Loading...
PC - Minutes 9-6-94• • CITY OF ROSEMEAD 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING September 6, 1994 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER - The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead was called to order by Chairman Lowrey at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers of the Rosemead City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Ruiz. The Invocation was delivered by Chairman Breen. 2. ROLL CALL - Present: Absent: Ex Officio: Loi, Ruiz, Lowrey, Breen, Ortiz Wagner, Price, Lyons, Troyer, Valderrama 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular meeting of August 1, 1994 and Regular meeting of August 15, 1994. (MO) It was moved by commissioner Ruiz, seconded by Commission Breen to approve the minutes of August 1, 1994 and August 15, 1994. Vote resulted: Yes: Loi, Ruiz, Lowrey, Breen No: None Abstain: None Absent: Ortiz 4. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS - City Attorney Stanton Price explained the public hearing process and the right to appeal decisions of the. Planning Commission to the City Council. 5. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH - The secretary administered the oath to members of the audience wishing to speak. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. DESIGN REVIEW 94-63 & ZONE VARIANCE 94-267 - 9049-9051 E. Valley Boulevard - Request from Wendy Shen to consider a request for a variance providing nine (9) parking spaces in lieu of the required eleven (11) spaces and a Design Review to remodel the exterior front facade of an existing building for property located in the Central Business District (CBD-D) with a Design overlay zone. Mr. Troyers presented the staff memorandum with the recommendation to approve subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit A. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Addressing the Commission in favor of the request was: Simon Lee, 140 W. Valley Boulevard, San Gabriel. Mr. Lee, architect of the project and speaking on behalf of the applicant Wendy Shen, stated that he concurred with staff's recommendation and that all conditions of approval are agreeable, and that he would be happy to answer any questions. Addressing the Commission in opposition of the request were: C PC Minutes 9-6-94 page 2. Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, Rosemead. Mr. Nunez was concerned on how the lost of two parking spaces on Valley Boulevard would affect the area. Mr. Troyer responded that as clearly stated in the staff report, the tenants or clients do not use the existing street parking spaces and staff felt that with the granting of the variance, parking spaces provided will not be maximized. Mr. Nunez inquired if there was any recourse in case there was a need for more parking spaces in the future. He also wanted to know the time limit of a variance. Mr. Lyons responded that there are some options that could be considered. Either to reduce the amount of office space in the front and thereby do away with the need for the variance, or a condition may be added requiring the applicant to come back to the Commission for review of any parking problem that may arise. Jay Imperial, 9039 Newby, Rosemead. Mr. Imperial clarified that he was speaking not as an elected official but as a person living in the area. Mr. Imperial was concerned and wanted an explanation on the effect to the property with tenants being out of the office or in China. Mr. Lyons responded that parking variances have been processed in the past for various reasons and have to meet the findings section in the Rosemead Municipal Code. Every situation is unique and different but this is the very purpose of the variance section, otherwise there would be an absolute implementation of our codes with no recourse. It is a system that allows for some flexibility, and this application is an example of this. Staff feels that the reduction of the eleven (11) parking spaces down to nine (9) should not create parking problem. Mr. Lyons continued that any change of use in any of the tenant spaces requires an occupancy permit and if this change of use is inappropritate, then the occupancy permit will be denied. Mr. Price clarified that variances are not time limited. They are like zoning changes. Mr. Imperial wanted to know if this procedure would be a part of the record in case business changes some time in the future. His concern was for future reference where a different set of Planning Commissioners may come and review the record, get all the necessary information and act accordingly. Mr. Price stated that the record would consists of the decision or conditions imposed by the Commission. There will be minutes to refer to, but the decision itself will be the major document indicating what transpired at this meeting and for the new Planning Commission to get the history of the case and decide, they will have to incorporate it with the previous decision by adding it as a condition to be part of the record. Mr. Nunez wanted to know if tenant gets refunded for a lease agreement when it is denied due to parking deficiencies. Mr. Lyons responded that refunds on lease agreements are not the jurisdiction of the planning department. However, as stated in the occupancy permit application, applicants are advised not to sign a lease agreement until all approvals are obtained from the City. Mr. Price clarified that everybody is supposed to know the law Pi • PC Minutes 9-6-94 page 3. and prudent business people obligations until they come to requirements and restrictions. do not enter into financial the City Hall to find out City's Alice Vasquez, 9445 Ralph Street, Rosemead, was objecting to the approval of the nine (9) parking spaces when the requirement was originally for eleven (11). Mr. Wagner explained that everyone has the right to come before the Planning Commission or the City Council and request a variance with due process. Since the Commission had not given any decisions yet, anybody has the right to come up before the Commission or City Council and state whether he is in favor or against the proposal. Given an opportunity for rebuttal, Mr. Lee explained that a new front facade with some depth was needed to create the design of the project. The building is recessed from the street where the majority of the building is along the property line. There being no one else wishing to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Discussion by the Commission. (MO) It was moved by Commission Breen, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz, to approve Design Review 94-63 & Zone Variance 94-267. Vote resulted: Yes: Loi, Ruiz, Lowrey, Breen No: None Abstain: None Absent: Ortiz 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-617 - Request from Intertrust Development to add nine (9) parking spaces to an existing shopping center in the Central Business District (CBD-D) with a Design Overlay zone located at 9200 E. Valley Boulevard, dba Valley Hart Plaza. Mr. Lyons presented the staff report with the recommendation to approve with added conditions of approval. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Addressing the Commission in favor of the request were: Jeff Wang, speaking on behalf of the owner. He explained that both of the properties are zoned commercial. There are some concern about the traffic but a study was done using Valley Boulevard as an exit and would not therefore affect the residential area in the neighborhood. Mr. Wang requested approval of the conditional permit as it would be beneficial to both the property owners and the City. Mark Chen, 2450 Mission Street, San Marino. Mr. Chen, the manager and owner of the property, stated that he had cooperated with the City's requirements in the past. He requested approval of the project and he was prepared to answer any questions from the Commission. Kenneth Pike, 9220 Steele Street, Rosemead. Mr. Pike felt that property owners should be able to use their property for whatever zoning they have. And in this particular instance, the property has been zoned commercial for the last thirty years and therefore should be able to use it as zoned. Carlos Lopez, 3953 Hart Avenue, Rosemead. Mr. Lopez believe PC Minutes 9-6-94 page 4. that approval of the proposal will help traffic and parking problem in the area. Dolly Leong, 9554 Ralph Street, Rosemead. Ms. Leong observed the place to be well kept, well maintained property. She was of the opinion that granting of the permit would be an asset for the business establishment. Addressing the Commission in opposition to the project were: Constance Wong, 9211 Steele Street, Rosemead. Mr. Wong was of the opinion that there was no need for additional parking spaces in the area, and was concerned about a possible increase in traffic, crime and violence. Rosendo Montanez, 9215 Steele Street, Rosemead. Mr. Montanez' opposition was based on loss of privacy with the commercial property's encroachment in residential area. Mary Hankley, 3928 N. Hart, Rosemead. Ms. Hankley was opposed based on unhealthy reasons with transients using the chain link fence for bathroom purposes. Rose Brushia, 9122 Steele Street, Rosemead. Ms. Brushia was in opposition based on congestion and unsafe traffic condition. Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, Rosemead. Mr. Nunez commented that instead of wrought iron fence, putting up of a blockwall would be more beneficial as blockwalls give more privacy, as well as, absorb most of the noise around the neighborhood. Martin Mark, 9147 Steele Street, Rosemead. Mr. Mark was of the opinion that there was no need for additional parking spaces as praking spaces in the rear of the building are currently empty and unused. Alice Vasquez, 9445 Ralph Street, Rosemead. Ms. Vasquez' suggested that the applicant should use Valley Boulevard for parking instead of the residential part. Speaking in rebuttal to those opposed to the project was Mr. Pike, who stated that there were some misconceptions regarding the urinating, as per Mrs. Hankley's allegations. The hedge is not located at the applicant's property but on the City property. And if approval is given for this proposal, a chain link fence can be placed where the hedge is and it could look nice. Mr. Chen stated that he would be more than happy to construct wrought iron grill and he stated that he was agreeable to all the conditions of approval. There being no one else wishing to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Discussion by the Commission: Commissioner Ruiz commented about the pros and cons of the project. And based from staff's report, he felt there was no sign or evidence of overflowing of cars in that facility. Also, there was no evidence to indicate a need for additional parking spaces. He, therefore, made the motion to deny Conditional Use Permit 94-617. Commissioner Breen was concerned about condition #10 making it mandatory for all employees to use these nine (9) parking spaces. For this reason, he would vote to deny. PC Minutes 9-6-94 page 5. (MO) It was moved by Commissioner Ruiz, seconded by Chairman Lowrey, to deny Conditional Use Permit 94-617. Vote resulted: Yes: Loi, Ruiz, Lowrey, Breen No: None Abstain: None Absent: Ortiz City Attorney Stan Price explained the right to appeal process to the applicant. OTHER BUSINESS 8. EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-298 - Request to continue the sale of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a restaurant located at 3643 Rosemead Boulevard, dba Denny's Restaurant. Mr. Troyer presented the staff memorandum with the recommendation to approve the extension for three years subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit A. (MO) Motion Commissioner Ruiz, second by Commissioner Breen that the Commission approve the recommendation. Vote resulted: Yes: Loi, Ruiz, Lowrey, Breen No: None Abstain: None Absent: Ortiz 9. EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-596 - Request to continue the sale of beer and wine for on-site consumption in conjunction with a restaurant located at 8450 E. Valley Boulevard, #119 & #120, dba Meize Restaurant. Mr. Troyer presented the staff memorandum with the recommendation to approve the extension for two years subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit A. Commissioner Loi wanted to know what type of incidents occurred as shown in the Sheriff's incident report. Mr. Troyer responded that the three incidents happened late at night which are not attributable to management or customers of the restaurant. It was ascertained that the applicant was in the audience to answer any questions from the Commission. Commissioner Lowrey recommended approval of the extension for one year instead of two years. (MO) It was moved by Commissioner Loi, seconded by Commissioner Breen, to extend Conditional Use Permit 93-596 for a period of one year. Vote resulted: Yes: Loi, Ruiz, Lowrey, Breen No: None Abstain: None Absent: Ortiz 10. PC RESOLUTION 94-10 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD GRANTING APPROVAL OF PLANNING TEXT AMENDMENT 94-1 AMENDING THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ADDITIONS TO EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USES AND DWELLINGS WITH SUBSTANDARD PARKING. 11. PC RESOLUTION 94-17 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD GRANTING APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW PC Minutes 9-6-94 page 6. 94-62 TO REMODEL AN EXISTING OFFICE AND RESTAURANT, AND FRONT FACADE IMPROVEMENTS FOR PROPERTY IN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD-D) DESIGN OVERLAY ZONE LOCATED AT 9139-9143 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD (SAIGON-RENDEZVOUS). 12. PC RESOLUTION 94-18 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD GRANTING APPROVAL OF ZONE VARIANCE 94-265 TO MAINTAIN AN EXISTING 75 FOOT HIGH POLE SIGN WITH ELECTRONIC READER BOARD IN CONJUNCTION WITH A CHINESE CABLE TELEVISION STATION LOCATED IN THE C-3D ZONE FOR PROPERTY AT 500 MONTEBELLO BOULEVARD (DBA NORTH AMERICAN TV). Mr. Price presented the resolutions by title only. (MO) It was moved by Commissioner Breen, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz, to waive further reading and adopt. Vote resulted: Yes: Loi, Ruiz, Lowrey, Breen No: None Abstain: None Absent: Ortiz 13. ORAL COMMUNICATION FROM THE AUDIENCE - On any matter - None 14. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS AND STAFF A. Commissioner Loi informed the Commission of his intent to attend the Planning Commission Luncheon meeting at San Marino on September 28, 1994. 15. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. The next meeting will take place on September 19, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. z