Loading...
PC - Minutes - 02-18-63CITY OF ROSEMEAD ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of February 18, 1963 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead was held in the Council Chambers, 8815 East Valley Boulevard. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Wilt at 7:40 o'clock p.m. 1. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Secretary Wroe. 2. Present: Commissioners: Casares, Taylor, Kunz, Buchanan, McCaffree, Wilt. Absent: Commissioners: Crabtree. Ex officio: Boyko, Flanery, Mansur, Phillips, Wroe. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: FEBRUARY 4, 1963 Commissioner Buchanan stated that the first motion on page 2 the following should be added: "And that the staff shall approve location of the sewer line." (MO) It was moved by Wilt, second by Casares, and unanimously carried that the minutes of February 4, 1963, be approved as corrected. ADMINISTRATIVE: OLD BUSINESS Commissioner Casares suggested that agenda Items 5 and 6 be considered ahead of Item 4. Chairman Wilt stated if there were no objections this would be the order. There being no objections it was so ordered to con- sider Agenda Items 5, 6 and then 4. 4. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 - REQUEST FOR SIDEWALK VARIANCE - 9559 E. GUESS STREET - J.B.WEBER Secretary Wroe explained that this request for a sidewalk variance was on the agenda of the last meeting and the Commission wished to have time to study the location and this request was read in full. Commissioner Casares stated that this is a builder -owner develop- ment and will more than likely be sold when completed. Thus the new owner would have to bear the expense of sidewalks if the people on this street decided to install same. Commissioner Buchanan stated that this area has large lots and no doubt new development will take place in the near future, therefore sidewalks will be installed in due time. (MO) It was moved by Casares, second by for sidewalk variance at 9559 East (RC) Roll call vote was as follows: Ay Buchanan, McCaffree, Wilt. Noes: 5. AGENDA ITEM N0. 6 - ZONE EXCEPTION GARVEY AVENUE AND MUSCATEL AVENUE REQUIREMENTS McCaffree, that the request Guess Street be denied. as: Casares, Taylor, Kunz, None. Absent: Crabtree. CASE NO. 14 - O.A.PHILLIPS - - VARIANCE REQUEST LANDSCAPING Secretary Wroe read this request in full to black top the area along Muscatel Avenue rather than landscaping it. Mr. 0. A. Phillips, owner, stated that in this particular location, black top would look neater and be easier to keep clean as this is quite a catch -all of the neighborhood. PC 2/18/63 Attorney Boyko stated to change any of the conditions of a Zone Exception a Public Hearing would be necessary; Mr. Phillips read condition No. 4 of the approval as follows: "That the area between the 6 foot wall and the front property line shall be landscaped in a manner suitable to the City Administrator and continuously maintained." (MO) It was moved by Casares, second by Taylor, that this request to modify the landscaping requirements on Zone Exception Case No. 14 be referred to the City Administrator for staff. action. (RC) Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes: Casares, Taylor, Kunz, Buchanan, McCaffree, Wilt. Noes: None. Absent: Crabtree. 6. AGENDA ITEM N0. 4 - PROPOSED APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT - S.V. HUNSAKER & SONS - 4300 and 4400 BLOCK ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD - WEST SIDE Advisor.Flanery explained that a development of five buildings or.more on a parcel of land constitutes a subdivision. If these buildings were to be joined with a roof they would no longer be considered separate buildings. Commissioner Crabtree arrived at this time. Attorney Boyko referred to Section 11535, Subsections A and B of the Subdivision Ordinance and that the Commission needs to decide whether this is to be handled under the Subdivision Map Act or by Planning Commission plot plan approval. Planning Consultant Mansur stated that this location fits the General Plan recommendation, however, he felt there is not enough off - street parking spaces. Possibly no- parking could be establishc on Rosemead Boulevard. Richard Hunsaker, developer, 15855 Edna Place, Irwindale, stated that all utility services, drainage, etc. would meet the City and County requirements and that the present parking requirements are 12 to 1, which he feels is adequate. If this development proceeds under the subdivision map act it would take at least sixty (60) days before final approval could be acquired. Chairman Wilt suggested it would be good to incorporate a frontage street in this development to handle additional automobiles. (MO) It was moved by McCaffree, second by Kunz, that the Planning Commission will retain this proposed plan for an apartment develop- ment on Rosemead Boulevard for their approval of lot design and will request sufficient copies of plans to be sent to the various departments of the County to obtain reports from these departments and report back to the Planning Commission on March 18, 1963. Commissioner Casares stated that this type of action would not give the Commission the safeguard that subdivision approval would, nor will any time element be saved handling it in this manner.. Mr. Sweeney, 4419 North Rosemead Boulevard, owner of a portion of this property proposed for development asked if the City really wants this type of development. This developer will go elsewhere if a decision is not made soon. (RC) Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes: Taylor, Kunz, Buchanan, McCaffree, Crabtree, Wilt. Noes: Casares. Absent: None. Chairman Wilt suggested that Commissioners Buchanan, Crabtree, McCaffree be a committee to study this type of development and report back to the Commission. Mr. Hunsaker stated that if the City imposes toomany conditions it would not be feasible to build this development. - 2 - PC 2 -18-63 Secretary Wroe suggested that agenda Item No. 10 -B be cor}sidered r at this time Chairman Wilt stated if there were no obj'ecil ns.. it would be.so "ordered. There were no objections. r 7,. AGENDA IT- £M,NO, 10 -B - HUGH C. BRADY - PLOT PLAN NO.46 - REVISED Secretary Wroe read Mr. Brady's communication in full which- re quested, t}�at the action taken at the last meeting to withdraw..- Plot PPan No '46 was misinterpreted and should have " : lhe withdrawal`of the revised plot plan only. Advisor ;1 presented the factual data regarding the -or.iginal plot Plan :and aIso the revised plot plan. However staff believes that th 'revised -.plan would be a much better development than the origlinnally, approved plot .plan. Attorney Bo.yko stated .,that this 6riginal.plot plan was approve M in tdh;1961, and,.in view of the time e.ement the Commission: may ; r)fiakel -'any changes or alterations or they cou l,d initiate revokation of the original approval under Section 649 ofi'tfhe _ Rosemead Zoning Ordinance. Hugh",Brady, 8635 East Mission Drive, owner., stated that the'' rear;.`- parce,-ls are in escrow depending on the original approval of., th"i=s . p 1`ot',.p l an, and any changes i n lot lines wow l f h i s home ; .,in the front as they wish to keep a large yard for'th(O r children and horses. ` Attorney Boyko explained''to the Commission that there are two tourses.of action they may follow: (1) that a follow -up letter be wrften,_.stating that the matter has been clarified to show th,at the'grjg_inal, Plot Plan 'N'o. 46 remains approved as submitted or r; "( 2) th'a action may be„ taken to consider the revokat i on_. of Plot Plan No. 46'as the'_approval has not been exercised during almost a two year period. (MO) It was moved by Crabtree, second by Kunz, that in consideration of the assurance given by the owner - applicant' that parcel A of the original Plot Plan No. 46 will be brought up to meet the off- street parking standard requirements the Planning Commission will withhold revokation action and will direct the Secretary to aduisia -the applicant that he may proceed to build in accordance with the original approved .Plot Plan No. 46. (RC) Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes: Kunz, Buchanan, McCaffree, Crabtree, Wilt. -Noes; Casares,;Taylor. Absent: None. Discussion was held.in regard to the letters to be sent to all expired undeveloped plot plans. The Attorney corrected the wording 1th' the proposed letter and staff is still awaiting a list from the,.County Engineers office. Staff will report progresn as soorr:as this information is�available. LEG I SLAT.'L:V) i" OLD BUSINESS 8. AGENDA ITEM N0, 7 ^ MOVE -IN DISCUSSION Commissioner Casares asked for a clarification of policies as to house move--ins and who is on the Committee to inspect these move ins. Chairman Wilt explained that Commissioners Kunz and Buchanan are on the house move -in committee, however, Taylor and Casares were also asked to investigate a move -in. At the present time a move -in only needs to comply with the building code. Commissioner McCaffree stated that a committee of three should be appointed to inspect move -ins to see that it will meet with the general character of the neighborhood it is being moved into. - 3 - PC 2 -18 -63 After further discussion Chairman Wilt asked the staff to prepare a report regarding move -ins in other cities, etc, for the next meeting. Chairman Wilt declared a recess at 10 :22 o'clock p.m. Meeting reconvened at 10:36 o'clock p.m. NEW BUSINESS 9. AGENDA ITEMS 8 and 9 - DISCUSSION STEELE STREET EXTENSION - WEST OF MUSCATEL AVENUE - - - - -- DISCUSSION - STEELE STREET EXTENSION TIE IN WITH NEVADA AVENUE Secretary Wroe explained that there is a building permit applicatir pending on the easterly end of Steele Street west of Muscatel Avenue. This location if developed would make Steele Street extension more expensive than it is already. Commissioner Casares stated he felt that the Commission had shown their feelings on the Steele Street extension as it is recommended in the General Plan. (MO) After further discussion it was moved by McCaffree, second by Taylor, and unanimously carried that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the future extension of Steele Street easterly to Muscatel Avenue as shown in the General Plan and that the first initial steps be taken to acquire the first lot at the east end of Steele Street to provide for this extension. COMMUNICATIONS 10. STATE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE - ELTON R. ANDREWS Secretary Wroe read this communications regarding a meeting on Friday, March 22, 1963, 9:00 o'clock to 12:00 o'clock which is related to the dividing of the State into 7 different planning regions. Chairman Wilt suggested that Secretary Wroe attend this meeting and report to the Commission. 11. MATTERS FROM COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF A. CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CITIES CONFERENCE - PALM SPRINGS., Discussion was held in regard to how many Commissioners would attend this conference. A poll was taken and all seven Commis- sioners stated they could attend. However, it was pointed out that no mileage would be allowed therefore cutting the expenses so all seven could attend. B. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PLANNING CONGRESS MEETING: Commissioner Crabtree stated he attended this meeting in Pomona regarding the parking mall development and would like to point out the fact that the property owners provided for this improve- ment- -not the City. C. PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE: Discussion was held in regard to the occupancy permit requirement in R -1 Zones. A poll was conducted and all were in favor of retain- ing Part 30 in the proposed zoning ordinance. Chairman Wilt stated if it was agreeable with all a study meeting would be held Wednesday, February 27th at 7 :30 o'clock p.m. to study the proposed subdivision ordinance and the lot split report A written report would be appreciated from any Commissioner who could not attend this study meeting. - 4 - • PC 2 -18 -63 0 Chairman Wilt declared the meeting adjourned at 11 :40 o'clock p.m. Next regular meeting will be Monday, March 4, 1963, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. Nall ' ' -S -