Loading...
PC - Minutes 07-19-10Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 19, 2010 The regular meeting of the Rosemead Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Alarcon at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Hunter INVOCATION - Commissioner Herrera ROLL CALL OF OFFFICERS PRESENT - Commissioners Herrera, Hunter, and Ruiz, Vice - Chairwoman Eng, Chairman Alarcon OFFICIALS PRESENT: City Attorney Murphy, Community Development Director Wong, Principal Planner Bermejo, Assistant Planner Trinh, and 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 IR.7T 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes - June 21, 2010 Vice - Chairwoman Eng requested clarification on the bottom of page 8 and asked if there were 12 conditions or were two added for a total of 14 regarding the traffic issue for Doubletree Hotel. Principal Planner Bermejo stated yes there were two added for a total of 14 conditions and it will be revised. Vice - Chairwoman Eng stated on page 11, sixth paragraph, that it was Commissioner Ruiz who explained to the applicant , and asked that her name be removed She also would like noted in the seventh paragraph that she concurred with Chairman Alarcon on what was suggested. Vice - Chairwoman Eng made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to Approve the Consent Calendar with corrections to page 8 and 11. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10.02 - Clearwire has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application to modify an existing 53' -0" tall monopine wireless telecommunications facility to install one new ground- mounted equipment cabinet within a new equipment enclosure area adjacent to an existing equipment enclosure lease area and to add three new 4' -0" tall panel antennas and three new 2' -0" diameter parabolic microwave dishes at a height of 46' -0" on the existing monopine at 9117 E. Garvey Avenue in the C -3 (Medium Commercial) zone. PC RESOLUTION 10.22 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10.02, FOR THE INSTALLATION OF NEW ANTENNAS AND EQUIPMENT FOR AN EXISTING WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY, LOCATED AT 9117 E. GARVEY AVENUE IN THE C -3 (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL) ZONE. Staff Recommendation - Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 10.02 and ADOPT Resolution No. 10.22 with findings, and subject to the nineteen (19) conditions. Principal Planner Bermejo presented the staff report. Vice - Chairwoman Eng questioned staff if this collocation is going to be 40 feet or 46 feet because the site map indicates that it will be 40 feet but the staff report states 46 feet. Principal Planner Bermejo replied there is an error in the staff report and the new height of the equipment will be 40 feet. Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked staff if it is a one story building, and what the height of the building is. Principal Planner Bermejo replied it is one story and the height of the building is 21 feet to the existing parapet. Chairman Alarcon opened the Public Hearing. Fiona Hilyer from Bemis Consultant, Inc. stated she is a representative for Clearwire and is available to answer any questions. Chairman Alarcon asked if the Planning Commission had any questions. None 2 Chairman Alarcon asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in favor of this project. None Chairman Alarcon asked if there was anyone wishing to speak against this project. None Chairman Alarcon closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. City Attorney Murphy advised to motion to ADOPT PC Resolution 10 -22 and it should include what Vice - Chairwoman Eng brought up, that the height be at 40 feet tall not 46 feet tall and that would be in the first recital. Commissioner Herrera made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hunter to APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 10.02 and ADOPT Resolution No. 10.22 with findings, and subject to the nineteen (19) conditions. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Wong stated that the Commission's decision is final unless it is appealed to the City Council within 10 days. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10.04 AND PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY (PCN) 10.01 - Walgreens has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application, requesting approval for a new Off -Sale Beer and Wine (Type 20) ABC license in conjunction with an existing retail drugstore, located at 2750 San Gabriel Boulevard, in the C -3 (Medium Commercial) zone. A portion of the Site is also included with the Design (D) Overlay zone. Walgreens is also requesting that the City determine that the issuance of a license for the off -sale of beer and wine will serve the public convenience or necessity (PCN 10.01) as required by the State Department of Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) when a project site is located in a crime reporting district with an undue concentration of crime. PC RESOLUTION 10.23 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10.04 AND PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY (PCN) 10 -01, FOR A NEW OFF -SALE BEER AND WINE (TYPE 20) ABC LICENSE FOR WALGREENS, LOCATED AT 2750 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD IN THE C -3 (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL) AND C -3D (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH DESIGN OVERLY) ZONE. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 10.04 and PCN 10 -01 and ADOPT Resolution No. 10.23 (Exhibit "A ") with findings related to the Conditional Use Permit and public convenience or necessity of the issuance of the alcohol license, and subject to thirty (30) conditions. Principal Planner Bermejo presented staff report. Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked staff to clarify the change to Condition of Approval number 11 Principal Planner Bermejo replied that the word "restaurant" should be replaced with "retail drugstore' in the condition. Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked staff if the Public Convenience or Necessity is a new process from the Alcohol Beverage Board or if it is a new procedure that the City has put together. Principal Planner Bermejo replied no, it is a process that has been around for several years and it only affects certain types of licenses such as off -sale retail licenses. She also stated the City has not experienced a large number of those types of applications and ABC automatically delegates the duty of making PCN findings to the City Council, but within the last month the City Council delegated the duty to the Planning Commission. Vice - Chairwoman Eng stated in the staff report on page 9, staff indicated that there are no other pharmacies in this area of the City that provides off -sale of beer and wine in conjunction with retail and wanted clarification because there is a CVS across the street that sells beer and wine and asked if they are in a different census tract: Principal Planner Bermejo replied that is correct there is a CVS, and the store is within a different census tract. Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked staff if there were any reported incidents relating to crime for this CVS because they are similar in their set up. Principal Planner Bermejo replied that the crime report from ABC did incorporate the CVS because it is located within a different census tract. She also stated that even though the CVS store sells beer and wine, it does not influence the number of licenses permitted within the census tract where Walgreens is located. Vice - Chairwoman Eng stated there is a market, CVS, Walgreens, and Los Toro's on that corner and asked staff what type of licenses are required for those businesses. Principal Planner Bermejo replied the other two businesses with off -sale licenses within this census tract are Wal -Mart and Los Toro's Meat Market. She also stated that if the Chief of Police and Code Enforcement go out they do not focus on census tract limit lines they actually incorporate the general area into their evaluation. Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked staff when the one reported burglary mentioned in staff report occurred at this site. Principal Planner Bermejo replied we did not get the report dates just numbers within the last year. Vice - Chairwoman Eng stated she did have a request for the applicant with Conditions of Approval numbers 28 and 29. She also stated she would like to incorporate that the proprietor be included in maintaining the items in those two conditions and take on a proactive approach, so they do not have to wait for Code Enforcement to take action. Chairman Alarcon asked staff if the Conditions of Approval are on -going and if you happen to drive by and see something wrong, we should call Code Enforcement. He also asked Vice - Chairwoman Eng to clarify her request. Principal Planner replied that is correct you would call Code Enforcement. Vice - Chairwoman Eng added that she would like to see that the proprietor take a proactive roll and when they walk on to the premises take care of some of the issues if it is possible. Principal Planner Bermejo asked Vice - Chairwoman Eng and if she would just like to see on -going property maintenance. Vice - Chairwoman Eng replied yes. She also requested clarification on item Number I of the Resolution Principal Planner explained that if approved tonight the applicant will have 6 months to initiate progress of implementing the use and if for some reason they are not able to implement the use within the 6 months then they would need to request an extension of their Conditional Use Permit. City Attorney Murphy stated the language of Section 2 -1 comes right from the Municipal Code, so it is a finding that the Commission needs to make and the finding is that your activity tonight is not applicable to an application that came about because of a change in ownership or because an applicant is just seeking an extension. He also stated neither of those being the case below subsection I you see that neither of these findings apply, so therefore you can make the correct finding according to the code. Chairman Alarcon opened the Public Hearing Matt Dzurec, the applicant, thanked staff for the detailed staff report and stated that Walgreens reviewed the conditions of approval and they accept with them all, along with the recommendations of Vice - Chairwoman Eng. He also stated that the Store Manager, Doug Lam, is here to answer questions if needed. He also stated this is a very modest request for only beer and wine and Walgreens will not sell hard liquor. He also gave a brief description of the floor plan of the store and the security that has been put in place. He also stated products will not be placed near the front entrances and store staff will be properly trained on how to sell beer and wine in a responsible and conscientious manner. Vice - Chairwoman Eng addressed the applicant and stated that when your employees are under the age of 21, Walgreens will require a manager to assist them with the sale transaction. She also stated that this is not in the Conditions of Approval but she would like to make sure that is enforced. Matt Dzurec, the applicant, replied he agrees and that it is also a state law that minors may not sell alcohol. Chairman Alarcon asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in favor of this project. None Chairman Alarcon asked if there was anyone wishing to speak against this project. None Chairman Alarcon closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Commissioner Herrera made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz, to APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 10.04 and PCN 10 -01 and ADOPT Resolution No. 10.23 (Exhibit "A ") with findings related to the Conditional Use Permit and public convenience or necessity of the issuance of the alcohol license, and subject to thirty (30) conditions outlined. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Wong stated that the Commission's decision is final unless it is appealed to City Council within 10 days. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10.05 - Wen Liu of Tin Tin Restaurant has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application, requesting approval for a new On -Sale Beer and Wine (Type 41) ABC license in conjunction with an existing bona fide public eating establishment, located at 7621 Garvey Avenue, in the C -3 (Medium Commercial) zone. PC RESOLUTION 10.25 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10.05, FOR A NEW ON -SALE BEER AND WINE (TYPE 41) ABC LICENSE FOR TIN TIN RESTAURANT, LOCATED AT 7621 GARVEY AVENUE, IN THE C -3 (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL) ZONE. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 10 -05 and ADOPT Resolution No. 10 -25 (Exhibit "A ") with findings and subject to thirty -one (31) conditions. 0 Assistant Planner Trinh presented staff report Assistant Planner Trinh also stated that staff would like to add Condition of Approval Number 32 to state," Prior to any final inspection the applicant shall verify that all Certificates of Occupancy and Business Licenses are current." Commissioner Hunter stated that she had driven by the restaurant earlier that afternoon and she has a few concerns with the restaurant and requested that Code Enforcement go investigate. Assistant Planner Trinh replied that staff has completed site inspections and on July 13, 2010, they did witness some issues that were stated in the staff report and also added them to the Conditions of Approval. She also stated improvement items included the trash enclosure area and graffiti. She stated staff addressed these issues to the applicant and the applicant is aware of the conditions and is acceptable of them. Commissioner Hunter stated in the staff report on page 4 , numbers 1 & 2 states that the site shall be maintained in a clean, weed, and litter free state but it is not. Assistant Planner Trinh replied that a lot of the other conditions have been addressed to Code Enforcement but the property maintenance ordinance will have to be addressed to the property owner not the restaurant. Commissioner Hunter requested clarification if it is the restaurant owner or the property owner's responsibility to keep it clean in the back of the restaurant. Community Development Director Wong stated that typically, and in this case, it is the restaurant owner's responsibility to take care of it and it is delegated by the property owner but it is the burden and sole responsibility of the property owner to maintain and keep the property in proper condition. He also stated staff will send a letter to the property owner to let them know the concerns of the Planning Commission and work with the property owner and the restaurant owner to make sure the property gets cleaned up. Assistant Planner Trinh stated Code Enforcement has a current case open at this site. Commissioner Ruiz asked staff if this site has been cited already. Assistant Planner Trinh replied that Code Enforcement has a case opened at this site now, so they are aware of the issues. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that if this project is approved tonight, it will not get final approval until those items have been recognized. Commissioner Ruiz stated that before we approve this recommendation and before they even get their permits, we need to make sure this site gets cleaned up. He also stated we should have this stipulated into our recommendation that before they get their ABC license the site must be clean. Vice - Chairwoman Eng read the last paragraph on the first page of staff report and asked staff if this restaurant had been approved for an ABC license before. Assistant Planner Trinh replied in the past it has been approved and then it was abandoned so it was revoked. She also stated this was in the 1990's and since then no one has applied according to ABC. Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked staff for clarification regarding the security guard. She stated currently there is one security guard for the shopping center and asked staff if the restaurant is proposing to get an additional security guard. Assistant Planner Trinh replied that is a question that can be addressed to the applicant. Chairman Alarcon asked staff when you say abandoned what exactly does that mean. Assistant Planner Trinh replied it means that the license has not been used so they revoke the license back from the restaurant. Chairman Alarcon asked if there were any other questions for staff. None Chairman Alarcon opened the Public Hearing and invited applicant to speak. Andy Yu, representative of the owner of the restaurant stated he is present to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked Mr. Yu if he was referring to the security guard that is there or will there be an additional security guard. Andy Yu, representative replied the current security guard is paid for by all the tenants of the shopping center. Vice - Chairwoman Eng clarified so you are not proposing an additional security guard. Mr. Yu replied no, not if it is not necessary. Chairman Alarcon asked Mr. Yu, if the security guard stands in one place or is he walking or riding a bike around the site. Mr. Yu, the representative, replied the security guard walk's around and check all the areas of the shopping center. . Commissioner Ruiz asked Mr. Yu, the representative, if he would like an additional security guard on his site and referred to a Condition of Approval number 30, which states security should be on site. He also asked Principal Planner Bermejo to clarify Condition of Approval number 30. 0 Principal Planner Bermejo stated it was staffs intent to have security on site and right now there is a security guard on the site, so that would suffice the recommendation. She also stated if for some reason if the security guard that is currently there stopped his services, then the restaurant would have to provide a security guard. Commissioner Ruiz asked staff how many units are on this particular site. Assistant Planner Trinh replied there are 13 units. Commissioner Ruiz stated that one security guard for 13 units is not adequate and he would like to recommend having an additional security guard. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that can be added if the Planning Commission would like. She also stated that our Chief of Police did review the Conditions of Approval and there was not a recommendation that additional security was needed. Community Development Wong stated that he would like to recommend an alternative and not to put the burden on the operator but perhaps in the future if there are any problems let him come back for a security review. He also stated this will give them a chance to prove themselves on maintaining the property and make sure there are not security issues or complaints. He also stated if there complaints then we can have them come back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. Commissioner Ruiz asked staff, so we can write this into the Conditions of Approval. City Attorney Murphy stated that in Condition of Approval number 5, it is written that it reserves your right to bring it back to the Planning Commission. Vice - Chairwoman Eng stated she agrees with Community Development Director Wong's recommendation. She also stated the burden should not be on just the proprietor alone. She also stated this restaurant has been here since 1997 and it is well known, it has been in operation for a long time, and it only seats about 80 people. Chairman Alarcon stated that this is a good alternative and if there is any trouble the restaurant owner can call the City to let them know. Chairman Alarcon asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in favor of this project. None Chairman Alarcon asked if there was anyone against this project. None Chairman Alarcon closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. 9 Community Development Wong stated that he would like an additional Condition of Approval Number 33 be added subject to the City Attorney's approval, stating that "Conditional Use Permit 10 -05 shall not take into effect until the current Code Enforcement action has been abated on the subject property." City Attorney Murphy stated that is fine and asked staff if Code Enforcement numbers their actions or if they had any way of tracking them. Principal Planner Bermejo replied that yes, they do have a system to track all of their Code Enforcement cases, but she is not sure if it is in numerical numbers. City Attorney Murphy requested that staff find out so as we can be completely correct in the way we describe it, the current code enforcement case entitled or whatever their notation is, so this applicant doesn't get hit if in case a second case is opened some time down the line . Assistant Planner Trinh stated she believes they go by address. Chairman Alarcon asked for a motion from the Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Herrera made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz, to APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 10.05 and ADOPT Resolution No. 10.25 (Exhibit "A ") with findings and subject to thirty -three (33) conditions. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Ruiz No: None Abstain: Hunter Absent: None Community Development Director Wong stated that the Commission's decision is final unless it is appealed to City Council within 10 days. D. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 10.05, AMENDING THE ZONING CODE TO REVISE REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF FLAG LOTS IN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD - Municipal Code Amendment 10.05 is a City initiated amendment to the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) for the purpose of revising definitions, development standards, and diagrams that regulate the development of flag lots in residential zones to implement the recently updated General Plan and to clarify inconsistencies between flag lot text and graphics in the Rosemead Municipal Code. PC RESOLUTION 10.24 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 10 -05 AMENDING SECTION 17.04.020 AND 17.16.140 OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO FLAG LOT DEVELOPMENT. 10 Staff Recommendation — Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 10.24 (Attachment A), a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 901 (Attachment B), amending Title 17 of the Rosemead Municipal Code to revise flag lot development standards. Principal Planner Bermejo presented the staff report. Chairman Alarcon asked the Planning Commissioners if they had any questions for staff. Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked staff if this clean up effort will make it more restrictive for property owners to subdivide the lots and there is a significant number of lots in the City that may be developed into flag lots. Principal Planner Bermejo replied to answer your first question, yes it will have a higher standard for flag lot development and explained why. She also stated to answer your second question regarding how many flag lots we have in the City, there are possibly 100 lots that are capable of being subdivided, but these are not likely to be three, some may be a single flag lot or two. Commissioner Ruiz asked staff if the developer will be able to use the driveway to add to the flag lot. Principal Planner Bermejo replied that is correct and that standard will be a little more flexible. Commissioner Ruiz clarified that it will be more flexible to add up to the 6,000 feet that is required now. Principal Planner replied that is correct. Vice - Chairwoman Eng stated that she has some recommendations in the PC Resolution 10 -24, on the first page after the 4th WHEREAS of the of the recital, she would like to revise this to say "to clarify inconsistencies between flag lot text and graphics in the Rosemead Municipal Code." Principal Planner Bermejo clarified her request. Vice - Chairwoman Eng requested staff to clarify the last sentence of page 2, section 4, of the Resolution, and asked if this is customary planning practice. Principal Planner Bermejo replied that is the current Rosemead Municipal Code standard. Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked staff on page 3, Section 4A of the Resolution, will the minimum frontage for the lot still be required to be fifty foot in width. Principal Planner Bermejo replied yes that is correct. Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked staff in the Resolution at the bottom of page 4, at number H3, should it be two or three flag lots. Principal Planner replied it should be three. Vice - Chairwoman Eng stated then that should be a corresponding change for the ordinance also. Chairwoman Eng stated she did not understand the last sentence in the Resolution of page 5, J -2, regarding the distance of at least three hundred feet and asked staff to clarify. Principal Planner Bermejo explained that when they submit their application for soil subdivision they need to show a radius of three hundred feet from the property of existing land uses. Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked staff what AC stands for in section 5E on page 6 of the Resolution,. Principal Planner Bermejo replied it stands for Aggregate Concrete. Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked staff if the covenant referred to in section 5G on page 6 of the Resolution, is that something we are going to ask the developers to record as part of the deed. Principal Planner Bermejo replied yes this is correct and stated this is common language that is required on the final map to be recorded. Commissioner Hunter asked staff where the existing flag lots are located in the City. Principal Planner Bermejo replied there are several lots located just north of Garvey Avenue, on Muscatel, Bartlett, Ivar, and the southern end of the City. Chairman Alarcon asked if there was anyone wishing to speak against or in favor of this project. None Chairman Alarcon asked for a motion. Vice - Chairwoman Eng made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 10.24 (Attachment A), a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 901 (Attachment B), amending Title 17 of the Rosemead Municipal Code to revise flag lot development standards. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Wong stated to the Planning Commission that their action on Municipal Code Amendment 10 -05, amending the Zoning Code is a recommendation and will be forwarded to the City Council for their scheduled hearing. 12 5. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIRMAN & COMMISSIONERS Vice - Chairwoman Eng stated she would like to thank staff and the City for the 4th of July celebration and also stated that it was enjoyed by the community. Vice - Chairwoman Eng stated she did receive the Beautification Binder and thanked staff and mentioned that 52 cases were open and 17 of them got closed so it indicates that the process is working. Vice - Chairwoman Eng stated that we need to address and add parking requirements into our Municipal Code for hotel and motel use's as they will be holding conferences and additional parking will be needed in the future. 6. MATTERS FROM STAFF Community Development Wong stated that the next regular Planning Commission Meeting for August 2, 2010, may be dark for that evening and if our City Attorney agrees it should be amended to Monday, August 16, 2010. City Attorney Murphy replied yes he agrees, and we will amend the meeting to Monday, August 16, 2010. 7. ADJOURNMENT The next regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Monday, August 16, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. William Alarcon Chairman AT ST: Rachel Lockwood, Commission Secretary 13