Loading...
PC - Minutes 11-01-10Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 1, 2010 The regular meeting of the 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 - Commissioners Herrera, Ruiz, Vice- Chairwoman Eng, Chairman Alarcon ABSENT — Commissioner Hunter ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT: City Attorney Greg Murphy, Community Development Director Wong, Principal Planner Bermejo, Assistant Planner Trinh, Commission Secretary Lockwood, 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS Greg Murphy, City Attorney, presented the procedures and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes - October 18, 2010 Vice - Chairwoman Eng made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to APPROVE the Minutes of October 18, 2010, as presented. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: Hunter 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 071294 - Phat Ton has submitted an application for a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide one existing parcel totaling 19,100 square feet into three (3) parcels, for the development of three (3) new single-family homes. Each single - family home will also be developed with an attached two -car garage. The subject site is located at 9223 Rose Street in the R -1 (Single - Family Residential) zone. PC RESOLUTION 10.32 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 071294 TO SUBDIVIDE ONE EXISTING PARCEL INTO THREE PARCELS, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THREE (3) NEW SINGLE - FAMILY HOMES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 9223 ROSE STREET IN THE R -1 (SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission APPROVE Tentative Parcel Map 071294 and ADOPT Resolution 10.32 with findings, and subject to forty (40) conditions. Assistant Planner Trinh presented the staff report and stated that staff has received a letter from the Citizens of Rosemead, regarding their concerns for this project. She also stated a copy of this letter was submitted to the Commission for review. Chairman Alarcon asked if the Planning Commissioners had any questions for staff. Community Development Director Wong clarified that the letter received was from an anonymous resident and not necessarily representatives of the Citizens of Rosemead. Chairman Alarcon asked staff if the owner of the property lives there now. Assistant Planner Trinh replied yes. Chairman Alarcon opened the Public Hearing. Kamen Lai, designer of the project, stated he is here as a representative for Mr. Phat Ton. He also stated that this project is a continuation of a subdivision in this neighborhood and provided the Planning Commission with an assessor parcel map diagram highlighting existing flag lot developments within the neighborhood. He also stated that the existing homes onsite will be demolished and three new homes will be built. He also stated this property owner wants to live in Rosemead and is willing to agree to all of the conditions of approval. He also stated he is available to answer any questions the Commission may have. Chairman Alarcon asked Kamen Lai if Mr. Phat Ton, the property owner, will be living in one of those homes. Kamen Lai replied yes, and stated that he is currently living there. Chairman Alarcon stated that we have received a letter from a resident that states that there are illegal additions on the property and asked Kamen Lai if he could clarify this issue. Kamen Lai stated that he has asked the owner and the owner states he has some storage there and he also added that once the Tentative Parcel Map is approved everything will be demolished. Chairman Alarcon stated that the City has rules and regulations and that they need to be followed. Kamen Lai replied yes, he understands and said that is why they did not ask for a variance. Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked if the condition of approvals for the subdivision indicate that all structures will be demolished. Principal Planner Bermejo replied it's not a condition of approval, its showing on the development plan that all structures will be demolished. She also stated that if there is reason to believe that structures have been converted and someone is living there, we can defer that to Code Enforcement to have that removed and resolved. Community Development Director Wong stated that it would be appropriate prior to recording of final parcel map to have all existing structures be demolished to assure the City that the property will be vacant. He also stated that may be an appropriate condition of approval. Greg Murphy, City Attorney stated that he agrees and you do not want to record a map with property over a new parcel line, and yes, demolishment prior to the final parcel map would be appropriate. Chairman Alarcon asked staff about the condition of approval regarding the modifications that need to be made to Lot 3. Assistant Planner Trinh confirmed condition number 35 was added because the orientation of the house on Lot 3 does not match our flag lot subdivision ordinance, and stated that staff added this condition to make sure the applicant works with staff to meet the requirements of the ordinance. Kamen Lai stated that they will make sure set -back requirements are satisfied. Vice - Chairman Eng asked staff if there will there be two driveway approaches. Assistant Planner Trinh replied yes, the conventional lot (Lot 1) will have an independent driveway and Lots 2 and 3 (flag lots) will share a driveway. Commissioner Ruiz stated that they are 25 feet wide. Vice - Chairwoman Eng referred to condition of approval number 37, and asked staff if the covenant will be a recorded covenant. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, stated that a sentence can be added to condition of approval number 37 to say, "Upon review and approval, the covenant shall be recorded against all three properties." Greg Murphy, City Attorney, stated that the same language should be added to condition number 38. Kamen Lai asked staff if this should be for lots 2 and 3 because lot 1 will have its own access. 3 Greg Murphy, City Attorney, replied yes Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked if an additional condition of approval for demolition of existing structures will be added. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, stated that in regards to a condition for demolition, a sentence should be added to condition number 4 to state, 'Tentative Parcel Map 071294 shall not become final and shall not be recorded until such time as current improvements on the lot are demolished." Chairman Alarcon asked if there is anyone wishing to speak in favor of this project. Trung Banh, resident of Rosemead, stated he lives three homes away from this project and has lived there 10 years. He also expressed concern that this project will bring the property value down in the neighborhood, will create traffic and parking issues. He also stated he does not like the idea of subdivisions and is opposed to this project. Chairman Alarcon explained to Mr. Banh that we understand his concern and that is why there are specific requirements and regulations the applicant will have to follow. Trung Banh, resident, asked if there was anything in the plans in regard to guest parking and stated that he is concerned because there is not enough public parking on the street now. He also expressed concern that the parking issue will impact the neighborhood. Chairman Alarcon stated that he understands his concerns, but there really is not a way of controlling public parking. Mr. Louis Montante, resident of Rosemead, stated that there are already two residences on this property and there is not enough room for another home. He also stated there are 11 vehicles that are parking in the street now and feels this is going to create a parking issue. He also expressed concern that the neighborhood is zoned R -1 and has not changed in 20 years. He also asked staff if an Environment Impact Study had been done to see if the infrastructure will handle the extra home. Community Development Director Wong stated staff has listed the findings that are required by law in the staff report and one of the findings is that all adequate infrastructures are in place and can support the traffic. Mr. Montante asked staff if it had been approved. Community Development Wong replied this is what is before the Planning Commissions this evening, and those findings are recommended by staff to approve the Tentative Parcel Map. Kamen Lai stated that he would like to address the concerns of the neighbors. He also stated we are subdividing this property and these are single - family homes not condominiums. He also stated that there is adequate parking as each home will have a two -car garage with room for two cars to park in front of the garage. He also stated that he had worked with the previous property rd owners which were twins ten years ago and they tried to subdivide this property also but did not have funds. Chairman Alarcon asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor or against this project. orii_ Chairman Alarcon closed the Public Hearing. Audience member stated that he would like to comment on this project. Chairman Alarcon re- opened the Public Hearing. Charles Morris; resident of Rosemead, stated his property is backed up against this property and all the homes in his neighborhood are single -story homes. He also asked if these will be two story- homes and feels this will not match the neighborhood. He also expressed concern of how it will impact the property value. Chairman Alarcon closed the Public Hearing Community Development Director Wong stated that there may be concerns regarding aesthetics from the neighborhood, so staff would like to purpose an additional condition. He also stated perhaps counsel can help with the wording, "After the demolishing of the existing improvements on the property, the property shall be planted with grass within 30 days of demolishment or during issues of permits." He also stated the reason for the suggested condition is that staff is concerned that after the demolishment takes place, it may take a long period of time before issuance of permits takes place. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, stated that it should be added to condition number 35. He suggested it state, "Within 60 -days of the demolition required by Condition of Approval number 4, the applicant/developer shall either submit the project into building plan check or landscape and seed the property to the Planning Division's satisfaction to ensure that erosion and runoff shall not take place and that the property will maintain the character of the neighborhood while construction is pending." Vice - Chairwoman Eng stated that she supports this addition. She stated that the goal is to maintain the aesthetics of the neighborhood. She also stated that we need to maintain the character, and sometimes properties get maintained through these types of subdivisions and they will add character to the neighborhood and in the long term. She said it may help the property value too. Commissioner Ruiz stated he is concerned with Condition Number 11 and noticed that the hours of construction are from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and he stated that he would like to change the hours of operation to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. He is concerned that the contractors do not abide by these rules. Community Development Director Wong, stated the hours of construction are regulated by the code. He also stated that he would recommend asking that the applicant volunteer following those hours of construction. Commissioner Ruiz questioned staff if this is a permitted code, and questioned what the hours are and when it had changed. Principal Planner Bermejo confirmed that hours of construction are regulated in the City's Noise Ordinance. She stated the code stated the permissible hours for construction are Monday through Saturday 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Kamen Lai, stated the owner is agreeable to hours of construction from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. to accommodate the neighborhood. Vice - Chairwoman Eng made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz, to APPROVE Tentative Parcel Map 071294 and ADOPT Resolution 10 -32 with findings, and subject to forty (40) conditions. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: Hunter Community Development Director Wong stated that this decision is final unless it is appealed to the City Council within ten days. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, explained to the audience that if anyone would like to appeal they would need to contact staff to file an appeal and it must be done within ten days of today. He also stated that if you do file an appeal then staff will set a hearing before the City Council, and the City Council will hear the appeal. Chairman Alarcon stated that the hours of City Hall are Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 10.01 AND MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 10.06, CONSISTING OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVISING HOTEL AND MOTEL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS - General Plan Amendment 10.01 and Municipal Code Amendment 10.06 are City initiated amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan and Rosemead Municipal Code for the purpose of revising definitions, parking requirements, required amenities related to floor area ratio limits, and other development regulations for hotels and motels. PC RESOLUTION 10.31 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA CQ RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 10 -01 AND MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 10.06 CONSISTING OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVISING HOTEL AND MOTEL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION — Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 10.31, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT the Negative Declaration and ADOPT Resolution 2010.72 and Ordinance No. 902, amending the General Plan Land Use Element and Title 17 of the Rosemead Municipal Code to revise hotel and motel development standards. Principal Planner Bermejo presented the staff report. She also stated there are proposed amendments and explained to the Planning Commission where they are located in the proposed ordinance. Chairman Alarcon asked if the Planning Commissioners had any questions for staff. Vice - Chairwoman Eng stated that she received a phone call from resident Brian Lewin and presented a question for him as he was not able to attend tonight's meeting. She stated that his question is in regards to the minimum lot size requirement change and he would like to know what existing future projects will be affected by this change. Principal Planner Bermejo replied that currently there are approximately four hotels in the City and the intent to this Municipal Code Amendment is to make all the hotels uniform so they can renovate. Vice - Chairwoman Eng stated that she would like to add a couple of items to the optional hotel amenities under Section 11. She stated that she would like additional amenities added such as workout room (gym) and a beauty parlor or hair salon. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, stated that it should be called Day Spa / Salon and in regards to the workout room staff suggested Fitness Center. Vice - Chairwoman Eng stated that she feels the 40% Lot Coverage requirement in Section 11 is a little restrictive. She also stated that the City receives TOT revenue from the hotels and we should review this standard in the future. She also asked for clarification on Item J, and asked staff if the City still collect TOT revenue on extended stays. Community Development Director Wong replied yes. Chairman Alarcon opened the Public Hearing, Chairman Alarcon asked if there was anyone in favor None VA Chairman Alarcon asked if there was anyone against. None Chairman Alarcon closed the Public Hearing and requested a motion. Commissioner Herrera made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 10.31, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT the Negative Declaration. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: Hunter Commissioner Herrera made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz, to ADOPT Resolution No. 10.31, a resolution recommending that the City Council APPROVE General Plan Amendment 10.01 and Municipal Code Amendment 10.06, which are City initiated amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan and Rosemead Municipal Code for the purpose of revising definitions, parking requirements, required amenities related to floor area ratio limits, and other development regulations for hotels and motels. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: Hunter Community Development Director Wong addressed Chairman Alarcon and stated that your action here with your recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for their hearing. 5. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIRMAN & COMMISSIONERS None 6. MATTERS FROM STAFF A. 8855 Valley Boulevard (Universal Bank) - Revised Building Paint Colors Principal Planner Bermejo presented a memorandum regarding building paint colors at 8855 Valley Boulevard. She stated that due to the concerns about the building's existing paint color, staff has been working with the property owner to select an alternative building color scheme. She presented the Commission with a color chart that provided two color scheme proposals that were submitted by the property owner, and asked the Planning Commission to review and comment on the proposed colors. She further indicated that if a proposal is selected, Planning Division staff would require the property owner to test the paint colors on a small portion of the building for final review prior to repainting the entire building. Community Development Director Wong and Principal Planner Bermejo stated that we can go down the list and see what preferences the Planning Commission would like. Commissioner Herrera stated that she had not seen any trim on the building yet and asked if the trim was up yet. Principal Planner Bermejo replied yes the trim is already on the building. Commissioner Herrera stated that she likes the colors that McDonalds and Bank of the West used Commissioner Ruiz stated that he also likes the brown earth tones also and feels the cornice trim should be brown. Planning Commissioners recommended the use of earth tones. Vice - Chairwoman Eng said she still likes the gold tones, but she would like the Planning Commission to work with the applicant and give guidance with color selections instead of selecting colors for him. Community Development Director Wong stated that he would like to remind the Planning Commission that the applicant is volunteering to revise the building colors and that we will make every attempt to appease the Commission. Commissioner Herrera stated that she also likes the colors on Mr. Lees Sandwich's building. Vice - Chairwoman Eng stated that she likes the gold tone colors that are there not, but agrees they should be toned down. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that the applicant did not want to have his building look like to the Mr. Lees Sandwich's building because it too close to his building. She stated that she would provide the property owner with the Commission's feedback. 7. ADJOURNMENT The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, November 15, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. r William Alarcon Chairman ATTEST: Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 10