Loading...
PC - Minutes 01-04-82CITY OF ROSEMEAD S 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD DATE.__ ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 4, 1982 MTNTTTF.S 1. CALL TO ORDER - The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead was called to order by Chairman Lowrey, 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 Ritchie. The Invocation was delivered by Chairman Lowrey. 2. ROLL CALL - Present: De Cocker, Schymos, Lowrey, Ritchie, Mattern Absent: None Ex Officio: Kress, Dickey, Carmona, de Zara 3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - On items not on the Agenda Chairman Lowrey asked if anyone present wished to address the Commission. No one came forward. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Lowrey stated that the Commission had received a request that Item No. 9, Conditional Use Permit 81-239 be heard out of order. There being no ob- jections by the Commission or audience, it was agreed that Item No. 9 would be heard first. In addition, Chairman Lowrey stated that Item No. 5, Parcel Map 14807, had been withdrawn by the applicant, and would not be considered at this meeting. ' 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81-239: Request by Rosemead Racquetball Club for the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption, in conjunction with an . existing racquetball club, known as "Rosemead Racquetball Club", and located at 3001 Walnut Grove Avenue. The Staff Report dated December 29, 1981 was presented by Mr. Carmona, and the recommendation for conditional approval was made. Chairman Lowrey opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed accordingly. A discussion regarding this request then ensued. Commissioner Mattern stated that he was familiar with the type of clientele this establishment had and it was his opinion that this use would not be abused. Commissioner De Cocker added that since the sale of alcoholic beverages was only to members of the club, he felt that it would not be detrimental to the community. Commissioner Ritchie inquired regarding the hours of operation. Mr. Toraya stated that the club operated from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday; 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Friday; and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday. Commissioner Ritchie.then requested the addition of a condition limiting the sale of alcoholic beverages from opening of the club to one hour after closing time. Mr. Toraya then requested that they be allowed to sell alcoholic beverages for a longer period after closing during special events. During the discussion of Mr. Toraya's request, the following condition was added: * "The sale of alcoholic beverages shall be limited to members and their i~ admitted guests." Mr. Kress also suggested the following condition to address the time limitation requested by Commissioner Ritchie: *Deletion of the word "paid" requested February 16, 1982. Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 1982 Page Two "Sale of alcoholic beverages shall terminate one (1) hour after closing, except in the case of special events." Mr. Toraya stated that he had no objection to this condition being added. Commissioner Schymos then requested that the following be added as a condition as well: "No signs indicating the sale of alcoholic beverages shall be visible from the 1.1 right-of-way" He stated that this would discourage potential problems with the general public coming in and purchasing alcoholic beverages. Hearing no objections by the Commission, the aforementioned conditions were added. It was moved by Commissioner De Cocker, seconded by Commissioner Schymos, to approve Conditional Use Permit 81-239, subject-to Conditions 1 through 4 and to direct-staff to prepare a resolution formalizing this action. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Lowrey, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 80-201: Request by Tomei Shogi Company, Ltd., for an expansion of Conditional Use Permit 80-201, which allows the operation of a dog kennel on property located at 4110 Temple City Boulevard and 9739 Abilene Street. (Continued from December 7, 1981.) Mr. Carmona stated that the applicants had submitted a new plot plan earlier in the day, and distributed copies to the Commission. He also addressed-.the Commission regarding the changes illustrated in the new plot plan, including a new parking plan, and the relocation of the overnight kennel to the north=_--- east corner of the lot. Chairman Lowrey then stated that the public hearing on this matter was still open, and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Commissioners De Cocker and Ritchie stated that they did not feel they had sufficient time to render a decision on this matter. In addition, Commissioner Ritchie stated that there.did not appear to be much difference in the old and new plot.plans, and that there were no dimensions on the new plot plan. Commissioner Mattern stated that he agreed with Commissioners De Cocker and Ritchie, and added that he would like a new staff report submitted with the new plot plan which would include all proposed conditions from the last meeting. Commissioner Ritchie then requested the following details be included in the new submittal: dimensions of the parking area, the number of parking spaces proposed, size of the narking spaces, the turning radius, and explanation of the show and obedience area, kennel,.exercise area, and proposed height of the fence to be placed at 4110 Temple City Boulevard. In addition, Commissioner Ritchie suggested the addition of decorative, wrought-iron fencing on top of the two-foot wall as additional protection for the dog kennel property. Commissioner Mattern then requested a continuance of this matter, and inquired when the applicants would be available to return. Mr. Chaves stated that the applicant would be in this country throughout January and February and would be available to appear before the Commission. Mr. Chaves also requested that the applicant-be allowed-to.provide the Commission with the necessary information regarding his request at this time. There being no objections by the Commission, Chairman Lowrey then stated that the public hearing was open and the Commission would hear any testimony for or against the project at?this time. The witnesses were administered the oath by the secretary. **Condition amended February 16, 19812 to read:- "No signs indicating the sale of alcoholic beverages shall be visible from the outside of the building."' Planning Commission Minutes January 4, 1982 Page Three PROPONENT: Tom L. Chaves Chaves & Weiss 350 South Figueroa, Suite 570 Los Angeles, California 90071 Mr. Chaves addressed the Commission regarding the concerns stated at the last meeting with sound and noise. He stated the reasons why he believed that this proposal would not add significantly to the noise in the area. OPPONENT: Arthur Heredia 9727 Abilene Street Rosemead, California Mr. Heredia stated that he was opposed to this kennel because of the undesirable odors, and noise generated from other such establishments in the area. There was then a discussion by the Commission regarding the continuance of this matter, and the amount of time needed by the applicants to prepare the additional information. The applicant's representative stated that two weeks would be sufficient time. The Commission then agreed that should more time be required, the applicant could request another continuance. There being no objections by the Commission, the public hearing for the expansion of Conditional Use Permit 80-201 was continued to the next regular meeting, January 18, 1982. 6. PARCEL MAP 14807: Request by Edmond Cheng, Cheng and Associates, for the sub- division of an existing parcel of land into three separate parcels on property located at 8714 Valley Boulevard and 8719 Steele Street. Mr. Carmona explained that this matter.had been withdrawn by the applicant at this time so that the City could resolve the conflict between the zoning and General Plan designation. He also stated that a general plan amendment was being considered for this area. Mr. Carmona then requested that General Plan Amendment 81-3 and Zone Change 81-127 be heard together because they were similar requests. 7. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 81-3: City-initiated request for a general plan amend- ment from Light Manufacturing to Community Commercial, for the area of Garvey Avenue generally described as being located between the Southern California Edison Right-of-Way and Bartlett Avenue. 8. ZONE CHANGE 81-127: City-initiated request for a change of zone from M-1, Light Manufacturing and Industrial, to C-3, Medium Commercial for the area of Garvey Avenue generally described as being located between the Southern California Edison Right-of-Way and Bartlett Avenue. The Staff Reports dated December 30, 1981 were presented by Mr. Carmona, and the recommendation for approval of both requests, through two separate motions, was made. During the presentation, Mr. Carmona stated the reasons for this--., request, citing the City's desire to prevent further deterioration of both the commercial and residential properties, and problems with water and fire flows in the area. He also addressed the Commission with regard to investigations conducted by staff and the Arroyo Group. Chairman Lowrey opened the public hearing at 8:20 p.m. The witnesses were administered the oath by the secretary. OPPONENTS: Ted Strinz Deena Brand 3015 North Bartlett 509 North Linden Rosemead, California Beverly Hills, California Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - January 4, 1982 Page Four Robert W. Bruesch 3126 Isabel Avenue Rosemead, California Holly Knapp 8367 East Whitmore Rosemead, California Ken Nine 8474 Garvey Avenue Rosemead, California Don Wick 8464 Garvey Avenue Rosemead, California Mr. Strinz asked for a clarification of the differences between uses allowed in the M-1 zone and C-3 zone. Mrs. Brand inquired regarding various impacts the zone change would have on her property, which is located on the northwest corner of Garvey and Bartlett. In addition, she asked if there were plans to install a new water system and assess the property owners for the cost, and the impact this zone change would have on her plans to expand her manufacturing property. Mr. Carmona stated that there were no plans to install a new water system in the area, and he also stated that the moratorium on construction in the area would expire on January 8, 1982 thereby allowing Mrs. Brand to continue with her plans to ex- pand. _He added that it was uncertain, at this time, that this request would be approved and therefore could not offer a date when the zoning would become effective. Mr. Bruesch asked that the Commission consider the difference in height limitation allowed by the M-1 and C-3 zoning, the development of Walnut Grove Avenue in determining the Garvey Avenue traffic flow patterns, and the number of residential dwelling units presently occupied in this area and the effect this change will have on those property owners. Mrs. Knapp also inquired regarding the effect this change would have on the ' residential uses in the area. Mr. Carmona stated that there were approximately 15 to 20 residences in the area; however, they were already legal, non-conforming uses and this status would not change. Mrs. Knapp also inquired if there were any plans to change the remainder of Garvey Avenue to another zone. Mr. Carmona stated that the existing zoning on the remainder of Garvey Avenue was C-3 and would remain as such. Mr. Nine addressed the Commission with regard to the additional parking that would be required by the C-3 zoning and stated his opinion that Garvey Avenue was not equipped to handle this. Mr. Wick stated that he presently owned Mission Fence Company and expressed his concern with the effect this change would have on his plans to expand into a retail hardware store. PROPONENT: Ned Poole 3108 North Willard Avenue Rosemead, California Mr. Poole addressed the Commission regarding his support of the change in zoning. He stated that he felt the commercial zoning would be more conducive to the residential area and would encourage the residential property owners to improve their properties. He also addressed the Commission regarding the problems caused by manufacturing uses in close proximity to a residential area. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the non-conforming status. Commissioner Schymos stated that in Section 9121.4(d) it stated that a legal non-conforming use could replace another legal non-conforming use of a less restrictive nature. He inquired who would determine which use was of.a less restrictive nature. Mr. Carmona stated this would be left up to the discretion of the Director of Planning. Commissioner Ritchie requested that this matter be continued: Chairman Lowrey called a recess at 8:50 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - January 4, 1982 Page Five There was then a lengthy discussion by the Commission regarding the proposed changes in the General Plan and zoning. Commissioner Schymos stated his support of the recommendation, and his opinion that many of the problems could be dealt with in the C-3 zone. He also expressed his satisfaction with the studies conducted by the Arroyo Group. Commissioner Mattern then stated his agreement with Commissioner Schymos. Commissioner Ritchie then stated his concerns with portions of the Environmental Questionnaire and Negative Declaration. He asked Mr. Carmona for clarification of various statements.regarding the increase in need for additional water and fire protection, housing, decrease in potential mixed land uses, and a definition of the term "vast majority". Mr. Carmona stated that the water situation in the area was deficient for M-1 zoning, however the change to commercial would.decrease the need for additional fire flow in the area. In addressing the housing question, Mr. Carmona stated that there would be no need for additional housing in the area due to this change. He also stated that the difference in manufacturing and residential uses was too great and would continue to cause problems in the area. Mr. Carmona informed the Commission that there were approximately 40 businesses, or 73%, of a commercial nature existing in the M-1 zone. Commissioner Ritchie expressed his concern with established manufacturing uses becoming legal, non-conforming uses in this area. He stated his opinion that this type of status would lead to further deterioration of the area, since this would discourage the improvement of the manufacturing properties. Further he stated that he would like to add a provision to the Zoning Code allowing the improvement of residential uses in non-conforming zones such as M-1 or C-3. He suggested the implementation of aspecial use permit or variance to accomplish this. Commissioner Ritchie then suggested that the Commission consider changing the zoning designation to M-1, Design Overlay. He explained that this would give the City control of the development of the area by requiring a review before the Planning Commission. He also explained that this zoning would solve the problem of creating legal non-conforming uses in the area. Commissioner De Cocker then stated his disagreement with Commissioner Ritchie, and his support of the commercial zoning. Commissioner Mattern then stated that he would be in favor of implementing the zoning designation proposed by Commissioner Ritchie. Mr. Carmona then advised the Commission that the consideration of a change of zone to M-1D would be inappropriate at this time, and suggested that the Commission continue this matter until such time as the Arroyo Group's representative could be present to explain their recommendation for C-3 zoning. There was then further discussion by the Commission regarding the merits of the M-1D zone. However, Commissioner Schymos stated that by retaining the M-1 zone and imposing the Design Overlay zone, the character of the area would remain the same. Mr. Kress then stated that it was. his recommendation that this matter be continued to a time when the consultant could be present to address the Commission with regard to the basis of the recommendation. Commissioner Ritchie then requested that the consultant be directed to investigate the possibility of changing the zone to M-1, Design Overlay. In addition, Commissioner Schymos requested that the C-3, Design Overlay zone be investigated as well. There was then a discussion with regard to the date this matter would be continued to, as well as public notification requirements. The Commission was advised that consideration of another zone other than what was proposed would require public notification. It was the consensus of the Commission that this matter be continued to January 18, 1982, and the determination of further public notification requirements be made at that time. There was then a discussion regarding the Design Overlay zone and what it allows the Planning Commission to regulate. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - January 4, 1982 Page Six 9; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81-238: Request by Farrell's Ice Cream Parlor for the establishment of a game arcade in conjunction with an existing ice cream parlor, located at 3939 Rosemead Boulevard. The Staff Report dated December 29, 1981 was presented by Mr. Carmona and the recommendation for conditional approval was made. Chairman Lowrey opened the public hearing at 10:00 p.m. The witnesses were administered the oath by the secretary. PROPONENT: Dave Norris 901 South Cordelia Glendora, California Mr. Norris stated that he was representing Farrell's in their request. In addition he addressed the Commission regarding the reasons for the request. OPPONENT: Robert Hart 3919 Rosemead Boulevard Rosemead, California Mr. Hart stated that he was a resident of the area and addressed the Commission regarding problems with noise, and patrons loitering in the parking lot at Farrell's. He also stated that he has received many complaints from tenants residing in the apartment building he manages. Chairman Lowrey closed the public hearing at 10:15 p.m. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding this proposal. Commissioner Mattern stated his opposition to the granting of this request citing the location of the machines in the restaurant blocking the aisles, the distracting nature of.the machines and the change in family-type atmosphere, lack of supervision of the machines, an unsafe floor plan submitted with the request, and the possible attraction of an undesirable clientele. Commissioner Mattern also inquired regarding the possible remodeling of the candy section of the restaurant. Mr. Norris explained that the remodeling of the candy.section would occur only in the event of approval of this request. In addition, Mr. Norris stated that the floor plan submitted was existing and would be changed if this permit was granted. Commissioner De Cocker then stated that he agreed with Commissioner Mattern that it would be difficult to supervise the use of the arcade machines to insure that only patrons of the restaurants would be allowed to use them. Commissioner De Cocker also inquired how long the machines had been on the premises and when the applicants became aware that he,needed a conditional use permit for this type of use. Mr. Norris then stated that he believed that the managers of the restaurant would be able to control any potential problems, and that he had been informed by the Director of Planning that a conditional use permit was necessary. He also stated that it had been understood that the vendors leasing the arcade machines would secure all the necessary permits; however, since they had failed to do so, Farrell's had applied on their own behalf. Chairman Lowrey inquired if there were any incident reports on file with the Temple City.Sheriff's Department. Mr. Carmona stated that there were not. Commissioner Schymos then inquired how long the machines had been on the premises. Mr. Norris stated that they had been there approximately ten days. Commissioner Schymos then stated his agreement with Commissioner Mattern due to an increase in disturbance, and because he did not believe this request would be beneficial to the community. Chairman Lowrey expressed his agreement with Commissioner Schymos, and Commissioner Mattern stated that the attitude of many parents toward the arcades was negative. Commissioner Mattern added that this could result in loss of business to Farrell's. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - January 4, 1982 Page Seven Commissioner Ritchie questioned Mr. Norris as to how many video game machines were installed in other Farrell's locations in the Los Angeles area. Mr. Norris said personally knew of 6 other locations where video game machines were installed. To the best of his knowledge, the break-down is as follows: No. of Machines Allowed City Without a C.U.P. Notes Downey 6 Need C.U.P. for more that no. listed Whittier 6 Cerritos 2 TI , Rosemead 3 Applied for 10 machines under C.U.P. Woodland Hills (Los Angeles)* 4 *Applied for 10 mahcines under C.U.P. Hearing not yet held. Van Nuys (Los Angeles)* 4 " 1 Northridge (Los Angeles)* 4 Commissioner Ritchie then inf ormed the applicants that another business in close proximity to Farrell's had recently disconti nued the use of arcade games due to the undesirable element they had attr acted. Commissioner Ritchie then expressed his agreement with other members of the Commission that the granting of this request woul d not be beneficial t o the community. Mr. Norris then requested a continuance of the matter. After a short dis- cussion, it-was the consensus of the Commission that a continuance would serve no useful purpose, since the application would remain the same. It was moved by Commissioner Mattern, seconded'.by Commissioner Ritchie, that Conditional Use Permit 81-238 be denied with the finding that the public convenience and necessity would not be served by the application. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Lowrey, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None Commissioner Ritchie then requested that the applicant be made aware that they could legally maintain three machines on the premises without a conditional use permit, and Chairman Lowrey informed the applicants that they could appeal this decision to the City Council. Commissioner De Cocker then asked how soon the arcade machines would have to be removed from the premises. Mr. Carmona stated that the machines could remain in place until the appeal process is completed. However, he cautioned that it was illegal to allow those machines to operate, and stated that he would have the Sheriff's Department conduct random inspections to be sure the machines were not in use. OTHER BUSINESS 10. EXTENSION REQUEST - TENTATIVE TRACT 37066: Request by Loren Phillips and Associates, Inc., for an extension of approval for Tentative Tract 37066, located near Garvey and New Avenues. The memorandum was presented by Mr. Carmona and the recommendation for approval was made. There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the amount of work and money invested in this project, and the anticipated date of approval by the City Engineer, as well as the adequacy of a six-month time extension. In addition, the Commission was informed at to the reasons for delay of the project and why this project was not subject to the provisions of the Condominium Moratorium. The Commission also considered the grading plans and expressed their concern that the proposed elevations might cause problems to the adjacent property owners. Commissioner Mattern also expressed his opinion that the project proponents had not pursued the final recordation of this map diligently. It was moved by Commissioner De Cocker, seconded by Chairman Lowrey, to grant a six-month extension of approval to Tract 37066. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - January 4, 1982 Page Eight Commissioner Schymos then requested that the maker of the motion amend his motion to stipulate that this would be the last time extension granted. Commissioner De Cocker and Chairman Lowrey both agreed to the amendment to their motion. Commissioner Ritchie then stated that he would like to ask the applicant if he would be willing to change the grading plan to a lesser grade, utilize steel supports set in concrete for the grape stake fence, and reduce the elevations of the project, if this could be accomplished without great cost. Mr. Stuart consulted with his client and stated that he would agree to the steel supports set in concrete for the fencing; however, his agreement to the changing of the grading plan and elevations would depend upon the cost involved. Mr. Stuart requested, on behalf of his client, that he be allowed to study the costs involved prior to agreeing to implement these changes. Commissioner Ritchie then requested a continuance on this matter to allow the applicant to investigate the costs involved in fulfilling his requests. There was then a discussion by the Commission regarding the proposed changes to the plan, and the necessity of the changes. Mr. Stuart stated that it was his client's intention to cooperate as much as possible with the Commission however, any major changes could jeopardize the project. Chairman Lowrey then suggested that the project proponents meet with staff at a later date to discuss the changes and determine their feasibility. Staff was also directed to notify the Commission of the date of the meeting so that any Commissioners wishing to attend could do so. It was moved by Commissioner De Cocker, seconded by Chairman Lowrey, to grant a six-month extension of approval to Tract 37066, with the understanding that this will be the last extension of approval granted. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Lowrey, Ritchie Noes: Mattern 11. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE: On any matter Chairman Lowrey asked if anyone present wished to address the Commission. No one came forward. 12. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS AND STAFF A. Commissioner Mattern requested that staff notify the owners, or manager of the Alpha Beta Market on Garvey and Jackson Avenues that the debris and junk is unsightly and request that it be removed as soon as possible. B. Commissioner Mattern requested the scheduling of a study session to con- sider the amendment of the Noise Ordinance. He stated that he would like to amend the City's noise ordinance to conform to the County's noise ordinance. It was agreed by the Commission that this matter could be con- sidered at the study session scheduled for January 11, 1982. Also to be placed on the agenda for that evening was the Parking Ordinance. C. Commissioner Schymos thanked Mr. Kress for submitting his opinion to the Commission regarding the effective date of approval. D. Commissioner Ritchie requested that the property owner/developer of the property located at 9229 Marshall Street be complimented on the improvement of his property. E. Commissioner De Cocker made a comment on the discussion of amendments to the plans for Tract 37066. F. Commissioner Mattern requested that the Minutes reflect the reason for his "no" vote on the extension for Tract 37066 was because he felt conditions should have been added to make this project more in conformance with the new, proposed condominium code, and because he did not feel enough evidence was submitted by the proponents showing that they were pursuing this diligently. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - January 4, 1982 Page Nine G. Mr. Carmona requested that the Commissioners bring their Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment 81-3 and Zone Change 81-127 to the next meeting. He further informed them that reproduction of the documents was quite costly and that there was a very limited supply. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, Chairman Lowrey adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m., to the Study Session scheduled for January 11, 1982, at 7:00 p.m.