Loading...
PC - Minutes 12-15-80REVISED CITY OF ROSEMEAD 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1980 MINUTES DATE..Janvary, 19, 1981: Pg. 5 1. CALL TO ORDER - The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead was called to order by Chairman.Cleveland 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 Cleveland. 2. ROLL CALL - Present: De Cocker, Lowrey, Cleveland, Ritchie, Mattern Absent: None Ex Officio: Kress, Dickey, Carmona, Christianson, Valsamis 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Study Session, December 1, 1980 Regular Meeting, December 1, 1980 It was moved by Commissioner Lowrey, seconded by Commissioner De Cocker, to approve the Minutes of the Study Session of December 1, 1980, as printed. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Lowrey, Cleveland,.Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None it was moved by Commissioner Mattern, seconded by Commissioner Lowrey, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 1, 1980, as printed. Commissioner Ritchie then inquired whether or not any vacation proceedings 'had begun for vacationof -the alleyways discussed by the Planning Commission at the study session November 12, 1980. He was informed by Mr. Dickey and Mr. Carmona that this had been placed on a list of things to do. Commissioner Ritchieuthen stated that he would discuss the matter under "Matters from City Official and Staff". ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS MATTERN AND LOWREY FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 1, 1980. Ayes: De Cocker, Lowrey, Cleveland, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM.THE AUDIENCE - On items not on the Agenda. Mr. Don De Tora 8868 East Mission Drive Rosemead, California Mr. De Tora addressed the Commission regarding Tentative Tract 38303, 4229-4309 Walnut Grove Avenue. He expressed his concern with the problems with regard to this tract. He also stated that he had requested a complete agenda package but had not received the information. Mr. Carmona invited Mr. De Tora to come into City Hall and listen to the tapes and relevant testimony with regard to this matter. Mr. De Tora again requested the information be sent to him. Staff agreed to do so. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 80-206: Request by Hi-Kon Yang and In-Ja Yang . the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption in conjunction with an existing market, known as Rose's Market and located at 8923 East Mission Drive. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - December 15, 1980 Page Two The Staff Report dated December 15, 1980 was presented by Ms. Christianson and the recommendation for conditional approval was offered. Chairman Cleveland opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one wishing to address the Commission with regard to this matter, the Public Hearing was closed accordingly. Chairman Cleveland asked the applicants if they were aware of all conditions and if they agreed to abide by them. The applicants indicated that they agreed to all conditions. It was moved by Commissioner Mattern, seconded by Commissioner De Cocker, to grant Conditional Use Permit 80-207, subject to the conditions as set forth in the Staff Report dated December 15, 1980. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Lowrey, Cleveland, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None 6. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 80-1: Request by Good Earth Development Company for a General Plan Amendment from low-density to high-density for property located at 4106 Walnut Grove Avenue. (Continued from November 17, 1980.) The Staff Report dated December 15, 1980 was presented by Mr. Carmona, and a recommendation of approval was offered. Chairman:.Cleveland opened the Public Hearing.-,'Seeing no one wishing to address the Commission, the Public Hearing was closed accordingly. There was a discussion by the Commission with regard to the properties to be involved in the general plan amendment. It was moved by Commissioner Mattern, seconded by Commissioner Lowrey, to approve the Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment 80-1. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Lowrey, Cleveland, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None Mr. Carmona then stated that this matter would be scheduled for hearing by the City Council on January 13, 1981. 7. PARCEL MAP 13844: Request by Fred Bonamici for a commercial condominium conversion of a structure located at 8635 Valley Boulevard, for commercial use. (Continued from December 1, 1980) The Staff Report dated December 15, 1980 was presented by Mr. Carmona. He stated that the Agenda packets contained a Letter of intent from the applicant, Mr. Bonamici, and outlined the background of this type of condominium con- version. He also explained the manner in which the business would be conducted. A recommendation of conditional approval was offered. Chairman Cleveland opened the Public Hearing. The witnesses were administered the oath by the secretary. Mr. Marcus E. Crahan, Jr. 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400 Los Angeles, California Mr. Crahan stated that he was representing the applicants. He stated that he had also represented the applicants when the conditional use permit was applied for. He addressed the Commission with regard to the C,C, & R's to be enforced, the operation of the corporation and business, and the on-site management company to run the warehouse. He also stated that many conditions of approval had been carried out in the construction of the building and agreed to the conditions recommended by the Planning Director, with the exception of the conditions which had been carried out. He also requested speedy approval of the C,C, & R's so that this matter could be completed prior to the final recordation of the parcel map. He also stated that the present tenants-would be notified of the condominium conversion as required by law. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - December 15, 1980 Page Three Mr. Kress asked if this type of conversion had been done before. Mr. Crahan stated that it had been done in an operation that stored horses. There was also a discussion with regard to the offering of securities and Mr. Crahan stated that this matter had been discussed with the Real Estate Commissioners Office. Mr. Kress also asked if the applicants had discussed this with they, Corporation Commission. Mr. Crahan indicated that Mr. Bonamici.intended to meet with the Coporation Commission. Mr. Crahan was also asked by Commissioner De Cocker how the votes of the Board of Directors will be cast. Mr. Crahan stated that the voting will be in accordance with the California General Corporation Law and the by-laws of the corporation. He was also asked how much the management was paid to run the warehouse. Mr. Kress asked why the corporation was being established in this manner. Mr. Crahan stated that this was being done as a tax shelter. Commissioner Ritchie inquired with regard to the handling of violations to the conditional use permit. Mr. Crahan indicated that correspondence with regard to a violation would be addressed to the on-site management company. Commissioner Ritchie then asked if the correction of a violation could be handled by the management company without a full vote of the Board of Directors. Mr. Crahan then stated that it would depend on the type of violation. Chairman Cleveland inquired regarding the procedure to be utilized in checking the keys in and out. Mr. Crahan stated that the procedure would be the same, since the owners of the airspace would not own the units. Mr. Dickey inquired regarding the tax advantages d~n this type of project. Commissioner Ritchie inquired whether or not the applicants would be required to appear before the Commission again if they wished to subdivide further. Mr. Crahan stated that they would. Also discussed by the Commission was the profit involved and the interest of the public in buying into this type of venture. Commissioner Lowrey asked if an owner of the project would be allowed to resell his interest.in"the business. Mr. Crahan stated that an owner could sell his interest; however, the new owner would be subject to the same C,C, & R's. Chairman Cleveland askediiftthe owners would share in the expenses involved in the operation of the warehouse. Mr. Crahan explained this would be handled by the corporation. Commissioner Mattern asked if the uses would be the same as they are at present. Mr. Crahan stated that there would be no change in the uses of the structure. Mr. Fred Bonamici 11949 Vose Street North Hollywood, California Mr. Bonamici stated that at present the tenants go in and acquire the key to their unit from the management, go to their unit, and then return the..-key to the management. Mr. Bonamici indicated to the Commission that this procedure would continue. in addition, addressing the matter of shares or votes, he stated that he was not certain that he would retain 25% of the units, but in any case, his share would not amount to 100 votes. He stated that he could possibily end up with fifty (50) votes. There was then a discussion by the Commission with regard to the number-of owners, and whether or not one person could hold more that one ownership. Also discussed was the number of grant deeds available for purchase and the number of grant deeds each individual. would be allowed to purchase. Mr. Bonamici also informed the Commission that each unit would be allowed Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - December 15, 1980 Page Four one vote in the corporation. Mr. Bonamici also stated that in order to make this venture viable, he intends to pay off every indebtness of the building to allow the grant deeds to be purchased free and clear along with an interest in the common areas. Chairman Cleveland inquired if the sales would be put through escrow and Mr. Bonamici indicated they would. Commissioner De Cocker then inquired if the present partners would be limited to 25% of the venture. Mr. Bonamici stated that this project would be sold on the open market and that there would be no discrimination as to who could purchase. There was then a discussion with regard to the letter submitted by Mr. Bonamici in which the percentage of new owners allowed, to buy into the project was set forth. Mr..Bonamici also stated that he was buying out all the present partners, and they would be allowed to buy back into the business if they so desired. Mr. David L. Sanders 1545 Wilshire=Boulevard Suite 302 Los Angeles, California 90017 Mr. Sanders stated that::he was a general partner in the Rosemead Warehouse Partnership. He also stated that this business had been operated under a limited partnership with ten partners; however, due to the risingrcosts in purchasing commercial ventures, and the difficulty in acquiring'com- mercial properties, it was the decision of the partners to subdivide this commercial structure to allow others to purchase shares. He also explained to-the Commission the financial difficulties encountered as a result of refinancing at a higher interest rate, and stated that the money used to purchase the condominium units would be applied to the paying off of the mortgage, thereby relieving the business of approximately $13,000 in monthly costs. This would afford a venture free of indebtedness. Chairman Cleveland inquired regarding insurance of the units by the individual owners. Mr. Sanders stated that the insurance would be provided,' by the corporation.and that the share owners would not have to pay for the insurance from their own funds. He stated this would be paid out of the funds generated by the business. Theodore H. Bentley 525 Wilcox Avenue Los Angeles, California - Mr. Bentley stated that he was the consultant in the project. He also informed the Commission that 62.5% of the units are presently rented out. Chairman Cleveland called a recess at 8:53 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:07 p.m. and Chairman Cleveland closed the Public Hearing. There was then a discussion by the Commission with. regard to the operation of the warehouse. Commissioner Ritchie stated that there are presently some violations of the conditional use permit, specifically the storage of vehicles which are not recreational vehicles, the absence of a right-turn- only sign on Valley Boulevard, and the use of the units for purposes other than storage. Mr. Crahan then stated that the violations mentioned by Commissioner Ritchie could be easily taken care of. He also stated that he did not believe that the use of the facilities by musical groups for practice was a violation of the C-3 zone, in that this is allowed in this zone. He also stated his opinion that conditional use permits allowed uses other than what is allowed by a specific zone. He also stated that this is not an uncommon practice in the mini-warehouse business. rn addition, he stated that they were un- Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - December 15, 1980 Page Five aware of any violations to the conditional use permit, since music is allowed in a C-3 zone. Commissioner Mattern then asked Mr. Crahan about violations of the Fire3 Department regulations. Mr. Crahan stated that he--had not received notice of any violations other that a request to install a new fire hydrant. However, he agreed to comply with requests by the Building and Safety Department to insure the public safety. Commissioner Mattern also stated that in the policy statement, the use of the building is to be storage and that band practice is not;mentioned. Mr. Crahan then stated that band practice was not specifically mentioned be- cause it is a common use of mini-warehouse facilities, and usual and customary in this business. He also stated that the prior Planning Director was aware of the use and that it had been approved by him. In addition, the fire marshall had requested only that different types of locks be utilized on the units being used for band practice and that this had been done. Building and Safety had also made certain recommendations regarding this use and the present owners were willing to make the appropriate changes. He also stated that they had a letter from the Building and Safety Department regarding this matter. In addition, Mr. Crahan stated that there would be no change in the uses of the building. Commissioner Ritchie stated that he believed that the use of the structure for band practice was in violation of the conditions in the conditional use permit. Mr. Crahan then stated that there is no restriction in the use of the building other than the storage of flammable materials. Commissioner Ritchie then inquired if all of the Health and Safety Codes were being met. Mr. Crahan stated that he was not aware of any violations. Among the matters discussed was the installation of a ventilation system,:and the occupancy capacity. - Commissioner Mattern then asked if the applicants would be adverse to applying for a conditional use permit to allow band practices. Mr. Crahan then stated that they would be opposed to this request since the use is allowed in the 'C-3 zone. * Commissioner Mattern then stated his belief that this structure wag QaJEP for this type of use and stated that he would like to have agencies con- cerned with the health and safety of the occupants inspect the premises. Mr. Bently then read a letter to the Commission which outlined the events prior to, and during, the inspection of the FiredDepartment and Building and Safety Departments. He also stated that the only request by the Fire Department had been for a different type of lock on the door, and the request from the Building and Safety Department had been for a different type of ventilation system. Mr. Carmona requested Mr. Bently to read the last paragraph for the Commission. Mr. Bentley then read the following aloud for the Commission: "November 15, 1980 - Notified by the Planning Department that band practicing may violate conditional use permit. Letter requesting changes not composed of mailed as I would not want to indicate that this Department would approve band practicing when the Planning Department of conditional use permit would not." Mr. Kress then stated that should the Commission wish to do so, they could direct staff to schedule a public hearing to consider the violations of the conditional use permit. Commissioner Mattern stated that he did not believe this project met with No. 3 under Findings. He also stated that he would like to have more in- formation before rendering a decision on the matter. Mr. Crahan requested that the issue of the parcel:-map be decided tonight and that violations of the conditional use permit be dealt with at a later date. *AMENDED BY COMMISSIONER MATTERN AS FOLLOWS: "Commissioner Mattern then stated his belief that this structure was not safe for this type of use. . Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - December 15, 1980 Page Six it was moved by Commissioner, Mattern, seconded by Commissioner Lowrey, to continue this matter to January 5, 1981. Mr. Carmona stated that staff had some information regarding this matter from Building and Safety. He also stated that he had informed the owners of the violation (band practice) and that he did not agree with regard to the land use, zone, and conditional use permit advocated by the applicant. Mr. Bonamici then stated that he submitted an application for a parcel map and was not requesting an expansion of the storage building use. He stated that he was not concerned with violations of the conditional use permit, since he did not have anything to do with it. He cited the economic situation as one of the reasons for requesting approval of his parcel map application. Mr. Crahanaalsocmade a statement regarding the approval of the parcel map application. He stated that the applicant, Mr. Bonamici, needed this approval prior to offering the units for sale to new owners. He also stated that the issue of the band practice should be addressed to the present owners, since Mr. Bonamici did not yet own the warehouse. Mr. Bonamici was asked by Commissioner Ritchie if he would be willing to followjthe direction of the Planning Commission with regard to the violation of the conditional use permit. Mr. Bonamici then.=stated that he would agree to meet with the proper''-city officials to discuss the change in the use and agreed to fully comply with their decision. Commissioner Mattern then asked if Mr. Bonamici would agree to additional conditions addressing themselves to safety for band practices, and' additional sanitary facilities. Mr. Bonamici stated that he would agree to the conditions at such time as he acquires the business. There was then a discussion regarding the suitability of the structure for occupancy. Commissioner Lowrey then asked the City Attorney if the Commission could incorporate a condition of limitation on the conditional use permit. Mr. Kress stated that the matter of the conditional use permit was not being considered at this time. Therefore, nothing could be added to the conditional use permit. Commissioner Ritchie then expressed his favoring the granting of the parcel map and stated that he also understoodrCommissioner Mattern's concern with the matter of safety for the band practices. He also expressed his concern with the Planning Commission losing authority to require the owners to comply. There was then a discussion regarding the approval of the parcel map and the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Lowrey expressed his concern with approving the Negative Declaration. Mr. Carmona then stated that the parcel map was a categorical exemption under the provisions of CEQA, however, due to the controversial and un- precedented nature of the request, a Negative Declaration was provided to allow for public comment and review. Commissioner Mattern then requested that staff be directed to give the Commission a complete report on the safety and any other information applicable to the project. He requested that the report be given to the Commission within a month's time. He also withdrew his motion for continuance of the Public Hearing. Commissioner Lowrey withdrew his second to the motion. it wasr.moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded by Commissioner Mattern, to approve the Negative Declaration for Parcel Map 13844. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Lowrey, Cleveland, Ritchie; Mattern Noes: None Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - December 15, 1980 Page Seven it was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded by Commissioner Mattern, to approve Parcel Map 13844, subject to the findings and the conditions as set forth in the Staff Report dated December 15, 1980. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Lowrey, Cleveland, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None 8. PARCEL MAP 13837: Request by Joe and Yolanda Ortizefor the subdivision of an existing parcel of land, located at 3211 Sullivan Place into two separate lots. The witnesses were administered the oath by the secretary. Chairman Cleveland opened the Public Hearing. PROPONENT: Mr. William Ells 3236 North Peck Road El Monte, California - Mr. Ells stated that he was representing the applicant. He stated that the staff report had been reviewed.and that the applicant concurred with the recommendations, with the exception of the upgrading of the fire hydrant at the corner of Whitmore and Sullivan. He requested the Commission waive that requirement since he felt the burden of upgrading the hydrant should be carried by more than one parcel of land. He also stated that he would answer any questions by the Commission. Commissioner Ritchie inquired if the witness was the engineer on the pro- ject. Mr. Ells stated that he was. Commissioner Ritchie then asked for an approximate cost to upgrade the fire hydrant. Mr. Ells stated that it would depend on the existing circumstances, however, the cost could run between $1;600 to $2,200 dollars per hydrant. Commissioner Ritchie then asked if the property was in a fire district, and how big the fire district was. Mr. Ells stated that it was in the fire district and that there were no specific boundaries. Commissioner Ritchie also asked Mr. Ells is he knew what the fire flow was at this time. Mr. Ells stated that the present fire flow was 920 gallons per minute with a residual pressure of 64 pounds, which would equal 2,100 gallons which is in excess of the Fire Department requirements. Commissioner De Cocker then asked if this map conformed to the R-1 code regirement of 11,500 square feet, prior to construction of a structure on the property. Ms. Christianson then stated the reason this was mentioned in the staff report was to illustrate to the Commission that a second unit could be constructed on the lot without the subdivision or approval by the Commission. Commissioner De Cocker then asked if the ingress and egress would be on Whitmore Street. Mr. Ells stated that it would. Ms. Christianson then reviewed the Staff Report and request for the Commission. She also recommended approval of the request subject to the four conditions in the Staff Report dated December 15, 1980 and the conditions of the County Engineer, with the exception of No. 2 under mapping. Mr. Carmona also stated that to his knowledge, the applicants had not requested an exemption from the fire hydrant requirement prior to the meeting. He recommended that this requirement not be waived. Chairman Cleveland closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Mattern asked if staff had reviewed the fire flow. Ms. Christianson stated that they had not; however, Mr. Ells stated that he had not been given the results of the fire flow testing until earlier in the day. He stated that the results would be confirmed, and that the report would be filed prior to recordation of the final map. Planning commission minutes Regular Meeting - December 15, 1980 Page Eight Commissioner Ritchie expressed his agreement with the request by Mr. Ells. and Commissioner Mattern. Commissioner Ritchie then asked who was financially. responsible for the upgrading of the fire hydrant when requested by the Fire Department or water company. Mr. Carmona stated that the developer was responsible; however, if there was no development in the area, the fire hydrant would not be upgraded until such timeas there was a.development. There was then a discussion regarding the recommendation of staff. Mr. Carmona stated that this recommendation was made by the County Engineer in their recommendations. Commissioner Ritchie then asked Mr. Dickey if the sidewalk to be installed on Sullivan would be placed to allow for a parkway. Mr. Dickey stated that it would since the existing sidewalks contained parkways. It was moved by Commissioner Ritchie, seconded by Commissioner Lowrey, to approve the Negarive Declaration for Parcel Map 13837. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Lowrey, Cleveland, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None it was moved,.by Commissioner Mattern, seconded by Commissioner Ritchie, to approved Parcel Map 13837, subject to the conditions set forth in the Staff Report dated December 15, 1980, and the recommendations of the County En- gineer with the exception of the fire hydrant recommendation. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Lowrey, Cleveland, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None 9. EXTENSION REQUEST - PARCEL MAP NO. 7187: Request by H.M. Scott and Associates for an extension of approval for tentative Parcel Map No. 7187, located at 2468-2462 North Jackson Avenue and 7605-7617 Highcliff Avenue, which was previously approved on January 21, 1980. The memorandum was presented by Mr. Carmona and the recommendation for a., six-month extension of approval was made. It was moved by Commissioner Lowrey, seconded by Commissioner Ritchie, to approve a.six-month extension of approval for Parcel Map No. 7187. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Lowrey, Cleveland, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None OTHER BUSINESS 10. MODIFICATION TO SECTION 8110: Request by Gilbert R. Almanzan for a waiver of the sidewalk requirement for property located at 2517 Evelyn Avenue, Rosemead, California. The memorandum was presented by Ms. Christianson and the recommendation for approval was made. It was moved by Commissioner Mattern, seconded by Commissioner De Cocker, to grant the request for a waiver of the sidewalk requirement for property located at 2517 Evelyn Avenue. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Lowrey, Cleveland, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None Commissioner Ritchie then stated his belief that this type of request should be considered on an individual basis. It was recommended by Mr. Kress that Items No. 11 through 16 be adopted under one motion. Commissioner Ritchie requested that Item No. 15 be removed and considered separately. Commissioner Mattern requested that Item No. 16 be removed and considered separately. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - December 15. 1980 Page Nine 11. PC RESOLUTION 80-41 - A_.RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY'OF ROSEMEAD, A CHANGE OF ZONE, FROM A-1, LIGHT AGRICULTURE, TO C-3D, MEDIUM COMMERCIAL, DESIGN OVERLAY FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY-BOUNDED BY THE POMONA FREEWAY ON THE NORTH, ARROYO_DRIVE ON THE SOUTH, AND WEST OF SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA.((ZONE CHANGE,-80-122) AMENDED 12. PC RESOLUTION 80-43 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 80-203, FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH "ALBA'S MARKET", LOCATED AT 3200 DEL MAR AVENUE, ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA. 13. PC RESOLUTION 80-44 -A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 80-204, FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH "HAPPY MARKET", LOCATED AT 8203 HELLMAN AVENUE, ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA. 14. PC RESOLUTION 80-45 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 80-205, FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES INCCONJUNCTION WITH "THE MELODY LOUNGE", LOCATED AT 8208 EAST GARVEY AVENUE, ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA. Commissioner Mattern asked for a clarification of the amended Resolution 80-41. Mr. Carmona then stated that it was amended to recommend to the City Council a changg of zone from A-1 to C-3D, rather than R-3 as pre- viously set forth. It was moved by Commissioner Lowrey, seconded by Commissioner Mattern, to waive further reading and adopt PC Resolutions 80-41, 80-43, 80-44, and 80-45. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Lowrey, Cleveland, Ritchie, Mattern Noes: None 15. PC RESOLUTION 80-46'- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 40720 (A TEN-UNIT, ONE-LOT SUBDIVISION). 16. PC RESOLUTION 80-47 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, A CHANGE OF ZONE, FROM R-2, LIGHT"MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL TO R-3, MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3202-3206'WALNUT GROVE AVENUE, ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA. (ZONE CHANGE 80-120) It was moved by Commissioner De Cocker, seconded by Commissioner Lowrey, to waive further reading and adopt PC Resolutions 80-46 and 80-47. Commissioner Mattern then stated that the project plans submitted to the Commission were deficient in that the walls surrounding the property were not defined, and that the drainage and elevation plans were also not sub- mitted to the Commission as required by Section 9106.40 (4), (6), (8) - Development Standards. Commissioner Mattern then stated that his comments were addressed to both of the Resolutions, but mainly to PC Resolution 80-46. Commissioner Ritchie then stated that he agreed with Commissioner Mattern in that the layout of the amenities to be provided was not submitted, that the layout of the proposed landscaping and irrigation was not submitted, and the locations, type, and height of the fences were not defined. There was then a lengthy discussion regarding adoption of the Resolution. Mr. Carmona informed the Commission that this tract map had not been scheduled for hearing by the City Council because of the absence of the items listed above. He also stated that this matter would not be scheduled for consideration by the City Council until such time as the applicants submitted the information. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting --December 15, 1980 Page Ten There was also a discussion regarding requiring the grading plan to come before the Commission prior to approval. It was then decided by the Commission to continue this discussion at a later time. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS DE COCKER, AND LOWREY TO WAIVE FURTHER READING AND ADOPT PC RESOLUTIONS 80-46 and 80-47. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Lowrey, Cleveland Noes: Ritchie, Mattern 17. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - On any matter. Chairman Cleveland asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. No one came forward. 18. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS AND STAFF A. Commissioner Mattern stated that staff had been directed to place smaller items at the beginning of the agenda. He stated that he would like to see this done in the future. There was then a discussion regarding the agenda format. B. Commissioner Mattern then inquired whether or nor staff had started proceedings for the vacation of the alleyways, which was discussed by the Commission on November 12, 1980. - Mr. Dickey stated that it had been placed on a list of things to do. In addition, he stated that there were a number of considerations to be given to the vacation of the alleyways, since many of the residents took service through the alleyways and determinations would have to be made. C. Commissioner Mattern also commented on Mr. Kress' letter regarding the P-D zone change for General Plan Amendment 80-2. He stated that since the Commission had been informed that they could not 'require the applicant to re-apply for a change of zone, he would like to add this area to the Land Use Study currently under consideration. There was then a discussion regarding this request. Mr. Carmona stated this item had been scheduled for hearing by the City Council on December 23, 1980.. He also stated that the cover letter making the recommendation for a change of zone would be submitted to the City Council. Commissioner Ritchie then asked if the City Council or the Commission were required to submit a formal application when initiating a zone change, and if so, to whom the application should be submitted. Mr. Kress then stated that when the Commission or Council initiates a zone change it only means that a fee is not paid. He also stated that staff is required to make the same staff analysis and the public hearing procedure is the same. There was then a discussion regarding the P-D zone, and the requirement of a precise development plan to be submitted with the request for the change of zone. Staff was then directed to investigate this matter further. D. Commissioner Mattern requested that staff submit a brief memorandum to the Commission summarizing Council action on Planning Commission recommendations. Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting - December 15, 1980 Page Eleven E. Commissioner Mattern requested that a study session be scheduled for January 5, 1981 to consider the Condominium ordinance. There being no objections by the Commission, the study session was scheduled for 6:00 p.m., January 5, 1981. Mr. Carmona stated that the study session held before this meeting was continued to the Study Session, January 5, 1981. F. Commissioner Ritchie then stated that he was fully satisfied with the Minutes of.the Regular Meeting, December 1, 1980 and expressed his appreciation. G. Ms. Christianson reminded the members. of the Commission of the West San Gabriel Valley Planning Council meeting at 11:45 a.m. on Tuesday, December 16, 1980. 19. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, Chairman Cleveland adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m., to the Study Session on January 5, 1981, at 6:00 p.m. - 1 CITY OF ROSEMEAD 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD -ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA "PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION DECEMBER 15, 1980 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER - The Study Session was called to order at 6:00 p.m., by Chairman Cleveland,:in the Conference Room of Rosemead City Hall, 8838 Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. 2. ROLL CALL - Present: De Cocker, Lowrey, Cleveland, Ritchie, Mattern Absent: None Ex Officio: Kress, Dickey, Carmona, Christianson, Valsamis 3. MATTERS DISCUSSED - Condominium Ordinance The discussion began with a brief statement by Mr. Carmona regarding the items to be considered prior to the expiration of the moratorium on condominiums. There was also a discussion on the procedure to be utilized in the con- sideration of the areas of concern. It was the consensus of the Commission to discuss the items listed by each of the Commissioners at the Study Session of December 1, 1980. Their decisions will then be incorporated in- to a draft of the new condominium ordinance. Commissioner Ritchie's list,7ofnconcerns was considered first, and the following is a brief summary of the discussions regarding each item: 1. C,C & R's The discussion regarding the C,C & R's began with considering the possibility of requiring one-year ownership prior to resale of the unit to prevent speculation. However, it was the decision of the Commission that this would be unfeasible from a legal standpoint, and difficult to enforce. Limitations on storage in garages was considered. Commissioner Ritchie expressed his desire to require a provision in the C,C, & R's to pro- vide the homeowner's association with a tool to control this-'within their own development, should it become necessary. Commissioner Ritchie also stated that control of storage in the garages should be the res- ponsibility of the homeowner's association and not the city's. Also along these lines, the conducting of businesses in the garages was also discussed. After making their wishes known, the Commission referred the matter to Mr. Carmona for drafting of the language to be incorporated into the code. Placement of regulatory signs was also considered. Mr. Carmona stated that all signs are usually installed, or required to be installed, by the time of final occupancy approval. This matter was also referred to Mr. Carmona for incorporation into the draft of the condominium code. In addition to the items listed by Commissioner Ritchie, Commissioner Mattern also asked if the code could require provisions in the C,C, & R's requiring all association meetings be open to all members. Mr. Kress suggested that this could'be included in the by-laws. . 2. Utilization of moisture sensors,:instead of timers on the watering sys- tems. There was a discussion regarding the requirement of moisture sensors in- stead of timers on the watering systems. Commissioner Ritchie stated that timers would go:;off even in the rain, which would result in waste of water and increase the amount of water.-draining on to other areas. Planning Commission Minutes Study Session - December 15, 1980 Page Two It was the consensus of the Commission that the following be incor- porated into the condominium code: "Utilization of moisture sensors and timers on the watering systems." 3. Placing of guest parking in closer proximity to the units it serves. Among matters discussed in this regard were the possibility of desig- nating guest parking to each unit, and placing guest parking within one hundred (100) feet of the unit it serves. It was agreed by the Commission that they would like to have the guest parking placed within 100 feet of the units it serves and Mr. Carmona was directed to incorporate the proper language into the draft of the code. 4. Increase in guest parking in trade for open space. Commissioner Ritchie suggested that the parking requirement according to size and number of units may alleviate the problem. However, it was the consensus of the Commission to discuss this at a later time in conjunction with the parking and open space requirements. 5. Allowable length of buildings shortened. Commissioner Ritchie indicated that he would like to shorten the allow- able length of buildings from 160 feet.to a:"shorter length to provide visual relief from long "barrack" type buildings. After a short discussion, it was decided by the Commission to shorten the allowable length of buildings to 120 feet. 4. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Cleveland adjourned the Study Session to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission at 7:25 p.m.