Loading...
PC - Minutes - 01-21-640 0 CITY OF ROSEMEAD ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of January 21, 1964 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission 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 Chairman Wilt. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Casares, Taylor, Kunz, Buchanan, McCaffree, Crabteee, Wilt. Absent: Commissioners: None. Ex officio: Cushman, Hassenplug, Phillips, Wroe. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 7, 1964 Commissioner Casares stated that on page 4, motion in item No. 10, last line after word "for" add "domestic and ", and strike the remainder of the sentence after the word "purposes." (MO) It was moved by Casares, second by Taylor, and unanimously carried that the minutes of January 7, 1964, be approved as corrected. ADMINISTRATIVE: OLD BUSINESS 4. R -2 PLOT PLAN - 9143 BENTEL AVENUE - ANNA DEVLIN - STAFF REPORT. Secretary Wroe gave a report of the inspection made by the Building Inspector, Mark Schrock. This house was found to be in very good condition and by stuccoing the exterior it would conform to the immediate area very nicely. (MO) It was mw ed by Kunz, second by Casares that the plot plan for R -2 development at 9143 Bentel be approved subject to the applicable Standard Requirements and deleting conditions numbered 6, 8 and 13. Also the front house to be stuccoed on the exterior. (RC) Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes: Casares, Taylor, Kunz, Buchanan, McCaffree, Crabtree, Wilt. Noes: None. Absent: None. NEW BUSINESS 5. ZONE CHANGE CASE NO. 3 - R -3 PLOT PLAN - JAMES FLOE Secretary Wroe reported that under the provisions of Section 9106.19 this plan must be approved by the City Administrator, however, there are two minor variations to the code requirements and the City Administrator has referred this plan to the Planning Commission These minor variations are the side yard setback and Section 9121.13. Advisor Cushman explained an alternate plan which showed the differences. Considerable discussion was held regarding the parking design in the front rather than the rear. Attorney Hassenplug stated that Section 9121.16(c) covers the side yard setback and that the 60% requirement would be ruled in his opinion as an unsubstantial variation. E PC 1 -21 -64 (MO) it was moved by Casares, second by Taylor, that the plot plan for Zone Change Case No. 3, be referred to the City Administrator to be sent to the Modification Committee for action. (RC) Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes: Casares, Taylor, Kunz, Buchanan, Crabtree, Wilt. Noes: McCaffree. Absent: None. Commissioner McCaffree clarified his no vote was because he felt the Commission should have acted on this plot plan at this time. LEGISLATIVE: OLD BUSIR Secretary Wroe stated that Agenda Item No. 6 would be covered when Item No. 9 is studied. Chairman Wilt stated if there were no objections item No. 6 would be studied with Item No. 9. There were no objections and it was so ordered. 6. (AGENDA ITEM N0. 7) STANDARD REQUIREMENTS - ITEM NO. 17 - CITY ATTORNEY REPORT Attorney Hassenplug presented copies of the proposed addition to the Standard Requirements which reads as follows: 11 17. The Planning Commission shall have the right to deny any lot split development when the subject land was formerly a portion of a larger parcel of land which was split or divided in violation of the provisions of the Rosemead Municipal Code, regardless of whether such illegal lot split or division was caused by the applicant or a predecessor in interest." (MO) It was moved by Taylor, second by Crabtree, and unanimously carried that this section be made a part of the Standard Re- quirements as Item No. 17. 7. (AGENDA ITEM N0. 8) HUNS.AKER DEVELOPMENT - ACCESS DRIVE REPORT - COMMISSIONERS McCAFFREE AND CRABTREE. Commissioner Crabtree reported that he did not make a physical investigation, and recommended that there would be no apparent difference until complete occupancy �f the apartments take place. Commissioner McCaffree reported that no action should be taken at this time or until a complaint is received. (MO) It was moved by Casares, second by Taylor, and unanimously carried that this report be received and filed. 8. (AGENDA ITEM NO. 11) COMMUNICATIONS Secretary Wroe read a notice regarding a training program to be sponsored by the University of California and the League of California Cities for Planning Commissioners, and County Super- visors to be held sometime in May in San Francisco. Chairman Wilt stated he would make a study of finances, etc. and report back at the February 4, 1964 meeting. Chairman Wilt declared a recess at 9:07 o'clock p.m. Meeting reconvened at 9:20 o'clock p.m. 9. (AGENDA ITEM NO. 12) MATTERS FROM COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF A. PROPOSED FREEWAY ROUTES Commissioner McCaffree stated that he felt the City should take action regarding the route of the Rio Hondo Freeway. - 2 - PC 1 -21 -64 Advisor Cushman stated he would report at the next meeting the proposed routes that the County has on file. Chairman Wilt explained that any action should be postponed until the annexations that are pending are completed as these could change the City's boundaries. 10. (AGENDA ITEM NO. 9) ZONING ORDINANCE ANALYSIS Chairman Wilt stated that the Commission would consider item by item of Mansur's report making any changes at that time. These changes and approved Sections are as follows: "Title of Ordinance No. 112" to be as is. Section 9102.4 - Apartment House. " 9106.2 - (Approved as is). It 9106.5 - (To be reworded) Rear Yard Minimum. Fifteen (15) feet. Garages, carports, and ariveways may occupy all of a required rear yard, provided that adequate space shall be provided for reasonable access to utility transmission and distribution installations. The sides or rear of any carports or structure con- taining carports, nearest to the side or rear lines of the lot shall be complete walls from the floor to the roof of such carports or structure if adjacent to property in an R Zone. Section 9106.7 - (a and b to be reworded) (a) the distance between balconies or similar architectural projections and the opposite wall, balconies or similar architectural projections shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) feet, and (b) the distance between buildings arranged around an interior court enclosed on more than two sides shall be a minimum of twenty -five (25) feet between all parts of said buildings including balconies and similar architectural projections. Section 9106.9 and 9106.10 - (To be deleted - will be covered in New section 9122). Section 9106.11- (Considerable discussion was held regarding uses of the required rear yard.) (MO) It was moved by Buchanan, second by McCaffree, that the required rear yard be deleted from Section 9106.11. (RC) Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes: Buchanan, McCaffree, Wilt. Noes: Casares, Taylor, Kunz. Absent: None. Commissioner Crabtree abstained from voting. The vote on the motion was tied and the floor was clear for further action. (MO) It was moved by Crabtree, second by Wilt, to allow 50% of the rear yard to be used for open space. (RC) Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes: Casares, Taylor, Kunz, Buchanan, McCaffree, Crabtree, Wilt. (does: None. Absent: None. Section 9106.13- (Next to last line - delete "independent of and insert "separated from ". Section 9106.18- (City Attorney's office to rework this section). - 3 - •, PC 1 -21 -64 PLOT PLAN NO. 13 - MILTON EGLEY Commissioners Kunz and Buchanan reported that they inspected the proposed move -in and found it to conform to the neighborhood and would recommend approval. . Chairman Wilt declared the meeting ad'ourned at 11:40 o'clock p.m. Next regular meeting February 11, 196 at 7:30 o'clock p.m. CHAIRMAN SECRETARY - 4 -