Loading...
CC - Item 8A - Amending the Zoning Code to Revise Regulations Pertaining to the Development of Flag Lots in the CityROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: JEFF ALLRED, CITY MANAGER DATE: AUGUST 24, 2010 IA SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 10-05, AMENDING THE ZONING CODE TO REVISE REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF FLAG LOTS IN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD SUMMARY Municipal Code Amendment 10-05 is a City initiated amendment to the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) for the purpose of revising definitions, development standards, and diagrams that regulate the development of flag lots in residential zones to implement the recently updated General Plan and to clarify inconsistencies between flag lot text and graphics in the Rosemead Municipal Code. This item was presented to the Planning Commission for consideration on July 19, 2010. At that hearing the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed flag lot regulations. No members of the public testified for or against the proposed amendments. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10-24, recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 901 (Exhibit A). The Planning Commission staff report, meeting minutes, and Resolution No. 10-24 are attached as Exhibits B, C, and D, respectively. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Rosemead City Council adopted a General Plan update and certified an accompanying Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) on October 14, 2008. The certified Program EIR provided a program-level assessment of the environmental impacts resulting from development pursuant to land use policy and implementation of the goals and policies set forth in all chapters of the updated General Plan, as well as long-term implementation of the General Plan through a revised Zoning Code. On April 13, 2010, the City Council adopted an Addendum to the 2008 Program EIR. Municipal Code Amendment 10-05 is consistent with the Program EIR and Addendum, and pursuant to Public Resources Code 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162, ITEM NO. __2_ City Council Meeting August 24, 2010 Paae 2 of 6 I 15168 and 15183 is exempt from the requirement that additional environmental documentation be prepared. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 901 (Exhibit A), amending Title 17 of the Rosemead Municipal Code to revise flag lot development standards. BACKGROUND On July 12; 1983, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 560 (Exhibit E) to establish development standards for flag lot developments in order to provide for the opportunity for single-family residential lot development. This ordinance amended several definitions in the Zoning Code and added development standards for how residential lots could be subdivided into flag lot configurations. The Ordinance also incorporated an appendix of drawings (referred to as Appendix A) which depicted typical flag lot measurements and layouts. A flag lot is a lot whose shape is created in a manner which utilizes an extension of property (the flag pole) for the exclusive purpose of obtaining vehicular and pedestrian access to a public street. The following assessor map image depicts typical flag lot subdivision; development that has occurred in Rosemead over the last several years. MUSCATEL a " Flag Lots 5695 56 6.9 9 t 56 56.61 IS IS 59.C2 e\ ~ ; IF d v TR 31 - f0 " 4 i' 2" qT r- N _ io.s6 ^ zg _ = 88 .ems - 83 " a i 7~ ~ a = I3 ^ 76 ~ 78 - V - in P _ 7 ,a O Y1 156 5616!55 .6i S 65 4 9 56 mH Sir N SS 6125 ¢ N _ r a ~ - I - - - - - M nfll9 3 _ Irm a ;9 q a 56.65 ill25i 2 75 -9 ilil 5F ~ i3 $ sb.a5 @ 15 56 5S 2 0. 07 79 Ua A 0•S1.75•V 65.C4 6S 6i,N 6~.6? I Example of Flag Lot Development On May 17, 2010, Planning staff presented to the Commission a memorandum discussing several inconsistencies that had been discovered between text in the Zoning Code and the diagrams that were adopted in Appendix A that were meant to illustrate flag lot layouts. These related to the minimum lot area for flag lots and how the minimum lot width (street frontage) is determined. At that time, the Planning Commission provided direction to staff to amend the Zoning Code and diagrams to address the inconsistencies. City Council MeE August 24, 2010 Pace 3 of 6 Lot Area Requirement Section 17116.140(E) of the RMC states that "the minimum lot area shall be six thousand (6,000) square feet and shall be calculated as per Section 17.04.020, provided, However, that for the purposes of this section, the following shall be applicable: (1)The minimum developable lot area, exclusive of vehicle access leg or common drive-way access easements, shall be five thousand (5,000) square feet, and as set out in Appendix A attached to the ordinance codified in this title." The purpose of Appendix A (See attached Exhibit A) is to illustrate the development standards for residents and developers. However, when calculating the gross and net lot areas using the dimensions in the diagrams in Appendix A (Standard Plan No. P-7), the totals do not satisfy the requirement stated in the text portion of the Ordinance. The current diagrams could also be interpreted to mean that only 5,000 square feet of net lot area is required for a flag lot and that the 6,000 square feet for the gross area does not apply. In reviewing past meeting minutes dating back to 1983 regarding the creation of the flag lot ordinance, it is evident that the intent of the ordinance was to require a minimum 6,000 square foot gross lot area standard (total area of developable lot and access leg) and a 5,000 square foot net lot area (developable lot area) standard for each flag lot. The minimum lot area in the R-1 (Single Family Residential) and R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) zones is 6,000 square feet. Therefore requiring a gross lot area of 6,000 square feet would be consistent with the lot area requirements in the R-1 and R-2 zones. However, staff has reviewed past project case files and found that not all past subdivisions have satisfied the 6,000 gross lot area requirement, due to the fact that the diagram (Standard Plan No. P-7) does not illustrate the 6,000 gross lot area standard. To address this inconsistency, Municipal Code Amendment 10-05 would revise the definition of Lot Area in Section 17.16.140 F. of the RMC to be clear that gross lot area for a flag lot must be 6,000 square feet and that the net lot area must be a minimum of 5,000 square feet. Standard Plan No. P-7-of Appendix A has also been revised to make it clear that both the gross and net floor areas must be satisfied for flag lot developments. Attached as Exhibit F is a redline/strikeout version of the proposed revisions to the Zoning Code. Lot Width (Street Frontage) Section 17.16.140(G) of the RMC states "that the minimum street frontage for a flag lot development is directly dependent on the number of flag lots. The following City Council Meeting August 24, 2010 Page 4 of 6 requirements shall be applicable as per described circumstances, and as set out in Appendix A attached to the ordinance codified in this title. 1. The minimum street frontage for a single (one) flag lot shall be fifteen (15) feet. 2. The minimum street frontage for two or more lots which are so designed to provide a common vehicular access leg by way of fee, easement or combination thereof, shall provide a minimum of three feet of real property street frontage; provided, however, that the following minimum street access widths are established: a. The street frontage for two lots shall be eighteen (18) feet; provided, however, .that such requirement may be achieved by a combined contribution of individual lot street frontage which equals the required access driveway width. b. The street frontage for three flag lots shall be twenty-six (26) feet; provided, however, that such requirement may be achieved by a combined contribution of individual lot street frontage which equals the required street frontage width." However, the three lot and four lot subdivision examples in Appendix A (Standard Plan No. P-7) indicate that when two or more lots are designed to provide a common vehicular access leg, one of the lots shall provide a minimum of 15 feet of real property frontage, instead of any of the lots just satisfying the minimum three foot requirement stated above. To address this inconsistency, Municipal Code amendment 10-05 would amend Section 17.16.140 H (Lot Width - Street Frontage) of the RMC to more clearly state that each leg within a flag lot subdivision with two or three flag lots must be a minimum of three (3) feet in width as long as the total width for the access leg is also maintained. Standard Plan No. P-7 has been revised to delete the reference to a fifteen (15) foot minimum width for one of the access legs to be more consistent with the revised text in the Zoning Code. Doing this will allow the access legs to be shared more equally among flag lots, which will, assist in achieving the 6,000 square foot minimum lot area requirement. Front Yard During the course of reviewing the flag lot regulations, it came to the attention of Planning staff that there is also confusion about which side of a flag lot must be considered as the front yard. Currently the flag lot development standards do not clearly state if the front yard on a flag lot has to be parallel to the street or if it may be perpendicular to the street. The diagrams in Appendix A (specifically Standard Plan No. City Council Meeting August 24, 2010 Page 5 of 6 P-6) also do not clearly state which side of a flag lot can or must be the front yard. In reviewing a number of flag lot subdivisions that have be approved over the past few years, staff found that subdivisions have been approved with flag lots with front yards that have been both parallel and perpendicular to the street frontage of the subdivision. To clarify the intent of the Zoning Code with respect to the front yard requirements for flag lots, Municipal Code Amendment 10-05 proposes to add clarifying language to the definitions of Lot Depth in Section 17.040.020 of the RMC to state the front lot line of a flag lot may be parallel or perpendicular to the street which abuts the property. This allows for some flexibility on the part of the developer to decide which side of a flag lot would be most appropriate for the front yard. It is also important to note that Sections 17:16.140 J.3. and 17.16.140 L. of the RMC both give the Planning Commission authority to evaluate the most appropriate lot orientation as part of a flag lot subdivision. Therefore, the City will still have the ability to review a subdivision and determine if a particular flag lot should have its front yard parallel or perpendicular to the street on a case-by-case basis depending on the surrounding developments. Municipal Code Amendment 10-05 would also revise Standard Plan No. P-6 in Appendix A to clarify the different possible flag lot development alternatives. Conclusion The proposed Ordinance No. 901 provides a revised set of flag lot development standards that insures consistency with the General Plan for minimum lot size. The Ordinance also clarifies internal inconsistencies between text and diagrams and provides the City and developers some additional flexibility when planning and reviewing flag lot subdivisions. MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS Chapter 17.116 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets forth the procedures and requirements for zone changes and amendments. A zone change and municipal code amendments may be permitted whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice justifies such action. California State law requires zoning to be compliant with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. Municipal Code Amendment 10-05 will accomplish this requirement. The revised flag lot regulations are consistent with General Plan Land Use Policy 1.2 to provide guidelines and standards to prevent land use conflicts. The revised flag lot regulations will ensure that flag lots are consistent with the density limits established in the General Plan and ensure that flag lot subdivisions are designed to be compatible with neighborhood development patterns in the City. City Council Meeting August 24, 2010 Paqe 6 of 6 The revised flag lot regulations include provisions designed to protect the privacy of adjacent residential properties and the quality of establish neighborhoods, as required by Land Use Policy 1.5, by granting the Planning Commission the authority to review flag lot subdivisions for consistency with neighborhood development patterns. The public necessity, convenience, and general welfare will be served by the adoption of the revised flag lot regulations that provides internally consistent development standards that will ensure consistency with the General Plan land use densities for residential developments while providing the opportunity for property owners to subdivide large properties in a manner that will maintain the integrity of single-family residential neighborhoods. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the required public posting requirements of the regular agenda notification process for Municipal Code Text Amendments, pursuant to Section 17.116.020 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, which includes publication in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and posting of the notice at the six (6) public locations and on the subject site. Prepared by: faiAv- Paul Garry Senior Planner ubmitted by: Community Devblopment Director Attachments: A. Draft Ordinance No. 901 B. Planning Commission Staff Report, July 19, 2010 C. Minutes from July 19, 2010 Planning Commission Public Hearing D. Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-24 E. Ordinance No. 560 and Appendix A F. Redline/Strikeout version of proposed Municipal Code Amendment 10-05 ORDINANCE NO. 901 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 10-05 AMENDING TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE THE REGULATIONS FOR FLAG LOT DEVELOPMENT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. The following findings are adopted in support of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to revise the regulations pertaining to the development of flag lots in residential zones; and A. The City Council of the. City of Rosemead. wishes to promote the City of Rosemead's interest in protecting and preserving the quality and character of the residential areas in the City, and the quality of life through effective land use planning; and B. The City currently has provisions in its Municipal Code that regulate flag lot development. The City has determined that the regulations require updating to improve consistency with the General Plan land use densities allowed in residential zones and to resolve inconsistencies between text and diagrams in the Municipal Code; and D. It is the purpose and intent of the Ordinance to provide improved development standards and diagrams to ensure flag lot developments are consistent with neighborhood patterns. E. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public convenience, health, safety, or general welfare of the City, and SECTION 2. The City Council hereby determines that Municipal Code Amendment 10-05 is consistent with the General Plan Program EIR and Addendum, and pursuant to Public Resources Code 21083.3 and California Environmental Quality Act CEQA Guidelines sections 15162, 15168 and 15183 is exempt from the requirement that additional environmental documentation be prepared The City Council, having final approval authority over this project, has reviewed and considered all comments received during the public review period prior to the approval of this project. SECTION 3. The City Council HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that Municipal Code Amendment 10-05 is in the best interest of the public necessity and 1 EXHIBIT A general welfare, and good city planning practice dictates and supports the proposed municipal code amendment, in that the change to the Rosemead Municipal Code will provide a superior level of planning and protection to the quality and character of the City. SECTION 4. The City Council FURTHER FINDS AND DETERMINES that Municipal Code Amendment 10-05 is consistent with the Rosemead General Plan as follows: The revised flag lot regulations are consistent with General Plan Land Use Policy 1.2, to provide guidelines and standards to prevent land use conflicts. The revised flag lot regulations will ensure that flag lots are consistent with the density limits established in the General Plan and ensure that flag lot subdivision are designed to be compatible with neighborhood development patterns in the City. The revised flag lot regulations include provisions designed to protect the privacy of adjacent residential properties and the quality of establish neighborhoods, as required by Land Use Policy 1.5, by granting the Planning Commission the authority to review flag lot subdivisions for consistency with neighborhood development patterns. NOW, THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, State of California, does hereby find, determine and ordain as follows: SECTION 5. Code Amendment. The definition of Lot Depth in Section 17.04.020 (Definitions) of the Rosemead Municipal Code is HEREBY AMENDED to read as follows: "Lot depth" means the length of a straight line drawn from the midpoint of the front lot line and at right angles to such line connecting with the line intersecting the midpoint of the rear lot line; provided, however, that for the purpose of measurement, methods of measurement shall be applicable as per the following described circumstances: 1. In the case of lot having a curved front line, the front lot line, for the purposes of this section, shall be deemed to be a line tangent to the curve and parallel to a straight line connecting the points of intersection of the side lot lines of the lot with the front lot line. 2. In the case of a flag lot, for the purposes of this section, the front lot line shall be that property line which extends across the width of the lot, which is exclusive of and is not to be confused with, those property lines contained within the flag lot vehicle access leg to the public street. The front lot line may be parallel or perpendicular to the street which abuts the property. 2 EXHIBIT A SECTION 6. Code Amendment. Section 17.16.140 (Flag Lot Development) of the Rosemead Municipal Code is HEREBY AMENDED to read as follows In order to provide the opportunity for single-family residential flag lot development, and to maintain the integrity of existing single-family areas; the following regulations and criteria of evaluating flag lot development are established. However, in no case shall more than three (3) flag lots and one non-flag (conventional) lot be allowed within any subdivision. A. All development standards and definitions contained within this title shall continue to be applicable and in force unless otherwise specifically addressed within this section. Particular reference is made to Section 17.16.090 pertaining to a minimum fifty (50) foot street frontage. The applicability of this requirement to non-flag lot (conventional) parcels, which may be part of the land division under consideration, is emphasized for clarity. B. Front Yard. For the purposes of this section, a "front yard" is defined as that area which extends across the width of the lot, or as otherwise defined within Section 17.04.020 and is immediately adjacent to the flag lot vehicular access leg, which connects to the public street. Such vehicular access leg is exclusive of a front yard setback area, as set out in Appendix A, attached to the ordinance codified in this title. C. Front Yard Setback. Those front yard setback requirements contained within Section 17.16.050 shall apply; provided, however, that for the purposes of measurement, the following methods shall be applicable, and as set out in Appendix A attached to the ordinance codified in this title. 1. When a single (one) flag lot is to be served by a driveway which is solely devoted to the exclusive use of such single flag lot, measurements shall be initiated from the front property line, as defined under subsection B of this section. 2. When two or more flag lots are to be serviced by a common driveway obtained through fee, easement, or in combination thereof, and when such lots lie partially within such common driveway, no setback measurements shall include any portion of such common driveway. 3. The Planning Commission may establish a new point of measurement for front yards; providing, however, that common driveways or vehicular access easements shall not be counted toward satisfying front yard setback requirements. D. Side Yard. Those side yard setback requirements contained within the underlying zone shall apply; provided, however, that for the purposes of measurement, the 3 EXHIBIT A following methods shall be applicable as per described circumstances, and as set out in Appendix A attached to the ordinance codified in this title. 1. When a single (one) flag lot is to be served by a driveway which is solely devoted to the exclusive use of such single flag lot, measurements shall be initiated from the side property line. 2. When two or more flag lots are to be served by a common driveway obtained through fee, easement, or in combination thereof, and when such lots lie partially within such common driveway, no setback measurements shall include any portion of such common driveway. E. Rear Yard. Those side yard setback requirements contained within the underlying zone shall apply. F. Lot Area. The minimum gross lot area shall be six thousand (6,000) square feet. For the purposes of this section, gross lot area shall mean the total area within the boundary lines of a lot or parcel, and the following shall also be applicable: The minimum developable lot area (net area), exclusive of vehicle access leg or common driveway access easements, shall be five thousand (5,000) square feet, and as set out in Appendix A attached to the ordinance codified in this title. G. Lot Width. The minimum lot width for a flag lot developable area as described in subsection E of this section shall be fifty (50) feet and shall be determined per the method described under Section 17.04.020, "Lot width," contained within this title. H. Lot Width-Street Frontage. The minimum street frontage for a flag lot development is directly dependent on the number of flag lots. The following requirements shall be applicable as per described circumstances, and as set out in Appendix A attached to the ordinance codified in this title. 1. The minimum street frontage for a single (one) flag lot shall be fifteen (15) feet. 2. The minimum street frontage for two flag lots which are so designed to provide a common vehicular access leg by way of fee, easement or combination thereof, shall be a minimum of three (3) feet of real property street frontage for each flag lot; provided, however, that the total street frontage for the two flag lots shall be a minimum of eighteen (18) feet. Such requirement may be achieved by a combined contribution of individual lot street frontage which equals the required access driveway width. 4 EXHIBIT A 3. The minimum street frontage for three flag lots which are so designed to provide a common vehicular access leg by way of fee, easement or combination thereof, shall be a minimum of three (3) feet of real property street frontage for each flag lot; provided, however, that the total street frontage for the three flag lots shall be a minimum of twenty-six (26) feet. Such requirement may be achieved by a combined contribution of individual lot street frontage which equals the required access driveway.. 4. The minimum street frontage width for non-flag lot (conventional) parcels which face a public street, regardless of the number of flag lots in the development, shall be fifty (50) feet as prescribed in Section 17.16.090. 5. The street frontage access width may be increased beyond those requirements contained within this subsection, based on the recommendations or requirements of the City Engineer or Fire Department. Driveway. The interior lot driveway requirements shall be the same dimensions and shall occur under the same circumstances as contained within the subsection H of this section. J. Application and Procedural Provisions Pertaining to Flag Lot Developments. 1. The requirements contained within this subsection shall only apply in conjunction with the consideration of a division of land which contains a flag lot. 2. A site plan, drawn to scale, which accurately depicts all proposed structures and required setbacks and vehicle driveways, shall be submitted in conjunction with any application for a division of land which contains a flag lot. The site plan will become a permanent formal record of reference within the city's subdivision files after the approval or denial of such plan. The surrounding areas and land uses shall be shown for a distance of at least three hundred (300) feet. 3. The Planning Commission will review the merits of each flag lot proposal in relationship to the immediate property and the surrounding area. 4. Vehicle access easements for reciprocal use or otherwise shall be shown on the tentative maps, together with a statement identifying which lots are subservient and which lots are to benefit from such easements. 5. Should the Planning Commission choose to approve a subdivision of land, reasonable conditions related to on- and off-site improvements may be required. Such conditions may include, but not be limited to, the following: 5 EXHIBIT A a. Where three or more lots are created by a subdivision, all utilities shall be placed underground; b. Correct all building code violations that exist on the remaining structures; C. Correct all zoning violations; d. Parcel maps splits are required to install street improvements; e. Residential driveway pavement requirements for two lot divisions are two inches of AC over three-inch base material crushed aggregate; all other divisions are four inches of AC over four-inch base material crushed aggregate, or six inches of concrete; f. New fencing and/or walls may be required along existing and proposed property lines; g. Where vehicle access easements are to be used, a covenant shall be prepared by the applicant for review and approval of the City Attorney. The covenant shall assure that private common driveways shall be continually maintained and that cost associated with such maintenance shall be equally shared by all future property owners, whose properties benefit within the division, and shall include the following provisions: They shall have the right to cause such repair to be accomplished, and to place liens on the involved properties, if in the estimation of the City Engineer, the subject common driveway has reached a state of disrepair which renders it a hazard, unsightly, or a public nuisance; and that the property owners involved have failed to act within a responsible period, thirty (30) days, after notification. ii. No parking shall be allowed within the private common driveway obtained by easement and signs restricting same shall be posted at conspicuous locations. The ability to cite violations of such parking restrictions shall be granted to the city. K. Public Hearing. A public hearing is required to be conducted on all divisions of land. This requirement applies to the creation of flag lots. The public will be notified in the manner prescribed by state and local regulations. 6 EXHIBIT A L. Necessary Findings for Approval. The Planning Commission may approve the platting of flag lots where all of the following conditions are found to exist: 1. That the design is justified by topographic conditions or the size and shape of the property prohibits conventional lot division practices; 2. That proposed flag lot division is not so. at variance with the existing neighborhood pattern or development as to create detrimental visual or privacy impacts. M. Effective Date of Order Granting or Denying the Platting of Flag Lots-Time for Appeal. The resolution of the Planning Commission granting or denying the platting of flag lots shall become effective and final on the fourteenth day following its adoption unless within such period of time, an appeal in writing is filed with the City Clerk by the applicant or any other interested person. Any such appeal shall be accepted by the City Council. The timely filing of an appeal shall stay the effective date of the Planning Commission's resolution pending action by the City Council. N. Attached to the ordinance codified in this title, and incorporated herein by this reference, is that certain document entitled "Appendix A-Rosemead Municipal Code-Flag Lot Development," which contains drawings that depict typical flag lot measurements and layouts. SECTION 7. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed and adopted Ordinance No. 901 and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 8. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published in the manner required by law. SECTION 9. Effective Date. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from its date of adoption. 7 EXHIBIT A PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of September, 2010. Gary Taylor, Mayor ATTEST: Gloria Molleda, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Rachel Richman, City Attorney EXHIBIT A APPENDIX "A" ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE LOT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS: SECTION 17.04.020 - LOT DEPTH z J 0 J z 0 z, J I w' 1 H Z F , o LOT DEPTH LINE I - MID-POINT ° I ~ I I 0I oI J 1 FRONT LOT LINE ACCESS LEG ACCESS LEG STREET R/W LOT DEPTH LINE FRONT LOT LINE I MID-POINT I I z o w l w l I z I C, ° 1 ACCESS LEG y~ I ~ d l a Q i 2 o o Q0 I I ~ ~ 1 \ i ~ NOT TO SCALE DATE APPROVED DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF ROSEMEAD STANDARD LOT DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENTS P-5 EXHIBIT A APPENDIX " A" ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE FLAG LOT DEVELOPMEN T REQUIREMENTS: SECTION 17.16.140 (B), (C), (D) & (E) - YARDS REAR YARD r i Ip is SIDE YARD r }i STRUCTURE i~ I wl FRONTI I REAR STRUCTURE YARD YARD ' ~ APO I 9P i L 45' L_ J SIDE YARD ACCESS LEG 15' 15' ACCESS LEG STREET R/W 15' ACCESS LEG 15 ACCESS LEG FRONT YARD FRONT YARD r I pl Ip I I I ~I I~ i STRUCTURE of ml al p ¢ wl Iw pl p w' I STRUCTURE Iw I NI V I I I I REAR YARD I I REAR YARD NOT TO SCALE NOTE: THE PLA NNING COMMISSION MAY ESTABLISH THE MOST APPROPRIATE LOT ORIENTATION FOR CONSISTENCY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD PATTERNS AND TO MINIMIZE VISION OR PRIVACY IMPACTS DATE APPROVED CITY OF ROSEMEAD STANDARD FLAG LOT DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. RD RE U ALTERNATES IREMENTS P-6 YA Q - DIRECTOR of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EXHIBIT A APPENDIX "A" ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE FLAG LOT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS: SECTION 17.16.140 (E) & (G) - LOT AREA & WIDTH TWO LOT SUBDIVISION THREE LOT SUBDIVISION FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION 65' 68' 76' 2 3 4 FLAG LOT FLAG LOT . FLAG LOT 6000 SQ. FT. 6000 SQ. FT. ^ 6000 SO. FT. ^ GROSS GROSS GROSS 5000 SQ. FT. . SD00 SO. FT. I 5000 SO. FT. I NET NET NET I ACCE55 LEG & EASEMENT I 15' ACCESS LEG 11 J F U MIN I I & EASEMENT Z 3 W J W J I N E I F 1 w w I Z u N FLAG LOT o w CONVENTIONAL w I•' ¢ I I FLAG LOT o o < w 16000 SO. FT. o a LOT - 0 < w GROSS 0 1 6000 SQ. FT. 6000 SQ. FT. N GROSS 5000 SO. FT. NET 1 5000 SQ. FT. I NET NET I ' ACCESS LEG ,I 50' MIN ACCESS LEG I & EASEMENT . - & EASEMENT 2 STREET 1 Z w w FLAG LOT - o R/W . CONVENTIONAL a 6000 SO. FT. o - LOT o GROSS N 6000 SO. FT. 5000 SQ. FT. 18' MIN. NET NET 3' MIN. 3' MIN. ACCESS LEG 50 MIN. & EASEMENT STREET 1 R /W CONVENTIONAL - 26' MIN. 1 LOT _ N 3' MIN. 1 6000 SO. FT. NET - NOT TO SCALE NOTE: GROSS LOT AREA INCLUDES THE ACCESS LEG NET LOT AREA EXCLUDES THE ACCESS LEG AND/OR EASEMENT DATE APPROVED CITY OF ROSEMEAD FLAG LOT DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY LOT AREA & WIDTH REQUIREMENTS DEVELOPMENT STANDARD PLAN NO. P-7 0' MIN. r, STREET R/W EXHIBIT A ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DIVISION DATE: JULY 19, 2010 SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 10-05, AMENDING THE ZONING CODE TO REVISE REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF FLAG LOTS IN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD SUMMARY Municipal Code Amendment 10-05 is a City initiated amendment to the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) for the purpose of revising definitions, development standards, and diagrams that regulate the development of flag lots in residential zones to implement the recently updated General Plan and to clarify inconsistencies between flag lot text and graphics in the Rosemead Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Rosemead City Council adopted a General Plan update and certified an accompanying Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) on October 14, 2008. The certified Program EIR provided a program-level assessment of the environmental impacts resulting from development pursuant to land use policy and implementation of the goals and policies set forth in all chapters of the updated General Plan, as well as long-term implementation of the General Plan through a revised Zoning Code. On April 13, 2010, the City Council adopted an Addendum to the 2008 Program EIR. Municipal Code Amendment 10-05 is consistent with the Program EIR and Addendum, and pursuant to Public Resources Code 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162, 15168 and 15183 is exempt from the requirement that additional environmental documentation be prepared. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 10-24 (Attachment A), a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 901 (Attachment B), amending Title 17 of the Rosemead Municipal Code to revise flag lot development standards. EXHIBIT B Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 2010 Page 2 of 6 BACKGROUND On July 12, 1983, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 560 (Exhibit C) to establish development standards for flag lot developments in order to provide for the opportunity for single-family residential lot development. This ordinance amended several definitions in the Zoning Code and added development standards for how residential lots could be subdivided into flag lot configurations. The Ordinance also incorporated an appendix of drawings (referred to as Appendix A) which depicted typical flag lot measurements and layouts. A flag lot is a lot whose shape is created in a manner which utilizes an extension of property (the flag pole) for the exclusive purpose of obtaining vehicular and pedestrian access to a public street. The following assessor map image depicts typical flag lot subdivision development that has occurred in Rosemead over the last several years MUSCATEL ',law n Flag L ots 56.94 IF $6 56.0 9 'r 56 50.01 IS IS 50.C2 e~ - S v r 16.5a _ ^t9 _ _ = 80 - 8j 6 M t= = '13 1 +b 7B}= - j0 ? 6 ln in 56.0'1 9 " 9 51 r- _ a N J C13 - 5610!5• - ~ M na 1tp fl2! ST N 3 t 6125 ¢ s6.61 V 710k51 ;161 v U 0. BI 11 lZ a 56-Oi 15 56 0. ll SS r H 0"k1.7f"Y 65.Ct 6S 65.61 646' Example of Flag Lot Development On May 17, 2010, Planning staff presented to the Commission a memorandum discussing several inconsistencies that had been discovered between text in the Zoning Code and the diagrams that were adopted in Appendix A that were meant to illustrate flag lot layouts. These related to the minimum lot area for flag lots and how the minimum lot width (street frontage) is determined. At that time, the Planning Commission provided direction to staff to amend the Zoning Code and diagrams to address the inconsistencies. ANALYSIS Lot Area Requirement Section 17.16.140(E) of the RMC states that "the minimum lot area shall be six thousand (6,000) square feet and shall be calculated as per Section 17.04.020, provided, however, that for the purposes of this section, the following shall be applicable: EXHIBIT B Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 2010 Page 3 of 6 (1) The minimum developable lot area, exclusive of vehicle access leg or common drive-way access easements, shall be five thousand (5,000) square feet, and as set out in Appendix A attached to the ordinance codified in this title." The purpose of Appendix A (See attached Exhibit C) is to illustrate the development standards for residents and developers. However, when calculating the gross and net lot areas using the dimensions in the diagrams in Appendix A (Standard Plan No. P-7), the totals do not satisfy the requirement stated in the text portion of the Ordinance. The current diagrams could also be interpreted to mean that only 5,000 square feet of net lot area is required for a flag lot and that the 6,000 square feet for the gross area does not apply. In reviewing past meeting minutes dating back to 1983 regarding the creation of the flag lot ordinance, it is evident that the intent of the ordinance was to require a minimum 6,000 square foot gross lot area standard (total area of developable lot and access leg) and a 5,000 square foot net lot area (developable lot area) standard for each flag lot. The minimum lot area in the R-1 (Single Family Residential) and R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) zones is 6,000 square feet. Therefore requiring a gross lot area of 6,000 square feet would be consistent with the lot area requirements in the R-1 and R-2 zones. However, staff has reviewed past project case files and found that not all past subdivisions have satisfied the 6,000 gross lot area requirement, due to the fact that the diagram (Standard Plan No. P-7) does not illustrate the 6,000 gross lot area standard. On May 17, 2010, the Planning Commission determined that a flag lot must meet both the minimum net lot area of 5,000 square a feet and the gross lot area of 6,000 square feet. To address this inconsistency and the Planning Commission's determination, staff proposes to revise the definition of Lot Area in Section 17.16.140 F. of the RMC to be clear that gross lot area for a flag lot must be 6,000 square feet and that the net lot area must be a minimum of 5,000 square feet. Standard Plan No. P-7 of Appendix A has also been revised to make it clear that both the gross and net floor areas must be satisfied for flag lot developments. Attached as Exhibit D is a redline/strikeout version of the proposed revisions to the Zoning Code. Lot Width (Street Frontage) Section 17.16.140(G) of the RMC states "that the minimum street frontage for a flag lot development is directly dependent on the number of flag lots. The following requirements shall be applicable as per described circumstances, and as set out in Appendix A attached to the ordinance codified in this title. EXHIBIT B Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 2010 Page 4 of 6 1. The minimum street frontage for a single (one) flag lot shall be fifteen (15) feet. 2. The minimum street frontage for two or more lots which are so designed to provide a common vehicular access leg by way of fee, easement or combination thereof, shall provide a minimum of three feet of real property street frontage; provided, however, that the following minimum street access widths are established: a. The street frontage for two lots shall be eighteen (18) feet; provided, however, that such requirement may be achieved by a combined contribution of individual lot street frontage which equals the required access driveway width. b. The street frontage for three flag lots shall be twenty-six (26) feet; provided, however, that such requirement may be achieved by a combined contribution of individual lot street frontage which equals the required street frontage width." However, the three lot and four lot subdivision examples in Appendix A (Standard Plan No. P-7) indicate that when two or more lots are designed to provide a common vehicular access leg, one of the lots shall provide a minimum of 15 feet of real property frontage, instead of any of the lots just satisfying the minimum three foot requirement stated above. To address this inconsistency, Planning Staff recommends that Section 17:16.140 H (Lot Width - Street Frontage) of the RMC be revised to more clearly state that each leg within a flag lot subdivision with two or three flag lots must be a minimum of three (3) feet in width as long as the total width for the access leg is also maintained. Standard Plan No. P-7 has been revised to delete the reference to a fifteen (15) foot minimum width for one of the access legs to be more consistent with the revised text in the Zoning Code. Doing this will allow the access legs to be shared more equally among flag lots, which will assist in achieving the 6,000 square foot minimum lot area requirement. Front Yard Although it was not discussed at the May 17, 2010 Planning Commission meeting on the flag lot issues, it has come to the attention of Planning staff that there is also confusion about which side of a flag lot must be considered as the front yard. Currently the flag lot development standards do not clearly state if the front yard on a flag lot has to be parallel to the street or if it may be perpendicular. to the street. The diagrams in Appendix A (specifically Standard Plan No. P-6) also do not clearly state which side of a flag lot can or must be the front yard. In reviewing a number of flag lot subdivisions that have be approved over the past few years, staff found that subdivisions have been EXHIBIT B Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 2010 Paae 5 of 6 approved with flag lots with front yards that have been both parallel and perpendicular to the street frontage of the subdivision. To clarify the intent of the Zoning Code with respect to the front yard requirements for flag lots, staff proposes to add clarifying language to the definitions of Lot Depth in Section 17.040.020 of the RMC to state the front lot line of a flag lot may be parallel or perpendicular to the street which abuts the property. This allows for some flexibility on the part of the developer to decide which side of a flag lot would be most appropriate for the front yard. It is also important to note that Sections 17.16.140 J.3. and 17.16.140 L. of the RMC both give the Planning Commission authority to evaluate the most appropriate lot orientation as part of a flag lot subdivision. Therefore, the City will still have the ability to review a subdivision and determine if a particular flag lot should have its front yard parallel or perpendicular to the street on a case-by-case basis depending on the surrounding developments. Staff has also revised Standard Plan No. P-6 in Appendix A to clarify the different possible flag lot development alternatives. Conclusion The proposed Ordinance No. 901 provides a revised set of flag lot development standards that insures consistency with the General Plan for minimum lot size. The Ordinance also clarifies internal inconsistencies between text and diagrams and provides the City and developers some additional flexibility when planning and reviewing flag lot subdivisions. MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS Chapter 17.116 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets forth the procedures and requirements for zone changes and amendments. A zone change and municipal code amendments may be permitted whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice justifies such action. California State law requires zoning to be compliant with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. Municipal Code Amendment 10-05 will accomplish this requirement. The revised flag lot regulations are consistent with General Plan Land Use Policy 1.2 to provide guidelines and standards to prevent land use conflicts. The revised flag lot regulations will ensure that flag lots are consistent with the density limits established in the General Plan and ensure that flag lot subdivision are designed to be compatible with neighborhood development patterns in the City. The revised flag lot regulations include provisions designed to protect the privacy of adjacent residential properties and the quality of establish neighborhoods, as required EXHIBIT B Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 2010 Paae 6 of 6 by Land Use Policy 1.5 by granting the Planning Commission the authority to review flag lot subdivisions for consistency with neighborhood development patterns. The public necessity, convenience, and general welfare will be served by the adoption of the revised flag lot regulations that provides internally consistent development standards that will ensure consistency with the General Plan land use densities for residential developments while providing the opportunity for property owners to subdivide large properties in a manner that will maintain the integrity of single-family residential neighborhoods. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the required public posting requirements of the regular agenda notification process for Municipal Code Text Amendments, pursuant to Section 17.116.020 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, which includes publication in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and posting of the notice at the six (6) public locations and on the subject site. Prepared by: Paul Garry Senior Planner Submitted by,: i Stong Community Development Director Attachments: A-----424aa . 40 :24, Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 19, 2010 The regular meeting of the Rosemead Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Alarcon at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Hunter INVOCATION - Commissioner Herrera ROLL CALL OF OFFFICERS PRESENT - Commissioners Herrera, Hunter, and Ruiz, Vice- Chairwoman Eng, Chairman Alarcon OFFICIALS PRESENT: City Attorney Murphy, Community Development Director Wong, Principal Planner Bermejo, Assistant Planner Trinh, and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS Greg Murphy, City Attorney, presented the procedures and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes - June 21, 2010 Vice-Chairwoman Eng requested clarification on the bottom of page 8 and asked if there were 12 conditions or were two added for a total of 14 regarding the traffic issue for Doubletree Hotel. Principal Planner Bermejo stated yes there were two added for a total of 14 conditions and it will be revised. Vice-Chairwoman Eng stated on page 11, sixth paragraph, that it was Commissioner Ruiz who explained to the applicant , and asked that her name be removed She also would like noted in the seventh paragraph that she concurred with Chairman Alarcon on what was suggested. Vice-Chairwoman Eng made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to Approve the Consent Calendar with corrections to page 8 and 11. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None 1 EXHIBIT C Abstain: None Absent: None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10-02 - Clearwire has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application to modify an existing 53'-0" tall monopine wireless telecommunications facility to install one new ground-mounted equipment cabinet within a new equipment enclosure area adjacent to an existing equipment enclosure lease area and to add three new 4'-0" tall panel antennas and three new 2'-0" diameter parabolic microwave dishes at a height of 46'-0" on the existing monopine at 9117 E. Garvey Avenue in the C-3 (Medium Commercial) zone. PC RESOLUTION 10.22 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10.02, FOR THE INSTALLATION OF NEW ANTENNAS AND EQUIPMENT FOR AN EXISTING WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY, LOCATED AT 9117 E. GARVEY AVENUE IN THE C-3 (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL) ZONE. Staff Recommendation - Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 10.02 and ADOPT Resolution No. 10-22 with findings, and subject to the nineteen (19) conditions. Principal Planner Bermejo presented the staff report. Vice-Chairwoman Eng questioned staff if this collocation is going to be 40 feet or 46 feet because the site map indicates that it will be 40 feet but the staff report states 46 feet. Principal Planner Bermejo replied there is an error in the staff report and the new height of the equipment will be 40 feet. Vice-Chairwoman Eng asked staff if it is a one story building, and what the height of the building is. Principal Planner Bermejo replied it is one story and the height of the building is 21 feet to the existing parapet. Chairman Alarcon opened the Public Hearing. Fiona Hilyer from Bemis Consultant, Inc. stated she is a representative for Clearwire and is available to answer any questions. Chairman Alarcon asked if the Planning Commission had any questions. None 2 EXHIBIT C Chairman Alarcon asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in favor of this project. None Chairman Alarcon asked if there was anyone wishing to speak against this project. None Chairman Alarcon closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. City Attorney Murphy advised to motion to ADOPT PC Resolution 10-22 and it should include what Vice-Chairwoman Eng brought up, that the height be at 40 feet tall not 46 feet tall and that would be in the first recital. Commissioner Herrera made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hunter to APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 10.02 and ADOPT Resolution No. 10.22 with findings, and subject to the nineteen (19) conditions. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Wong stated that the Commission's decision is final unless it is appealed to the City Council within 10 days. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10-04 AND PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY (PCN) 10.01 - Walgreens has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application, requesting approval for a new Off-Sale Beer and Wine (Type 20) ABC license in conjunction with an existing retail drugstore, located at 2750 San Gabriel Boulevard, in the C-3 (Medium Commercial) zone. A portion of the Site is also included with the Design (D) Overlay zone. Walgreens is also requesting that the City determine that the issuance of a license for the off-sale of beer and wine will serve the public convenience or necessity (PCN 10.01) as required by the State Department of Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) when a project site is located in a crime reporting district with an undue concentration of crime. PC RESOLUTION 10-23 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10.04 AND PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY (PCN) 10.01, FOR A NEW OFF-SALE BEER AND WINE (TYPE 20) ABC LICENSE FOR WALGREENS, LOCATED AT 2750 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD IN THE C-3 (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL) AND C-3D (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH DESIGN OVERLY) ZONE. 3 EXHIBIT C Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 10.04 and PCN 10.01 and ADOPT Resolution No. 10.23 (Exhibit "A") with findings related to the Conditional Use Permit and public convenience or necessity of the issuance of the alcohol license, and subject to thirty (30) conditions. Principal Planner Bermejo presented staff report. Vice-Chairwoman Eng asked staff to clarify the change to Condition of Approval number 11. Principal Planner Bermejo replied that the word "restaurant" should be replaced with "retail drugstore" in the condition. Vice-Chairwoman Eng asked staff if the Public Convenience or Necessity is a new process from the Alcohol Beverage Board or if it is a new procedure that the City has put together. Principal Planner Bermejo replied no, it is a process that has been around for several years and it only affects certain types of licenses such as off-sale retail licenses. She also stated the City has not experienced a large number of those types of applications and ABC automatically delegates the duty of making PCN findings to the City Council, but within the last month the City Council delegated the duty to the Planning Commission. Vice-Chairwoman Eng stated in the staff report on page 9, staff indicated that there are no other pharmacies in this area of the City that provides off-sale of beer and wine in conjunction with retail and wanted clarification because there is a CVS across the street that sells beer and wine and asked if they are in a different census tract. Principal Planner Bermejo replied that is correct there is a CVS, and the store is within a different census tract. Vice-Chairwoman Eng asked staff if there were any reported incidents relating to crime for this CVS because they are similar in their set up. Principal Planner Bermejo replied that the crime report from ABC did incorporate the CVS because it is located within a different census tract. She also stated that even though the CVS store sells beer and wine, it does not influence the number of licenses permitted within the census tract where Walgreens is located. Vice-Chairwoman Eng stated there is a market, CVS, Walgreens, and Los Toro's on that corner and asked staff what type of licenses are required for those businesses. Principal Planner Bermejo replied the other two businesses with off-sale licenses within this census tract are Wal-Mart and Los Toro's Meat Market. She also stated that if the Chief of Police and Code Enforcement go out they do not focus on census tract limit lines they actually incorporate the general area into their evaluation. 4 EXHIBIT C Vice-Chairwoman Eng asked staff when the one reported burglary mentioned in staff report occurred at this site. Principal Planner Bermejo replied we did not get the report dates just numbers within the last year. Vice-Chairwoman Eng stated she did have a request for the applicant with Conditions of Approval numbers 28 and 29. She also stated she would like to incorporate that the proprietor be included in maintaining the items in those two conditions and take on a proactive approach, so they do not have to wait for Code Enforcement to take action. Chairman Alarcon asked staff if the Conditions of Approval are on-going and if you happen to drive by and see something wrong, we should call Code Enforcement. He also asked Vice-Chairwoman Eng to clarify her request. Principal Planner replied that is correct you would call Code Enforcement. Vice-Chairwoman Eng added that she would like to see that the proprietor take a proactive roll and when they walk on to the premises take care of some of the issues if it is possible. Principal Planner Bermejo asked Vice-Chairwoman Eng and if she would just like to see on-going property maintenance. Vice-Chairwoman Eng replied yes. She also requested clarification on item Number I of the Resolution Principal Planner explained that if approved tonight the applicant will have 6 months to initiate progress of implementing the use and if for some reason they are not able to implement the use within the 6 months then they would need to request an extension of their Conditional Use Permit. City Attorney Murphy stated the language of Section 2-1 comes right from the Municipal Code, so it is a finding that the Commission needs to make and the finding is that your activity tonight is not applicable to an application that came about because of a change in ownership or because an applicant is just seeking an extension. He also stated neither of those being the case below subsection I you see that neither of these findings apply, so therefore you can make the correct finding according to the code. Chairman Alarcon opened the Public Hearing Matt Dzurec, the applicant, thanked staff for the detailed staff report and stated that Walgreens reviewed the conditions of approval and they accept with them all, along with the recommendations of Vice-Chairwoman Eng. He also stated that the Store Manager, Doug Lam, is here to answer questions if needed. He also stated this is a very modest request for only beer and wine and Walgreens will not sell hard liquor. He also gave a brief description of the floor plan of the store and the security that has been put in place. He also stated products will not be placed near the front entrances and store staff will be properly trained on how to sell beer and wine in a responsible and conscientious manner. EXHIBIT C Vice-Chairwoman Eng addressed the applicant and stated that when your employees are under the age of 21, Walgreens will require a manager to assist them with the sale transaction. She also stated that this is not in the Conditions of Approval but she would like to make sure that is enforced. Matt Dzurec, the applicant, replied he agrees and that it is also a state law that minors may not sell alcohol. Chairman Alarcon asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in favor of this project. None Chairman Alarcon asked if there was anyone wishing to speak against this project. None Chairman Alarcon closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Commissioner Herrera made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz, to APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 10.04 and PCN 10.01 and ADOPT Resolution No. 10.23 (Exhibit "A") with findings related to the Conditional Use Permit and public convenience or necessity of the issuance of the alcohol license, and subject to thirty (30) conditions outlined. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Wong stated that the Commission's decision is final unless it is appealed to City Council within 10 days. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10-05 - Wen Liu of Tin Tin Restaurant has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application, requesting approval for a new On-Sale Beer and Wine (Type 41) ABC license in conjunction with an existing bona fide public eating establishment, located at 7621 Garvey Avenue, in the C-3 (Medium Commercial) zone. PC RESOLUTION 10-25 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10.05, FOR A NEW ON-SALE BEER AND WINE (TYPE 41) ABC LICENSE FOR TIN TIN RESTAURANT, LOCATED AT 7621 GARVEY AVENUE, IN THE C-3 (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL) ZONE. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 10.05 and ADOPT Resolution No. 10.25 (Exhibit "A") with findings and subject to thirty-one (31) conditions, EXHIBIT C Assistant Planner Trinh presented staff report. Assistant Planner Trinh also stated that staff would like to add Condition of Approval Number 32 to state," Prior to any final inspection the applicant shall verify that all Certificates of Occupancy and Business Licenses are current." Commissioner Hunter stated that she had driven by the restaurant earlier that afternoon and she has a few concerns with the restaurant and requested that Code Enforcement go investigate. Assistant Planner Trinh replied that staff has completed site inspections and on July 13, 2010, they did witness some issues that were stated in the staff report and also added them to the Conditions of Approval. She also stated improvement items included the trash enclosure area and graffiti. She stated staff addressed these issues to the applicant and the applicant is aware of the conditions and is acceptable of them. Commissioner Hunter stated in the staff report on page 4 , numbers 1 & 2 states that the site shall be maintained in a clean, weed, and litter free state but it is not. Assistant Planner Trinh replied that a lot of the other conditions have been addressed to Code Enforcement but the property maintenance ordinance will have to be addressed to the property owner not the restaurant. Commissioner Hunter requested clarification if it is the restaurant owner or the property owner's responsibility to keep it clean in the back of the restaurant. Community Development Director Wong stated that typically, and in this case, it is the restaurant owner's responsibility to take care of it and it is delegated by the property owner but it is the burden and sole responsibility of the property owner to maintain and keep the property in proper condition. He also stated staff will send a letter to the property owner to let them know the concerns of the Planning Commission and work with the property owner and the restaurant owner to make sure the property gets cleaned up. Assistant Planner Trinh stated Code Enforcement has a current case open at this site. Commissioner Ruiz asked staff if this site has been cited already. Assistant Planner Trinh replied that Code Enforcement has a case opened at this site now, so they are aware of the issues. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that if this project is approved tonight, it will not get final approval until those items have been recognized. Commissioner Ruiz stated that before we approve this recommendation and before they even get their permits, we need to make sure this site gets cleaned up. He also stated we should have this stipulated into our recommendation that before they get their ABC license the site must be clean. EXHIBIT C Vice-Chairwoman Eng read the last paragraph on the first page of staff report and asked staff if this restaurant had been approved for an ABC license before. Assistant Planner Trinh replied in the past it has been approved and then it was abandoned so it was revoked. She also stated this was in the 1990's and since then no one has applied according to ABC. Vice-Chairwoman Eng asked staff for clarification regarding the security guard. She stated currently there is one security guard for the shopping center and asked staff if the restaurant is proposing to get an additional security guard. Assistant Planner Trinh replied that is a question that can be addressed to the applicant. Chairman Alarcon asked staff when you say abandoned what exactly does that mean. Assistant Planner Trinh replied it means that the license has not been used so they revoke the license back from the restaurant. Chairman Alarcon asked if there were any other questions for staff. None Chairman Alarcon opened the Public Hearing and invited applicant to speak Andy Yu, representative of the owner of the restaurant stated he is present to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Vice-Chairwoman Eng. asked Mr. Yu if he was referring to the security guard that is there or will there be an additional security guard. Andy Yu, representative replied the current security guard is paid for by all the tenants of the shopping center. Vice-Chairwoman Eng clarified so you are not proposing an additional security guard. Mr. Yu replied no; not if it is not necessary. Chairman Alarcon asked Mr. Yu, if the security guard stands in one place or is he walking or riding a bike around the site. Mr. Yu, the representative, replied the security guard walk's around and check all the areas of the shopping center. Commissioner Ruiz asked Mr. Yu, the representative, if he would like an additional security guard on his site and referred to a Condition of Approval number 30, which states security should be on site. He also asked Principal Planner Bermejo to clarify Condition of Approval number 30. 8 EXHIBIT C Principal Planner Bermejo stated it was staff's intent to have security on site and right now there is a security guard on the site, so that would suffice the recommendation. She also stated if for some reason if the security guard that is currently there stopped his services, then the restaurant would have to provide a security guard. Commissioner Ruiz asked staff how many units are on this particular site. Assistant Planner Trinh replied there are 13 units. Commissioner Ruiz stated that one security guard for 13 units is not adequate and he would like to recommend having an additional security guard. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that can be added if the Planning Commission would like. She also stated that our Chief of Police did review the Conditions of Approval and there was not a recommendation that additional security was needed. Community Development Wong stated that he would like to recommend an alternative and not to put the burden on the operator but perhaps in the future if there are any problems let him come back for a security review. He also stated this will give them a chance to prove themselves on maintaining the property and make sure there are not security issues or complaints. He also stated if there complaints then we can have them come back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. Commissioner Ruiz asked staff, so we can write this into the Conditions of Approval. City Attorney Murphy stated that in Condition of Approval number 5, it is written that it reserves your right to bring it back to the Planning Commission. Vice-Chairwoman Eng stated she agrees with Community Development Director Wong's recommendation. She also stated the burden should not be on just the proprietor alone. She also stated this restaurant has been here since 1997 and it is well known, it has been in operation for a long time, and it only seats about 80 people. Chairman Alarcon stated that this is a good alternative and if there is any trouble the restaurant owner can call the City to let them know. Chairman Alarcon asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in favor of this project. None Chairman Alarcon asked if there was anyone against this project. None Chairman Alarcon closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. 9 EXHIBIT C Community Development Wong stated that he would like an additional Condition of Approval Number 33 be added subject to the City Attorney's approval, stating that "Conditional Use Permit 10-05 shall not take into effect until the current Code Enforcement action has been abated on the subject property." City Attorney Murphy stated that is fine and asked staff if Code Enforcement numbers their actions or if they had any way of tracking them. Principal Planner Bermejo replied that yes, they do have a system to track all of their Code Enforcement cases, but she is not sure if it is in numerical numbers. City Attorney Murphy requested that staff find out so as we can be completely correct in the way we describe it, the current code enforcement case entitled or whatever their notation is, so this applicant doesn't get hit if in case a second case is opened some time down the line . Assistant Planner Trinh stated she believes they go by address. Chairman Alarcon asked for a motion from the Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Herrera made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz, to APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 10-05 and ADOPT Resolution No. 10.25 (Exhibit "A") with findings and subject to thirty-three (33) conditions. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Ruiz No: None Abstain: Hunter Absent: None Community Development Director Wong stated that the Commission's decision is final unless it is appealed to City Council within 10 days. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 10.05, AMENDING THE ZONING CODE TO REVISE REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF FLAG LOTS IN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD - Municipal Code Amendment 10.05 is a City initiated amendment to the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) for the purpose of revising definitions, development standards, and diagrams that regulate the development of flag lots in residential zones to implement the recently updated General Plan and to clarify inconsistencies between flag lot text and graphics in the Rosemead Municipal Code. PC RESOLUTION 10-24 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 10.05 AMENDING SECTION 17.04.020 AND 17.16.140 OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO FLAG LOT DEVELOPMENT. 10 EXHIBIT C Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 10-24 (Attachment A), a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 901 (Attachment B), amending Title 17 of the Rosemead Municipal Code to revise flag lot development standards. Principal Planner Bermejo presented the staff report. Chairman Alarcon asked the Planning Commissioners if they had any questions for staff. Vice-Chairwoman Eng asked staff if this clean up effort will make it more restrictive for property owners to subdivide the lots and there is a significant number of lots in the City that may be developed into flag lots. Principal Planner Bermejo replied to answer your first question, yes it will have a higher standard for flag lot development and explained why. She also stated to answer your second question regarding how many flag lots we have in the City, there are possibly 100 lots that are capable of being subdivided, but these are not likely to be three, some may be a single flag lot or two. Commissioner Ruiz asked staff if the developer will be able to use the driveway to add to the flag lot. Principal Planner Bermejo replied that.is correct and that standard will be a little more flexible. Commissioner Ruiz clarified that it will be more flexible to add up to the 6,000 feet that is required now. Principal Planner replied that is correct. Vice-Chairwoman Eng stated that she has some recommendations in the PC Resolution 10-24, on the first page after the 4th WHEREAS of the of the recital, she would like to revise this to say "to clarify inconsistencies between flag lot text and graphics in the Rosemead Municipal Code." Principal Planner Bermejo clarified her request. Vice-Chairwoman Eng requested staff to clarify the last sentence of page 2, section 4, of the Resolution, and asked if this is customary planning practice. Principal Planner Bermejo replied that is the current Rosemead Municipal Code standard. Vice-Chairwoman Eng asked staff on page 3, Section 4A of the Resolution, will the minimum frontage for the lot still be required to be fifty foot in width. Principal Planner Bermejo replied yes that is correct. Vice-Chairwoman Eng asked staff in the Resolution at the bottom of page 4, at number H3, should it be two or three flag lots. 11 EXHIBIT C Principal Planner replied it should be three. Vice-Chairwoman Eng stated then that should be a corresponding change for the ordinance also. Chairwoman Eng stated she did not understand the last sentence in the Resolution of page 5, J-2, regarding the distance of at least three hundred feet and asked staff to clarify. Principal Planner Bermejo explained that when they submit their application for soil subdivision they need to show a radius of three hundred feet from the property of existing land uses. Vice-Chairwoman Eng asked staff what AC stands for in section 5E on page 6 of the Resolution,. Principal Planner Bermejo replied it stands for Aggregate Concrete. Vice-Chairwoman Eng asked staff if the covenant referred to in section 5G on page 6 of the Resolution, is that something we are going to ask the developers to record as part of the deed. Principal Planner Bermejo replied yes this is correct and stated this is common language that is required on the final map to be recorded. Commissioner Hunter asked staff where the existing flag lots are located in the City. Principal Planner Bermejo replied there are several lots located just north of Garvey Avenue, on Muscatel, Bartlett, Ivar, and the southern end of the City. Chairman Alarcon asked if there was anyone wishing to speak against or in favor of this project. None Chairman Alarcon asked for a motion. Vice-Chairwoman Eng made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 10.24 (Attachment A), a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 901 (Attachment B), amending Title 17 of the Rosemead Municipal Code to revise flag lot development standards. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Wong stated to the Planning Commission that their action on Municipal Code Amendment 10-05, amending the Zoning Code is a recommendation and will be forwarded to the City Council for their scheduled hearing. 12 EXHIBIT C 5. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIRMAN & COMMISSIONERS Vice-Chairwoman Eng stated she would like to thank staff and the City for the 4th of July celebration and also stated that it was enjoyed by the community. Vice-Chairwoman Eng stated she did receive the Beautification Binder and thanked staff and mentioned that 52 cases were open and 17 of them got closed so it indicates that the process is working. Vice-Chairwoman Eng stated that we need to address and add parking requirements into our Municipal Code for hotel and motel use's as they will be holding conferences and additional parking will be needed in the future. 6. MATTERS FROM STAFF Community Development Wong stated that the next regular Planning Commission Meeting for August 2, 2010, may be dark for that evening and if our City Attorney agrees it should be amended to Monday, August 16, 2010. City Attorney Murphy replied yes he agrees, and we will amend the meeting to Monday, August 16, 2010. 7. ADJOURNMENT The next regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Monday, August 16, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. William Alarcon Chairman ATTEST: Rachel Lockwood, Commission Secretary 13 EXHIBIT C PC RESOLUTION 10-24 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 10-05 AMENDING SECTION 17.04.020 AND 17.16.140 OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO FLAG LOT DEVELOPMENT. WHEREAS, Section 17.116.020 of the Rosemead Municipal Code sets forth procedures and requirements for municipal code amendments; and WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead has adopted the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including specific development standards, to control development; and WHEREAS, Section 17.116.010 of the Rosemead Municipal ,Code authorize the Planning Commission to consider and recommend proposed municipal code amendments to the City Council; and WHEREAS, Municipal Code Amendment 10-05 revises regulations for the development of flag lots to clarify inconsistencies between flag lot text and graphics in the Rosemead Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, on July 9, 2010, a notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune specifying the public comment period and the time and place for a public hearing pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091(a)(3); and WHEREAS, on July 19, 2010, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Municipal Code Amendment 10-05; and WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead as follows: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission HEREBY DETERMINES that Municipal Code Amendment 10-05 is consistent with the General Plan Program EIR and Addendum, and pursuant to Public Resources Code 21083.3 and California Environmental Quality Act CEQA Guidelines sections 15162, 15,168 and 15183 is exempt from the requirement that additional environmental documentation be prepared. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that Municipal Code Amendment 10-05 is in the best interest of the public necessity and general welfare, and good city planning practice dictates and supports the proposed i 1 EXHIBIT D municipal code amendment, in that the change to the Rosemead Municipal Code will provide a superior level of planning and protection to the quality and character of the city. The revised flag lot regulations are consistent with General Plan Land Use Policy 1.2, to provide guidelines and standards to prevent land use conflicts. The revised flag lot regulations will ensure that flag lots are consistent with the density limits established in the General Plan and ensure that flag lot subdivision are designed to be compatible with neighborhood development patterns in the City. The revised flag lot regulations include provisions designed to protect the privacy of adjacent residential properties and the quality of establish neighborhoods, as required by Land Use Policy 1.5 by granting the Planning Commission the authority to review flag lot subdivisions for consistency with neighborhood development patterns. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission does HEREBY RECOMMEND that the definition of Lot Depth in Section 17.04.020 (Definitions) of the Rosemead Municipal Code be amended to read as follows: "Lot depth" means the length of a straight line drawn from the midpoint of the front lot line and at right angles to such line connecting with the line intersecting the midpoint of the rear lot line; provided, however, that for the purpose of measurement, methods of measurement shall be applicable as per the following described circumstances: 1. In the case of lot having a curved front line, the front lot line, for the purposes of this section, shall be deemed to be a line tangent to the curve and parallel to a straight line connecting the points of intersection of the side lot lines of the lot with the front lot line. 2. In the case of a flag lot, for the purposes of this section, the front lot line shall be that property line which extends across the width of the lot, which is exclusive of and is not to be confused with, those property lines contained within the flag lot vehicle access leg to the public street. The front lot line may be parallel or perpendicular to the street which abuts the property. SECTION 4. The Planning Commission does HEREBY RECOMMEND that Section 17.16.140 (Flag Lot Development) of the Rosemead Municipal Code be amended to read as follows In order to provide the opportunity for single-family residential flag lot development, and to maintain the integrity of existing single-family areas, the following regulations and criteria of evaluating flag lot development are established. However, in no case shall more than three (3) flag lots and one non-flag (conventional) lot be allowed within any subdivision. 2 EXHIBIT D A. All development standards and definitions contained within this title shall continue to be applicable and in force unless otherwise specifically addressed within this section. Particular reference is made to Section 17.16.090 pertaining to a minimum fifty (50) foot street frontage. The applicability of this requirement to non-flag lot (conventional) parcels, which may be part of the land division under consideration, is emphasized for clarity. B. Front Yard. For the purposes of this section, a "front yard" is defined as that area which extends across the width of the lot, or as otherwise defined within Section 17.04.020 and is immediately adjacent to the flag lot vehicular access leg, which connects to the public street. Such vehicular access leg is exclusive of a front yard setback area, as set out in Appendix A, attached to the ordinance codified in this title. C. Front Yard Setback. Those front yard setback requirements contained within Section 17.16.050 shall apply; provided, however, that for the purposes of measurement, the following methods shall be applicable, and as set out in Appendix A attached to the ordinance codified in this title. 1. When a single (one) flag lot is to be served by a driveway which is solely devoted to the exclusive use of such single flag lot, measurements shall be initiated from the front property line, as defined under subsection B of this section. 2. When two or more flag lots are to be serviced by a common driveway obtained through fee, easement, or in combination thereof, and when such lots lie partially within such common driveway, no setback measurements shall include any portion of such common driveway. 3. The Planning Commission may establish a new point of measurement for front yards; providing, however, that common driveways or vehicular access easements shall not be counted toward satisfying front yard setback requirements. D. Side Yard. Those side yard setback requirements contained within the underlying zone shall apply; provided, however, that for the purposes of measurement, the following methods shall be applicable as per described circumstances, and as set out in Appendix A attached to the ordinance codified in this title. 1. When a single (one) flag lot is to be served by a driveway which is solely devoted to the exclusive use of such single flag lot, measurements shall be initiated from the side property line. 2. When two or more flag lots are to be served by a common driveway obtained through fee, easement, or in combination thereof, and when such 3 EXHIBIT D lots lie partially within such common driveway, no setback measurements shall include any portion of such common driveway. E. Rear Yard. Those side yard setback requirements contained within the underlying zone shall apply. F. Lot Area. The minimum gross lot area shall be six thousand (6,000) square feet. For the purposes of this section, gross lot area shall mean the total area within the boundary lines of a lot or parcel, and the following shall also be applicable: The minimum developable lot area (net area), exclusive of vehicle access leg or common driveway access easements, shall be five thousand (5,000) square feet, and as set out in Appendix A attached to the ordinance codified in this title. G. Lot Width. The minimum lot width for a flag lot developable area as described in subsection E of this section shall be fifty (50) feet and shall be determined per the method described under Section 17.04.020, "Lot width," contained within this title. H. Lot Width-Street Frontage. The minimum street frontage for a flag lot development is directly dependent on the number of flag lots. The following requirements shall be applicable as per described circumstances, and as set out in Appendix A attached to the ordinance codified in this title. 1. The minimum street frontage for a single (one) flag lot shall be fifteen (15) feet. 2. The minimum street frontage for two flag lots which are so designed to provide a common vehicular access leg by way of fee, easement or combination thereof, shall be a minimum of three (3) feet of real property street frontage for each flag lot; provided; however, that the total street frontage for the two flag lots shall be a minimum of eighteen (18) feet. Such requirement may be achieved by a combined contribution of individual lot street frontage which equals the required access driveway width. 3. The minimum street frontage for three flag lots which are so designed to provide a common vehicular access leg by way of fee, easement or combination thereof, shall be a minimum of three (3) feet of real property street frontage for each flag lot; provided, however, that the total street frontage for the three flag lots shall be a minimum of twenty-six (26) feet. Such requirement may be achieved by a combined contribution of individual lot street frontage which equals the required access driveway. 4 EXHIBIT D 4. The minimum street frontage width for non-flag lot (conventional) parcels which face a public street, regardless of the number of flag lots in the development, shall be fifty (50) feet as prescribed in Section 17.16.090. 5. The street frontage access width may, be increased beyond those requirements contained within this subsection, based on the recommendations or requirements of the City Engineer or Fire Department. Driveway. The interior lot driveway requirements shall be the same dimensions and shall occur under the same circumstances as contained within the subsection H of this section. J. Application and Procedural Provisions Pertaining to Flag Lot Developments. 1. The requirements contained within this subsection shall only apply in conjunction with the consideration of a division of land which contains a flag lot. 2. A site plan, drawn to scale, which accurately depicts all proposed structures and required setbacks and vehicle driveways, shall be submitted in conjunction with any application for a division of land which contains a flag lot. The site plan will become a permanent formal record of reference within the city's subdivision files after the approval or denial of such plan. The surrounding areas and land uses shall be shown for a distance of at least three hundred (300) feet. 3. The Planning Commission will review the merits of each flag lot proposal in relationship to the immediate property and the surrounding area. 4. Vehicle access easements for reciprocal use or otherwise shall be shown on the tentative maps, together with a statement identifying which lots are subservient and which lots are to benefit from such easements. 5. Should the Planning Commission choose to approve a subdivision of land, reasonable conditions related to on- and off-site improvements may be required. Such conditions may include, but not be limited to, the following: a. Where three or more lots are created by a subdivision, all utilities shall be placed underground; b. Correct all building code violations that exist on the remaining structures; C. Correct all zoning violations; 5 EXHIBIT D d. Parcel maps splits are required to install street improvements; e. Residential driveway pavement requirements for two lot divisions are two inches of AC over three-inch base material crushed aggregate; all other divisions are four inches of AC over four-inch base material crushed aggregate, or six inches of concrete; f. New fencing and/or walls may be required along existing and proposed property lines; g. Where vehicle access easements are to be used, a covenant shall be prepared by the applicant for review and approval of the City Attorney. The covenant shall assure that private common driveways shall be continually maintained and that cost associated with such maintenance shall be equally shared by all future property owners, whose properties benefit within the division, and shall include the following provisions: i. They shall have the right to cause such repair to be accomplished, and to place liens on the involved properties, if in the estimation of the City Engineer, the subject common driveway has reached a state of disrepair which renders it a hazard, unsightly, or a public nuisance; and that the property owners involved have failed to act within a responsible period, thirty (30) days, after notification. ii. No parking shall be allowed within the private common driveway obtained by easement and signs restricting same shall be posted at conspicuous locations. The ability to cite violations of such parking restrictions shall be granted to the city. K. Public Hearing. A public hearing is required to be conducted on all divisions of land. This requirement applies to the creation of flag lots. The public will be notified in the manner prescribed by state and local regulations. L. Necessary Findings for Approval. The Planning Commission may approve the platting of flag lots where all of the following conditions are found to exist: 1. That the design is justified by topographic conditions or the size and shape of the property prohibits conventional lot division practices; 2. That proposed flag lot division is not so at variance with the existing neighborhood pattern or development as to create detrimental visual or privacy impacts. 6 EXHIBIT D M. Effective Date of Order Granting or Denying the Platting of Flag Lots-Time for Appeal. The resolution of the Planning Commission granting or denying the platting of flag lots shall become effective and final on the fourteenth day following its adoption unless within such period of time, an appeal in writing is filed with the City Clerk by the applicant or any other interested person. Any such appeal shall be accepted by the City Council. The timely filing of an appeal shall stay the effective date of the Planning Commission's resolution pending action by the City Council. N. Attached to the ordinance codified in this title, and incorporated herein by this reference, is that certain document entitled "Appendix A-Rosemead Municipal Code-Flag Lot Development," which contains drawings that depict typical flag lot measurements and layouts. SECTION 5. The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL of Municipal Code Amendment 10-05, revising standards for flag lot developments within the City of Rosemead. SECTION 6. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on July 19, 2010 by the following vote: YES: ALARCON, ENG, HERRERA, HUNTER, AND RUIZ NO: NONE 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 the Rosemead City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 19th day of July, 2010. William Alarcon, Chairman 7 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 its regular meeting, held on 19th day of July, 2010, by the following vote: YES: ALARCON, ENG, HERRERA, HUNTER, AND RUIZ NO: NONE ABSENT: NONE f~ ABSTAIN: NONE ?C I . Stan Wong, 8 APPENDIX "A'1 ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE LOT DEVELOPMENT REOUIREMENTS: SECTION 17.04.020 - LOT DEPTH I I W 1 1 ~ 2 LOT DEPTH LINE j O i YID-POINT I 1 ► I OI N7 LOT LIN E FRO -=ss 1K RT , - STREET R/W Arms LEG I I LOT DEPTH DEPTH LINE UNE FRONT LOT LIRE MID-POD71 1 1 ~1i I ~ 1 1 I 1 21 Fj ~ I LCff55 D9 J a p^1 ~ v4-3 O p I I 1 1 NOT TO SCALE DATE APPROVED - CITY OF ROSEMEAD STANDARD LOT DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENTS P-5 DEVELOPMENT 9 EXHIBIT D APPENDIX "A" ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE FLAG LOT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS: SECTION 17.15.140 (B). (C). (D) & (E) - YARDS REAR YARD STRUCTURE -RDNT: STRUCTURE REAR YARD ~ I YARD STREET / " FRONT YARD I I FRONT YARD STRUCTURE STRUCTURE WAR YARD REAR YARD NOT TO SCALE NOTE. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY ESTABLISH THE MOST APPROPRIATE LOT ORIENTATION FOR CONSISTENCY NTH NEIGHBORHOOD PATTERNS AND TO MINIMIZE VISION OR PRIVACY IMPACTS APPROVED- CITY OF ROSEMEAD STANDARD FLAG LOT DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. o YARD REQUIREMENTS - ALTERNATES P-6 10 EXHIBIT D APPENDIX "A" ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE FLAG LOT DEVELOPMENT REOUIREIMENTS: SECTION 17.16.140 (E) & (G) - LOT AREA & WIDTH 65' lk~ EE1' -16- ' 2 4 i FLAG LOT FLAG LOT FLAG LOT 1 6000 SO. fT. n 6000 50• FT. 6000 SO. FT. " CROSS GROSS GROSS I 5000 SO. FT. FT 5000 SO I 5000 50. F7. NET . NET / NET _ _ = vr. ' , 1 yyN;; 2 - FUG LOT o CONVENTIONAL it FLAG LOT co+ " '6000 S0. FT. GROSS LOT 6000 SO. FT. 6000 50. FT. GROSS 5000 $d. FT. NET . 5000 50. FT. I N NET l \V V/ l EASEMUIT Z 2 STREET 1 H _ FUG LOT R/W CONVENTIONAL y~ ` '8000 50. FT. - LOT c ' GROSS N ~ 6000 SO. FT. - FT 5000 SO 19' AN. NET . . NET T ACN. 1n1 I •OMSS SE6 ' SJ' PAIN. • EAYIIFM I STREET r 1 T R/W CONVENTIONAL - 20'AUU. _ _ LOT v 6000 SO. FT. NET 21 - STREET NOT TO SCALE _R/W NOTE: GROSS LOT AREA INCLUDES THE ACCESS LEG NET LOT AREA EXCLUDES THE ACCESS LEG AND/OR EASEMENT DATE APPROVED _ CITY OF ROSEMEAD STANDARD FLAG LOT DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO, CSRECTOR OF COMMUNITY LOT AREA & MOTH REQUIREMENTS P-7 Kv Ab.U .T ' 11 EXHIBIT D ORDINANCE NO. 560 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR "FLAG LOT" DEVELOPMENTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 9102.54 of the Rosemead Zoning Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "9102.54. Yard, front shall mean an area extending across the full width of the lot and lying between the front lot line and a line parallel thereto, and having a distance between them equal to the required front yard depth as prescribed in each zone.' Front yards shall be measured by a line at right angles to the front lot line, or by the radial line in the case of a curved front lot line. When a lot lies partially within a planned street or common driveway indicated on a precise plan or division of land for such a street and where such planned street or common driveway is of the type that will afford legal access to such lot, the depth of the front yard shall be measured from the contiguous edge of such planned street or common driveway in the 11 manner prescribed in this definition. Section 2. New Section 9102.36(01) is hereby added to the Rosemead Zoning Code to read as follows: "9102.36(01). Lot width shall mean the horizontal distance between the side lot lines measured at right angles to the lot depth line at a point midway between the front and rear lot lines. Average width shall be the average of the length of line drawn parallel to the "lot width line" extending toward the front and rear lot lines at ten (10) foot intervals, but excluding from such determination any prolongated portions of the lot used exclusively for access to a public street or for a driveway. In computing lot width or average width, the following shall be excluded: (a) Any portion of said width which serves as an access easement to any other lot or building site; and EXHIBIT E 1 (b) Any portion of said width which serves as an improved surface food control project under the jurisdiction of any public agency." Section 3. New Section 9102.29(1) is hereby added to the Rosemead Zoning Code to read as follows: "9102.29(1). Lot depth as depicted on Appendix "A", attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, shall mean the length of a straight line drawn from the midpoint of the front lot line and at right angles to such line connecting with the line intersecting the midpoint of the rear lot line; provided, however, that for the purpose of measurement, methods of measurement shall be applicable as per the following described circumstances: (a) In the case of a lot having a curved front line, the front lot line, for the purposes of this Section, shall be deemed to be a line tangent to the curve and parallel to a straight line connecting the points of intersection of the side lot lines of the lot with the front lot line. (b) In the case of a flag lot, for the purposes of this Section, the front lot line shall be that property line which extends across the width of the lot, which is exclusive of and is not to be confused with, those property lines contained within the flag lot vehicle access leg to the public street." Section 4. New Section 9102.29(2) is hereby added to the Rosemead Zoning Code to read as follows: "9102.29(2). Lot, flag shall mean a lot whose shape or property line configuration is created in a manner which utilizes an extension of property for the exclusivepurpose of obtaining vehiclar and pedestrian access to a public street, or as described within Appendix "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference." Section 5. Section 9102.28 of the Rosemead Zoning Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "9102.28. Lot area shall mean the total area within the boundary lines of a lot or parcel; provided, however, that the following shall be excluded from the computation thereof: (a) Any portion of said serves as an access easement building site; or lot or parcel which to any other lot or 2 (b) Any portion of said serves as an improved surface under the jurisdiction of any lot or parcel which flood control project public agency. For the purpose of determining area in the case of an irregular, triangular or gore-shaped lot, a line ten (10) feet in length within the lot and furthest removed from the front lot line and at right angles to the line representing the lot depth of such lot shall be used as the rear lot line." Section 6. New Section 9104.21 is hereby added to the Rosemead Zoning Code to read as follows: "9104.21. Flag Lot Development, Purpose of Standards of Development. In order to provide the opportunity lor sin g= amily residential flag lot development, and to maintain the integrity of existing single-family areas, the following regulations and criteria of evaluating flag lot development are esta- blished. However, in no case shall more than three (3) flag lots be allowed within any subdivision considera- tion. A. All development standards and definitions contained within this Chapter shall continue to be applicable and in force unless otherwise specifically addressed within this Section. Particular reference is made to Section 9104.7 pertaining to a minimum fifty foot (50') street frontage. The applicability of this requirement to non-flag lot parcels, which may be part of the land division under consideration, is hereby emphasized for clarity. B. Front yard. For the purposes of this Section, a front yard shall be defined as that area which extends across the width of the lot, or as otherwise defined within Section 9102.54 and is immediately adjacent to the flag lot vehicular access leg, which connects to the public street. Such vehicular access leg is exclusive of a front yard setback area, as depicted within Appendix "A" herein. C. Front Yard Setback. Those front yard setback requirements contained within Section 9104.3 herein shall apply; provided, however, that for the purposes of measurement, the following methods shall be applicable, and as depicted within Appendix "C" herein. (1) When a single (one) flag lot is to be served by a driveway which is solely devoted to the exclusive use of such single 3 flag lot, measurements shall be initiated from the front property line, as, defined under the preceeding subsection B. (2) When two or more flag lots are to be serviced by a common driveway obtained through fee, easement, or in combination thereof, and when such lots lie partially within such common driveway, no setback measurements shall include any portion of such common driveway. (3) The Planning Commission may establish a new point of measurement for front yards; providing, however, that common driveways or vehicular access easements shall not be counted towards satisfying front yard setback requirements. D. Side Yard. The minimum side yard setback shall be five feet (5'); provided, however, that for the purposes of measurement, the following methods shall be applicable as per described circumstances and as depicted within Appendix "A" herein. (1) When a single (one) flag lot is to be served by a driveway which is solely devoted to the exclusive use of such single flag lot, measurements shall be initiated from the side property line. (2) When two or more flag lots are to be served by a common driveway obtained through fee, easement, or in combination thereof, and when such lots lie partially within such common driveway, no setback measurements shall include any portion of such common driveway. E. Lot Area. The minimum lot area shall be six thousand 6,000) square feet and shall be calculated as per Section 9102.28, provided, however, that for the purposes of this Section, the following shall be applicable: (1) The minimum developable lot area, exclusive of vehicle access leg or common driveway access easements, shall be five thousand (5,000) square feet and as depicted within Appendix "A" herein. F. Lot Width. The minimum lot width for a flag lot developable area as described in the preceeding subsection E(1) shall be fifty feet (50') and shall be determined per the method 4 described under Definitions, Section 9102.36(01) Lot Width, contained within this Chapter. G. Lot Width, Street Frontage. The minimum street frontage for a flag lot development is directly dependent on the number of flag lots. The following requirements shall be applicable as per described circumstances and as depicted within Appendix "A" herein. (1) The minimum street frontage for a siWe (one) flag lot shall be fifteen feet (15 (2) The minimum street frontage for two or more lots which are so designed to provide a common vehicular access leg by way of fee, easement, or combination thereof, shall provide a minimum of three feet (3') of real property street frontage; provided, however, that the following minimum street access widths are established: (a) The street frontage for two (2) lots shall be eighteen feet (18'); pro- vided, however, that such requirement may be achieved by a combined contribution of individual lot street frontage which equals the required access driveway width. (b) The street frontage for three (3) flag lots shall be twenty-six feet (26'); provided, however, that such requirement may be achieved by a combined contribution of individual lot street frontage which equals the required street frontage width. (3) The minimum street frontage width for non-flag lot parcels which face a public street shall be fifty feet (50') as prescribed in Section 9104.7. (4) The street frontage access width may be increased beyond those requirements contained within this subpart, based on the recommendation of the City Engineer or Fire Department. H. Driveway. requirements shall be occur under the same within the preceeding Street Frontage. The interior lot driveway the same dimensions and shall circumstances as contained subsection G. Lot Width, 5 I. Application and Procedural Provisions Pertaining to Flag Lot Developments. (1) The requirements contained within this Section shall only apply in conjunction with the consideration of a division of land which contains a flag lot. (2) That a site plan, drawn to scale, which accurately depicts all proposed structures and required setbacks and vehicle driveways, shall be submitted in conjunction with any application for a division of land which contains a flag lot. The site plan will become a permanent formal record of reference within the City's subdivision files after the approval or denial of such plan. The surrounding areas and land uses shall be shown for a distance of at least three hundred feet (300'). (3) The Planning Commission will review the merits of each flag lot proposal in relationship to the immediate property and the surrounding area. (4) Vehicle access easements for reciprocal use or otherwise' shall be shown on the tentative maps, together with a statement identifying which lots are subservient and which lots-are to benefit from such easements. (5) Should the Planning Commission choose to approve a subdivision of land, reasonable conditions related to on- and off- site improvements may be required. Such conditions may include, but not be limited to, the following: (a) Where three (3) or more lots are created by a subdivision, all utilities shall be placed underground. (b) Correct all building code vio- lations that exist on the remaining structures. (c) Correct all zoning violations. (d) Parcel maps splits are required to install street improvements. (e) Residential driveway pavement requirements for two (2) lot divisions are 2 inches of AC over 3 inch base 6 material crushed aggregate; all other divisions are 4 inches of AC over 4 inch base material crushed aggregate, or 6 inches of concrete. (f) New fencing and/or walls may be required along existing and proposed property lines. (g) Where vehicle access easements are to be used, a covenant shall be prepared by the applicant for review and approval of the City Attorney. The covenant shall assure that private common driveways shall be continually maintained and that cost associated with such maintenance shall be equally shared by all future property owners, whose properties benefit within the division, and shall include the following provisions: (i) The City shall have the right to cause such repair to be accomplished, and to place liens on the involved properties, if in the estimation of the City Engineer, the subject common driveway has reached a state of disrepair which renders it a hazard, unsightly, or a public nuisance; and that the property owners involved have failed to act within a reasonable period, (thirty days), after notification. (ii) That no parking shall be allowed within the private common driveway obtained by easement and signs restricting same shall be posted at conspicuous locations. The ability to cite violations of such parking restrictions shall be granted to the City of Rosemead. J. Public Hearing. A public hearing is required to be conducted on all divisions of land. This requirement applies to the creation of flag- lots. The public will be notified in the manner prescribed by State and local regulations. K. Necessary Findings for Approval. The Planning Commission may approve the platting of flag lots where all of the following conditions are found to exist. 7 (1) That the design is justified by topographic conditions or the size and shape of the property prohibits conventional lot division practices. (2) That proposed flag lot division is not so at variance with the existing neighbor- hood pattern or development as to create detrimental visual or privacy impacts. L. Effective Date of Order Granting or Den in the Plattin of Fla Lots - Time for A eal. e resolution o the Planning Commission granting or denying the platting of flag lots shall become' effective and final on the fourteenth (14th) day following its adoption unless within such period of time, an appeal in writing is filed with the City Clerk by the applicant or any other interested person. Any such appeal shall be accepted by the City Council. The timely filing of an appeal shall stay the effective date of the Planning Commission's resolution pending action by the City Council. M. Attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, is that certain document entitled "Appendix A - Rosemead Municipal Code - Flag Lot Development", which contains drawings that depict typical flag lot measurements and layouts." Section 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption o this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be processed as required by law. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 12th day of July, 1983. MA ATTEST: CITY CLERK 8 APPENDIX "A" ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE LOT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS: SECTION 9102.29 (1) - LOT DEPTH wl 1 J H o LOT H 2 O ~ f LL DEPTH LINE MID - POINT - ACCESS LEG TREET R/W TE APPROVED CCES I 1 wl z I LOT DEPTH LINE I z MID' POINT z I o r I a w ° ° ACCESS I L E G \2~ 0 JI / o / Q' / / ~O s R, wFl STANDARD PLAN NO. P-5 DIRECTOR 0 PLANNING FRONT LOT LINE z JI I r xl = o a LL w~ ° I o 0I o f J I I NOT TO SCALE CITY OF ROSEMEAD LOT DEVELOPMENT LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENTS APPENDIX "A" ROSEMEAD CITY MUNICIPAL CODE FLAG LOT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS: SECTION 9104.21 (B), (C) & (D)-YARDS 15'1\ \ I ACCESS LEG FRONT YARD O r--- _Ja 5 I STRUCTURE to °I i~ ~990~6 Ni I 090 , L- / 4`, SIDE YARD N 15 I REAR 0 YARD N - al >I ly I I I - STRUCTURE F w wl of to _ Nj IN REAR °1 YARD ~I SIDE YARD I. I ' I FRONT STRUCTURE I REAR I YARD I YARD 20, i 2 0_ 510E YARD ACCESS LEG ;TREE-. R / W NOT TO SCALE DATE APPROVED « CITY OF R O S E M EA D STANDARD FLAG LOT.DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. '14 4 ILANNING DF PLANNING YARD REQUIREMENTS - ALTERNATES P-6 APPENDIX "A" ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE FLAG LOT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS: SECTION 9104.20 (E) & (G) - LOT AREA & WIDTH wo LOT SUBDIVISION THREE LOT SUBDIVISION F OUR LOT SUBDIVISI ON T 6 5 2 3 4 FLAG LOT FLAG LOT FLAG LOT 5000 SO.FT. r 5000 SO. FT 5000 SOFT. NET NET NET ACCESS ACCESS EASEMENT EA SEMENT M 2 3 FLAG LOT 0 w I FLAG LOT 0 ' TIONAL _ 0 w 5000 SOFT. - f 5000 SOFT. I T I NET a NET i SO. FT. T MIN- 4CCES5 LEG I ACCESS 6 EASE MENT EASEMENT EET C5 2 /W I ~ ~ I FLAG LOT o - O J Z - CONVENTIONAL cv ~ ~ I 5000 SO. FT. LOT u N _ NET 15 MIN. 6000 SO. FT ¢ w NET 3 MIN. 50 MIN. ACCESS LEG BEASEMENT STREET ~ ~ R/W - I _ o CONVENTIONAL LOT 20 MIN. 6000 SOFT. 3 MIN. ET N 3 MIN. ' --50 MIN: STREET NOT TO SCALE - R/ W NOTE NET LOT AREA EXCLUDES THE ACCESS LEG AND/ O R EASEMENT CITY OF ROSEMEAD DATE APPROVED Z7 STANDARD FLAG LOT DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. DIRECTo of LOT AREA & WIDTH REQUIREMENTS P-7 PLANNING MCA 10-05 Flag lots Amendments Draft: July 26, 2010 Chapter 17.04 GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS 17.04.020 Definitions. "Lot depth" means the length of a straight line drawn from the midpoint of the front lot line and at right angles to such line connecting with the line intersecting the midpoint of the rear lot line; provided, however, that for the purpose of measurement, methods of measurement shall be applicable as per the following described circumstances: 1. In the case of lot having a curved front line, the front lot line, for the purposes of this section, shall be deemed to be a line tangent to the curve and parallel to a straight line connecting the points of intersection of the side lot lines of the lot with the front lot line. , 2. In the case of a flag lot, for the purposes of this section, the front lot line shall be that property line which extends across the width of the lot, which is exclusive of and is not to be confused with, those property lines contained within the flag lot vehicle access leg to the public street. The front lot line may be parallel or perpendicular to the street which abuts the property. Chapter 17.16 SINGLE-FAMILY R-1 REGULATIONS' 17.16.140 Flag lot development. In order to provide the opportunity for single-family residential flag lot development, and to maintain the integrity of existing single-family areas, the following regulations and criteria of evaluating flag lot development are established. However, in no case shall more than three Q flag lots and one non-flag (conventional) lot be allowed within any subdivision-an+#eF sensidefatiAR. A. All development standards and definitions contained within this title shall continue to be applicable and in force unless otherwise specifically addressed within this section. Particular reference is made to Section 17.16.090 pertaining to a minimum fifty (50) foot street frontage. The applicability of this requirement to non-flag lot (conventional) parcels, which may be part of the land division under consideration, is emphasized for clarity. B. Front Yard. For the purposes of this section, a "front yard" is defined as that area which extends across the width of the lot, or as otherwise defined within Section 17.04.020 and is immediately adjacent to the flag lot vehicular access leg, which connects to the public street. Such vehicular access leg is exclusive of a front yard setback area, as set out in Appendix A, attached to the ordinance codified in this title. EXHIBIT F MCA 10-05 Flag lots Amendments Draft: July 26, 2010 C. Front Yard Setback. Those front yard setback requirements contained within Section 17.16.050 shall apply; provided, however, that for the purposes of measurement, the following methods shall be applicable, and as set out in Appendix AS attached to the ordinance codified in this title. 1. When a single (one) flag lot is to be served by a driveway which is solely devoted to the exclusive use of such single flag lot, measurements shall be initiated from the front property line, as defined under subsection B of this section. 2. When two or more flag lots are to be serviced by a common driveway obtained through fee, easement, or in combination thereof, and when such lots lie partially within such common driveway, no setback measurements shall include any portion of such common driveway. 3. The Planning Commission may establish a new point of measurement for front yards; providing, however, that common driveways or vehicular access easements shall not be counted toward satisfying front yard setback requirements. D. Side Yard. hose side vard setback requirements contained within the underlying zone shall i 1~rh ~•ae elhonL ~h..~~ he fe=!_ provided, however, that for the purposes of measurement, the following methods shall be applicable as per described circumstances, and as set out in Appendix A attached to the ordinance codified in this title. 1. When a single (one) flag lot is to be served by a driveway which is solely devoted to the exclusive use of such single flag lot, measurements shall be initiated from the side property line. 2. When two or more flag lots are to be served by a common driveway obtained through fee, easement, or in combination thereof, and when such lots lie partially within such common driveway, no setback measurements shall include any portion of such common driveway. E. F. Lot Area. The minimum gross lot area shall be fix thousand (6,000) _I sjsquare feet. Fand or the purposes of this section, ttae cross lot area shall mean the total area within the boundary lines of a lot or parcel, and the following shall also be applicable: The minimum developable lot area (net area), exclusive of vehicle access leg or common driveway access easements, shall be five thousand (5,000) square feet, and as set out in Appendix A attached to the ordinance codified in this title. EXHIBIT F MCA 10-05 Flag lots Amendments Draft: July 26, 2010 G. €Lot Width. The minimum lot width for a flag lot developable area as described in subsection E of this section shall be fifty (50) feet and shall be determined per the method described under Section 17.04.020, "Lot width," contained within this title. H. GLot Width-Street Frontage. The minimum street frontage for a flag lot development is directly dependent on the number of flag lots. The following requirements shall be applicable as per described circumstances, and as set out in Appendix A attached to the ordinance codified in this title. 1. The minimum street frontage for a single (one) flag lot shall be fifteen (15) feet. 2. The minimum street frontage for two owe flag lots which are so designed to provide a common vehicular access leg by way of fee, easement or combination thereof, shall beprevide a minimum of three j1feet of real property street frontage for each flap lot; provided, however, that the total street frontage for the two flag lots shall be a minimum of eighteen (18) feet. Such requirement may be achieved by a combined contribution of individual lot street frontage which equals the required access driveway width. The minimum street frontage for three flag lots which are so designed to provide a common vehicular access leg by way of fee easement or combination thereof, shall be a minimum of three (3) feet of real property street frontage for each flag lot: provided, however, that the total street frontage for the three flag lots shall be a minimum of twenty-six (26) feet. Such requirement may be achieved by a combined contribution of individual lot street frontage which equals the required access driveway, feAG" _h.The street freRtage feF thFee flag lets shall be hVeRty SiX (26) feetj PFOYided, howeveF, that f t .hhieh e.. als the eq Fed cfreef fmnfen i rW. 3. 34. The minimum street frontage width for non-flag lot (conventional) parcels which face a public street-, regardless of the number of flag lots in the development, shall be fifty (50) feet as prescribed in Section 17.16.090. 4-5. The street frontage access width may be increased beyond those requirements contained within this subsection, based on the recommendations or requirements of the City Engineer or Fire Department. #Driveway. The interior lot driveway requirements shall be the same dimensions and shall occur under the same circumstances as contained within the subsection G-H of this section. EXHIBIT F MCA 10-05 Flag lots Amendments Draft: July 26, 2010 J. (Application and Procedural Provisions Pertaining to Flag Lot Developments. 1. The requirements contained within this subsection shall only apply in conjunction with the consideration of a division of land which contains a.flag lot. 2. A site plan, drawn to scale, which accurately depicts all proposed structures and required setbacks and vehicle driveways, shall be submitted in conjunction with any application for a division of land which contains a flag lot. The site plan will become a permanent formal record of reference within the city's subdivision files after the approval or denial of such plan. The surrounding areas and land uses shall be shown for a distance of at least three hundred (300) feet. 3. The Planning Commission will review the merits of each flag lot proposal in relationship to the immediate property and the surrounding area. 4. Vehicle access easements for reciprocal use or otherwise shall be shown on the tentative maps, together with a statement identifying which lots are subservient and which lots are to benefit from such easements. 5. Should the Planning Commission choose to approve a subdivision of land, reasonable conditions related to on- and off-site improvements may be required. Such conditions may include, but not be limited to, the following: a. Where three or more lots are created by a subdivision, all utilities shall be placed underground; b. Correct all building code violations that exist on the remaining structures; c. Correct all zoning violations; d. Parcel maps splits are required to install street improvements; e. Residential driveway pavement requirements for two lot divisions are two inches of AC over three-inch base material crushed aggregate; all other divisions are four inches of AC over four-inch base material crushed aggregate, or six inches of concrete; f. New fencing and/or walls may be required along existing and proposed property lines; g. Where vehicle access easements are to be used, a covenant shall be prepared by the applicant for review and approval of the City Attorney. The covenant shall assure that private common driveways shall be continually maintained and that cost. associated with such maintenance shall be equally shared by all future property EXHIBIT F MCA 10-05 Flag lots Amendments Draft: July 26, 2010 owners, whose properties benefit within the division, and shall include the following provisions: They shall have the right to cause such repair to be accomplished, and to place liens on the involved properties, if in the estimation of the City Engineer, the subject common driveway has reached a state of disrepair which renders it a hazard, unsightly, or a public nuisance; and that the property owners involved have failed to act within a responsible period, thirty (30) days, after notification. ii. No parking shall be allowed within the private common driveway obtained by easement and signs restricting same shall be posted at conspicuous locations. The ability to cite violations of such parking restrictions shall be granted to the city. K. JPublic Hearing. A public hearing is required to be conducted on all divisions of land. This requirement applies to the creation of flag lots. The public will be notified in the manner prescribed by state and local regulations. L. KNecessary Findings for Approval. The Planning Commission may approve the platting of flag lots where all of the following conditions are found to exist: 1. That the design is justified by topographic conditions or the size and shape of the property prohibits conventional lot division practices, 2. That proposed flag lot division is not so at variance with the existing neighborhood pattern or development as to create detrimental visual or privacy impacts. M. 6Effective Date of Order Granting or Denying the Platting of Flag Lots-Time for Appeal. The resolution of the Planning Commission granting or denying the platting of flag lots shall become effective and final on the fourteenth day following its adoption unless within such period of time, an appeal in writing is filed with the City Clerk by the applicant or any other interested person. Any such appeal shall be accepted by the City Council. The timely filing of an appeal shall stay the effective date of the Planning Commission's resolution pending action by the City Council. N. M.Attached to the ordinance codified in this title, and incorporated herein by this reference, is that certain. document entitled "Appendix A-Rosemead Municipal Code-Flag Lot Development," which contains drawings that depict typical flag lot measurements and layouts. EXHIBIT F FROM: SU TAN, HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER@J DATE: AUGUST 24, 2010 RE: MERIT SALARY ADJUSTMENT - CITY MANAGER SUMMARY On July 27, 2010, the City Council conducted an annual review of the City Manager's job performance and provided a rating of Substantially Exceeds Expectations. The City's established policies and procedures for merit salary adjustments apply to the City Manager in the same manner as all other full-time employees. Under the City's compensation system, a performance rating of Substantially Exceeds Expectations equates to a merit salary adjustment of 5% within the salary range. However, in light of current economic conditions, the City Manager has offered to forego one-half of the merit salary increase and accept an adjustment of 2.5%. Staff Recommendation That the City Council approve the merit salary adjustment within the salary range for the City Manager effective on August 24, 2010. BACKGROUND The City's compensation system for all full-time employees provides for annual performance evaluations and eligibility for merit salary adjustments within established salary ranges. This policy reads as follows: TEAM MEMBER SALARY ADJUSTMENT WITHIN SALARY RANGE BASED ON JOB PERFORMANCE Effective July 1, 2010, all full-time Team Members will be part of the 0%-5% Merit Based Compensation System. All Team Member salary increases, within the salary range, will be based on merit through annual performance evaluations instead of cost-of-living adjustments. Based on the Team Member's performance score on his/her performance evaluation, a Team Member will be eligible for a merit increase. Team Member salaries may not exceed the maximum salary range within his/her respective job classification. The following is the performance rating categories and percentage increases that a Team Member may be eligible for based upon funding: ITEM NO. CL TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL w: Ratin Pv, Percentage Unsatisfactory 0% Needs Development 0% Meets Expectations 2%-3% Exceeds Expectations 4% Substantially Exceeds Expectations 5% The annual salary range for Rosemead's City Manager classification is $146,205 to $197,807. A 2.5% increase over the City Manager Jeff Allred's current salary rate will bring his annual salary to $179,375, which is well below the salary range maximum and prevailing rates in surrounding cities. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. FISCAL IMPACT Funds for merit salary adjustments for full-time employees have been included in the City's 2010-11 Fiscal Year Budget. Attachment: City of Rosemead Accomplishments in 2009-10 Fiscal Year City of Rosemead Accomplishments in 2009-10 Fiscal Year General • A Strategic Plan adopted by the City Council has set the course for the City and established direction for commissions and staff. • Adopted a balanced Budget for FY 2010-11 resolving a $1.2 million General Fund shortfall without reductions in services • Integrated the results of a comprehensive classification and compensation study and "pension reform" measures into a new MOU with the Rosemead Employees Association and resolutions for other employee categories • Approved a CDC bond issue to generate $9.6 million for capital improvement projects without increasing taxes or assessments to residents and businesses • Reduced full-time employee staffing levels by eliminating the positions of Public Safety Director, Public Affairs Associate, City Planner, Associate Planner and a second Assistant City Manager through "attrition", as well as an Administrative Assistant and a Maintenance Worker through "golden handshake" retirements • Adopted the City's first-ever Comprehensive Fee Resolution and updated cost recovery fees for "individualized" services Community Development • Appointed a department Director (Stan Wong) with solid experience in the fields of municipal land use and economic development • Revised the City's General Plan and corresponding Zoning Code amendments, to: 1) limit "mixed-use" developments to specific nodes in commercial corridors; and, 2) place High Intensity Commercial designations on the former Auto Auction and Barr Lumber properties • Attracted and processed businesses developments including: - Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market - Expansion of Target to "super store" status with grocery dept. - Dollar Tree Store at Rosemead Place Center - Subway, Red Ribbon Bakeshop and Wells Fargo Bank at Walmart Center - DoubleTree Hotel expansion and a planned nearby Olive Garden restaurant - UFC Gym • Renegotiated contract with Willdan for building inspection and plan check services with more favorable financial terms for the City • Revised and reinstituted the commercial fagade improvement program 1 • Developed a Beautification Awards program • Formed a subcommittee of the City Council and Planning Commission on the creation of a Downtown Rosemead plan Parks & Recreation • Coordinated outstanding special events including: - 4th of July Parade, Carnival and Fireworks Show - 9/11 Memorial Service - Oktoberfest - Holiday Tree Lighting Ceremony - The 15t Annual Lunar New Year Family Festival - Memorial Day Service • Celebrated the City's 50th Anniversary with a variety of events and activities including: - Six Concerts in the Park - City Birthday Celebration in conjunction with National Night Out attended by over 1,200 people - Rosemead Night at Dodger Stadium • Developed a 15-year Parks, Recreation & General Services Master Plan which is ready for Council approval in July of 2010 • Completed a Dinsmoor House Master Plan • Initiated a successful Summer Day Camp program • Approved schematic designs for new Aquatic Centers at Rosemead Park and Garvey Park • Applied for a State Proposition 84-funded grant for development of the proposed Garvey Aquatic Center • Authorized $240,000 in renovations to improve safety at four playgrounds • Initiated a successful Tiny Tots sports program for preschoolers • Authorized creation of a 10th Anniversary 9/11 Memorial including a World Trade Center artifact (and a community-wide donor program to fund the project) Public Works • Improved aesthetics and traffic circulation on Walnut Grove Avenue near the 1-10 Freeway underpass; and prepared plans for similar improvements near freeway underpasses on Rosemead Blvd., San Gabriel Blvd., Del Mar Avenue and New Avenue • Reduced maintenance costs by $200,000 through competitive bidding: - Landscape maintenance (Spring 2009) - $64,000 annual savings - Tree maintenance (Winter 2010) - $35,000 annual savings z - Janitorial service (Summer 2009) - $45,000 annual savings - Street sweeping (Spring 2010) - $53,000 annual savings • Completed beautification projects - Ramona Blvd. North - Triangle Park @ SR-60 Freeway Interchange - Caltrans yard @ Hellman & Walnut Grove Avenues - Marshall Avenue medians (in progress) • Completed street resurfacing projects - Whitmore Street east of Del Mar Avenue including landscaping and pedestrian bridge improvements - Earle Avenue from Fern to Garvey Avenues - Del Mar Avenue from Garvey Ave to the 1-10 Freeway - Garvey Avenue from West city limit to Del Mar Ave. - Slurry sealing of 42 streets (approx. 7 miles) - City-wide curb ramps (500 ramps) and sidewalk (150,000 sq.ft.) installation in progress • Planted over 600 trees in residential neighborhoods, commercial areas, and City parks/facilities • Revised the Citys' newsrack ordinance and began enforcement process • Developed a neighborhood traffic management program with a "tool box" of traffic calming options • Worked with SCE for Rule 20A utility undergrounding project on Walnut Grove Avenue Public Safety • Appointed Sheriff Lieutenant (Tim Murakami) as Rosemead's Chief of Police to provide "unity" of command and purpose within the department at annual cost savings of $112,000 • Reduction of Crime--Part I Crimes decreased by nearly 10% in 2009 and continue to decline in 2010. - Between Sept.-Dec. 2009 Part I Crimes were reduced by 128 - Annual reduction in burglaries by 96 - Numerous significant arrests of gang members • Created the Public Safety CONNECTIONS Forum to prevent crime and combat alcohol and drug abuse • Shut down two illegally operated marijuana dispensaries and an unpermitted hostess bar within the City • Initiated monthly anti-graffiti meetings attended by school officials, El Monte PD, Montebello PD, Monterey Park PD, Alhambra PD and San Gabriel PD resulting in identification and arrest of taggers 3 • Deployment of a code enforcement officer in commercial areas resulting in discovery of unpermitted problem businesses (i.e., marijuana dispensaries, prostitution operations) and creation of the Garvey Beautification Project • Continued to convene monthly crime prevention meetings involving residents • Provided Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) training to 47 individuals • Use of code enforcement officers to evict gang members and other criminals involved in narcotics sales and use, weapons, burglaries, stolen property, etc. • Initiated in-house animal control and dog licensing services without increases to full-time staffing levels improving services at a savings of $55,000 4