Loading...
PC - Minutes - 06-18-680 PLANNING COMMISSION M114UTES OF JUNE 18, 1968 0 A regular meeting of the Rosemead Planning Commission was called to order at 7:47 P.M. by Chairman Larson, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 8838 Valley Boulevard, Rosemead. 1. CALL TO ORDER The Pledge of Allegiance wns led by Administrative Assistant, Steve Street. The invocation was delivered by Commissioner Floe. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners: Absent: Commissioners: Floe, Holmes, and Larson None Ex Officio: Director of Planning - Al Hersh Admin. Asst. - Steve Street City Attorney - Bob Joehnck Secretary - Foy Burton 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES _ May 21, 1968 June 5,.1968 Commissioner Holmes stated that on Page Two.of the minutes of May 21, 1968 under Discussion by the Commission there-was no mention of his disapproval of the requested Conditional Use. Permit No. 21. Mr. Holmes statement should read: "The reguested use on this site does nothing to upgrade the area as proposed by the General Plan, and this pizza parlor could become another "beer joint ". Mr. Holmes also pointed out that on Page Three under Roll Call Vote, his name was not listed under the "No" votes and the roll call vote should read as follows: "Ayes: Commissioners: Floe, Larson, and O'Hagan Nos: Commissioners: Holmes Absent:Commissioners: None " Chairman Larson pointed out that on Page Six of the minutes of May 21, 1968, Item 18 should read "....derricks used to drill any well hole or to repair...." Planning Director Hersh indicated a line had been Left out in Condition No. 5 of Conditional Use Permit No. 22 and should read as follows: ".....interim production period, or until the exterior required masonry wall is completed." (MO) It was moved by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Floe and unanimously carried that the minutes of May 21, 1968 be approved as corrected. (MO) It was moved by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Floe and unanimously carried that the minutes of June 5, 1968 be approved as written. 4. INTRODUCTION AND INDUCTION OF NEW COMMISSIONERS - Herb Hunter Paul Schymos Chairman Larson introduced Mr. Hunter and Mr. Schymos and gave some of their background. Edythe Armstrong, City Clerk, ad- ministered the oath of office to Mr. Hunter and Mr. Schymos. 0 PC June 18,, 1968 Page Two 9 5. TIME RESERVED FOR PERSONS IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSIOM. None PUBLIC HEARING 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.. 23 — Garvey School District - request for grade school (kindergarten thru sixth grade) in area west of Jackson Avenue and east of New Avenue, between Egley Avenue and Fern Avenue.. Planning Director Hersh presented the factual data, including a report from the Recreation Director reguarding vacation of Newmark Avenue, and a report from the Traffic Advisor regarding traffic circulation in the area of the proposed school. Mr. Hersh pointed out that one of the suggested conditions should be altered as the State will not permit the School District to spend money for the required street trees„ and 'he suggested the people in the area find a way to finance the street t.rees.. Chairman Larson declared the public hearing open at 8:;08 P -X. Mr. Hersh administered the Oath to those persons wishing to . testify. PROPONENTS: 1. Mr. Eldridge Rice., Superintendent of`the Garvey School District, testified regarding the need for the proposed school and described the methods used to determine the particular site selected. 2. Mr. Lloyd Walters, 2530 New Avenue, testified regarding the need for additional school facilities and other reasons and justification for granting the requested permit. 3. Mrs. Mary Nadane, 7526 Fern, testified regarding reasons and justification for granting the requested permit. 4. Mr. William Davis, Kessler, Wright and Wright, 1125 W. Sixth Street, Los Angeles, testified regarding reasons and justification for granting the requested permit. 5. Miss Olive Gray, 3906 Vachon Drive, testified regarding reasons and justification for granting the requested permit. 6. Mr. Dan Ellis, Chief Assistant Superintendent of Garvey School District testified regarding methods used to select the proposed school site and stated there were no suitable alternate areas for the school site that would not displace more people and be much more costly. OPPONENTS: The following persons testified against the location of the school in this area and anticipated payments for the properties to be purchased. n u PC June 18, 1968 Page Three CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0, 23 (Continued) n u 1, Mr. "eike Reinhart, 7410 Newmark Avenue, Rosemead 2. Mr, McClure, 7528 Newmark Avenue, Rosemead 3. Mr. Jack Holiday, 7419 Newmark Avenue, Rosemead 4. Mrs. Mary Finch, 7521 Newmark Avenue, Rosemead 5. Mr. William Lyer, 7512 E. Egley, Rosemead 6. Mrs. Edith Lichiy, 7225 Newmark Avenue, Rosemead 7. Mr. For ten, 7517 E. Fern, Rosemead 8. Mrs. Miller, 7541 Newmark Avenue, Rosemead 9. Mrs: Edith Branch, North side of Egley, Rosemead 10, Mr. Guy Smith, 7512 Newmark, Rosemead 11. Mr. Robert Haller, 7538 Newmark Avenue, Rosemead 12. Mr, Robert Miller, 7541 Newmark, Rosemead Chairman Larson declared the public hearing closed at 9:02, P.M. Discussion by the Commission included the economics and other factors involved in selecting a school site, the thoroughness of studies to determine the school site, the two years of study spent before this site was selected, long range benefit of school to the city, drainage of proposed cul -de -sac street, proposed vacation of Newmark Avenue within the school site, possibility of park established next to school, and remarks concerning lack of consideration of the sentimental value of the properties to the property owners. (MO) It was moved by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner 6chymos that Conditional Use Permit No, 23 be approved per Resolution No. 68 -11, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicants shall submit a revised plan of the proposed grade school indicating the playground area on the easterly portion of the site, parking on the southerly portion of the site, and the school buildings on the south and west portion of the site. The property shall thereafter be developed substantially in accordance with the revised plan marked "Exhibit A- .Revised ", except that the Planning Director may approve minor modifications of said revised plan. 2. The applicants shall dedicate thirty feet of right -of -way for street purposes along the Egley Street frontage of the subject property; and shall dedicate necessary right - of -way for a 35 foot radius cul -de -sac bulb at the east end of Newmark Avenue as required by design for the terminus of Newmark Avenue at the westerly boundary of the subject rpoperty subsequent to approval of the pro- posed vacation of Newmark Avenue. 3. The applicants shall improve all street frontage with curbs, gutters and sidewalks to City standards subject to secural of necessary permits, and in accord with approved designs. 4. Applicant /owner shall submit a signed Affidavit of Accep- tance of Conditions to staff. 0 0 PC June 18, 1968 Page Four CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 23 (Continued) ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: Commissioners: Floe, Holmes, Hunter, Larson and Schymos Noes: Commissioners: None Absent: Commissioners: None Mr. Hersh stated that a report would be presented to the Commission at the next meeting regarding recommendation of vacation of Newmark Avenue and amendment of the Recreation Element of the General Plan to include the park site next to the proposed school. Such recommendations to be made to the City Council after the school district as acquired the school site property. Chairman Larson declared a recess at 9:15 P.M. Chairman Larson reconvened the meeting at 9:30 P.M. 7. ZONE VARIANCE NO. 55 - Ada Gray - 4619 to 4627 Muscatel - request to add two single family dwellings on rear of an 80,000 square foot lot with 10 existing dwellings. Commissioner Holmes abstained from voting on this matter as he owns property next to subject property. Planning Director Hersh presented the factual data, including a drawing of,a plan indicating possible development of the abutting nursery and other property into a possible twenty lots, and providing street frontage for two lots on the sub- ject property. Mr. Street stated that a zone variance request must meet'the four circumstances provided in the Zoning Ordinance, which this case does not do. Mr. Street further stated that the staff found no justifiable hardship in this case, the develop- ment would not be in the best interest of the City, the development would not be consistent with the General Plan of the City and is not consistent with good planning practices. Mr. Street reported the City Administrator as stating that the Planning Commission had been consistent in denying such developments in the past if there were a liklihood of a better type of development with street frontage and recommended the Planning Commission continue this practice and discourage this type of development as contrary to the best interests of the City. Chairman Larson declared the public hearing open at 9:42 P.M. PROPONENTS: 1. Ada Gray, 4320 Muscatel, testified regarding reasons and justification for granting the requested variance, indicating the land was vacant and unused, the development would continue in the same pattern as the existing ten units on the site. 0 PC June 18, 1968 Page Five ZONE VARIANCE NO. 55 (Proponents continued) 2. Raymond Holmes, 4615 Muscatel, testified regarding reasons and justification for granting the requested variance. OPPONENTS: 1. Mr. Fred Takata, 4553 Muscatel, testified regarding reasons for denying the requested variance. 2. Mrs. Carol Chan, 4549 Muscatel, testified regarding reasons for denying the requested variance. 3. Mr. John Roup, 4528 Bartlett, testified regarding reasons for denying the requested variance. Chairman Larson declared the public hearing closed at 9:54 P.M. After vi.6wing the comments of the staff and the above persons Mr. Holmes requested permission to withdraw Mrs. Gray's case without prejudice to submit revised ;:equest at a future date. (MO) It was moved by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Floe that the applicant for Zone Variance Case No. 55 be allowed to withdraw the case without prejudice to submit a revised request at a later date. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: Commissioners: Floe, Hunter, Larson and Schymos Noes: Commissioners: None Absent: Commissioners: None 8. ZONE VARIANCE NO. 56 - Roy Nakagawa - 8754 Steele Street - request to encroach into required side and rear yard areas - incompleted dwelling with improper penetration of required area in two car garage. Planning Director Hersh presented the factual.data. Mr. Gordon Kriegle, Regional Engineer, and Mr. Pres Harrell. Associate District Engineer,presented the building department history on this case. Chairman Larson declared the public hearing open at 10:40 P.M. Mr. Hersh administered the Oath to those persons wishing to testify. PROPONENTS: 1. Mr. Roy Nakagawa, 39412 Gernert, testified regarding reasons and justifications for granting the requested variance. 2. Mrs. Steve Lagace, 8757 Steele Street, testified regarding reasons and justification for granting the requested variance. 0 PC June 18, 1968 Page Six ZONE VARIANCE NO. 56 (Proponents cone' 3. Mr. Polhammer 3946 Gernert, testified regarding reasons and J ustification for granting the requested variance. 4. Mrs. Bruno, 8725 Steele Street, testified regarding reasons and justification for granting the requested variance. 0 PPONEN1S. None Chairman !arson declared the public hearing closed at 10:56 P.M. Discussion by the Commission included acceptance of yards as e< ;is.ting, adju_trne-rt of eaves of building, patio roof, en- croachment of hobby room into garage, completion of building within time limits, and guarantces of performance. (MO) It was moved by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Floe that Zone .'arience No, 56 be approved per Resolution No. 68 -12, subject: to the fol l ^,wir g conditions: 1, Submission of rw is ^; plans to the Building Department, incorporating cn�:nges from the original plan, as requested by the Planning Commission and the Building Department; the applicant snail '_hereafter develop. the property as required by the Building Department and substantially as approved herein as indicoteu' on the approved plan marked "E;<h ib i t A" 2. The extension of the "hlobby Room" into the garage area shall be removed ccmple so as to provide a clear 20 feet by 20 feet parking area inside the garage. 3. The eaves on the north and south sides of the building, and on the east side of ::he building from the north end of the patio roof to the south end of the building shall be cut back and finished as required in a reasonable modification of requirements approved by the Building Department and rain gutters shall be installed. 4. Subsequent to the "f eming impaction" by the Building Depart- ment and, subject to c ^.mpllance with corrections and the approval of the Bulking Departmeni, the applicant shall arrange to enclose and complete the exterior of the subject building as required and to `h.° satisfaction of the Building Departmcn L w i thin, n l net`r (90) da`'s ( September 16, 1968) of the date of this approval. The applicant shall arrange to complete the from;: side, the west face, of the exterior of the subject: bui :ding befor^ proceeding to enclose the other sides of the_. building.. Completion shall include installation cf all cidin;, doors, and windows, hardware and fixtures, and the painting or staining of the exterior wal':s. 5. The applicant shall arrange to complete the interior of the subject dwelling as approved and to Building Department standards prier to January 15, 1969. L PC June 18, 1968 `Page Seven ZONE VARIANCE NO. 56 (Continued) 0 6. The applicant shall remove the "privy" from the front of the property immediately upon completion of the exterior of the building, or as otherwise approved by the Building Department. 7. The applicant shall landscape the front of the site and in- stall the required driveway, required sidewalk and a street tree prior to January 15, 1969, subject to secural of a permit for the required driveway, sidewalk and street tree. 8.. Failure to complete the exterior and interior of the subject building shall void this approval and the outstanding building permit. The applicant, or his successors in interest, shall not thereafter use, occypy, or do further work on the pre - mises without submitting a request to the Planning Commission for a time extension and the Planning Commission may, with - out further public hearing, grant a limited time extension subject to deposit of a forfeiture bond in an amount suf- ficient to guarantee.comple.tion of the structure and improve- ment; -and secural of a new building permit from the Building Department. 9. The applicant shall submit a signed and notarized "Affidavit of Acceptance of Conditions" agreeing to abide by the condi- tions set forth herein; as otherwise provided in a time extension approved by the Planning Commission,; or, upon failure to complete the subject development as specified herein does hereby agree to demolition of the subject building and payment of qll attendant costs and expenses after due notice from the City Attorney. 10. Subject property shall otherwise be developed in accord with the city zoning regulations (Ord. 112) and the Planning Commission Policies and Standards. 11. This approval shall expire on January 15, 1969, unless the applicant has requested and received a time extension as indicated elsewhere herein. ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes: Commissioners: Floe, Holmes, Hunter, Larson and Schymos Nos: Commissioners: None Absent: Commissioners: None Chairman Larson declared a recess at 11:08 P.M. Chairman Larson reconvened the meeting at 11:15 P.M. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9. PROPOSED MOTEL REGULATIONS - The Commission examined the pro- posed regulations submitted by Planning Director Hersh and determined to set this matter aside for consideration at the next meeting. PC June 18, 1968 Page Eight NEW BUSINESS 10 PLOT PLAN N0, 372 - Fernandez - 3306 Stevens - request to relocate duplex dwelling and layout approval of lot having one existing dwelling in the R -2 Zone.. Planning Director Hersh presented the factual data Mr, and Mrs. Michael Fernandez were present to answer questions from the Commission. The Move-In Committee, Commissioners Holmes and Floe made their report to the Commission indicating they found the buildings acceptable and comparable to the area surrounding the:proposed site and recommending approval of the requested move -in and Olan layout. Discussion by the Commission included alteration and expansion of driveway, redesign of parking facilities, and dedication andstmprovement of street frontage. (MO) It was moved by Commissioner Floe, seconded by Commissioner Holmes that Plot Plan No. 372 be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a revised plot plan in accord- ance with the Commission requirements and the property shall thereafter be developed substantially as indicated on the approved plop plan marked "Exhibit A- Revised" and in accordance with Building Department requirements. 2; The applicant shall dedicate the front four feet of the subject property to the City of Rosemead for street purposes to widen Stevens Avenue, in accordance with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. 3. The applicant shall secure necessary permits and install new curbs, gutters, sidewalk and two street trees (Bottle Brush- Callistemon Viminalis - Five gallon size) to city standards, on the Stevens Avenue frontage. A refundable deposit in the amount of $350.00 shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of any building permit, to guarantee installation of the required improve- ments. 4. Development of the subject property shall otherwise be in accord with the applicable standards and policies of the Planning Commission; and in accord with the regulations of the City Zoning Ordinance (Ord. 112). 5. This approval shall expire one year from the date of approval unless a building permit has been issued; construction has started and is being diligently pursued to completion prior to the stated expiration date. 6. Applicant /owner shall submit a signed Affidavit of Acceptance of Conditions to staff. PC June 18;.1968 Page Nine PLOT PLAN NO. 372 (Continued) ROLL CALL VOTE Ayes: Commissioners: Noes: Commissioners: Absent: Commissioners- 0 Floe, Holmes, Hunter, Larson and Schymos None None 11. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE - Ordinance revised by Planning Consultant - Larry Wise - .Policy determinations Mr. Hersh presented the three amended and rewritten policy changes with the comments of the Planning Consultant and staff to the Commission. (MO) It was moved by Commissioner Floe, seconded by Commissioner Holmes, and unanimously carried, that Section 9414 of the proposed Subdivision Ordinance be approved as amended and recommend approval to the City Council, (Mo) It-was moved by Commissioner Floe, seconded by Commissioner Holmes, and unanimously carried, that Section 9417 B of the, Proposed Subdivision Ordinance be approved as amended and recommend approval of the amended section to the City Council. (�`:0) It was moved by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Floe, and unanimously carried that Section 9419 of the proposed Subdivision Ordinance be approved as amended and recommend approval of the amended section to the City Council. 12, WEST SAN GABRIEL VALLEY AREA GENERAL PLAN Planning Director Hersh gave a brief review of the proposed County area plan. After discussion of the proposed plan and the close reflection of the Rosemead General Plan it was moved as follows: (MO) It was moved by Commissioner Floe, seconded by Commissioner Larson, and unanimously carried, that the Planning Commission endorse the West San Gabriel Valley Area General Plan and recommend to the City Council similar endorsement, per Resolution No. 68 -13. Resolution No. 68 -13 reads as follows: The Planning Commission of the C ity of Rosemead does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1 . After due consideration the Rosemead Planning Com- mission endorses the proposed County General Plan for the West San Gabriel Valley area with regard to the principles and objectives expressed and as in basic accord with the adopted General Plan of the City of Ro�:em o and recommends the Rose- mead City Council similarly endorse the proposed General Plan with a recommendation the County Regional Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors consider and adopt the proposed plan for the fifteen city area in the West San Gabriel Valley. PC June 18, 1968 Page Ten MATTERS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF 13. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Chairman Larson appointed Commissioners to five committees as follows; A. Lot Split Committee - Commissioners Floe and Larson B. Animal Regulations Committee - Commissioners Hunter and Schymos C. Move -In Committee - Commissioners Holmes and Schymos D. Commission Policies and Standards Committee - Commissioners Holmes and Larson D. Underground Utilities Committee - Commissioners Floe and Larson. 14. Commissioner Holmes raised a question regarding the possibility of setting a time limit on the validity of a building permit. Mr. Hersh stated he would investigate the matter and report back to the Commission. 14. T!ME RESERVED FOR PERSONS IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. Mr. John Lovasco, 4121 Walnut Grove Avenue, addressed the Commission concerning the possible division and sale of a portion of his property and the possibility. of uniform zoning i.n the 4100 block,of Walnut Grove Avenue. Chairman Larson advised Mr. Lovasco to make and appointment with Mr. Hersh to discuss these matters. Chairman Larson adjourned the meeting at 12;37 A.M.