Loading...
PC - 1982-09 - Approval Of Design Review 82-7 At 8951 Glendon WayC PC RESOLUTION 82-9 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD GRANTING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 82-7, FOR A PRO- POSED OFFICE STRUCTURE TO BE LOCATED AT 8951'GLENDON WAY, ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead does hereby find and determine that an application was duly filed by Thomas B. Hill, requesting approval of the design of a proposed office structure, to be constructed on property located at: 8951 Glendon Way, Rosemead, California; and that a public hearing was duly scheduled for March 1, 1982, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of Rosemead City Hall, 8838 Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California; and that notice of the time, date, place, and purpose of the aforesaid hearing was duly given; and that a public hearing was duly conducted at the afore- mentioned time and place. Section 2. The Planning Commission further finds and determines that facts do exist as required by Section 9119., et. seq., of the Ordinances of the City of Rosemead, justifying the granting of approval of the design review application. Section 3. The Planning Commission further finds: 1. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood. 2. The plan for the proposed building and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding pro- perties are protected against noise, vibrations and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas. 3. The proposed building or site development is not, in it's exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing buildings or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. 4. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially in those-instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size or style. 5. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved. 6. The site plan and the de landscaping, luminaries, proper consideration has of the site development, and the visual effect of streets. sign of the buildings, parking areas, signs, and other site features indicates that been given to both the functional aspects such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, the development from the view of public 7. On the basis of an evaluation, this project has been found to be a Class 2, Categorical Exemption under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. A Notice of Exemption was filed with the County Clerk. Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Commission hereby approves the design review application, with respect to the property described in Section 1 of this resolution, subject to the following conditions: 1-1 PC Resolution 82-9 Page Two *1. Project shall be developed in accordance with the plot plan modified on March 1, 1982. All parking spaces shall be 9' X 20'. 2. Landscaped areas shall be fully maintained and remain free of litter and debris. Automatic sprinklers shall be provided with moisture sensors and timers. 3. Remove the two trees on Glendon Way and repair sidewalk. 4. Each office shall be provided with a smoke detector to meet the Building Code. Automatic'sprinklers shall be installed in the garage area to the approval of the City Engineer. Section 5. This action shall become final and effective ten (10) days after this decision by the Planning Commission, unless within such time, a written appeal is filed with the City Clerk for consideration by the Rosemead City Council, as provided in the Zoning Ordinance. Section 6. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on March 1, 1982, by the following vote: AYES: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Lowrey NOES: Mattern ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Section 7. The secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall transmit copies of same to the applicant and Rosemead City Clerk. ADOPTED this 15th day of March , 1982. ROBE_ CH , CHAiI I CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is 'a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead at it's regular meeting,.held on the 15th day of March , 1982, by the following vote: AYES: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Lowrey NOES: Mattern** ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Robert G. Gutierrez, Acting Secretary *Amended by the Planning Commission on March 15, 1982. r e~ **Please see Attachment "A". . ATTACHMENT "A" PC RESOLUTION 82-9 Planning Commission Minutes Regul.ar.Mceting - March 1, 1982 . -Page Five Mr. Hill then withdrew his applic:ction for Zone Variance 82-101. It was moved by Commissioner Lowrtn•, seconded by Commissioner De Cocker, to approve Design Review 82-7, subject to the amended Conditions 1 through 4. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Lowrey Noes: Mattern Commissioner Mattern stated that 1,,e voted against the project because of the wooden shake roof to be installed on the structure. He added that he did not wish to sacrifice safety for aesthetics. 8. PC RESOLUTION 82-4 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD GRANTING CONDITIONAL APPfiOVAL FOR AN EXPANSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 80-201, ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4110 TEMPLE CITY BOULEVARD AND 9739 ABILENE STREET, ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA. Mr. Reisman read the resolution by title only. It was moved by Commissioner Lowrey, seconded by Commissioner Mattern to waive further reading and adopt PC Resolution 82-4. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Lowrey, Mattern Noes: None 9. PC RESOLUTION 82-6 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 82-242, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3220 DEL MAR AVENUE, ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA. Mr. Reisman read the resolution by title only. It was moved by Commissioner Schy;::os, seconded by Commissioner De Cocker, to waive further reading and adopt PC, Resolution 82-6 ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Lowrey, Mattern Noes: None- 10. PC RESOLUTION 82-7 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD GRANTING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PARCEL MAP 14769, (A SUBDIVISION OF LOTS TO CREATE TWO SEPARATE PARCELS), AND VACATION OF CERTAIN EASEMENTS. Mr. Reisman read the resolution by title only. It was moved by Commissioner Schymos, seconded by Commissioner Lowrey, to waive further reading and adopt PC Resolution 82-7. ROLL CALL VOTE - Ayes: De Cocker, Schymos, Ritchie, Lowrey, Mattern Noes: None - 11. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDI:`CCE: On any matter Chairman Ritchie asked if anyone ;resent wished to address the Commission. No one came forward. 12. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS AND S'IAFF A. Commissioner Schymos asked if she minutes submitted to the Commission prior to this meeting would be considered. Chairman Ritchie stated that t_,ey would not be considered until the next regular meeting. B. Commissioner Mattern requester that the Temple City Sheriff's Station be contacted regarding the illega. consumption of alcoholic beverages and loitering at the Alpha Beta Ms_rket property located at Jackson and Garvey Avenues. Further, he request-,, that the property owners be advised that the property is not being mail, wined in accordance with the Code. Mr. Dickey stated that he wou~. investigate the matter.