Loading...
PC - Minutes 06-21-10Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 21, 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 Herrera INVOCATION - Vice - Chairwoman Eng ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT: Commissioners Herrera, Hunter, And Ruiz, Vice - Chairwoman Eng, Chairman Alarcon OFFICIALS PRESENT: City Attorney Murphy, Principal Planner Bermejo, Traffic Consultant Joanne Itagaki, 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 None 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes - June 7, 2010 Recommendation: Greg Murphy, City Attorney stated since there are two items on the Consent Calendar, he suggest to seek a motion to approve the entire calendar unless one member of the commission would like to pull an item for separate discussion. B. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD FINDING THAT THE DISPOSITION OF THE GLENDON HOTEL PROPERTY FROM THE ROSEMEAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION TO A PRIVATE PARTY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD'S GENERAL PLAN. Vice - Chairwoman Eng requested a clarification on and questioned staff why the Glendon Hotel is considered legal non- conforming. Principal Planner Bermejo replied the Glendon Hotel property is considered legal non - conforming due to lot size. The zoning requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet and the subject site has a lot area of 39,030 square feet. She added that the use is conforming with the General Plan, but the future user would not be able expand on the use unless he acquired additional land. Vice - Chairwoman Eng made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera to Approve the CONSENT CALENDAR as presented. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION (2) 01.820 AND DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION (1) 07.145 - On July 7, 2008, the Rosemead Planning Commission approved Resolution 08.13 that approved Conditional Use Permit Modification 01 -820 and Design Review 07.145, subject to conditions of approval for the addition of 54 guest rooms with a lobby totaling 54,739 square feet, a 12,440 square foot ballroom and an attached 86,527 square foot parking structure to the existing Double Tree Hotel. Resolution 08.13 also adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration ( "MND ") and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ( "MMRP "). Ms. Sue Lee of CHCS, Inc. has submitted Conditional Use Permit Modification (2) 01.820 and Design Review Modification (1) 07.145 on behalf of the Double Tree Hotel (Sunshine Inn Limited Partnership) requesting to eliminate mitigation measure #12 of the adopted MMRP as a project condition (Condition of Approval #34 in Resolution 08.13). Mitigation Measure #12 requires the project applicant to pay for the cost to install a traffic signal system at the northern entrance to the Double Tree Hotel site prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase I construction. PC RESOLUTION 10 -18 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA CONSIDERING AN ADDENDUM TO THE ADOPTED DOUBLE TREE HOTEL. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARTION FOR THE MODIFICATION OF MITIGATION MEASURE NO. 12, AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (MODIFICATION 2) 01 -820 AND DESIGN REVIEW (MODIFICATION 1) 07.145. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 888 MONTEBELLO BOULEVARD, IN THE C -31) (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE (APN: 5271. 002.061 to 5271. 002.065). Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 10.18 findings and subject to twelve (12) conditions outlined in, considering an Addendum to the MND and MMRP, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, APPROVING Conditional Use Permit Modification (2) 01- 820 and Design Review Modification (1) 07.145. Principal Planner Bermejo presented staff report. Chairman Alarcon questioned staff if they had a definition for fair share. 2 Principal Planner Bermejo replied that the fair share is calculated by the total amount of trips generated from a project that contributes to a traffic impact. She also stated in this case, the hotel expansion consists of 1.4 percent of the total traffic impact and that the remaining 98.6 percent is coming from the regional growth in the area. Chairman Alarcon asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for staff. Commissioner Ruiz stated his concern regarding the downhill curve on Montebello Boulevard and how he believes that the addition of 52 rooms and expanded lobby would bring in additional traffic into that particular area. He also stated there will be a left and right turn into that southern driveway and he feels it will be dangerous. He also stated he feels this should be brought to the attention of the traffic commission for their recommendation and an analysis and total review should be done to see what the striping will look like, and the type of signage that will be used before we approve this item. Joanne Itagaki, Traffic Consultant replied that the Traffic Commission generally looks into general request from residents, stop sign request, and etc. She also stated that items that have to do with development review go directly the Planning Commission. She also stated that Commissioner Ruiz does have some valid concerns and she believes there is already no parking allowed on this street and when the design for that south access point comes through the Planning and Engineering staff, we can look at the need for some additional signage and depending on where exactly that location access point may be, it may not effect visibility. She also stated that she does not recommend taking it to the Traffic Commission, as by working with the Planning staff we can address the Planning Commission concerns directly. Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked staff what is the minimum required parking for the room addition that is being proposed and the added ballroom square footage on the side. She also asked, what the actual number of room additions that are permitted to add. Principal Planner Bermejo replied the Rosemead Municipal Code for hotels requires that the hotel provide one parking space per room that they have on site. She also stated the Rosemead Municipal Code is does not require additional parking for ballroom area. She also said with respect to the numbers in the report tonight, staff is aware of some number discrepancies and we've brought these number discrepancies to the attention of the applicant as well. She said in 2008 when the staff report was prepared, there was a clerical error made by staff. The conditions of approval permitted 54 hotel rooms and a larger lobby expansion. She stated the actual environmental document quoted 52 hotel rooms. She stated this discrepancy should be addressed tonight. Vice - Chairwoman Eng questioned staff if the CEQA documents provided for 52 rooms. Principal Planner Bermejo replied yes. Vice - Chairwoman Eng questioned staff if the CEQA document or the conditions of approval control the size of the hotel expansion. 3 Principal Planner Bermejo replied that the conditions of approval and adopted resolution control the size of the expansion. She also stated but given this is a modification of that application and there were discrepancies in those approvals, we can address those discrepancies and now is the time we can clean it up. Vice - Chairwoman Eng questioned staff what is the minimum required parking for the expansion. Principal Planner Bermejo replied that the expansion of the hotel for Phase was approved with 204 spaces. She also stated that the 204 spaces was for 54 additional rooms and that if we condition it back to 52 rooms then they will need 202 parking spaces. Commissioner Hunter questioned staff if one parking space is required per hotel room and they are putting in 204 or 202 parking spaces, then don't they already meet the requirement. Principal Planner Bermejo replied yes, the hotel exceeds the requirement. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that because the project was approved in the past and there is a discrepancy of numbers of what the environmental looked at and what the City actually approved, and because we are bringing the project back to the Planning Commission tonight, the Planning Commission could clean this up to be consistent. Vice - Chairwoman Eng questioned Chairman Alarcon if we want to clean up this issue right now. Greg Murphy, City Attorney stated that he recommends that we take in all the testimony tonight and we can clean up at the end, after public comment is finished. He also stated that staff has recommended additional conditions to the resolution you will be adopting tonight and we can read those into the record if the entire Commission decides to go that way. Vice - Chairwoman Eng questioned staff if there are any plans to address the signal at the north end entrance now or wait until the year 2020. Principal Planner Bermejo replied the City is on notice that a signal is warranted in the year 2020, but they would not automatically install a traffic signal in 2020. is the City would first re- analyze the situation and if it is warranted the monies that were deposited by the applicant would be put toward the improvement. She also stated the remaining funds would come from a possible future development impact fee and any other City funding that typically covers the regional growth impacts on city streets. Commissioner Ruiz stated on page 487 of the CD disk, the traffic study did not consider the Montebello Hills specific plan project in Montebello, which consists of 1,200 residential units. He questioned staff on why it wasn't considered, this is 1,200 homes getting built, and it will be a lot of traffic. He also asked if the 1,200 homes are still going to be built. Principal Planner Bermejo replied she does not know the status of the homes being built. She also mentioned that the revised focus traffic study took the existing traffic counts that were taken in 2008 and they applied them to a revised traffic distribution analysis.. Commissioner Ruiz questioned staff if we took those numbers and tweaked them and do not consider the number of developments that will be bringing in more traffic within that area, what will happen. Principal Planner Bermejo replied that the traffic consultant who prepared the traffic analysis is here tonight and could address the question. Vice - Chairwoman Eng stated for clarification on the Resolution 10 -18 on the third recital, the date states November 3, 2010, should it be 2009. Principal Planner Bermejo replied yes it should be 2009. Chairman Alarcon opened the Public Hearing and invited project applicant to podium Chairman Alarcon asked the applicant if there were any questions on comments stated so far and asked if he can answer any questions pertaining to the traffic report. Mike Thomas, General Manager of the Double Tree Hotel, replied that he does not have any questions on any comments and that he has not seen the traffic report and he handles just the operations of the hotel. Vice - Chairwoman Eng questioned the applicant if he knew the date of when Phase 1 and Phase 2 will be completed or the opening day. Mike Thomas, General Manager replied it depends on when it gets approved and it is a year from approval date for the first phase and then they will move to the second phase after that. He also stated we were looking at the year 2012 and if it gets approved this year to complete Phase 1 by the beginning of 2012. Chairman Alarcon called the Traffic Consultant to the podium if present. Brian Crawford from Kunzman Associates addressed Commissioner Ruiz's previous question on why the traffic study did not consider the project of 1,200 homes being built in the Montebello Hills specific plan in Montebello. He stated that this focus traffic analysis study that was done this past January of 2010 and was actually a supplemental analysis to the original traffic impact analysis which analyzed everything, that was conducted and approved in April of 2008. He also stated the one point of this analysis is to redistribute the traffic at two access points with different geometric points at these access points to see if traffic signal lights are warranted at these two access points. He also stated that all the information that was used was from the original document which was approved and all the information was used and the only thing that was changed was the distribution of traffic. He also stated the development project was not part of the assessment in the original report and was not updated in this supplement. Commissioner Ruiz stated this is one of his concerns that this was done in 2008 and all that was done was re- tweaking the numbers and they did not consider this particular development and he feels it should be included in this particular report. Commissioner Hunter questioned the applicant on the applicant's fair share of 1.4% which equals to $5,712.00, as to whether this has to be paid now or in 20 years. Chairman Alarcon stated lets direct that question to staff. Principal Planner Bermejo replied the condition is recommending that payment be received prior of issuance of the building permits for Phase I. Vice - Chairwoman Eng questioned Mr. Crawford why the distribution of traffic was not looked at when the original report was done in 2008. Brian Crawford stated that when the initial report for the access points was done, the northern intersection was suppose to be a full access intersection, it currently restricts east west left turn movements out of the body sight, and the mall, and they were originally going to turn into a full access intersections and that would warrant a signal. He also stated the reason it was not initially done was because they were not told they needed to show alternatives and were told to look for full access only. Commissioner Ruiz questioned Mr. Crawford if the southern access had been looked at to see if it was a downward slope or curve and the speed of that street. Brian Crawford replied that the southern access did not have a site distance analysis conducted but it is recommended with any project access point. He also said that one with a curve like that would have a site distance analysis. Commissioner Ruiz confirmed that Mr. Crawford agrees that a site distance analysis should be done at the southern access. Brian Crawford replied yes, he does recommend it and with a curve like that it should be done. 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. Vice - Chairwoman Eng stated that she agrees with staff and we should take this opportunity to clean up some of the inconsistencies that have come up. She also stated with staff's help maybe we can do this now so the applicant may move forward with the project. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that there are two conditions of approval that staff has drafted for recommendation for the Planning Commission to consider. Condition of Approval 13 is that Phase 1 expansion shall consist of not more of than the construction of a four story building for 52 guest rooms and a hotel lobby totaling 52,620 square feet. Phase 11 expansions shall consist of not 6 more than the construction of a one story 12,440 square feet ballroom that will seat 500 guests and a four story parking structure. She also stated that Condition of Approval 14 will be that, Phase 1 shall provide an improved surface parking lot providing a minimum of 204 spaces and Phase II expansion shall provide a minimum of 338 parking spaces and a combination of a surface parking lot in a four story parking structure. Commissioner Herrera questioned staff if it was 204 or 202 parking spaces. Principal Planner Bermejo replied that the project is being broken into two Phases, and Phase I is the expansion of the rooms and lobby, so they have to comply with municipal code and they would have to have 204 parking spaces for Phase I. Commissioner Herrera questioned staff if that is based on 52 additional rooms. Principal Planner Bermejo replied that the municipal code would allow us to lower it to 202. Vice - Chairwoman Eng questioned staff if that would mean the condition of approval would be 52. rooms. Principal Planner Bermejo replied Phase I expansion shall provide an improved parking lot with a minimum of 202 parking spaces and Phase II expansion shall provide a minimum of 338 parking spaces and a combination of a surface parking lot and a four story parking structure and this is Condition of Approval Number 14. She also stated Condition of Approval Number 13 is Phase I expansion shall consist of not more than a construction of a four story building for 52 guest rooms and a hotel lobby totaling 52,620 square feet and Phase 11 expansion will consist of not more than a construction of one story 12,440 square feet ballroom that will seat 500 guest and a four story parking structure. Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked staff to clarify how many parking spaces will be needed. Principal Planner Bermejo and City Attorney Murphy clarified that the total sum of parking spaces will be 338 after all the work has been completed, and it will not be 338 plus 202. Vice - Chairwoman Eng confirmed that is after the expansion has been completed. Principal Planner replied that is correct. Chairman Alarcon questioned staff if the Conditional Use Permit is passed as is would the parking issues be automatically addressed and do we have this specifically spelled out. Principal Planner Bermejo replied that this was originally going to be this traffic mitigation issue and this discrepancy of numbers was brought to our attention and we should clean this up. Vice - Chairwoman Eng stated she agrees with Commissioner Ruiz's concerns to have the site study distance analysis done because of the downhill slope and requested clarification from staff on what the cost and time line will be to have this done, if it is feasible. Joanne Itagaki, Traffic Consultant, stated that when the developer brings in their plans for engineering review, we can make it a requirement of theirs to do the site distance review and staff would review it and make sure that appropriate measures are taken to make sure we do the appropriate site distance. , Commissioner Ruiz questioned staff if we could make that a condition of approval, so that it will be on record and that it should be recommended by and approved by the Traffic Commission. Vice - Chairwoman Eng stated that she was not sure if we should direct this to the Traffic Commission but maybe it should be suggested to City Council that it should be directed to the Traffic Commission. . Principal Planner Bermejo stated in the past 5 years that she has been here, the Planning Commission has done it on one occasion for matter. She also stated, typically when there is a development project and if it has an associated traffic analysis it has been solely reviewed by the Planning Commission. She also stated in instances when a project has already been approved and a citizen sees an issue with something that has already occurred after the project has been installed, such as a red curb striping, then those issues are directed to the Traffic Commission. She also stated that she is not aware of anything in the municipal code that prohibits having the Traffic Commission look at something. She also stated that is something we can look into if the Planning Commission would like. Commissioner Ruiz stated that we can eliminate the review by the Traffic Commission but he would still like site distance analysis report included in the conditions of approval and to go forward to the City's Traffic Engineer. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that right now we have Condition of Approval Number 3 and it read it to the Planning Commission. She also stated we can add a sentence which states, "this includes completing a site distance analysis and making the intersection at Montebello Boulevard at project south access a full access intersection. Vice - Chairwoman Eng stated that because the condition calls that they are to make the improvement maybe we can clarify to include that the improvements shall also address concerns from the site distance analysis. Commissioner Ruiz stated that the downward slope is his concern and the Planning Commission agreed it was important. City Attorney, Greg Murphy stated that he would like to propose that the second sentence of Condition of Approval Number 3 to read as follows, "This includes completing a site distance analysis and submitting improvement plans consistent with the analysis for making the intersection at Montebello Boulevard a project stop access a full access intersection." Vice - Chairwoman Eng made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz, to ADOPT Resolution No. 10 -18 findings and subject to fourteen (14) conditions outlined in, considering an Addendum to the MND and MMRP, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, APPROVING Conditional Use Permit Modification (2) 01.820 and Design Review Modification (1) 07 -145. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None MODIFICATION 10 -02 (Zone Variance 84.115) - On May 21, 1984, the City of Rosemead Planning Commission approved Zone Variance 84.115, to allow the construction of a 58 -foot tall pole sign in lieu of the 35 -foot maximum height limitation in place at the project site due to the site being in the C -3 (Medium Commercial) zone. The zone variance approval also permitted the total permitted pole sign cabinet area to exceed the maximum requirement of 200 feet per the zone by 72 feet. Zone Variance 84.115 was approved with three (3) conditions of approval, one of which required the signage to bear the name and logo of "Travel Lodge" only (Condition of Approval No. 2). Swain Sign Inc. on behalf of Holiday Inn Express Hotel is proposing to upgrade all signage on the now - existing Holiday Inn Express Hotel to incorporate new corporate sign colors and design. Modification 10.02 is a request to eliminate Condition of Approval No. 2 to officially allow the sign cabinet to bear the name "Holiday Inn Express." The project will consist of removing and replacing the sign cabinet on the existing 58 -foot tall pole. sign. New building exterior wall signage is also proposed. However, the total wall sign area proposed is compliant with the maximum sign area requirements, and therefore, will not be reviewed under the proposed Modification 10- 02. The subject site is located at 705 San Gabriel Boulevard in the C -3 (Medium Commercial) zone. PC RESOLUTION 10.20 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING MODIFICATION 10 -02, TO ELIMINATE CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 2 UNDER ZONE VARIANCE 84.115, TO ALLOW THE MODIFICATION OF THE SIGN CABINET ON AN EXISTING 58 -FOOT TALL POLE SIGN TO BEAR THE NAME HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 705 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD, IN THE C -3 (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL) ZONE (APN: 5288 - 004 -062 TO 065). Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission APPROVE Modification 10.02 and ADOPT Resolution No. 10.20 with findings and subject to nineteen (19) conditions. Assistant Planner Trinh presented staff report. Chairman Alarcon asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for staff. None Chairman Alarcon opened the Public Hearing and invited applicant to podium. Kevin Parker, Representative of Swain Sign Inc., reiterated what the project will consist of. Commissioner Ruiz stated that the project will look nice and the hotel will get more business with the sign shifted to the left as proposed. Chairman Alarcon asked if anyone is in favor of this project. None Chairman Alarcon asked if there is anyone against this project. None Chairman Alarcon closed the Public Hearing and asked Commission for a motion. Commissioner Ruiz made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to approve APPROVE Modification 10 -02 and ADOPT Resolution No. 10.20 with findings and subject to nineteen (19) conditions. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None C. DESIGN REVIEW 10 -01 - Buon Duong, on behalf of Hawaii Properties, has submitted a Design Review application, requesting to modify the existing 30 -foot tall pole sign into a 17 -foot tall monument sign, located at 8508.8522 Valley Boulevard in the C -3D (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) zone. PC RESOLUTION 10.21 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 10.01 FOR THE MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING 30- FOOT TALL POLE SIGN INTO A 17 -FOOT TALL MONUMENT SIGN, LOCATED AT 8508 -8522 VALLEY BOULEVARD IN THE C -31) (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE (APNS: 5371. 010 -800, 801, 803). Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission APPROVE Design Review 10 -01 and ADOPT Resolution No. 10.21 with findings and subject to nineteen (19) conditions. Assistant Planner Trinh presented staff report. 10 Chairman Alarcon asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for staff. Commissioner Ruiz stated that the sign looks great but on the sign itself, it looks like the top row of letters appears to look smaller than the second row and he suggested that the top row should be a little bigger. Assistant Planner Trinh replied that the representative can be called up to see if they can agree to that suggestion. Chairman Alarcon opened the Public Hearing. Buon Duong, representative of the sign company, needed clarification on what the Planning Commission requested for sign change. He also stated that the lettering may not stay on one line if it is made larger. Commissioner Ruiz explained to the applicant that the top row of letters on sign needs to be a little larger than the second row and keep it on one line. Commissioner Ruiz stated he would like to see top row on one line with lettering at 12" tall and second row on one line with lettering 10" tall. I Chairman Alarcon stated that perhaps Mr. Duong should go ahead and try to make the sign with Commissioner Ruiz suggestions and then have Assistant Planner Trinh review it. Chair -woman Eng concurred with Chairman Alarcon's suggestion. Vice - Chairwoman Eng stated that she concludes with what Commissioner Ruiz is requesting and confirmed what Mr. Duong is concerned with to the Planning Commission. She also confirmed that Mr. Duong understood what the Planning Commission was requesting and asked him if it was agreeable. Buon Duong, representative stated yes he understands and he will try to make the sign as they requested. Commissioner Hunter stated this sign will look very nice and will bring a lot of business there.. Chairman Alarcon asked the Commissioners if there were anymore questions. None Chairman Alarcon asked if there was anyone 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 the Commission for a motion Commissioner Herrera made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, to APPROVE Design Review 10.01 and ADOPT Resolution No. 10.21 with findings and subject to nineteen (19) conditions. City Attorney, Greg Murphy stated he would like to clarify that is to move to approve and to direct staff to make sure that the final version of the sign complies with the discussion about the lettering that has taken place tonight Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 5. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIRMAN & COMMISSIONERS None 6. MATTERS FROM STAFF Principal Planner Bermejo stated that the Planning Commission Meeting for Monday, July 5, 2010, will be cancelled due to City Hall being closed for the Fourth of July holiday. 7. ADJOURNMENT The next regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Monday, July 19, 2010. f / I Commission Secretary William Alarcon Chairman 12