Loading...
PC - Minutes 7-5-94CITY OF ROSEMEAD 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING July 5, 1994 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER - The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead was called to order by Commissioner Ruiz who acted as Chairman for tonight's meeting with Chairman Lowrey as Vice Chairman of the evening 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 Commissioner Ortiz. 2. ROLL CALL - Present: Loi, Ruiz, Lowrey, Breen, Ortiz Absent: None Ex Officio: Wagner, Price, Lyons, Pickett 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular meeting of June 20, 1994 (MO) It was moved by Commissioner Ortiz, seconded by Vice-Chairman Lowrey, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of June 20, 1994. Vote resulted: Yes: Loi, Ruiz, Lowrey, Breen, Ortiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 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. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-615 - 8923 Mission Drive - Request from Long Fu Kao & Jui Chun Liu for the transfer of an existing ABC license for the off-site sale of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a market at Rose Market. Mr. Lyons presented the staff report with the recommendation to approve for one (1) year, subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit "A". Having no questions from the Commission, the Chairman opened the public hearing. Addressing the Commission in favor of the request was the daughter of the current owner of the business, Sonia Chang. Ms. Chang stated that her parents are eager to sell the business due to the mother's illness that had gotten worse. And since her parents were the ones tending the business, they are presently unable to handle it. And for any problems, they were willing to comply and resolve them. There being no one else wishing to address the Commission, the public hearing was close. • PC Minutes 7-5-94 page 2. 46 (MO) Without discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Breen,seconded by Commissioner Loi, to approve Conditional Use Permit 94-615. Vote resulted: Yes: Loi, Ruiz, Lowrey, Breen, Ortiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None OTHER BUSINESS 7. MODIFICATION OF ZONE VARIANCE 92-238 - 8632 E. Valley Boulevard - Request from Jan Tai Giang to expand the hours of operation for restaurant use at the BBQ #1 Restaurant. Mr. Lyons presented the staff memorandum and recommended a one year approval, subject to the conditions outlined in Exhibit "An Commissioner Loi had some concern with the kitchen facility to support the applicant's request for expanding the hours of operation as a sit down restaurant and to increase the numbers of seats for the diners. Mr. Lyons responded expansion of busines the existing kitchen the need. It was ascertained attendance. that the applicant's request was for s hours and increase of dining seats with facility being sufficiently large to meet that the new owner/applicant was in Bob Young, 3612 Marybeth Avenue, Rosemead. Mr. Young addressing the Commission in favor of the project and speaking on behalf of the applicant stated that the request was for an increase of occupancy to 24 diners and for expansion of business hours. But since staff would not support an increase in occupancy, they are agreeable with how staff felt and they were not requesting for more than what they already have. The request is for the expansion of the length of time the restaurant is open for business. He continued that said restaurant was actually a sandwich shop and not a full fledge restaurant. Mr. Young clarified that the place will just be extending their hours of operation and with no additional seatings. In relation to seating capacity, Commissioner Ortiz stated that the present condition of approval allows for an occupancy load of 16 diners, but the restaurant presently has 30 seats. Mr. Young responded that the applicant was not concerned with the seating capacity but their main issue was to request for the expansion of business hours. Commissioner Ortiz stated that currently, the restaurant has six (6) tables of four seats and two (2) tables of two seats, and he would like an explanation for this. Mr. Lyons responded that having more seats than 16 does not necessarily mean that there will be more than 16 diners but just a number of combinations of seats, although the number of table spaces should be reduced. Commissioner Ortiz felt that seating capacity should be clarified. Chairman Ruiz responded that a seating combination or requirement should be met in order to clarify this matter. 0 0 PC Minutes 6-20-94 page 3. lost a lot of money, he pays the fee all over again, pay me all over again to re-draw the plan. In fact, the one you see right there is almost the fifth version of what you know we come up with. I know that it will make the look of the project better take the two units away but again that will jack up the cost of the property and then we defeat the purpose of providing affordable housing. We need your understanding, this is our three lot when they bought it they thought they can build some condominium or apartment but again that lot is not good either besides this is a good compromise we build single family house in our three lot and I think somehow the City should appreciate what they have done. And probably the City did, that's why we got the approval last time. But now, we have problems, we have you know difficulties we need your help. That's why we're here again and you have the floor plans with you, you probably know that, the building we're building that they are customed built houses, with the gates, sliding gates, private gates in the front it will be one of the you know still the very nice project in the City. And as far as the zero lot line approach, it's all over now. That's the only way to work right now. As far as the easement and the, you know, and the other the driveway, you know make the driveway wide enough for the Fire Department we have no problem. We agreed to work with the City. As far as the four units in the back that the driveway looks kind a ugly we can re-arrange a little bit to put some landscaping in that is still acceptable we can work. However, to take away the 18 and 19, Mrs. Lau just told me earlier that it's too big for her to take. And even though it's not my project, I'm just working here, I feel sorry if that's the case, you know, this project the cost will go up, definitely. I'm here to answer, ready to answer whatever question you may have. LOWREY: Okey, maybe in a little bit Mr. Cheng. Thank you very much. ORTIZ: Mr. Chairman. LOWREY: Commissioner Ortiz. ORTIZ: Yes, you indicated affordable housing. What is affordable housing? Where do they gonna go in if you have 19 or if you reduce it now what is the cost of these homes? CHENG: Okey, good question. Right now, the government is making. ORTIZ: My question is what is affordable, how much are these gonna go for? CHENG: I'm going to tell you that. In fact I haven't had a chance to talk to them yet, but everything is tied to what kind of financing you can get. Anything below $200,000 or in that neighborhood the Federal government have all kind of program to make a loan, make the interest rate very attractive and we are targeting about $220,000. If we lose 2 units then it wouldn't be possible. The guy just have a bigger yard, that's all but we lose those 2 units. It makes it harder for the buyer to then we're talking about $250,000, I don't know, in fact $250,000 or $260,000. And then, you know what, we will be competing with some of the older homes that were foreclosed by the bank. We can't sell, because the older homes will have bigger yards. The only competitive act we have is a new home, it's new, it's fresh, it's clean, it's beautiful. But if the price is about the same or beyond the reach, they won't buy it. It's not easy I tell you, you know, I have so many clients PC Minutes 6-20-94 page 4. we just scrap the project I just, you know, some even go out and have to develop in Las Vegas, Arizona, Texas, they lost their interest in southern California. LOWREY: Any more questions Mr. Ortiz? ORTIZ: No, that's it, thank you. LOWREY: Anybody else while Mr. Cheng's on his feet, Commissioner Ruiz any questions? RUIZ: Oh, yeah, I just want to make some comments. LOWREY: Do you want to do that when we close the public hearing or now? RUIZ: One of the things that really concern me was the 30 foot wide fire lane. Looking at the plan and staff reports, I see that there's very little access there and in the event that there was cars parked there, that would narrow the entry main street. CHENG: No cars are supposed to, you know, permitted to park. RUIZ: Certainly, certainly they're not supposed to but that doesn't mean that they won't. LYONS: If I may, Chairman, I just want to add a little bit since you brought that up. When we work with the Fire Department, we look at the worst case scenario and that 34 feet is their requirement designed for people who will break the law or break the code requirements and park their cars there on either side. But the fire department says if they have cars on either side of the 34 foot driveway they can still get by that's okey. That's why they want 34 it's almost as if it's a public street, and the public can go ahead and park there. LOWREY: Are there any questions from Mr. Cheng? Thank you, Mr. Cheng. CHENG: Oh, I also want to point out that in the City of Los Angeles there are roads that are even narrower than this and they allow parking on both sides. Thank you. LOWREY: Anybody else wish to speak in favor of this project? Anybody wish to speak in opposition to this project? RAUTH: My name is John Rauth, R-a-u-t-h. I live at 4528 Bartlett which is next to the so called nursery and I'm within a 300 feet of a proposed development. I was here 4 years ago, and spoken in opposition to this project and at that time it was recorded that I had mixed emotions about the project and that it will eliminate the bad area but replaced it with too much density. I don't have any mix emotions about this one at all, I am in total opposition to this this time. This time, we are getting 19 units in there as you could see and this is just absolute density, as far as I'm concerned. This is density and it's unprecedented plot plan setting these properties on the zero lot line concept is unprecented, unprecedented kind of thing. I can't see where you can have all kinds of legal problems with this kind of thing within the neighbor yes you mean the neighbor has to work on somebody else's property gets injured there could be legal problems here. I know we're going to wash our hands of it 'cause it's not our we're not going to worry about that. You know this gentleman was here 4 years ago and did the same kind of pleading that he is doing here • • PC Minutes 6-20-94 page 7. about, this is the single family homes with zoning that has the large setbacks in front or the rear that has the floor area ratio requirements. There's a small percentage of property that are either dark brown as you'll see it, that are generally found along the busier streets; that portion of Mission down toward to Rosemead Boulevard, Rosemead Boulevard some portions of Hellman and this piece currently is within that zone. So this piece makes up, makes up a very small percentage of the zoning of the City. And I think it'd be wrong if we continually throw it in with the property that makes up the lion share of the City and that is the R-1, as you can see it, and the R-2. I think, that's why there's a little bit of surprise here and this isn't your stereo typical subdivision because it's not zoned for a stereo typical subdivision, it's zoned for multi family. LOWREY: Thank you, Mr. Lyons. Thank you, Mr. Nunez. NUNEZ: Well, I'm not through yet. I believe that there's been a concern with the Council the homes would it have any play area with the children and in this case would there be enough play area in this development? LOWREY: Mr. Lyons. LYONS: If I may, there was a concern that there wasn't enough floor space or open space so the requirement was to reduce the bulk of those buildings down a bit which the floor area ratio does. I should also add though that every unit that's created will have to pay a large fee that's called a Park's Department fee requiring that they pay and I think it's $800.00 towards the Park's Department to allow them to create and maintain parks throughout the City. They also have to pay a school fee of around $2,000, $3,000 which goes towards the school district to help pay for any impact on the school district. The school district has received a letter, all the service providers, the park's dept., the school depts. have received letters and have commented. So I'd like it be known that if there's a discussion of impact on schools, impact on open space, that these projects are required to mitigate this impact through fees for parks and schools. NUNEZ: But again, children that are small enough had to go to the park, you know, and play around home. As I understood it, that this was a concern of the Council and if this area, will this area have enough of a play area for the children? LYONS: you know, with the zero lot line requirement, instead of having too small 5 foot setbacks on either side, you have one big 10 foot setback that comes around to the rear, we're also requiring the removal of those 2 units (#19 & #18), that they provide for more yard space. We truly think that there will be a yard area there. In addition, as we all know, some of these young families with kids have a hard time being able to afford a brand new house, and I think, some of them would gladly accept a smaller backyard if they can at least get into the homeownership market. So I think, what you've got is a little bit of a compromise here. If we require large yards for the children to play in, you may prevent some of these young families from even purchasing the house to begin with. But again, those concerns are really slanted towards the R-1 and R-2 properties. This being in a more of a multi family zone, we expect these units not to provide as much open space. • PC Minutes 6-20-94 page 5. right now that he couldn't, he couldn't even put 13 units in there. He was allowed to put 13 units in there a very nice development and he let the ball drop. Mr. Ortiz, I think, that you were on the Commission at that time. I think you should all be aware of what happened there and at that time you were concerned about 50% lot coverage. And we are now in a P-D development thing, and they don't see it worry about that kind of thing anymore. I talked to the gentleman (referring to Mr. Lyons) here about this "FAR" thing it's not even involved in this program. I don't understand what kind of rules that we're playing this thing to nowadays. I don't understand that. There doesn't seem to be any standard in this thing, I guess when you get a P-D, zoning, you can say that do anything that you, that he pleases. You know we're, we're the ones that live in the R-1 area and we're gonna have to live with this thing after this thing's built, we're gonna live with this thing. And this thing is not even in harmony with any of the rest of the that area around here. If if I look up and down mission, Mission seems to be a place where City of Rosemead wants to experiment with all kinds of different zone, zoning requirements. I can not believe the kind of difference out there and City of Rosemead seems to want to experiment with on that street. I think, I think, we have four years ago you gave us gentleman a very nice option to put 13 houses on there and it will work out very well he completely, he completely backed out on that on that deal. Completely backed out, on that deal. This thing is, this existing thing is there is no harmony with the rest of the area around there. I have I have I'm the only one that always that speaks of opposition with this kind of thing and I don't know why but because it irritates me, I'd like to see things in some kind of consistency. I have here gathered about 22 signatures for people that are in opposition to this project. And if I may, I would like to present this recognizance of this petitions to you at least there are 22 signatures from people that got the letter were sent out in opposition to that. I don't they're just in opposition mainly to the density of this particular development. And I think that serious consideration ought to be given. The last time we was here it was mentioned that what we're doing was a compromise. And I think the Planning commission gave him a very good compromise. Now he's coming back, now he's coming back and wants a different deal. I think we're getting the bad end of this thing. The existing home owners are getting the bad end of this thing. I'm sure that I can understand this gentleman was even pleading and pleading. Last 4 years ago he pleaded and we allow him to do this kind of thing. Now he's pleading again. Gentlemen, I would recommend that you that you reject this project. LOWREY: Thank you Mr. Rauth. Anybody also wants to speak in opposition to this project? Anybody wish to speak in opposition? NUNEZ: Juan Nunez, N-u-n-e-z, 2702 Del Mar. Yes, I would like to ask the same thing that this gentleman was speaking that in 1990 he was given a, an approval for 13 homes now he has come back and added another 6 more. I believe and Gary here ah I think, it's about 4 years that the down zones of the property was it, Gary? (Meaning Mr. Chicots). CHICOTS: About 3 - 4 years. NUNEZ: The down zones of properties came out and to upkeep the low density in the area and this doesn't seem like it'll make any low density, if I understand it right. Another thing that I find as for the floor area ratios on this properties • • PC Minutes 6-20-94 page 6. does that conform that are supposed a P-D may have But what are the, apply for a P requirement. to the floor area ratio of the properties to, I know that he's working on a P-D and a lot of leeways compared to an R-1 zone. what are the consequences of, can anybody -D? I know it had to have certain LYONS: If I may answer a couple of your questions. About 2 1/2 years ago, we established the floor area ratio for the R-1 and R-2 properties, that was 45% of the lot area not including the garage. If you have a calculator and calculate what a typical lot would be times 45%, the typical lot is 5,000 - 6,000 sq. feet half of that is 2,500 or 2,000 sq. feet. But as I stated, this project is not R-1, nor R-2; it has historically been zoned R-3 and to require the floor area ratio on this project is not really appropriate unless we consider this property at a lower density zoning which currently it's not. NUNEZ: Excuse me, I believe that that's what zoning this down zoned R-3 down zoned density purpose. And if you go through that then we all have to change the whole thing and throw the thing the out of, out of the book. LYONS: If I may, chairman, I want to keep this as specific as possible, the F. A. R. was amended for R-1, R-2. The code specifically requires a floor area ratio in the R-1, R-2 properties but not in R-3, not in commercial zones, not in industrial zones. LOWREY: Thank you Mr. Lyons, any other questions? NUNEZ: Another question, why was this property not down zoned? PRICE: I don't think it's appropriate to go into that, but the point is we don't have the information in front of us at this point and I don't think it's appropriate what we go into it. NUNEZ: Well, I wanna ask questions and I would like for you to get the information for our next meeting that we have here or when we come before the Council. Because I don't see PRICE: It doesn't really matter, because we can't go, there's no application to change this zoning to a lower density, that's not before the Commission at this point, we only have an application to change it to P-D. So it doesn't really matter what other arguments can you make before us. NUNEZ: A variance doesn't come into play on this? PRICE: No. NUNEZ: Okey. Also, what, isn't there a set footage, front footage for properties from the street? LYONS: Frontage, not footage. Frontage, yeah, there's a required frontage of 50 feet on a public street. Now, remember again, that this is not a standard subdivision. And if I could, Chairman, I just want to show a couple of things here, and that maybe will show why this property is not one of the many R-1 and R-2 properties in the City. I brought this map out here so you can see well. This is the entire City of Rosemead, the yellow and the brown here, which makes up the lion share of the City is the R-1 and R-2 properties. These properties are what we've been talking PC Minutes 6-20-94 page 8. NUNEZ: Okey, is t not opening people that side of my that person one he owns? ze Commission a gate or a this is my house here an, got injured a, when a zero zoned lot, are you a door for a lawsuit against the property and I have to work on my 3 I'm gonna go or there will be or on that property opposite of the LOWREY: Sir, I'll have for that the Director or the City Attorney. PRICE: The City would not be responsible for....a any lawsuits we have between one neighbor and another. All the city is requiring is an access to maintain his or her own property but if there is any problem between the neighbors that's the fault, that's the responsibility of the neighbor's and not the City. NUNEZ: No, but then the Commission here or the City's creating the problem, because you know they can get out create a problem before it starts, this watch are the developing in that form, then you're opening a door.... PRICE: No, we have other lots of experience with condominiums. Many, many types of property have easements of this sort and they have not caused the City any problem or any City any problems as far as I'm aware of. NUNEZ: No, I wasn't thinking of the City, I was thinking of the owner, the owner of the property. I wasn't really thinking of the City. LOWREY: Mr. Nunez, first of all, their C.C. & R.'s are going with this project if it's approved. It'll go with this. NUNEZ: Those C.C. & R.'s sometimes a buyer doesn't know about the C.C. & R.'s, this is the type of a home, I am going to buy the home and I make X amount of dollars payment and that's all I know until the buyer PRICE: Before the buyer buys, the buyer will have to sign the C.C. & R.'s. NUNEZ: I know, but when you're signed there, the ground develops that's when you start finding out, why did I signed? I mean, the ordinary person doesn't, you and I may know now, when I bought my house I knew nothing about C.C. & R. PRICE: I understand, people don't read what they sign. I know this is true but this is also the case in condominiums and other key plan developments, I mean, people do get along•in this situation since we've got some condo projects all over southern California, people do get along in signing C.C. & R.'s sooner or later and you have to read them and you do get along. So it's not the problem. NUNEZ: And maybe it's when before signing it they try to sell it and get out of it. LOWREY: Thank you Mr. Nunez. Anybody else wish to speak in opposition to this project? This time, we'll give Mr. Cheng the LEUNG: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Dolly Leung, I reside at 9554 Ralph Street in Rosemead. I'm speaking as a concerned resident and also a property owner on mission Drive. We have projects that was affected by the down zoning of property in 1989. But I also take this opportunity to thank the staff and this Commission to approve our project in 1993 n u PC Minutes 6-23-94 page 9. 0 which I'm happy to announce that the construction is already on the way, thank you. I'm speaking before you today is that, we have read about and heard about the staff's concerns whether the intent for the P-D and the single lot line development and the municipal code for subdivision had been met. And we like this Planning Commission to take in consideration of all these neighbors that has petitioned to work before you that has been developed as R-1 standard on the north side, on the west side and south side and few blocks on the east side and since this developers, engineer and architect came before the City Council in 1990 four years ago to ask what they want and they got it. With a lot size of 4,500 sq. foot according to the minutes or staff report of three Planning Commission, Mr. Ortiz, Mrs. Clark, I believe, Commissioner Breen, everybody brought up the F.A.R. ratio of 50%. Of the 4,500 sq. foot lot, I believe, the dwelling units is 2,250. Right now, the lot size went down to 2,590 and the dwelling unit is 2,075. So the F.A.R. ratio went up to 80% just because they are three, I think, there are still requirement to be met. Just because they want to be changed to P-D zone are there loop holes in the P-D zones that this Planning Commission should be brought up before the City Council or you want this before the we studied around the all R-1 property to suffer whatever those parking, no off-site parking there. Across the street, directly across the street from this project on the southside of Mission is a church, I believe, this whole fronting develop something like that. And one of the neighbors said there was always parking in that church facility so I do not know how the Planning Commission and the Planning Director how they agreed those parking problem. I do not live there, but if the developers citing the economical reason for this request, I like this Planning commission to take into consideration of all those homes that this Commission had down zoned in 1989 from Willard Avenue, to Delta and Rubio Wash. Those family who has two unit, three unit, eight units and plenty units has become legal non conforming. They can not sell as R-3 because they were down zoned from R-3 into R-1 and they can not be financed and they can not even have problem to have insurance because if it is burned down they can not replace. And these are just one block away from this project. So this take into consideration of these owners that are before you and also all the parking problems that may arise out of these eight, nineteen homes waiting to what is already established there. LOWREY: Thank you, Ms. Leong. Anybody else wish to speak in opposition to this project? (Ms. Carol Chen was sworn in by the secretary.) CHEN: I am Carol Chen, I am a thirty year resident of Rosemead. PRICE: Give your address, please. CHEN: I am going to give you that. I reside at 4549 N. Muscatel and I also owned property on 4602 N. Muscatel on the corner of Muscatel and Bartlett. I am very concerned about the way this proposal is going. Because I live on a private drive and I know that the parking is very, very limited on that drive. And I would fear that an overflow of parking for the proposed construction will overflow onto Mission Drive because, I think, the gentleman must be aware this will not always be just one family dwelling say maybe purchases of one family dwelling but you'll end up with PC Minutes 6-20-94 page 10. five or six cars there. They're going to be parking on Mission Drive or maybe around on Muscatel because that's the experience we have had. Even on the private driveway we have, there is parking on there which the parking commission has said is hazardous and the residents themselves are allowing that parking to take place. And there are some residents who keep on parking but there doesn't seem to be very much follow through on it and so I would be concerned about the parking that might occur on Mission being that that is an area of heavy traffic these days. And I hope that you will reconsider and ask them or plead with them to reduce the number of homes that would be adequate parking. I am concerned about that. I realize that perhaps some improvement needs to be made but I think that the long time residents here should have some consideration too or consideration should be shown because we have lived here this long because we enjoy living in Rosemead and we would hope that the property would improve and that the value of our existing properties would not be diminished. Thank you very much. LOWREY: Thank you Ms. Chen for coming forward to the Commission. Anybody else wish to speak in opposition? Sir? RIVERA: My name is Jesus R. Rivera, I came in late and I raised my hand when the lady was being sworn in, if you want to accept that, but that my property is 8402 Mission Drive. This property I've had with the intention of having it rented and I've had it over ten years now. And I've got enough room there where I can make two more. Well, I have around 2,500 sq. feet and I figure I could go two stories and then the rules are changed. I had R-3 I was changed to R-1. Now I can not increase my rental yet I have all street parking. I have 3 units right now without street parking, two garages, three garages, and the rules are changed for me so I am penalize now. I can not increase my rental capacity. Now people down the street if you have money or able to pursuade the Council here to accept these changes, then, they can do it. But I can not and I can not afford to hire a lawyer and come down to fight for me. So I don't think that was fair that the rules are changed and I am right on Mission Drive so why couldn't it have been left R-3 on Mission Drive? Now the units, the units that we're talking about down here had already exceeded. He's got thirteen units, now he wants nineteen. Yet, I can't have over three, I think, that's unfair. LOWREY: Mr. Lyons, can he come in for a variance? LYONS: I'll have to look exactly where his lot is, and if it was down zoned. You can get a variance to set back requirements etcera but not the density, not the zoning, so he's left with R-1 standards on his property and his property was down zoned quite a bit. RIVERA: I'm on Delta and Mission Drive, right on the corner facing the Christian Home. Yet, you know, I can not build anything. LYONS: If I may again Mr. Chairman, his option would be to apply to change his zone back to whatever originally was. That's his option although you'd have to get other property owners within the area to go along with him. LOWREY: Mr. Rivera, why don't you come in one day? Please come in one day and talk to staff you don't have any experience or anything. Staff will be most happy to help you in anyway where they can talk to you and advise you. • • PC Minutes 6-20-94 page 11. LYONS: Sir, if you want to come in tomorrow morning, I'd be glad to talk to you. RUIZ: Mr. Chairman. LOWREY: Commissioner Ruiz. RUIZ: I'd just like to make a statement, your name is Rivera? RIVERA: Rivera. RUIZ: Thank you, I sort of like to take exception to the fact that the statement to the effect that you made that "people who have more money than anyone else has preference so cheap" so I just want to make that statement I don't think that's true. LYONS: If I may Chairman, if you want to give me a call, it's Peter Lyons, tomorrow morning I'd be glad to talk with you about your options on the property. I have to be honest in that my impression is you don't have very many options on your property. You've been down zoned recently by the City in that area and it would be very difficult to go back and up zone it again. RIVERA: You know, this is what, but my intent was I'knew that I had this area when I bought this property and I wanted to put two more units on it without destroying the house that I had there. You know, other, I've had calls where they wanted to buy my property to tear everything down and build, I don't know, how many it's going to be a big units like nineteen, twenty, twenty rentals on a two story building. But I wouldn't sell 'cause I didn't want them I wanted the property for myself, but I wanted to improve it the way I wanted it. LOWREY: Thank you very much. Anybody else who wish to speak in opposition? NUNEZ: Mr. Chairman. Nunez, 2702 Del Mar. I would just like to ask what is the load on the sewer gonna affect with this kind type of a and the water and all that a. LYONS: If I may Chairman. That's a very good question, Juan. With all subdivisions of this type, it's a very long process we go through, you submit plans, we go back and forth between the applicant and the staff here, once we come up with a somewhat of a plan that, you know, either the developer wants to process or we would consider, we then send out service provider letters to all the service providers from the Sherifff's department, the school deparment, the water department, the electrical department, the sewage district, every utility agency that would have anything to do with this property. And we allow those utilities, those providers of service to this property to comment. We allow them 21 days to comment. We send them plans, drawings, square footages, we allow them 21 days to comment to either say they can not provide service to this property or that they can. There's about 19 service providers for this project. All 19 service providers had said they can support this project through either water, sewer, electrical, schools, parks, sheriff's dept., etc. LOWREY: Fire hydrants, fire flows. LYONS: 19 separate agencies get involve. PC Minutes 6-20-94 page 12. NUNEZ: I supposed that as you mention about the parks department getting so much and so forth, the schools, I would believe that some of these plans should take into consideration putting some money into the sewer system also. Because you're gonna have the same problem as they had in Monterey Park. Montery Park last year, you know, when they start building the Monterey Park, and I still work for Monterey Park and I used to see some of those people who used to come into there and check from the county. Check the flow on the sewers, and they say it's getting high, it's getting high, they'll check on the metal there, they would take reading there. If I would talk to them, they say, just last year, I believe it was, I think it was when they put a big line through Garvey and you probably know about it. Which Willdan doesn't work for Monterey Park so you probably know about it. They put about, must have been, 16" lines that they put into there, and so who pays for that? The rest of the City pays for that, see, we all will be paying for that. LYONS: If I may, Chairman. Juan, I think you're sort of mixing apples with oranges. If I may, the developer pays for any type of impact on to the system. Same goes with the sewer line. So any impact the developer will have to pay. But generally, the system is designed so that the developers will have to pay for any type of impacts on to the utilities. NUNEZ: I'm not trying to stop people from developing their properties but what I'm trying to say is that they should develop to a lower density where there was mainly the thing then they came out about 3 years ago and also the thing that sometimes they do mention they take readings, north readings sometimes they sometimes may under-estimate and look at the state, the state had about 33 or 300 billion dollars or somebody came up with that, but that's another story. LOWREY: Thank you, Juan. NUNEZ: Thank you. LOWREY: Anybody else? If not, not seeing any, the opponent has a chance to rebuttal. CHENG: Yeah, our lot is multi family zoning and if we decide to build apartments we probably get a lot more units. I'm not saying that we won't do that, because that's not what my client want to do. The thing is we want to do something real nice and that will, you know, that can sell. If we build' some units probably some units will not have open space and with no yard, or not enough yard and the children who lives in those apartment well we have to grant them to the family with children, anyway, because it's the law. And these children will have no absolutely no space, no place to go, this way, we still have ten feet on the side, ten feet actually a sizable lot. A lot of house I've seen in out of town the frontage the width of the lot is only 25 feet, I think Peter know, Gary will agree with me. They are cities in these Los Angeles County that their frontage is only 25 feet. If we put too much restriction on the property, actually everybody will suffer, everybody will pay for it. When I was listening to the people who opposed the project, actually, there are two ways, two directions right there. One group is, we are long time resident here we have the right. I agree with that lady 100%. But you look at the other group, the other gentleman say why I PC Minutes 6-20-94 page 13. bought the property I want to develop it it's R-3 I can build apartment, even Dolly came up again and say there are people who suffer from that because they down zoned them. I agree also. But the thing is, right next door to our lot is a big apartment. Right now, there're about 5, 6 units on the lot even though they are not huge apartment, but they are attached unit. You can even actually call this apartment on the lot right now. It is R-3, so we are doing the best we can. I don't want to say okey I turn around and propose some apartment we're not gonna do that. We want to work with the City, we want to work with the neighbor, we want them to understand we want to do a good job. But time has changed. Time has changed. And we need your understanding. We could have changed the name of the applicant, instead of Bill Lau, may be Lawrence whose apartment and then apply. But the thing is, we don't want to go through this kind of mickey mouse thing we want to be honest with you. We can not afford to build it, we can not afford to build it. We don't want to change to another guy maybe have somebody else come up here and say well I don't know nothing about 13 unit, now we're proposing 19. We, we can not build 13, because you will not can survive. And we pay the money all over and we draw the plan all over. And we need your help and understanding. And I hope the neighbor will understand we are not here to try to irritate them, in fact, they should be home watching football, watching TV. But the thing is, we are here because we need we want to develop the lot just as much as they'd want to see it done. Take a look of what's out there. The lot is a mess. If you go to the end of the lot, there's no lawn, no paving whatsoever the car's driving all over when it turn around, you know. It's all dirt. And every time it turns me that turns the dust is all over, is that what Rosemead is supposed to be? I doubt it. But what, you get to give some incentive to the developer, otherwise, why should they develop? Those houses, those standard houses this lady live in were developed by some developers thirty, forty years ago. At that time, they went through the same problem because the farmer at that time say well what happened to my horses? It's too crowded. Time is changing and I hope everybody understands. We are here to ask for your understanding. Thank you. LOWREY: Thank you, Mr. Cheng. With that, we'll close the public hearing. Discussion by the Commission. BREEN: Mr. Chairman. LOWRY: Commissioner Breen. BREEN: The major attraction to the zone change back to P-D where it was of 1990 P-D 93-198 which was retro in 1990. We're fortunate enough not to be burdened with the slings and arrows of Monterey Park and the City of Los Angeles. We have our own density limits and density problems, we do believe, this would be a good P-D zone, however, 19 units is just too much, this is a 76 bedrooms, you know, one and a half acre is going to overload everything. I would like to make a motion to deny Tract 51727. Thank you. ORTIZ: Mr. Chairman. LOWREY Commissioner Ortiz. ORTIZ: I know there's a motion, but I have a lot of concerns. And in the likely, it might be in my operation regards to this project, I feel they're not consistent with the general planning in that area. We have only two problems there with the recess dwellings with the driveway and the house • PC Minutes 6-20-94 page 14. • appropriate and also this is way overbuilt on regards to the zero zoning on Landis and just north of the freeway there it's completely different, it does not even compared to it all, not even an iota, with the mitigation, litigation designed to the zoning, zero zone, in fact in regards to the liability of acres, even though with regards to the easement. And an easement, the property owner, he would build some type of a patio, some type of an entrance to which to build up their property and usage in utilization to and also their impact any type of emergency vehicle to go in there. There's so many things on it that certainly there should be some covenants there that if somebody approves it, I am not starting to say, you know, it's just way overbuilding, it's just way too much. It's just part of my concern. The acres and acreage in there, we indicated that the easement is not suitable and the parking corporate parking pad don't even meet the standard part of that and then also the cement area, it's dense there, impact of any type of vehicle on one side they'll be dead and five dwelling unit in itself it only has basically free access to the fire hydrant dwelling it would be a two frontage to the house, they'll not be able to go out at all. It's a, it reduces, you know, I don't know where you got the zero zoning concept but I feel it's not appropriate and with this particular area we have already built consistence on our general plan regards to two other project there on Mission not even a block away it don't even meet one iota and also with regards to the one at Landis, it don't meet this concept at all. Zero zone I don't see anything else regards to the traffic study, there's no traffic study for the increase of 76 bedrooms in this here, that's 76 parking spots, we don't have, we have only 36 something like that. We simply have 3 parking spots, yes parking for 19 homes in the whole facility there. I can't, I can't see where, where are the 3 parking spots. I couldn't find this. It's not enough at all and basically these people do not use their garage when they're used to, they use the outside, they park on the street, they park outside the garage, they use it for their private storage. We need to have a cement pad there with a recess on driveway, and also a house to recess a standard 20 ft. away from that private road. Even if it's a private road where people do park on their properties and also 5 foot sideyard on both of their side. There's nothing there to say it's well legal, legal on floor area ratio. There's a lot more to this and basically, you know, this certain project we have developed don't meet the general plan of single family in regards to the recess the studies in regards to the lawn in front, the play yard for the kids, there's nothing there in regards to it. These are all 4 bedroom houses, we're lucky now a lot of parking, lot of people dense and 10 years or 18 years, when people buy it, there'll be a lot of vehicles in 18 years from now. It'll be a mess, any type of impact would be incredible. I do not, I do not like it all, but what I like to do at this time is to put a covenance on it if we're going to it and the permission if, Mr. Chairman, if this thing gets approved somewhere, I certainly will ask a recap a sheet of problems on Landiss where they built patios to be restricted to 4 ft. only to have 6 ft. variance free and clear, free and clear to the adjacent wall and I'd like to make that as a motion to the covenant as a condition. A covenant to not to have an awning on patio on their prior property not to exceed 4 ft. on the wall. LYONS: If I may, Chairman. ORTIZ: Because I see so many problems on that, I went to Landis, to this property, and this won't get me one bit at all to that concept at all. PC Minutes 6-20-94 page 15. LYONS: If I may, condition #21 in the C.C.& R.'s states this already. So any modification to the floor plan will have to come back to you. ORTIZ: The reason that I say that is I see other obstacles in the building of the Landis that they do have a recess driveways for the parks on their property and also 19 blockwalls instead of secure structures where there's no access in any one in the area. They need to make arrangement to get on to the property, if there's emergency that property's sealed. LYONS: I don't know if I really follow you. ORTIZ: Regarding to a saying that on a good quiet area there, side yard there, okey, they're building structured fence no access to their property at all. So they're building there and want to get in there and do some work on their property they're unable to at times, because there is structure, permits structure. LYONS: Well, if the easements are like any easements, they have specific characteristics and conditions, that is, that house should be available, you know, access to that portion of the house should be available to the owner whenever he or she wants to and access can not be prohibited. It's no different than any other access easement in that the property owner who has the easement has to adhere to it. PRICE: They can't block it, they can't legally block the easement, if you grant somebody an easement, you cannot block their access. ORTIZ: Well, I don't know the conditions in C.C.& R.'s in particular private, well I see what can happen and what will happen here and I really don't a, there's a lot of problems here, I think that if the property does needs to be developed, I think, they should go back and take a look at it and make assessment with regards to the frontage and get some play yard in there, in regards to the facets of the houses, and get some parking. Because basically, the families now they have 3 to 4 cars the minimum, and there are some dwellings that have 6 cars to make special pass to park out street and this doesn't allow for 2 cars extra cars to be parking across it. So basically, in 16 years, when those kids are going to school to college, I mean, it's going to be a tremendous impact on that mission. And also the consistencies, there's no consistency in regards to the general plan that we had 2 other projects similar just right adjacent down the street, just east of it and they had the recess parking with special door roll ups, swing up, so this way you can have a 20 ft. setback from the property line. I'd like to see something like that be developed, but this I really cannot vote for. There's so many problems I feel that I see the whole scenery very nice and all that, but aesthetically on one side, it's just plain wall there's not architectural facade to say that it's a beautiful home. You know, it's supposed to be a private home but the facade inside is just one straight wall there's nothing on it. I think there's one with the in it one but that's in the garage area for and that could be converted into bedroom real easy, and I don't like that at all either. So with that, I second the motion of Mr. Breen in regards to deny over this but I certainly would like. LOWREY: Is that second the maker, or the motion. Is that Tentative Tract Map 51727 and the Zone Change going to deny? PC Minutes 6-20-94 page 16. C BREEN: Not the Zone Change, just the Tentative Tract Map 51727, motion to deny. PRICE: I think it would be preferable to cover both things, as the two are really, really together. They should be dealt together and not separate. CHENG: I understand that, but I do have a request. LOWREY: You can bring that up later. We can't discuss now, the public hearing is already closed. PRICE: Before we go further, we made a motion to deny parts of it. BREEN: Definitely, we made the motion to deny vote Tentative Tract Map 51727 and Zone Change 93-198. LOWREY: And is that second too? ORTIZ: Yes, also Mr. Chairman, I certainly have some concern for this and I'd also like this verbatim. LYONS: We'll do our best, Chairman. LOWREY: Before we vote, Rather than turn and come back, a perhaps address than cancel the back again just that. I'd like to bring one thing up here. this down, I'd like to see him continue it nd eliminate that unit #18 and #19 and then the driveway and the yard issues rather whole thing out and then have them come continue it the Commission will consider PRICE: Well, that's a perfectly valid request if you want to continue it though. RUIZ: Mr. Chairman. LOWREY: Commissioner Ruiz. RUIZ: I have the same concerns that my co-commissioners have about the project. And of course, there's a lot of concerns from the audience citizens, but looking at the project, I think, it's a good project but it needs to be modified a little bit. I think, that Mr. Cheng mentioned that he cannot live with 13 units, but he never mentioned 17 units and I think that what we're requesting here is a little modification on the plan, possibly eliminating the 18 and 19 accepted that. And going with 17, I would start a, would like to see this project go ahead but as Mr. Chairman Lowrey mentioned I'd like to see it continue give her one opportunity to come back with a different plan or maybe some suggestions I don't want to see it turn down that so many properties are developed afterall, it should be good for the community. LOWREY: There's just too much, it's just too tight a space in there. Maybe 17 houses, I bet you 3 or 4 of those houses are gonna have boats, trailers, or some campers, or something inside the parking there. They're just too tight. LOI: I support staff's recommendation to eliminate 2 units since 2 units are eliminated, there will be more space for parking and playing. These lots of disputes, concerns about parking easements, Mr. Lyons just explained that with easements there have been no complaints so far received. Is that correct? LYONS: That's correct. PC Minutes 6-20-94 page 18. BREEN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. As respects, I just did not want to be inferred that we have automatically have 17 units on that property, but these properties definitely overdo by this proposed program tonight. It will be nice to see space between the building. It will be nice to all of us. I have no objection to withdrawing my motion if a continuance can be granted to allow something other than what we have here tonight. All we have tonight definitely same reasons that Commissioner Ortiz stated. LOWREY: Are you withdrawing your motion now, Mr. Breen? BREEN: On that basis, I will withdraw my motion. LOWREY: A request for continuance. Anybody else has any objection for continuance of this item? Both for Tentative Map and the Zone Change. When can we do that, Mr. Lyons? LYONS: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I'd prefer second meeting in July. Our first meeting is July 5th, and the next one is, would be Monday, July 18th. That's a good point, we could even make it even later although, I think, that's sufficient time. July 18th would be fine. LOWREY: All right, if commission has no objection, we'll continue this to July 18th. ORTIZ: Mr. Chairman. LOWREY: Commissioner Ortiz. ORTIZ: I'd like to further convey to the applicant in regards to to what I'm looking for, in regards to when it comes back to setback in the front, 5 ft. setback. I want to see the zero lot line on it. I want to see some landscaping on the front, adequate setbacks, nice units, nice walls with the yard frontage and rear yard and maintain that 34 foot street. Go take a look at the Landis development over there, it don't meet it all. There's 2 other developments that we have approved, beautiful units right down Mission Drive and beautiful units, nice concepts, I'd like to see it come back and the reason for my comments in regards to 5 ft. side yard and the setback standard more parking for the vehicle. We're looking at 16 years from now, we're gonna have kids and they're gonna have their own vehicles. And you're looking at 76 parking spaces, a minimum. LOWREY: I'd also like to have the developer consider roll up doors for the garages. LYONS: I got that down. LOWREY: With that, if there's no objection, we will continue this to July 18th meeting. Moving right along. NUNEZ: Mr. Chairman. For expediency, you are continuing, but the configuration assignments in before the yard space and all that, I hope, that all that is taken into consideration. And I know that you are concerned with parking space and 5 ft. setback, I believe, you mentioned. LOWREY: The public hearing is closed, we can't take anymore consideration on this. If you want to wait till right after the meeting and bring something else to talk about that etc. at that time, we'll be very willing. NUNEZ: Thank you. • a PC Minutes 6-20-94 page 19. LYONS: If you want Juan I'll be right with you. NUNEZ: But, I'd like to know what to bring back if you bring something out then we will oppose, you know. (END OF VERBATIM DIALOGUE) OTHER BUSINESS 7. MODIFICATION OF PARCEL MAP 22260 - 7534 Columbia Street - Request from Richard A. Stupin to modify the size of the dwellings from their original design to construct two (2) single family dwellings. Mr. Chicots presented the staff memo with the recommendation to approve subject to the 25 foot setback for the front house. Discussion by the Commission: Commissioner Ruiz wanted to know what type of garage doors will be used, either a roll up or regular doors with hinges up. Applicant replied that he may use either one. It would be a sectional garage door, a roll up. (MO) It was moved by Commissioner Breen, seconded by Commissioner Loi to approve Modification of Parcel Map 22260, subject to conditions of approval. Vote resulted: Yes: Loi, Ruiz, Lowrey, Breen, Ortiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 8. PC RESOLUTION 94-14 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-612 ALLOWING THE ON-SITE SALE OF BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AT CASA ORTEGA LOCATED AT 8742 GARVEY AVENUE. Mr. Price presented the resolutions by title only. (MO) It was moved by commissioner Ortiz, seconded by Commission Breen to waive further reading and adopt. Vote resulted: Yes: Loi, Ruiz, Lowrey, Breen, Ortiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 9. ORAL COMMUNICATION FROM THE AUDIENCE - On any matter The Chairman asked Mr. Nunez if he wanted to discuss any item from the Commission. Mr. Nunez replied that all he wanted was when the item does comeback for continuance, that it will come back for more yard area space, parking, setbacks, and easements. That he wanted everyone to know that he will be attending the July 18th meeting. Mr. Lyons continued that he'll be more than glad to set up a date with Mr. Nunez and the applicant. Mr. Nunez responded that he and the rest of the opposition group are the ones concerned. 10. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS AND STAFF A. Mr. Lyons reminded Commission about the paid reservations for West San Gabriel Valley Planning Commission luncheon for Wednesday, June 22, 1994. • PC Minutes 6-20-94 page 20. i B. Commissioner Ortiz had some concern on Cafe Binh Minh located at Hellman and Walnut Grove. He instructed staff to go and investigate and remind the owner of the place about the noise coming from the Karaoke. Mr. Lyons responded that staff will investigate Commissioner Ortiz's concern and reprimand the owner to tone down the music based on noise ordinance. C. Chairman Lowrey informed everybody about his pingpong lessons with Mr. Michael Burbank as his instructor. We also found out that Commissioner Duc Loi was a pro on this table tennis game. Commissioner Loi continued that a table tennis club could be formed in Rosemead specially at the senior center. There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next meeting will take place on July 5, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. i', CITY OF ROSEMEAD 8838 VALLEY BOULEVARD ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING June 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 Ortiz. The Invocation was delivered by Commissioner Ruiz. 2. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH FOR COMMISSIONER LOI Chairman Lowrey announced that Duc Loi had been appointed by City Council to fill the vacancy on the Planning Commission. The Secretary of the Commission administered the oath of office to Duc Loi and the Chairman and Commissioners welcomed Mr. Loi to the Commission. 3. ROLL CALL - Present: Loi, Ruiz, Lowrey, Breen, Ortiz Absent: None Ex Officio: Wagner, Price, Lyons, Troyer, Pickett 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular meeting of May 16, 1994 Commissioner Ortiz requested that Page 2 of the May 16th Minutes pertaining to Tentative Parcel Map 23902 a Flag Lot subdivision should read as corrected that there was a swimming pool at the back of the property. Mr. Lyons thanked Commissioner Ortiz's observation of this particular item. It will be documented on the map that the pool should be removed and that a soil compaction must be submitted prior to the recordation of the map. (MO) It was moved by Commissioner Ortiz, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of May 16, 1994, be approved as amended. Vote resulted: Yes: Ruiz, Lowrey, Breen, Ortiz No: None Abstain: Loi Absent: None Commissioner Loi abstained in voting as he was not in attendance during the May 16th meeting. 5. 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. 6. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH - The secretary administered the oath to members of the audience wishing to speak. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-612 - Request from Jose Ortega for a Conditional Use Permit for the on-site sale of beer and wine in conjunction with an existing restaurant located at 8742 Garvey Avenue dba Casa Ortega. PC Minutes 6-6-94 page 2. Mr. Lyons presented the staff report with the recommendation to approve for one (1) year, subject to conditions outlined on Exhibit A. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Addressing the Commission in favor of the proposed project was: Norma L. Ortega, 17429 E. Boulay Street, La Puente. Ms. Ortega is the daughter and representative of the applicant. She stated that they have complied with all the requirements of the City and they have worked with staff regarding their petition. She felt that approval of the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of the residents of the neighborhood and, therefore, will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements of the City. She thanked the Commission for the opportunity of being heard and for any questions or concerns, she was there to answer them. Commissioner Ruiz asked Ms. Ortega as to what type of time frame for the improvements are we looking at after it's been approved. Ms. Ortega replied that as per the property owner, it will be as soon as possible but he did not give her any specific time frame. Commissioner Ruiz explained further his concerns regarding the maintenance of the property. He added that the back area seemed to be messy and needed to be cleaned up. Commissioner Ruiz asked that these concerns be incorporated as one of the conditions prior to approval so as to keep transients out of the area. Ms. Ortega agreed with Commissioner Ruiz and hoped that the property owner would be able to do something about this. Commissioner Ruiz continued that he believes this to be a very good project and would be beneficial to the community. Mr. Lyons stated that condition #6 refers to several sections in our code requiring the property owner to clean and clear up the back area. He would emphasize to the property owner that the shed needs to be demolished immediately and sufficient parking had to be provided. Commissioner Ortiz asked the applicant if the application was only for the sale of beer and wine or did it include the improvements shown on Exhibit "B". Ms. Ortega replied that she does not have anything to do with the improvements shown on Exhibit "B". Mr. Lyons continued that due to insufficient parking for the business, the applicant will not be allowed to intensify it by receiving a beer and wine license until the shed is removed and sufficient parking provided. Commissioner Ortiz wanted to know when the deadline for construction was. Mr. Lyons replied that the property owner has one year and if after a year no action is taken, the conditional use permit expires and becomes null and void. There being no one else wishing to address the commission, the public hearing was closed. PC Minutes 6-6-94 page 3. Discussion by the Commission: Commissioner Ortiz wanted to know if the property owner was in attendance as there are pertinent actions that the owner needs to accomplish within a year. Commissioner Ortiz was also concerned with the approval of the applicant's permit for beer and wine license when the property owner might not fulfill his commitment within a year, Commissioner Ortiz directed this question to Mr. Lyons. Mr. Lyons replied that if the property owner does not perform, his property would be placed on rehab because of unsightly conditions. But it should be understood, that even though the property owner may not be the applicant, he already has spent a lot of money on the project and is now ready to perform. Commissioner Ortiz inquired about the location of the trash bin. Mr. Lyons answered that as per condition #12 (Exhibit B), the trash bin would be located at the space between the parking lot and the existing building. Chairman Lowrey asked if there was an over saturation of beer and wine licenses in the area. Mr. Lyons responded that the area used to be over saturated, but during the last few years, several licenses have expired so the number of beer and wine establishments has decreased. With improvements and close supervision, this site should not cause any problem. (MO) It was moved by commissioner Ruiz, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to approve Conditional Use Permit 94-612 for a period of one (1) year, subject to conditions 1 through 14. Vote resulted: Yes: Loi, Ruiz, Lowrey, Breen, Ortiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None OTHER BUSINESS 8. MODIFICATION OF ZONE CHANGE 59 - Request from Carrows Restaurant to modify the exising restaurant and minor facade changes for property located at 1021 San Gabriel Boulevard. Mr. Lyons presented the staff memo with the recommendation to approve. (MO) Without discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Ortiz, seconded by Commissioner Breen, to approve Modification of Zone Change 59. Vote resulted: Yes: Loi, Ruiz, Lowrey, Breen, Ortiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 9. EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-538 - Request from Thanh Van to continue the operation of a garment manufacturing business at 8925 Garvey Avenue (Van's Sewing Factory). Mr. Troyer presented the staff memorandum with the recommendation to approve the extension request for a period of two (2) years, subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit "A". PC Minutes 6-6-94 page 4. Commissioner Ruiz was concerned with garment factories stacking garments in aisleways thus creating a tripping hazard or obstructing an escape route in the event of a fire or an emergency. The applicant was asked to come before the Commission. Addressing the Commission in favor of the request was the applicant, Thanh Van, 8925 E. Garvey Avenue, Rosemead. Mr. Van was asked by the Chairman if he understood the problem. The applicant replied yes. Chairman Lowrey instructed staff to get the Fire Department to inspect the location. Commissioner Ortiz concurred with Commissioner Ruiz's observation regarding excessive merchandise in the main aisles and mentioned the abundance of flammable materials near the electrical area panels. He recommended the addition of Condition #10 which stated that all electrical areas need to be cleared as per Fire Department's requirements. In reply to Commissioner Ortiz's concern, Mr. Lyons stated that a specific condition could be created that states all electrical areas be maintained in a safe manner, and all aisleways be free and clear of all hazards. The applicant was agreeable to this condition. (MO) It was moved by commissioner Ruiz, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz, to approve extension of Conditional Use Permit 91-538 for a period of two (2) years, subject to amended conditions. Vote resulted: Yes: Loi, Lowrey, Breen, Ortiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 10. EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-324 - Request from Kien Wa Quan to continue the on-site sale of beer and wine at 9422-24 Valley Boulevard (Honeycomb Tavern). Mr. Troyer presented the staff extension for two (2) years, approval outlined in Exhibit "A". Discussion by the Commission: memorandum and recommended subject to the conditions of commissioner Ruiz observed that the place was clean and well kept although he was unable to get inside the premises. His only comment was the Sheriff's Incidents report in 1993. Mr. Troyer pointed out that this particular incidence was when the applicant's wife was apparently robbed in the parking lot as she was closing up the bar. The applicant was present to answer any questions or concerns. (MO) It was moved by Commissioner Ruiz, seconded by Commissioner Breen, to approve the request for an extension of Conditional Use Permit 85-324. Vote resulted: Yes: Loi, Ruiz, Lowrey, Breen, Ortiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None PC Minutes 6-6-94 page 5. 11. MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-583 - Request by Lap Nguyen to modify an existing 3,690 square foot two story single family dwelling in the R-1 located at 9046 Guess Street. Mr. Lyons presented the staff memorandum with recommendation of the removal of the.sink from the garage and direction from the commission on the other changes to the dwellings. Commissioner Ruiz stated that he was not opposed to any changes to the dwellings on the original plan but he wanted an explanation to the sink in the garage as it was very unusual to see a sink in the garage other than the garage being converted into a dwelling unit. Speaking in favor of the project was Lap Nguyen, 1139 Glenview Road, West Covina. Mr. Nguyen, speaking on behalf of the owner Mr. Sim Co, replied that with the garage being detached and located at the rear of the property, the reason for the sink in the garage was mainly for convenience of works done at the garage. Commissioner Ortiz continued that his main concern was actually the possible dumping of oil, solvents and the like into the sink. Not being a necessity, he supported staff's recommendation for the removal of the sink. Commissioner Breen recommended denial of the modification of conditional use permit 93-583 changing the name from a den to bedroom and adding a sink to a garage. City Attorney Stan Price suggested re-phrasing it as "approval of the modification except for". Commissioner Ortiz offered some comments: 1) the sink and the three (3) car garage area being in the building; 2) the plumbing needs to be removed as part of the condition; and 3) the den being used as a guest bedroom and therefore considered to be a four (4) bedroom dwelling. Commissioner Ortiz was in agreement to denial of the sink in the garage and removal of the drainage as it was not in the original plan. Mr. Lyons agreed that staff will follow through with this condition. (MO) It was moved by Commissioner Breen, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz, to approve modification of Conditional Use Permit 93-583, subject to the amended conditions. Vote resulted: Yes: Loi, Ruiz, Lowrey, Breen, Ortiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 12. PC RESOLUTION 94-12 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-611 ALLOWING THE OPERATION OF A SEWING FACTORY DBA K & K FASHION LOCATED AT 8905 E. GARVEY AVENUE, #B3, ROSEMEAD 13. PC RESOLUTION 94-13 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD GRANTING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23902 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9504 RALPH STREET, ROSEMEAD. 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: PC Minutes 6-6-94 page 6. Yes: Loi, Ruiz, Lowrey, Breen, Ortiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 14. ORAL COMMUNICATION FROM THE AUDIENCE - On any matter - There were some student observers at the meeting and they were informed that the secretary will issue a letter of attendance once the meeting was over. 15. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS AND STAFF A. Mr. Lyons welcomed our new Commissioner and reminded the Commission about the forthcoming West San Gabriel Valley Planning Commission luncheon at the Sheraton on June 22, 1994, with our City Engineer being the speaker. Deadline for reservations would be on the 16th of June. Chairman Lowrey reminded the Commission and the City Attorney to try and be in attendance. B. Commissioner Loi stated that he was just observing the procedure of tonight's meeting. C. Commissioner Ruiz reported on the Planning Commissioners' Dinner at the Arcadia Community Center. He commented that K & K Fashion at 8905 E. Garvey Avenue, #B3, still continue to put their trash out. Mr. Lyons replied that staff monitored this but will go and and check to ensure applicant adhere to compliance. D. Commissioner Ortiz wants to know what is being done in situations where the applicant deters from their original submitted plans then come back with modifications? Mr. Lyons replied that when plans go to plan check for review, there are times when some changes are made. Staff feels before final approval is given, the Planning Commission must be notified of the changes in the conditional use permit. In this particular case, there was a change in definition of the room and staff felt that the plan should reflect the changes. There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. The next meeting will take place on June 20, 1994, at 7:00 p.m.