Loading...
PC - Item 3A - Minutes 12-07-09Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 7, 2009 The regular meeting of the Rosemead Planning Commission was called to order by Chairwoman Herrera at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Ruiz INVOCATION - Commissioner Hunter ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT: Commissioners Eng, Hunter, Ruiz, Vice- Chairman Alarcon, Chairwoman Herrera OFFICIALS PRESENT: City Attorney Greg Murphy, Community Development Director Saeki, Principal Planner Bermejo, Senior Planner Garry, Assistant Planner Trinh, Commission Secretary Lockwood 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS Greg Murphy, City Attorney, presented the procedures and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes - November 16, 2009 Commissioner Ruiz made a motion,' seconded by Commissioner Eng, to approve Minutes of November 16, 2009. as presented. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 09-04 - AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR ANY DWELLING DEVELOPED WITH A LIVING AREA EQUAL TO OR EXCEEDING TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED (2,500) SQUARE FEET IN THE R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) AND R-2 (LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) ZONES - Municipal Code Amendment 09-04 is a City initiated amendment that proposes to amend the Zoning Ordinance to require a Design Review entitlement application for any dwelling unit developed with a total living area equal to or exceeding two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet in R-1 (Single-Family Residential) and R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) zones. Currently a Conditional Use Permit is required for such dwellings that equal or exceed 2,500 square feet. PC RESOLUTION 09-24- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR ANY DWELLING WITH A DEVELOPED LIVING AREA EQUAL TO OR EXCEEDING TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED (2,500) SQUARE FEET IN R-1 (SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) AND R-2 (LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) ZONES. Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 09-24 (Attachment B), a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 886 (Attachment C), modifying the Zoning Ordinance with respect to Design Review requirements in the R-1 (Single Family Residential) and R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) zones. Senior Planner Garry presented staff report Commissioner Eng questioned staff if Municipal Code Amendment 09-04 will require property owners to do both a Conditional Use Permit and a Design Review. Principal Planner Bermejo replied that the Conditional Use Permit process would be eliminated and replaced with a Design Review requirement. Commissioner Eng asked staff.how long the Design Review process would take. Principal Planner Berrnejo:stated that the normallprocess is one to three months. Commissioner Eng questioned, staff wiat,will happen to Ordinance No. 876. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that this new ordinance would take its place with respect to the review procedures for large home development. Commissioner Eng requested clarification section 10, on page 4 of the ordinance. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that this section refers to 17.124 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, which-`covers general application procedures for entitlement applications. Commissioner Hunter questioned staff if there are any ordinances that restrict the building of mini-mansions. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that each Design Review application will have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. She also stated that each application will have to comply with the City's development standards. Commissioner Ruiz questioned staff if certain architectural styles have been established for residential development. He stated that we have to set a standard so new homes are compatible with the surrounding homes in the neighborhood. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that the Design Review guidelines have been established, and that homeowners are encouraged to design their homes so that they blend in with the surrounding homes in neighborhood. Principal Planner Bermejo stated we have not seen too many Conditional Use Permits since 2007. Commissioner Ruiz stated with 2,500 square feet there are still a lot of options and it is still possible to build a beautiful home. Chairwoman Herrera stated we will now open the Public Hearing and questioned if there was anyone in favor. None Chairwoman Herrera questioned if there was anyone against. None Chairwoman Herrera closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Ruiz made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chairman Alarcon, to ADOPT Resolution No. 09-24 (Attachment B),;a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 886 (Attachment C), modifying the Zoning Ordinance with respect'to Design Review requirements in the R-1 (Single Family Residential) and R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) zones. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None B. DESIGN REVIEW 00-81 (MODIFICATION) - Rosemead Place, LLC has submitted an application to modify Design Review 00-81, requesting to amend theexisting master sign program for Rosemead Place Shopping Center, located at 3506-3684 Rosemead Boulevard in the C3-D (Medium Commercial With a Design Overlay) zone. PC RESOLUTION 09-25- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 00-81 (MODIFICATION), TO AMEND THE EXISTING MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR ROSEMEAD PLACE SHOPPING CENTER, LOCATED AT 3506-3684 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD IN THE C3-D (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE (APNS: 8594-023-034, 042, 044, & 045). Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission APPROVE Design Review 00-81 (Modification) for a period of one (1) year and adopt Resolution 09-25, subject to conditions outlined in Exhibit "B" attached hereto. Assistant Planner Trinh presented staff report. Commissioner Eng questioned staff if the lettering style is changing at all under the strategic plan. Principal Planner Bermejo stated no, there is not a specific font outlined in the master sign program. Community Development Director Saeki questioned Commissioner Eng if you are asking about the strategic plan that was just approved. He stated that there is no specific mention of a font for signs. He also stated the overall objective of the strategic plan is to create a cohesive environment. Commissioner Eng questioned staff in regards to traffic. She asked if there are any obstruction concerns with the directional signs.' Principal Planner Bermejo replied no. Commissioner Eng questioned staff whatJifestyle signs are. Principal Planner Bermejo stated it is a new type of sign that uses photographs, which will be placed in designated areas on Building B. She also stated that the signage will be photographic images of people, holiday's,;and seasons. She also stated that there are Conditions of Approval that have been added so that no off -site advertisement is allowed on lifestyle sign. Commissioner Eng requested clarification.,on Condition of Approval No. 3. She stated that the approval period was for one year, and asked if it should be for six months. Principal Planner Bermejo stated'that a Condition of Use Permit has a six month period but provisions for Design Reviews are for one year. Chairwoman Herrera opened the Public Hearing and invited applicant to podium. Catherine Distefano, representing Rosemead Place, stated that the murals proposed on Building B are for curb appeal. She stated that the images will display holiday decor which will be visible from the 1 -10 Freeway, and that the use of the imagery will get people to stop and shop. She also stated the monument signs will be renovated with colors to match the buildings onsite. Commissioner Eng questioned applicant to when she anticipates starting upgrades. Catherine Distefano stated that she is ready to start now. Commissioner Hunter thanked Catherine Distefano for doing this project and stated it will look very nice. Chairwoman Herrera asked if there anyone in favor of this project Brian Lewin stated that he likes signs updated and hopes that Mayumba is included in the new sign program. He also stated that he has two reservations about the project. He also questioned if the signs have been evaluated for visibility issues in regards to placement and size, since they are located near entrances. Principal Planner stated the signs were reviewed by the City's architectural review committee, and staff believes they will not create any issues. Brian Lewin stated he is not totally convinced with the lifestyle signage, and stated that people on the 1-10 Freeway do not need a visual distraction. He also asked for clarification as to if the signs were static or consisted of changing images. Principal Planner Bermejo stated they will be images that do not change, and that the applicant will need to come in and submit a new plan to put up a new image. Commissioner Ruiz stated they will be static signs with images that can be changed with seasons. Chairwoman Herrera questioned if there was anyone against. None Chairwoman Herrera closed the Public Hearing. Vice-Chairman Alarcon made a motion, seconded by Chairwoman Herrera to APPROVE Design Review 00-81 (Modification) for a period of one (1) year and adopt Resolution 09-25, subject to conditions outlined in Exhibit "B". Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None C. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 09-03 - AMENDING CHAPTER 17.12 OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE AMORTIZATION OF NONCONFORMING POULTRY SLAUGHTER BUSINESSES - The City of Rosemead is proposing to amend Chapter 17.12 of the Rosemead Municipal Code relating to the amortization of nonconforming poultry slaughter businesses in the City (Ordinance No.883 - Exhibit A). Under the current code, poultry slaughter is not a permitted use. However, poultry slaughter businesses commenced prior to May 14, 1991 which have continued in existence since that time may continue to exist, so long as they do not expand. The proposed amendment requires that all nonconforming poultry slaughter businesses cease operation effective December 31, 2012. PC RESOLUTION 09-23 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPT MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 09- 03 AMENDING CHAPTER 17.12 OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE AMORATIZATION OF NONCONFORMING POULTRY SLAUGHTER BUSINESSES Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 09-23, a resolution recommending that the City Council APPROVE the Negative Declaration and ADOPT Ordinance No. 883, modifying the zoning code with respect to the amortization of poultry slaughter businesses. Community Development Director Saeki presented staff report. Commissioner Hunter questioned staff why this business is still operating after all these years with all the violations this business has had. Community Development Director Saeki stated that the City of Rosemead has done all that they can do to bring Cal Poultry into compliance, and when other agencies and entities investigated they did not warrant shutting the business down. He also stated that City Attorney Murphy would be able to offer a legal perspective. City Attorney Murphy stated that he did. not have ~ much more to add, and also stated that when other bodies were given jurisdiction and took action, they did not recommend or request that the City take any further action, and then there is not much the City can do. He also stated that when the State or County states that the problems have been solved, then the City considers it solved. He also stated that city staff has looked at it and thinks abatement is the right thing to do at this time, so as to resolve an on going problem. Vice-Chairman Alarcon stated the City has done what it can and that the business has had enough time to recoup their investments, and he feels three years is too long and he recommends it be one year and he likes the ordinance, but he would like it changed to 2010. Commissioner Hunter stated she agrees with Vice-Chairman Alarcon and feels that three years is too long. She also questioned staff if it takes that long for a business to re-establish themselves. Brian Saeki stated that amortization will allow the business to recuperate what they have invested into the City. He also said that the legal staff recommended that three years was a fair amount of time for the business to relocate and get re-established. He also stated that if the Planning Commission would like to recommend to the City Council a one year amortization that would be fine, and he also added that this was not recommended by our City Attorney. Commissioner Hunter questioned staff if in three years will they continue to do what they are doing now for another three years. 6 Community Development Director Saeki stated that whatever day this amortization comes into effect, they will still be required to fix all the problems they have today, if they still want to remain in business. He also stated that after December 31, 2012, as proposed in this ordinance, they will not be able to operate in the City of Rosemead. Commissioner Eng questioned staff if the applicant or representative of business owner was present tonight. Community Development Director Saeki replied no. Commissioner Eng stated that with the chronology of events that staff presented, there does not seem to appear consistent productive dialog between the City and the business. She also stated the business was granted a Certificate of Occupancy in 1991 and then five months afterwards we adopted an ordinance to remove that use, but they were permitted to operate for eight years. She also stated in 1997 they entered into an Impact Agreement and paid eighteen thousand dollars to address traffic and parking concerns. She also stated that the business continued to operate and in 2006 they were cited for code violations. She also stated that there has been inconsistency with dealing with this business and there are numerous code violations that still need to be resolved so that this business can still operate. She stated we are all good neighbors and a community that needs to work together. She stated she visited the business site around 2:00 p.m., and without talking.to anyone she walked around the site and surrounding property. She noted the various. land uses surrounding the business and described the inside the business. She said there were chickens being sold at the address of 8932, no chickens were being sold at 89,42', there was a good flow of customers of diversity, and six to eight employees working. She stated that it is a functional business that employs people and that is something we need to consider in this economy. She also stated that there was an unpleasant odor that was very apparent in front of the business, but did not notice it as much while walking along the surrounding area. She also stated that.odors cannot be blocked, and they are worse during the summer. She concluded by stating that it is an established business, it is employing people, it is providing a need for the community, it provides getting fresh poultry without going far. She asked staff where the other fresh poultry businesses are located that were stated in the staff report. Community Development Director Saeki stated that staff did a search to find similar types of uses in the surrounding area and found there are several in Los Angeles; one or two in the El Monte/South El Monte area; and about half a dozen within a five mile radius. He also stated he contacted El Monte and South El Monte, and found that they are in the same situation as Rosemead regarding Cal Poultry, so they will not be cities considered for relocation. He said that there are other areas around Rosemead that will allow these types of businesses. Commissioner Ruiz stated that he would like to agree with Commissioner Alarcon and Commissioner Hunter. He also stated that while he served on the Traffic Commission with Commissioner Alarcon and dealt with some of the traffic issues that have been discussed, in reality they never were resolved. He also stated that he keeps in touch with some of the business owners in that neighborhood, that the business is still taking advantage of the City, and violations are still taking place. He said he feels we need to put a stop to the business and feels that this is not a business for this community. He also stated that this business is growing and flourishing, and it is time to have it relocated. He said he agrees that it does offer jobs and helps the economy, but he feels the business will not try to fix anything and will continue to make violations. He also questioned City Attorney Murphy if it was feasible to change the deadline to 2010, and asked about the ramifications if the Commission proposes that time frame. City Attorney Murphy stated that the Planning Commission can recommend anything that they want to the Council, and if the Commission feels one year is proper then the Commission can make that recommendation. He also stated it will be much easier for the Council to abate this non-conforming use to look at that three year period and to say that three year period allows enough time for actual write off of the investment made for this company, as it shows that the city understands the need to wind the business down in this location and then to move it out. He also states the three year period based on their research and staff's research, and it is much more defensible if ultimately the business owner wants to try to challenge the city. He also stated we looked into what is the best legally and most fair way to abate the non-conforming use and what is the best position for the City to be in when the drop dead date does come. He also stated that is why we advised the City on the three year date period and not the one year period that is in the interest of the Commission. He also said, the Planning Commission can make the recommendation to the Council, if they think it is appropriate. Commissioner Ruiz questioned Vice-Chairman Alarcon how he felt about this. Vice-Chairman Alarcon stated that regardless of one year or three years he feels the business will fight the City and would still like to recommend it to be one year. He also stated that we are working to make the City a nice community and that this business does not fit into this community anymore. Commissioner Ruiz stated he agrees with Vice-Chairman Alarcon and states we should like to make an amendment to make it 2010 and.see what happens. Commissioner Eng asked staff what is the designated use for this area, the current zoning classification, and questioned what type of tools the City has to effectively deal with legal non-conforming uses. She also gave a description of how the County of Los Angeles handles a legal-non conforming use and stated she thought is was an effective tool. Community Development Director Saeki replied that the current general plan designation is mixed use and the underlying zone designation is M-1 (Light Industrial). He said that the City's code currently has an amortization section in it, but there is no due process or specific language. Commissioner Eng stated that she would like to make a recommendation during "Matters of the Commissioners" recommending staff to have some sort of non- conforming use guideline policy in place so we can deal with issues like this in the future. Commissioner Hunter questioned staff to why the word legalized slaughter house is used in the staff report. Community Development Director Saeki questioned Commissioner Hunter on what pages. 8 Commissioner Hunter stated that it is on different pages, and they keep using the word legalized, like it is legal. Community Development Director Saeki stated that right now it is a non-permitted use in the City and requested City Attorney Murphy to give legal explanation. City Attorney Murphy stated that it is a legal use but it is one that is not permitted by the municipal code. He also stated that cities in setting up on how they want their city to operate can allow certain things and disallow others, a legal non-conforming use means its use is non-conforming to your code but is still something that is ok with the law in general. He also stated that when they say it is a legal slaughter house, it is one that is operating legally as a slaughter house within Los Angeles County, but it is not in compliance with Rosemead's City Code, and that is why it would be a legal slaughter house, as opposed to one that is setup in someone's back yard and operating totally illegally. Commissioner Hunter asked staff what is the legal recourse if we change this to one year instead of three, and if there is a possibly of a lawsuit for a certain amount of money. Community Development Saeki stated that there was no specific amount mentioned, and the overall consensus was that three years was more legally defensible and when you have a one year amortization period then you become more open to litigation. He also stated the likeliness of this business suing the City is pretty good. Commissioner Hunter stated that three years is too long, and if we change it to one year, the business may take the City to court and it will then take longer than three years. Community Development Director Saeki stated that if it the amortization was changed to one year, and if the business takes the City to court and wins, we are done. He also stated if the City loses then we have to start this process again and they could be awarded their legal fees. He also. stated that staff is working with the property owner to help them find a new location and one year is not enough time to get everything done properly. Commissioner Ruiz questioned staff if two years would be better. Community Development Director Saeki stated one year is fine, two years would be better, but three years is what is recommended. Chairwoman Herrera questioned staff if the business will still have to comply with City codes and ordinances whether it is one, two, or three years. She also asked how the codes will be enforced. Community Development Director Saeki stated yes, they will have to comply with codes, and our Code Enforcement will enforce through litigation if needed. Chairwoman Herrera opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in favor of this item. 9 Ralph Herrera stated that this business has demonstrated it is not very willing to comply with the ordinances, and if you give them three years they have no reason to comply. He also stated that he can see a three year battle, and it is possible to give them one year with a review not to exceed three years to build a case, in case you go to court. Chairwoman Herrera questioned if there was anyone else in favor or anyone against this item. None Chairwoman Herrera closed the Public Hearing Commissioner Eng stated she agrees with everyone and we are trying to keep Rosemead up to standards. She also stated that shutting down businesses is not what we should be doing and stated that she would like to explore other options. Commissioner Ruiz stated this business has been given every opportunity to comply and we are-not in the business to shut businesses down, but we are here for the community and we should vote on something tonight. . Vice-Chairman Alarcon stated that he would like to make a motion to accept the ordinance that has been written by staff with the exception that the amortization period be for one year, not three, ending in 2010 instead of 2012. City Attorney Murphy stated that he would like clarify the motion which is section two of the ordinance where it says Section 17.12.105, Sub-Section A. Amortization period, should be read that, "After December 31, 2010, no person may cause, allow, or permit the continued use." He asked if that is that correct. Vice-Chairman Alarcon stated that"yes that is his motion. Commissioner Hunter stated that she is concerned, and the business should be given three years, but limits should be set within the first year stating that they must comply with all the City ordinances and codes. Community Development Director Saeki stated that it will be better for the Planning Commission to recommend a date certain. Vice-Chairman Alarcon made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz, to ADOPT Resolution No. 09-23, a resolution recommending that the City Council APPROVE the Negative Declaration and ADOPT Ordinance No. 883, modifying the zoning code with respect to the amortization of poultry slaughter businesses, and to include amending the year from 2012 to 2010. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: Commissioner Eng Absent: None 10 5. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIRWOMAN & COMMISSIONERS None Vice-Chairman Alarcon asked staff about the status of the Fresh & Easy market. Principal Planner Bermejo stated they are currently in Plan Check and moving forward. Vice-Chairman Alarcon questioned staff if Howards was going to move into the Barr Lumber property. Community Development Director Saeki stated no, that the property is in escrow right now. Commissioner Eng recommended that staff find a tool or guidelines to effectively deal with legal non-conforming uses. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PRINCIPAL PLANNER & STAFF None 7. ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, December 21, 2009, at 7:00 P. M. Meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Diana Herrera Chairwoman ATTEST: Rachel Lockwood, Commission Secretary 11