Loading...
PC - Minutes - 08-01-60CITY OF ROSEMEAD ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA Planning Commission Minutes of August 1, 1960 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead was held in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3954 North Rosemead Boulevard. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Wilt at 8 :05 o'clock p.m. 1. , The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Kunz. 2. Present: Commissioners: Casares, Kunz, Lieberg, McCaffree, Rightmeier, Sam, Wilt. Absent: Commissioners: None. 'Ex officio: Boyko, Flanery, Farrell, Pederson. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Commissioner Casares stated that in paragraph 5 of item 4 "no higher than the fence itself" should be stricken. Aso that fir. Flanerys's name should be inserted in parentheses after the word "him" in the last line of Paragraph 3 of item 7. Attorney Boyko corrected the spelling of his name in line is of item 2. It was moved by Casares, second by McCaffree, and unanimously carried, that the minutes of July 18, 1960 be approved as corrected. 4. OLD BUSINESS. SPECIAL PERMIT CASE NO. 1. CHILD NURSERY SCHOOL.- 8756 MISSION DRIVE. Attorney Boyko.reported on why this item appeared on the agenda again, s ince the Commissioner who seconded the motion and who also voted for approval of this special permit at the meeting.of July 18, 1960 had not been present at the Public Hearing on this case the vote to approve was invalid and therefore void. Mir. Boyko also stated thatthe matter could be reconsidered with all three Commissioners who had not been at the Public Hearing abstaining. Commissioner McCaffree suggested that the entire matter be taken up once more, beginning with a new public hearing. Attorney Boyko and Advisor Flanery explained the procedure necessary to begin proceedings anew without further cost to applicant. Cha.irman Wilt stated his agreement with McCaffree's suggestion. Commissioner McCaffree muoed and Wilt seconded that Special Permit Case No. 1 be denied without prejudice and be reopened with notif- ication of a Public Hearing. Commissioner Casares stated that he felt the Commission was not being entirely fair to applicant since what they were now.about to do was similar to placing applicant in double jeopardy. Commissioner Rightmeier stated that in the previous action (July 18) the invalid vote meant the motion to approve would have failed, therefore there was no reason to do it again. Commissioner Lieberg stated that it would appear that the previous action would have to be rescinded. Attorney Boyko explained that since there was no valid action there was nothing to rescind, and that the matter now rested at the same place as when the Public Hearing was closed. After further discussion by Casares and Right- meier the following roll call vote was taken on the motion: Ayes: McCaffree, Wilt. Noes: Casares, Rightmeier. Abstentions: Kunz, Lieberg, Sam. Absent: None. The motion failed for lack of a majority. 5. 6. Commissioner Casares moved that the action of the Commission in approving Special Permit Case No. 1 be ratified. Commissioner R ghtmeier seconded the motion, majority with the following rol Rightmeier. Noes: McCaffree, Sam. Absent: None. which failed for lack of a 1 call vote: Ayes: Casares, Wilt. Abstain: Kunz, Lieberg, Commissioner Lieberg moved, second by McCaffree, that the matter come before a Public Hearing again and thereby be reinstituted. Commissioner Rightmeier stated that the case was clear, that there will again be no majority although a quorum is present, and that he could see no reason why application should be made again. He also charged that the opponents to granting the permit took that position only because no stone wall had been required, and stated that the majority of the Commission felt this was prohibitive and therefore not fair to the applicant, nor to those citizens who opposed the permit. Chairman Wilt stated that the matter should be reopened. In response to Rightmeier's charge, Commissioner McCaffree stated that misleading statements as to costs of the wall were made, that the wall would cost approximately $2,700. rather than the $8,000. previously quoted, and that the planting and erection' of a chain -link fence would be more costly than a wall. McCaffree also stated that according to the decision that had been previously, rendered the school could not be used until the planting had reached a height of 42 feet. Thus, due to misleading information the matter should be reconsidered by the entire Commission. conduded McCaffree. The motion was.amended, upon suggestion by Lieberg and Casares, to provide that the City bear the expense of reapplication to a maximum of $25.00 so as not to penalize applicant for the Commiss- ions' error. Mr. Flanery stated that that sum would be adequate. Roll call vote on the motion as amended was unanimous for approval. At this time Commissioner Casares requested the Council to have a uniformed officer present at all future meetings. Wilt suggested this be done just for certain occassions. Rightmeier stated that the Chair had been too lenient, and that is why the audience became unruly in the past, and that from now on no one be permitted to speak unless standing before the Commi- ssion. Mr. Farrell said arrangements could be made to have an officer here when needed. After more discussion Rightmeier asked that the rule be applied that no matter may be taken up that is not on the agenda. Chairman Wilt applied the rule forthwith and the matter was dropped. OLD BUSINESS PLOT PLAN NO. 20. CAYWOOD. 8779 Ralph Street. investigation. Advisor Flanery stated that the status.of this matter, due to complication regarding deed restrictions and dedication of the area in question, was such that the Commission could not take action at this time. The matter was taken under submission until such time as the Commission could act, and was removed from the agenda with no objections. At this time Mr. Kermin Haines of Harmony Builders, Inc:, 8635 Valley Boulevard was recognized by the Chair. Mr.-Haines, Mr. Flanery, and Mr. Farrell.discussed the matter to clear up.some of the questions Mr. Haines had and to advise him on'his action from this point. REPORT RE: CITY COUNCIL REQUEST. Commissioner McCaffree requested more time for the committee that had been appointed to make its report. He stated that some work had been done but moretime was needed i.n order to make a thorough -2- Commissioner Rightmeier stated that hethought it was shocking that the closer together people get the farther apart they want to be. He.also stated that any action that might be discriminatory should be considered very seriously, that there were many people in town with animals, and that the Master Plan was coming up. Chairman Wilt also asked for m ^'e was no objection the matter would reports back. time, and stated that if there be held over until this committee 7. NEW BUSINESS PLOT PLAN NO. 22. BABLE' 3728 N" "H MUSCP,T =L AVENUE. Advisor Flanery presented the factual data, and after some discussion by the Commission the Chairmen oiled Mr. Babler before the Commission. Mr. William Pickering of P`ckering Construction, 11513 East Lambert, El Monte, represented l�r. Babler. After considerable discussion, in which some commissioners expressed an inclination to disapprove because this appeared to be too much like a subdivision, and that unha�-,^} results often occur when these parcels are sold off, it was moved by McCaffree, second by Lieberg, and unanimously carried by roll call that the matter be held over for father study by the Planning Commission, to September 6, 1960. 6. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONS E):C' 1 C l % °.SE NO. 8 - CS,RL GR ANT. Advisor Flanery reported the factual date, E.nd pointed out that there was a potential tra problem if the Zone Exception were granted as presented due to the h?avy volume of traffic through this intersection. Chairman Wilt opened the-Public Hearing and Advisor Fanery administ- ered the Oath to those in the audience wishing to tc_,tify on any matter concerning Zone Exception Cases 3 and 9. Frank Foster, 4216 North Roseme, -1 Boulevard, spoke for Mr. and Mrs. Grant, and stated that: 1. All but seven property c within a 500' radius signed a petition approving this exception, and that five of the seven were not home one wc:s c . C i t y emp 1 oyee, and one disapproved the excepticn. 2. The setfaek provided for permits ac' ^. ^crate safety for entrance to street from property. 3. All cities are zoning these strips along freeways R -3 or high but he is in ef:c:ct c." ing only for R -2. Commissioner Casares stated that perhaps it would be better to wait and probably get evcn bettc- zoning when Master Plan is completed. Mr. Foster stated that owner only desired to develop this property as hic' =s - : -cd, and did ^ ^ r wish to wait for a Master Plan since this could be over a year. Mr. Foster also stated that the present use of this property was more conforming to agricultural than to surrounding uses, and that proposed use was not detrimental to surrounding property as other uses permissible under R -A zoning would be, he wort on to state that being adjacent to a freeway does hinder the enjoyment or the property rights this person, therefore t:;e only ec ^.itabie solution is to permit a higher use, that proposed development would Be well above normal density in terms of square footage, and that the overall area in effect was in a hither use than R -A anyway. After lengthy discussion Casares moved, Kunz seconded, that this. zone exception be granted Subject to submission of additional plot plan to staff for approval showing five more paved parking spaces. -3- After considerably more discussion in which Commissioners Lieberg and Sam stated their feeling that this would be tantamont to spot zoning if approved,.and Rightmeier expressed his interest in keeping these matters in control of the Commission and not giving the Staff too much leeway, Casares, with the permission of Kunz withdrew his motion.. Commissioner Rightmeier moved that this case be approved with same requirement for parking as .stated in Casares' motion, but that 10 foot setback be permitted if necessary, rather than the present requirement of 20 feet. Motion died for lack of a second. . Casares moved his pievious motion with the exceptions that the matter be resubmitted to the Planning Commission rather than to the Staff. After more discussion Casares amended his motion to provide that.the matter be referred to staff for approval as. stated in original motion. Kunz seconded the amended motion, which was defeated•by a roll call vote as follows: Ayes: Casares, Kunz. Noes: Lieberg, McCaffree, Rightmeier, Sam Wilt. Absent: None. Commissioner Rightmeier moved, Sam seconded, that this Zone Exception be denied. Roll call vote as follows: Ayes: Lieberg, McCaffree, Rightmeier, Sam, Wilt, Noes: Casares, Kunz. Absent: None. Advisor Flanery made findings that there was no serious detriment to enjoyment of a property right by denying this request, nor was a zone change necessary to retain enjoyment of a property right. Attorney.Boyko advised applicant that he had 15 days in which to appeal this decision to the City Council. Mr. Foster stated that he would like to know why this case was turned down. Chiarman Wilt polled the Commissioners that voted no for their reasons for disapproval. Lieberg stated that he felt this was an R -2 request under the guise of a zone exception, and that he was afraid of the precedent that would be set for spot zoning that would eventually lower the area because of over dersity, and low quality housing. He also stated that other cities were not in point, and-that zoning will probably be changed as a result of the general plan. Wilt and McCaffree agreed with the reasons stated by Lieberg. Rightmeier felt that the Commission should be consistant in consid- ering zone changes, and should not grant them unless there are exceptional reasons to do so. Sam agreed with previous reasons and stated he felt no hardship was presented by the facts in the case. 9. PUBLIC HEARING. ZONE EXCEPTION CASE NO. 9 - MARVIN E. CARTER. Advisor.Flanery presented the factual data and Chairman Wilt opened the Public Hearing. Marvin E. CArter, 1416 South San Gabriel Boulevard, San Gabriel, stated that this development would include a dedicated street, showed photographs of this and surrounding property, stated tat all regulations would be met, and that the entire development would be pleasing to look at and would be an asset to the area and City. Louis Stone, 830 East Whitcomb Ave., Glendora, stated that he was the owner of the land and felt that this proposed use would be-higher and more beneficial to the area and City. " Secretary Farrell read a communication regarding this case from the - Rosemead School District which requested that the matter be -4- 0 held over to the next regular meeting in order to permit the School Board to consider the matter. The letter stated that expansion of the Wells School might require the use of this property. It was moved by Rightmeier, second by Lieberg, and unanimoudy carried that this matter be held over to the next regular meeting as per the School Board's request. Attorney Boyko explained the Public Hearing would remain open, and that the item should be placed on the agenda for,the next regular meeting. 10. COMMUNICATION - E. P. LIEBERG. RE: OUTDOOR ADVERTISING. Secretary Farrell read a.letter that Commissioner Lieberg had sent to the City Council concerning recent council action re: outdoor advertising. Chairman Wilt, with unanimous approval of the Commission instructed Secretary Farrell to carry to the City Council - the expression of unanimous approval of this letter. 11. Advisor Flanery advised the Commission that he had a matter he would like to discuss with them tonight regarding a zone exception granted in 1953 involving Boyd Imports, 8930 Mission Drive. Advisor Flanery stated that an additiona development on this property was being proposed. Attorney Boyko stated that in cas(s such as these where the ordinance did not spell out in detail what action was required, the Commission should establish some kind of policy. In this case it would have to be decided whether or not the new proposal involved a significant enough change in the facts which were presented in the original zone exception to affect the decision at this time. If it was felt that the facts originally presented would not have been significantly altered by the inclusion of the current proposal, no new exception would be necessary. If it was felt that they would have been altered significantly, anew exception would have to be granted. Mr. Boyko concluded by stating that this was mainly a matter of policy and fact and not of law., and therefore it was up to the Commission with the assistance of the technical advisor to determine the proper course of action. Commissioner McCaffree stated that he felt the proposed alteration was inconsequential and should not be considered as a new case. Lieberg expresied the opposite feeling on the matter. Chairman. Wilt polled the Commission and it was found that most preferred more time in order to look over the property. ' Lieberg stated he would Like the facts presented in writing for study. At this time the Chair recognized George Boyd, St. of Boyd Imports who stated that he was.only interested in protecting his boys who at present were forced to work exposed to the sun, that previously one had been overcome by the heat, that the $2,500. expenditure he would make would improve the City of Rosemead, the property and would protect the people working in the exposed area. George Boyd, Jr, of Boyd Imports was recognized and reiterated his father's statements and added the invitation to anyone interested to come up to their place of business and see the problem they had. Lieberg moved that the staff provide the Commission with the details of the case so could be intelligently investigated and judged, and that the staff present this data by the next regular meeting. Motion died for lack of second. After some discussion, Lieberg made the same motion as before, Rightmeier seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. 12. Secretary Farrell advised the Commission that he had been asked by the City Council at the previous meeting to submit a report of -5- 0 0 the "701" program, which would be considered at the next Council meeting. Also, that the contract with Mr. Mansur had been redrawn pursuant tothe discussion at the meeting of July 22 of the Planning Commission's changing some items that were disagreeable to Mr. Mansur, that -this revised contract along with the Commissions letter recommending Mr. Mansur had been submitted to the City Council at its previous meeting, and that the Council had deferred action on both matters, pending submission of complete copies of the contract. It was moved by Casares, second by Sam, and unanimoudy carried that the meeting adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 11:25 o'clock p.m. -6-