Loading...
PC - Minutes - 05-19-64i • CITY OF ROSEMEAD ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of May 19, 1964 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held in the Council Chambers, 5815 East Valley Boulevard. The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Crabtree at 7:40 o' clock p.m. 1. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner McCaffree. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners: Taylor, Kunz, Buchanan, McCaffree, Crabtree. Absent: Commissioners: Casares, Wilt. Ex officio: Hassenplug, Phillips, 'Wroe. Absent: Cushman. 3, APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 5, 1964 (MO) It was moved by Buchanan, second by Kunz, and unanimously carried that the minutes of May 5, 1964, be approved as printed. 4. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. Donal Branson, 8706 East Grand Avenue, stated that the house next to his is vacant and is a very unsightly condition. Secretary Wroe explained that the property in question has an approved plot plan and the existing house will be demolished. ADMINISTRATIVE: OLD BUSINESS 5. None NEW BUSINESS 6. STANDARD OIL COMPANY - DESIGN PLAN - CORNER ENCINITA AVENUE AND LOWER AZUSA ROAD. Secretary Wroe presented the design plan submitted by Stan- dard Oil Company and a recommended landscape plan which was prepared by the Regional Planning Commission office. Commissioner Casares arrived at 7:48 o'clock p.m. Discussion was held concerning the possible traffic problems that might develop because of the proposed trees on the ex- treme east end of the property. Stanley Tracht, Property Representative, Standard Oil Company, 605 W. Olympic Blvd.,Los Angeles, stated that this triangular piece of property is not the best shaped lot to build a service station. The recommended planting on the east side would reduce the island to 12' and Standard Oil Company feels these islands should be at least 14'. Considerable discussion was held as to whether the size of the island is more important than the landscaping. A poll was conducted with the majority favoring the elimination of this planting area. (MO) It was moved by Casares, second by McCaffree, to eliminate from the design plan the two planting strips on the westerly and southerly sides of the subject property. (i2C) Roll call vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Casares, Kunz, Buchanan, McCaffree. Noes: Taylor, Crabtree. Absent: Wilt. 5/19/64 • n Further discussion was held regarding the signs and the necessity of a 14' clearance above these signs. (MO) It was moved by McCaffree, second by Casares, that the design plan for a Standard Oil Station be approved subject to the following revisions: 1. That the center southerly and westerly planting areas be removed. 2. That the two proposed trees on Lower Azusa Road be deleted from the plan. 3. That the overhead signs be on private property. 4. That a masonry wall be constructed along the railroad property. 5. In the event the City obtains a lease for a City sign the two trees on the southeast corner may be eliminated. (RC) Roll call vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Casares, Taylor, Buchanan, McCaffree. Noes: Kunz, Crabtree. Absent: Wilt. 7. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE CASE NO. 7 - 8639 E. GRAND AVENUE Secretary Wroe presented the factual data as follows: PROPOSAL: The petitioner states that more than half of his property is presently zoned M -1 and that the requested change would permit removal of the present structure and construc- tion of a new building. He further states there is a need for additional M -1 zoning in the area. No plan of develop- ment was submitted. GENERAL FACTUAL DATA: 1. The subject property is vacant except for a single family residence. 2. The surrounding area is developed with a Southern Pacific Railroad right of way adjacent to the north boundary of the petitioner's property with single family residences beyond; a one story office building adjacent on the east; single family residences to the south; a single family residence adjacent on the west with an Edison Company right of way beyond. 3. The R -1 zoning on the subject property and adjacent areas was established in October, 1963, by Ordinance No. 112. The A -1 zoning in the area was established by the City of Rosemead in January 1959, by Ordinance No. 11, which adopted the existing county zoning plan. The M -1 zoning to the north was established by Ordinance No. 87, in January 1962, as a result of Zoning Case No. 1. Prior to incorporation, the A -1 in the area was established by County Ordinance L: -944 in June 1947. 4. Grand Avenue is a 60 foot wide local street." Vice Chairman Crabtree declared the Public Hearing open at 9 :04 o'clock p.m. Secretary Wroe administered the oath to those wishing to give testimony. Forrest Lundstrom, applicant, for a M -1 -D zone and that the this zone change. stated that they were asking property is in escrow pending The following personsspoke opposing this M -1 zone being directly across the street from residential property: 1. R.D. Pollifrone, 8658 E. Grand Avenue, 2. C.F. Olson, 8646 E. Grand Avenue, 3. John Wilson, 8626 E. Grand Avenue, 4. Eugene E. Vianelli, 8640 E. Grand Avenue, 5. Mary Burgess, 8636 E. Grand Avenue. - 2 - 5/19/64 • i There being no further testimonies Vice Chairman Crabtree closed the Public Hearing at 9:15 o'clock p.m. Secretary Wroe explained that the General Plan shows this area as favorable M -1 property. (MO) It was moved by Casares, second by Kunz, that Zone Change Case No. 7 be denied as there were substantial protests and the applicant failed to show there is a hardship. Considerable discussion was held concerning the very well designed M -1 properties on Earle Street and the new one on Stingle Street and that these types of M -1 developments actually improve an area rather than degrade it, esepcially if a Design overlay is placed on the M -1 it can control noises, odors, etc. Attorney Hassenplug advised that if this zone case were continued and if any new evidence or information was avail- able the Public Hearing could be reopened. Commissioner Casares withdrew his motion with agreement of second. (MO) It was moved by Casares, second by Kunz, that Zone Change Case No. 7 be continued until the meeting of June 16, 1964, to see if there is any additional evidence or public infor- mation. (RC) Roll call vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Casares, Taylor, Kunz, Buchanan, McCaffree, Crabtree. Noes: None. Absent: Wilt. Vice Chairman Crabtree declared a recess at 9:45 o'clock p.m. Meeting reconvened at 9:58 o'clock p.m. 8. PLOT PLAN NO. 167 - STRECKER ASSOCIATES INC. (Applicant) K.M. BROOKS (Owner) - 9127 E. GLENDON WAY (Site) Vice Chairman Crabtree stated that this is not the correct address of the property, therefore none of the Commissioners were able to make an investigation of the subject property. William Knight, representing the applicant, stated that this property is at 9217 East Glendon 'Way, next to his plot plan No. 162. (MO) It was moved by McCaffree, second by Taylor, that Plot Plan No. 167 be postponed until the June 16, 1964 meeting, and that the address be verified. (RC) Poll call vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Casares, Taylor, Kunz, Buchanan, McCaffree, Crabtree. Noes: None. Absent: Wilt. 9. PLOT PLAN NO. 169 - D.R.FECHNER (Applicant) - WILLIAM H. GILBERT (Owner) - 4630 NORTH MUSCATEL AVENUE (Site) Secretary Wroe presented the factual data pertaining to this lot split and that staff has worked closely with the applic- ant to arrange the best possible development for this property. James Floe, applicant, explained that this plan consists of three separate parcels and owners, therefore this should be developed as one, not two separate lot splits, to achieve the best development. Discussion was held as to the problems of this being a possible subdivision as there will be five parcels. - 3 - 0 5/19/64 (MO) It was moved by McCaffree, second by Kunz, that Plot Plan No. 169 be approved subject to the Standard Requirements that apply and the following conditions: 1. That the square footage of the parcels be verified by the Civil Engineer. 2. That the building on Parcel C be realigned. 3. That the driveways on Parcel C and D be joined to pro- vide a better turn around area in conjunction with the cul de sac. 4. Subject to approval of legal counsel. (RC) Roll call vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Casares, Taylor, Kunz, Buchanan, McCaffree, Crabtree. Noes: None. Absent: Wilt. Vice Chairman Crabtree stated if there were no objections Item No. 12 :;ould be considered at this time. There were no objections and it was so ordered. 9A. COMMUNICATIONS: DANIEL HANDY - 9033 EAST WHITMORE AVENUE. Secretary Wroe read this communication in full as follows: "I am now in the process of remodeling a residence at 9027 East Whitmore Street, Rosemead. This property has been used as a rental for the past three and one -half years. As this addition will increase the size of this residence by more than fifty percent, I have been informed that the Rosemead City ordinance states that a sidewalk will be re- quired across the front of the property. I would like to be granted a variance thus eliminating the necessity for installing this sidewalk. My reasons for this request are as follows: 1. The children in this neighborhood cannot walk to and from school as the nearest school is over one mile away. School buses pick these children up each day just across the street. 2. There are no grocery stores or department stores within walking distance. 3. This house is situated in the center of the block. There are no other sidewalks in the immediate area. It would not ir,prove the appearance of the street to have this one isolated sidewalk strip in the middle of the block. 4. This is an old established neighborhood with very little land left for new construction. All of the residents have lived here for 5 years or more and are iuL. receptive to having sidewalks put in. I feel that this sidewalk would remain isolated for many years to come. Thank you very much for your consideration of this request. I sincerely hope your decision will be favorable." Vice Chairman Crabtree stated it is not the Commission's policy to grant this type of variance, however, the Commis- sioners will inspect the subject property and report at the June 16, 1964 meeting, (MO) It was moved by Taylor, second by Buchanan, and unanimously carried that Annexation No. 25 be added to the agenda at this time. SB. ANNEXATION NO. 25 AND SOUTH SAN GABRIEL AREA. Secretary Wroe read the City Council's action as follows: - 4 - 5/19/64 0 "To: Planning Commission From. City Council - Meeting of May 12, 1964 It was moved by Councilman Maude, second by Councilman Lowrey, that the Council express no objection to this pro- posed annexation and the proponents be requested to file Annexation No. 25 with the Local Agency Formation Commission and the staff be instructed to assist the proponents by taking all necessary steps to proceed with this annexation; further that the Council approve a statement of policy with regard to the balance of the unincorporated area south and southwest of the City (excluding the Whittier Narrows Re- creation Area) declaring the City's intent to annex this entire area upon receipt of petitions from the area; and further request the Planning Commission to study and include this entire unincorporated area in the City's General Plan as an indication of the City's projected area of growth and as a sign of good faith to the residents of the area. Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes: Councilmen: Andersen, Jackman, Lowrey, Maude, Stead." City Administrator Farrell explained the finances, zoning and various aspects of South San Gabriel in regard to annexation and that the City Council is requesting the Planning Commission to make recommendations regarding Annex- ation No. 25 and any further annexations in this area. (MO) it was moved by McCaFfree, second by Taylor, that the Plan- ning Commission recommends to the City Council that Annexa- tion No. 25 be approved, and further the Planning Commission approves the City Council's declaration of intent to annex the unincorporated area south and southwest of the City of Rosemead. Commissioner Casares stated that Chairman Wilt, who is on vacation at this time, has asked that this matter of business be postponed until he could attend the meeting. Attorney Hassenplug explained that the requested recommendation is necessary for the City Council to set a Public Hearing and election date. Any recommendations for future annexations is merely to indicate an intent or option on the area. Mayor Andersen explained that any future annexations in South San Gabriel is completely dependent on how the first one turns out. (RC) Roll call vote on the above motion was as follows: Ayes: Taylor, Buchanan, McCaffree. Noes: Casares, Kunz, Crabtree. Absent: Wilt. A tie vote resulted on the motion, therefore the floor was cleared for a new motion. (MO) It was moved by McCaffree, second by Taylor, that the Plan- ning Commission approve Annexation No. 25 as recommended by the City Council. (RC) Roll call vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Taylor, Kunz, Buchanan, McCaffree, Crabtree. Noes: Casares. Absent: Wilt. (MO) It was moved by Buchanan, second by McCaffree, that the Plan- ning Commission approve the City Council's declaration of intent to annex the unincorporated area south and southwest of the City of Rosemead excluding the Whittier Narrows Re- creation Area. - 5 - 0 9 5/19/64 (RC) Roll call vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Taylor, Kunz, Buchanan, McCaffree. Noes: Casares. Absent: Wilt. Commissioner Crabtree abstained from voting as he felt a more thorough study of the area should be made prior to expressing our intent regarding annexation. LEGISLATIVE: OLD BUSINESS 10. ADVISOR CUSHMAN REPORTS - Secretary Wroe stated that Advisor Cushman was on vacation and he read the proposed amendments to the ordinance regarding the elimination of carports and requiring garages. Attorney Hassenpiug stated he would incorporate this in the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance. NEW BUSINESS 11. CITY COUNCIL REQUEST - RE: SERVICE STATION AND TAVERNS Secretary Wroe explained that the City Council requested the Planning Commission to study and determine if any further control could be made concerning service stations and taverns. It was agreed that the Chairman should appoint a Committee to study this item of business. 12. COMMUNICATIONS - (This item of business was handled as Item No. 9A) 13. MATTERS FROM COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF Secretary Wroe explained the next regular meeting would be June 2, 1964, State Primary Election Day, and that the City Hall will be used as a check -in center, therefore it would be impossible to hold a meeting. The next regular meeting will be June 16, 1964, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. Vice Chairman Crabtree declared the meeting adjourned at 12:01 o'clock p.m. CHAIRMAN SECRETARY �Z