PC - Minutes - 06-05-610
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of June 5, 1961
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City
of Rosemead was held in the Council Chambers, 3954 North
Rosemead Boulevard. The meeting was called to order by
Chairman Wilt at 8 :03 o'clock p.m.
1. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Kunz.
2. Present: Commissioners: Buchanan, Kunz, Lieberg, McCaffree,
Wearden, Wilt.
Absent: Commissioner Casares.
Ex officio: Boyko, Flanery, Pederson,. Phillips.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 15, 1961.
Commissioner Lieberg stated that on page 3, second motion
should read as follows "It was moved by Lieberg, second by
Casares, that all plot plans and other approvals granted by
the Rosemead Planning Commission shall be considered revoked
one year from approval date unless otherwise specified in
the approval or unless the owner or applicant can show con-
tinuous progress towards completion over the twelve (12)
month period..
A request for extension of time by the applicant in writing
will be considered by the Commission at any time within
18 months of the approval date.."
(MO) It was moved by Kunz, second by Buchanan, and unanimously
carried that the minutes of May 15, 1961, be approved as
corrected.
ADMINISTRATIVE:
NEW BUSINESS
4. ZEC N0. 11 - RINKER DEVELOPMENT - Rosemead Blvd. & Glendon Way.
PUBLIC HEARING 8:07 p.m.
Advisor Flanery presented the factual data
zone exception. He explained that this is
Shell Service Station to be located at the
of Glendon Way and Rosemead Blvd, which is
showing location, zoning, and land use, pl
plan) were described in full.
regarding this
a request for a
northeast corner
zoned.R -3. Maps
.is Exhibit A (plot
Chairman Wilt declared the Public Hearing open at 8 :15 o'
clock p.m: Chairman Wilt asked that anyyone desiring to be
heard concerning this matter stand and be sworn in. The
oath was administered by Advisor F)anery.
Mr. Edward Till, 145 N. Painter Ave., Whittier, representing
Harker Development, stated that they have attempted to util-
ize this location for multiple development but it has been
impossible to obtain any interested parties for this purpose.
Mr. Till further stated that he realized this is not an ideal
site for a service station but that it would utilize this
location most productively. The building will be 1,235 sq.
feet with a 50 foot setback on Rosemead Blvd. and a 52 foot
setback on Glendon Way, the level of the lot will be dropped
down lI to 2 feet and a retaining wall and fence will be con-
structed around this property thus creating a sound and sight
buffer.
w w
Mr. Channing LeFebvre, 1085 N. Harbor, Anaheim, representing
Shell Oil Company, stated that there will be 3 storage tanks,
2 holding 4,000 gallons and 1 - 6,000 gallon tank of which
they estimate 30,000 gallons will be pumped a month. The
truck rig which fills these tanks holds 6,000 gallons which
means there would be approximately 5 fillings a month, and
these are sometimes done at night.
Commissioner Buchanan asked what services this station would
provide? Mr. LeFebvre answered the usual gas tank filling,
lubrications, tire changes, etc., but no major repairing.
Commissioner Wearden asked how many attendants i-. be em-
ployed and what parking problems would be encountered.
Mr. LeFebvre stated that 3 or 4 attendants would be employed
for a normal operation and that the dealer will have to exer-
cise'control over the parking situation to prevent unauthor-
ized parking.
Mr. Lloyd Long, 3609 N. Rosemead Blvd., owner for 52 years,
stated that this is a very poor location as far as residential
use is concerned.
Mr. George Vercelli, 8839 E. Las Tunas Drive, Temple City,
Realtor stated that he has held title to this corner property
for two years and during this time it has been very difficult
to keep a permanent rentor of this property. The rent is
$50.00 a month and the only interested rentors are transients
and single girls which create a problem.
Attorney Boyko stated that both owners bought this property
knowing it was zoned R -3 and have made no attempts to develop
it as a multiple unit.
Mr. Loren Rightmeir, 8730 E. Valley Blvd., Rosemead,stated
that he felt this zone exception should be granted.
Chairman Wilt stated that the Commission has the right to
place any conditions on this zone exception that they may
feel necessary in regard to parking, lighting, signs, etc.
He further asked if there were any persons present who wished
to speak in opposition to this zone exception.
Chairman Wilt stated that there being no opposition in writ-
ing or in person the Public Hearing would be declared closed
at 9:32 o'clock p.m.
(MO) It was moved by Lieberg, second by Kunz, that the Planning
Commission request the following:
1. That a report from the Traffic Commission regarding a
traffic count on Rosemead Blvd, going south and Glendon Way
going west, also a report on how the Traffic Dept.. feels
the effect of such a development at this intersection would
have on the current traffic pattern.
2. That the Traffic Commission advise the Planning Commission
of any plans they may have to alleviate the traffic conges-
tion at this location.
3. That the Secretary be requested to obtain from a Fire
Insurance Underwriter the effect of the fire insurance rate
on the adjacent residential properties.
4. That the Planning Consultant, Mr. Mansur, be requested
to supply a report with his recommendation regarding this
zone exception.
(RC) Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes: Buchanan, Kunz, Lieberg,
McCaffree, Wearden, Wilt. Noes: None. Absent: Casares.
Secretary Pederson stated that the next Traffic Commission
meeting would be July 6, so their report would be ready for
the Planning Commission meeting of July 17, 1961.
- 2 -
11
5. PLOT PLAN NO. 58 - E.W. HICKEY - Corner Loftus Drive and
Strang Avenue - 9:50 p.m.
Advisor Flanery presented the factual data regarding this
plot plan.
Commissioner Wearden stated that the shrubbery on this corner
is a serious obstruction.
Chairman Wilt asked if there was anyone present to represent
this plot plan and was advised that Mr. Hickey had been in-
formed to attend this meeting. There was no one present to
represent this plot plan this evening.
(MO) It was moved by Buchanan, second by Lieberg, that the Plan-
ning Commission hold this plot plan over until the next
meeting and advise the owner and applicant by mail that the
plan is not sufficiently complete as to the location of the
sewer lines. Also this Commission will proceed with action
at the next meeting even if the applicant is not present.
(RC) Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes: Buchanan, Kunz, Lieberg,
McCaffree, Wearden, Wilt. Noes: None. Absent: Casares.
6. PLOT PLAN NO. 59 - WALLEN NOVELL - 4553 N. Delta Avenue
HOWARD TAWNEY, Applicant - 10 :07 p.m.
Advisor Flanery presented the factual data regarding this
plot plan and stated that the applicant may be asked about
the possibility of widening the driveway.
Attorney Boyko asked if the record indicates whether the
property owners are joining in this application.
Howard Tawney, 5107 N. Rosemead Blvd., Temple City, applicant,
stated that this property is in escrow subject to lot split
approval and he will develop the rear and live in the front
house. He further stated he has an affidavit from the owner
stating their interest in this property.
(MO) It was moved by Lieberg, second by McCaffree, that Plot Plan
No. 59 be approved as presented subject to the following
conditions as outlined in the Planning Commission's policies:
Items 3, 4A, 5B & C, and 6 through 10; also that the driveway
on the south side of the property serving parcels B & C be
a minimum of 16 feet in width and that all other existing
structures be removed excluding the house.
(RC) Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes: Buchanan, Kunz, Lieberg,
McCaffree, Wearden, Wilt. Noes: None. Absent: Casares.
7. PLOT PLAN NO. 61 - C.K. MILLER - 9230 East Marshall Street -
SANTA ANITA CONSTRUCTION CO. - 10:23 p.m.
Advisor Flanery presented the factual data regarding this
plot plan, and stated that they are meeting the 20' setback
requirement. He further explained the guest parking dimen-
sions as follows: Parcel 1 - 26' X 20 Parcel 2 - 26' X 34'
and Parcel 3 - 22' north and south extending back about 45'.
Mr. Miller, 5923 N. Willard, San Gabriel, stated that this
property is in escrow pending approval of this lot split.
He further explained that this property had not been surveyed
to show the fall of the land.
- 3 -
•
L
(MO) It was moved by Lieber§; second by Kunz, that Plot Plan No. 61
be approved as presented subject to the following conditions
as listed in the Planning Commission policies: Items 4A and
6 through 10, also the applicant should be so advised with
the plot plan approval of the drainage problem involved with
the property.
(RC) Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes: Buchanan, Kunz, Lieberg,
McCaffree; Wearden, Wilt. Noes: None. Absent: Casares.
8. PLOT PLAN NO. 62 - JOHN PAGE - 8443 E. Grand Avenue - 10:50 p.m.
Advisor Flanery presented the factual data regarding this plot
plan and that this is a house move -in and requires Planning
Commission approval.
Mr. John Page, 8443 E. Grand Avenue, applicant and owner,
stated he needed this additional house for retired relatives
and that the store room could easily be moved behind the
garage. Mr. Page presented photos of the house to be moved
in for the Commission to review.
(MO) It was moved by Lieberg, second by Buchanan, that Plot Plan
No. 62 be approved as presented subject to the following
conditions as set forth in the Planning Commission policies:
Items 3, 4A and 6 through 10. In addition all existing
structures on the property are to be removed with the excep-
tion of the garage, store room and house on Parcel A.
(RC) Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes: Buchanan, Kunz, Lieberg,
McCaffree, Wearden, Wilt. Noes: None. Absent: Casares.
Chairman Wilt declared a recess at 11 :10 o'clock p.m.
Meeting reconvened at 11 :20 o'clock p.m.
LEGISLATIVE:
OLD BUSINESS
9. BUFFER ZONE REPORT - EVERETT MANSUR, PLANNING CONSULTANT
Secretary Pederson read Mr. Mansur'sreport in full regarding
buffer zones.
Chairman Wilt stated that this is a good framework and gives
the Commission something to work with.
Attorney Boyko stated that it would be wise to request Mr.
Mansur to prepare an emergency interim ordinance for action
at the next meeting to have something to govern the new
annexation areas.
Commissioner Lieberg stated that he would like to point out
from experience the noise problem resulting from M zones
and how noises reflect off of these buildings and block walls.
The ordinance should include provisions for this type of prob-
lem.
Advisor Flanery pointed out that this ordinance should include
a requirement for paving or oiling of parking areas and also
to specify the type of trees or shrubs that should be used
in the planting areas.
Attorney Boyko stated he would be very happy to go over any
drafting of this ordinance with Mr. Mansur.
Chairman Wilt requested Commissioner Lieberg-to get in touch
with Mr. Mansur to prepare a draft buffer zone ordinance
along the lines of his report and the discussion tonight.
- 4 -
10. MATTERS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
A. Southern California Planning Congress
Secretary Pederson announce that the Southern California
Planning Congress will meet Thursday, June 8, 1961, at the
Mission Inn i,n Riverside, at 7:00 P.M. The subject for this
meeting is "The Impact of the Freeway on the Community ".
B. Consolidated Floor Covering m
Copany
Secretary Pederson report e tat the City Council at their
last meeting adopted an emergency ordinance for the rezoning
of Consolidated Floor Covering property which had been des-
troyed by fire.
C. Sacheli Pro ert - 9253 Rose Street Rosemead:
Secretary Pe erson state tat t e Sac e i property on Rose
Street which had the sidewalk requirement waived had changed
ownership prior to Planning Commission action and the action
therefore was null and void.
D. City Beaut ification:
Chairman Wi t asked Commissioner Lieberg to serve as a member
of the Committee for City Beautification Program.
E. Billboard Ordinances:
Attorney Boy o stated that CA Farrell had asked him to prepare
a draft of two ordinances for the regulation of billboards.
The State plans on landscaping the Freeway in the City of Rose-
mead, however, funds will not be made available until this
ordinance is adopted. Under 'this ordinance and present
zoning there will be no billboards permitted: He further
stated that there were a few necessary changes to be made on
this draft.
CA Farrell stated that the Commission might appoint a commit-
tee of two or three members to study these proposed ordinances
and incorporate any general ideas they may have or possibly
the administrative staff could prepare a report from the data
collected by Mr. Lieberg.
F. Meeting Time:
Chair -- man Wilt stated that the next agenda should have an item
pertaining to the meetings starting at 7:30 p.m.
(MO) It was moved by McCaffree, second by Wilt, that the next
regular Rosemead Planning Commission meeting will be called
to order at 7:30 o'clock p.m. and adjourn not later than
11:30 o'clock p.m.
(RC) Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes: Buchanan, Kunz, McCaffree,
Wearden, Wilt. Noes: Lieberg. Absent: Casares.
(MO) It was moved by Chairman Wilt, second by Lieberg, and unani-
mously carried that the meeting adjourn. Meeting adjourned
at 12:08 o'clock a.m. Next regular meeting will be June 19,
1961, at 7:30 o'clock p.m.
CHAIRMAN SECRETARY
- 5 -
r I
CITY OF
3964 North
Rosemead,
AT 0 -0181
ROSEMEAD
Rosemead Blvd.
California
- CU 3 -4371
0
PLANNING COMMISSION STANDARD REQUIREh1EN.T5
FOR APPROVAL OF PLOT PLANS
The Rosemead Planning Commission, pursuant to the Rosemead
Interim Zoning Ordinance and all amendments thereto, has
established the policies listed herein. These are general
policies which shall be adhered to, although modifications
will be possible lii special cases,
1. When a portion of the accessway is shown as a pg}t of the
minimum area, not less than 80% of the minimum area shall
be building area and yard.
2. Driveways must be a minimum of 10 feet in width.
3. Community driveways must be a minimum of 16 feet in width
where the driveway serves or has the potential of serving
three dwellings or more.
4. All driveways serving more than one residence, must be
surfaced in accordance with the following minimum standards:
(a) 2 premix over 4" aggregate base Type A, for those
areas north of the Freeway and,
(b) 4" premix over 4 aggregate base Type A, for those
areas south of the Freeway.
5. In cases where more than one dwelling per lot or parcel of
land exists or is to be constructed, the following minimum
paved guest parking area will be required.
(a) Dwellings of two bedrooms or.les,s must have a minimum
of one 10 X 20 (minimum size) guest parking space.
(b) Dwellings of three or more bedrooms must have a mini-
mum of one 20 X 20 (minimum size) guest parking space.
(c) In lieu of items (a) and (b) above, guest parking
space may be provided by locating the garage a mini-
mum of 25 feet from the nearest edge of driveway,
such space to be a minimum of 20 feet wide.
0
6. Each single family dwelling unit (R -1,
must be serviced by separate sewer, ga
7. On parcels of land where drainage is a
way must be so constructed as to drain
from the lot as possible to the street
is located.
Ll
R -A, or A -1 5i000)
s, and water lines.
problem the drive=
as much run off
on which the property
8. Where two or more lots share a common driveway, mutual
easements and maintenance covenants shall be recorded.
A form with recommended wording is available at City Hall.
9. Plot plans must be submitted as finished copies with no
added markings, and must contain all dimensions, plus the
signature of the owner and applicant. If the owner will
not appear before the Planning Commission his signature
should be notarized.
10. All plot plans and other approvals granted by the Rosemead
Planning Commission shall be considered revoked one year
from approval date unless otherwise specified in the approval
or unless the owner or applicant can show continuous progress
towards completion over the twelve (12) month period.
A request for extension of time by the.applicant in writing
will be considered by the Commission at any time within
18 months of the approval date.