and it was the consensus of the Commission that they would consider the new plot plan with a new application from Mr. Yang. Chairman Ritchie also expressed.his opinion that the existing structure on the property would not be able to pass inspection by the Fire Department. It was moved by Commissioner Schymos, seconded by Commissioner Mattern, to deny Conditional Use Permit 82-242 without prejudice. ROLL CALL VOTE- Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Lowrey,.Mattern Noes: None OTHER BUSINESS 4. PC RESOLUTION 82-4 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD.GRANTING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL FOR AN EXPANSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 80-201, ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4110 TEMPLE CITY BOULEVARD AND 9739 ABILENE STREET, ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA. Mr. Dickey stated that the amendments to this Resolution requested by the Commission had been included on the new Resolution. Mr. Dickey read the Resolution by title only. Commissioner Mattern then stated that a condition requiring the overnight kennel area to be located on the.northeast corner of the property had been added on November 16, 1981; however, it had been omitted. He requested the addition of this condition. Staff was directed to include the omitted condition as Condition No. 11. It is to be stated as follows: 11. The overnight kennel area is to be located at the northeast corner of the property. The adoption of the resolution was deferred to the next regular meeting, March 1, 1982. 8. PC RESOLUTION 82-5 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL TO LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON STEELE STREET, GENERALLY EAST OF GERNERT AVENUE AND WEST OF MUSCATEL AVENUE, ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA. Mr. Dickey read the Resolution by title only. It was moved by Commissioner Lowrey, seconded by Commissioner De Cocker, to waive further reading and adopt PC Resolution 82-5. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Ritchie, Lowrey, Mattern Noes: Schymos 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 OFFICIALS AND STAFF A. Mr. Dickey informed the Commission that Del Mar Avenue, from Highcliff north to Hellman Avenue-would soon be undergoing improvements. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - Page Five B. Commissioner Mattern stated that the Alpha Beta Shopping Center on the corner of Garvey and Jackson Avenues was once again littered with junk and debris. Staff was directed to contact the owner of the property and inform him of the violation. In addition, it was requested that should this matter continue, this case should be turned over to the proper agency for resolution. C. Commissioner.Mattern requested that the Minutes be submitted to the Commission in time for the following meeting. Mr. Dickey explained that the earlier agenda delivery date placed new time constraints on staff. Commissioner Mattern then stated that it was not necessary to submit the Minutes with the Agenda but that they should be delivered prior to the next meeting. Staff was directed to do so. D. Commissioner Mattern requested that staff provide the Commission with a new staff report containing all additional information regarding a matter continued by the Planning. Commission. E. Chairman Ritchie inquired regarding the progress of meetings with Loren Phillips & Associates in conjunction with the changes to the develop- ment plans requested by the Commission at the time extension hearing for Tentative Tract 37066. Mr. Carmona stated that he had met with Mr. Stuart and had requested a letter from the applicants, stating what had been agreed to. He stated that the letter had not yet been submitted. Chairman Ritchie requested that Mr. Carmona contact Loren Phillips & Associates and find out what was causing the delay. F. Chairman Ritchie inquired regarding the status of the complaint regarding . the plastering business being conducted on Pitkin. Mr. Carmona stated that the owner of the business had been contacted and given approximately one month to clean up the property. G. Chairman Ritchie inquired what the status of the changes to the M-1 storage provisions was. Mr. Carmona stated that this would be forthcoming in approximately 2 to 3 weeks. H. Chairman Ritchie inquired if the Council has taken any action on the video game ordinance. Mr. Carmona stated that he was unaware of any action by the Council; however, staff had received several ordinances from sur- rounding cities. I. Chairman Ritchie requested that the Relocation Committee meet on Friday, February 19, 1982 at 9:30 a.m. to inspect a structure proposed for re- location into the City of Rosemead. J. Chairman Ritchie inquired if staff had received copies of-the book, The Job of the Planning Commissioner. He was advised that the order had been made and returned to the Department because it was being published by a new company. Staff was directed to place the order as soon as it became available. K. Commissioner Mattern requested that the abandoned vehicles at 3212 Del Mar Avenue be investigated for possible abatement. 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, Chairman Ritchie adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m. to a studysession on the Condominium Ordinance.