Loading...
PC-12-18-06r CITY OF ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES December 18, 2006 CALL TO ORDER: The regular meeting of the City of Rosemead Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Lopez at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Rosemead City Hall at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead. Commissioner Breen led the Pledge of Allegiance. Commissioner Kelty delivered the invocation. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Chairman Lopez, Vice - Chairman Kelty, Commissioners, Breen, Herrera, and Loi ABSENT: None EX OFFICIO: Johnson, Trinh, and Wallin 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of November 20, 2006 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELTY, SECONDED BY COMMISSONER LOI, that the minutes of the City of Rosemead Regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 20, 2006, be APPROVED as submitted. Vote results: YES: BREEN, HERRERA, KELTY, LOI, AND LOPEZ NO: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. 2. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS Chairman Lopez introduces City Attorney Peter Wallin, and invites him to speak. City Attorney Wallin explained the public hearing process and the right to appeal Planning Commission decisions to the City Council. Chairman Lopez asked if anyone would like to speak on any items not on the agenda, to step forward. None. 3. PUBLIC HEARING A. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 062668 and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05 -998 — 3372- 3374 Burton Avenue. Coong Kit Han has requested to subdivide two residential lots into a three Flag -Lot development. The proposed subdivision will create three parcels with one unit requiring a Conditional Use Permit for a single - family residence, exceeding 2,500 square feet. The subject site is located at 3372 and 3374 Burton Avenue, within the R -1 (Single Family Residential) zone. Presentation: Planning Services Administrator Brad Johnson Staff Recommendation: APPROVE — subject to the conditions, for two (2) years. Planning Director Johnson stated the applicant and designer were present and asked Commissioners if they had any questions. Chairman Lopez called for questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Kelty questioned the wrought iron fencing on the front elevation. Planning Services Administrator Johnson stated that there is an option on mandating a maximum of three feet. He also stated that one of the requirements is to not use spike tip fencing. Commissioner Kelty said he is just concerned about the spikes. Planning Services Administrator Johnson stated that the City does not have any designs standards today, but eventually, they will be prohibited. Commissioner Kelty said he is worried that if this project is approved without addressing the spikes, the applicant may add spikes. Planning Services Administrator Johnson stated that the details do not illustrate spikes. Chairman Lopez asked the Commissioners if they had any other questions. None. Chairman Lopez closed the hearing to the Commissioners and opened it to the public. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those IN FAVOR of this application: Mr. Kamen Lai of 8748 E. Valley Blvd., #K, the designer for the project, stood up and stated that the owners plan on removing everything to build three rooms. He also stated that the design meets all zoning requirements and the owners have agreed to accept all conditions and they ask for Planning Commission approval. Chairman Lopez asked if anyone else is in favor of this application: None. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those who wished to OPPOSE the application: None. There being no one further wishing to address the Commission; Chairman Lopez closed the public hearing segment for this project. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LOI, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BREEN, to APPROVE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 062668 and CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05 -998. Vote results: YES: BREEN, HERRERA, KELTY, LOI, AND LOPEZ NO: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. B1. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 06 -01 — ON -SITE PARKING FOR FAST -FOOD — City -wide. The City's zoning ordinance currently requires that a minimum of one on -site parking stall be provided for every fifty (50) square feet of gross floor area for all fast food business. After analyzing this zoning ordinance, staff believes that the requirement has proven to be excessive. Based on a review and analysis of parking ratio requirements for fast food restaurants in surrounding communities, staff feels that it would be appropriate to change the existing zoning code to require one parking space for each 100 square feet of gross floor area for fast food restaurants. B2. RESOLUTION NO. 06 -45 — A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, State of California, recommending that the City Council Amend Section 17.84.070 of the Rosemead Municipal Code relating to parking for fast food restaurants. Presentation: Planning Services Administrator Brad Johnson Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission waive further reading and introduce Resolution 06 -45 recommending approval to the City Council of Ordinance No. 847, amending section 17.84.070 of the Rosemead Municipal Code relating to parking for fast food restaurant uses. Chairman Lopez called for questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Loi questioned whether the City of Monterey Park is still 5.5 /1000. Planning Services Administrator Johnson answered yes. Commissioner Loi asked if the City of Monterey Park is stricter than Rosemead. Planning Services Administrator Johnson said it's the opposite. They are twice as lenient as Rosemead, at 1 space per every 181 square feet. Commissioner Loi said that is the reason why it is so crowded in Monterey Park. Planning Services Administrator Johnson stated that he has visited some of the shopping centers in the City of Monterey Park and there are serious parking deficiencies. Commissioner Loi stated his concern for traffic congestion. Chairman Lopez closed the hearing to the Commissioners and opened it to the public. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those IN FAVOR of this application: None. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those who wished to OPPOSE the application: None. There being no one farther wishing to address the Commission; Chairman Lopez closed the public hearing segment for this project. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LOI, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HERRERA, to APPROVE MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 06 -01 and RESOLUTION 06 -45. Vote results: YES: BREEN, HERRERA, KELTY, LOI, AND LOPEZ NO: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Cl. ROSEMEAD SHOPPING CENTER/UNIVERSAL BANK — 8815 -8855 E. Valley Boulevard. Modification of Conditions of Approval for Design Review 05 -132, Zone Variance 05 -330 & Zone Variance 06 -340 — This is a City initiated modification of conditions of approval for two parking variances that were approved on July 3, 2006 by the Planning Commission. The modification is to remove the conditions of approval requiring written letters of approval allowing joint parking lot striping plans and written approval to allow joint development concepts, between the two property owners, located at the Rosemead Shopping Center/Universal Bank properties 8815 -8855 E. Valley Boulevard in the CBD -D; Central Business District - Design Overlay, Zoning District. C2. RESOLUTION NO. 06 -48 — A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, State of California, approving modifications to the conditions of approval for DESIGN REVIEW 05 -132, ZONE VARIANCE 05 -330 AND ZONE VARIANCE 06 -340; located at 8815 -8855 E. Valley Boulevard in the CBD -D (Central Business District with a design overlay) zone. Presentation: Planning Services Administrator Brad Johnson Staff Recommendation: The Planning Commission APPROVE the modified conditions of approval previously adopted by PC Resolution 06 -26 & PC Resolution 06 -27 and adopt Resolution 06 -48. Planning Services Administrator Johnson stated the applicants were present and he's sure they want to address the Commission. He then asked the Commissioners if they had any questions. Chairman Lopez called for questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Loi asked if there was a mutual consent between the two parties. Planning Services Administrator Johnson said he did not believe so. Commissioner Kelty questioned why condition number 36 on Al, "Remove all parking restriction signs on the property," is not restricted on A2. Planning Services Administrator Johnson said it should have said, "Remove and replace," but it can be restated. He also said it is not a good idea to remove it. Commissioner Kelly stated his concern on parking lot cleaning. Planning Services Administrator Johnson said condition #43 addressed that. Commissioner Kelty questioned whether Universal Bank has the same requirement. Planning Services Administrator Johnson said he doesn't believe so. He then said that most of the complaints came from residents west of the shopping center. Chairman Lopez closed the hearing to the Commissioners and opened it to the public. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those IN FAVOR of this application: None. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those who wished to OPPOSE the application: John Henning of 125 N. Sweetzer Avenue, Los Angeles, California, the attorney for Bob Nguyen, handed a letter and site plan of the Rosemead Shopping Center to the Planning Commission. Referring to the site plan, he stated that in June of 2006, there was a hearing to approve a pair of plans, where Mr. Eric Lee would build a restaurant in the lower right corner and Mr. Nguyen would build a new building in the lower left corner. Mr. Nguyen also planned on demolishing the restaurant at the left corner and the front fagade of the fabric store. He said Mr. Lee is the only person who disagreed. He thinks the Planning Commission should add a condition for Mr. Lee as a solution. Mr. Henning said two parties have to agree and they haven't done so. Mr. Lee needs to agree to the conditions and the Commission needs to tell him that he shouldn't develop his project if he doesn't agree. He then said the staff report states that both parties may go ahead with their projects, but the result will only be one party, and that party is Mr. Lee. He said Mr. Lee said that if Mr. Nguyen builds a new building, he can sue him due to the lack of parking spaces. Mr. Henning stated that if both parties agree, it's a win -win situation. Demolishing the front fagade of the fabric store would create 26 more parking spaces and demolishing the restaurant would create 45 more parking spaces. He also stated Mr. Lee has an easement on the parking lot and his party believes they should be able to build something. He said it's a risk that they can be sued and their solution is to ask the Planning Commission to add a condition for Mr. Lee, which says that if he wants to go on with his project, he has to go along with Mr. Nguyen's. Mr. Henning also said that Mr. Lee wants to build his project and stop Mr. Nguyen from building his project. He then said that Mr. Nguyen accepted the conditions, but Mr. Lee hasn't. He said it's bad planning for the Planning Commission to allow one project to go forward and another not. Mr. Henning then brought up the recall election and stated that Mr. Lee hoped for change. He said they went before City Council last summer and the vote was 3 -2 opposing Mr. Lee's project. He also said he hopes the Planning Commission does not cave in and hold out until the next election, so Mr. Lee can see that it's not going to change. City Attorney Wallin questioned pg. 2 of Mr. Henning's letter, where Mr. Nguyen's name should've said Mr. Lee. Mr. Henning said he meant to say Mr. Lee. City Attorney Wallin then said he believes that Mr. Nguyen told Mr. Johnson in the last couple of months, that his current plan is to reuse the Valley Grill building and make changes to parking. Mr. Henning stated that they have floated the possibility of renovating without it, but it's a very expensive proposition to take away square footage and add parking. City Attorney Wallin said that neither party is doing anything. He asked if it was possible to reuse Valley Grill and do renovation of the shopping center, so both parties can do something. He said the shopping center is just deteriorating more and more. Mr. Henning said that it's risky for the City to rely on the fact that Mr. Nguyen would have the incentive for rehab. City Attorney Wallin questioned whether the renovation will require approval. Mr. Henning answered yes. He said they're talking about not demolishing the building. Planning Services Administrator Johnson stated that it's not a significantly different project; it's just about re- facing a restaurant and subdividing space. He said the goal of the property owner is to take the 12,000 square foot vacant fabric store to divide it into 3 linear spaces. Mr. Henning said they objected Mr. Lee's original project, because the space for the restaurant will burden their parking. The burden is to their easement, since both parties share parking. He said the argument took place last summer and the Planning Commission should stand firm on the original decision. City Attorney Wallin questioned Mr. Henning on the conditions that his party has accepted and why some of the things have not been taken care of. Mr. Henning said the project cannot be done as a whole without Mr. Lee. City Attorney Wallin said the front fagade can be done without Mr. Lee. Mr. Henning stated that the best solution is to hold tight with the conditions and see what happens in the next election. City Attorney Wallin stated that what they are asking for will continue as a stalemate. He asked Mr. Henning if he can suggest a solution. Mr. Henning said he doesn't think any solution is economically feasible. If a restaurant is built, it can still be potentially opposed. He said the argument will continue that the use will burden Mr. Lee's easement. He also said money is just not there for only a fagade renovation. City Attorney Wallin asked Mr. Henning if they have considered approving Mr. Lee's project in exchange for Mr. Lee approving their revised plans for the fabric store. Mr. Henning stated that it's something to consider, but relations aren't so great. He also stated that it's an option, but if conditions are taken away, everything will be gone. City Attorney Wallin said he believes staff has asked Mr. Nguyen if they would renovate Valley Grill and get restaurants into the fabric store in exchange for approvals. Planning Services Administrator Johnson stated that staff has given them the staff support of that modification. City Attorney Wallin asked Mr. Lee if he would allow them to proceed with that renovation. Mr. Eric Lee stated that he would be okay with 6,000 square feet of the fabric store and opening Valley Grill. City Attorney Wallin asked Mr. Lee if he would oppose. Mr. Lee answered no. City Attorney Wallin said the owners should discuss this. Planning Services Administrator Johnson said there is nothing that can be changed at this meeting. He supposed that they can request an extension. City Attorney Wallin said the entitlements expire soon, but an extension can be requested. Mr. Henning requested an extension. City Attorney Wallin asked Mr. Lee if he would like an extension. Mr. Lee said he agrees with the extension. City Attorney Wallin asked Planning Services Administrator Johnson if the conditions on both entitlements are expiring. Planning Services Administrator Johnson answered Mr. Lee expires in 6 months and Mr. Nguyen expires in 1 year from their original approvals back in June. City Attorney Wallin said both will be extended until both parties can resolve this. Chairman Lopez called for any other questions. Mr. Eric Lee of 8855 E. Valley Blvd., Rosemead, California, stated that this has been going on for the last three years and he just wants to renovate the existing office space into a restaurant. He thinks it's unfair to his property. He also said a lot of things that Mr. Henning said weren't true. He doesn't think there's a reason to continue this for another month. Mr. Lee added that he will not sue the City, but the other party may. Mr. Ahmed Serrafi of 16388 E. Colonial Road, Hacienda Heights, California, a real estate broker of 14 years, states that he thinks the beauty of the Universal Bank building should be brought out. He doesn't think Mr. Lee would oppose a renovation of the existing shopping center. He said parking has reciprocal easements for a reason and those are there because they're needed. He also said, as a developer and property owner, he doesn't see a reason to allow a new building to be built for renovation of an existing building. City Attorney Wallin said Mr. Nguyen has indicated that it's economically unfeasible. Mr. Serrafi said he has seen restaurants move into big vacant spaces and fail because parking is a problem. City Attorney Wallin said the City will benefit if the property owners get together to reach an agreement. Mr. Serrafi said he sees no reason why a new building should be built to get funds for the renovation of an existing building. He said 12,000 square feet is long, deep, and dark. He also said big family restaurants will bring in large amounts of people, which means more parking and more traffic. Planning Services Administrator Johnson stated that from a planning perspective, staff would not accept a 12,000 square feet restaurant. He said the previous site plan illustrated that the 12,000 square feet would be divided into three. Mr. Serraft questioned the division into three. He said it will be long and deep, so what retailers would want that. He then asked for questions. Mr. Wu Lim of 16300 Downey Avenue, Paramount, California, project design builder for Mr. Nguyen, stated the renovation cannot be done because it will cost millions. He said Mr. Lee can remodel and use his building as an office. He also said the two owners have CC &R, they have to agree. Mr. Nguyen's building is completely commercial and Mr. Lee's is an office building, so parking is a different ratio. He doesn't think it's fair. Mr. Lim said he hopes the Planning Commissioners come up with a good decision. Chairman Lopez questioned if both parties are willing to talk it over. He said this has been going on for three years and the Commissioners have listened and made medications, but have not received anything. He also said the City is tired and loves both projects. He asked the Commissioners to move on with this resolution and let it proceed. Commissioner Loi said he supports and thinks it should wait until the next election. Chairman Lopez asked if the City can wait another 3 months. Mr. Wu Lim stated that Mr. Nguyen is still waiting. Planning Services Administrator Johnson said staff wants to see progress on the property and this is one solution that staff came up with to see some progress. He also said one owner is ready to proceed and the staff recommendation stands. Commissioner Loi said the election is really close, so we should wait to see what happens. Planning Services Administrator Johnson said the decision is from the Commissioners, but staff recommendation is to get the property improved immediately. Chairman Lopez said we need to come to a decision. Commissioner Herrera questioned whether another three months would benefit the Council. There being no one further wishing to address the Commission; Chairman Lopez closed the public hearing segment for this project. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LOI, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BREEN, FOR CONTINUANCE TO APPROVE THE MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED BY PC RESOLUTION 06 -26 & PC RESOLUTION 06 -27 AND THE ADOPTION OF PC RESOLUTION 06 -48. Vote results: YES: BREEN, HERRERA, AND LOI, NO: KELTY ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: LOPEZ Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR — These items are considered to be routine actions that may be considered in one motion by the Planning Commission. Any interested party may request an item from the consent calendar to be discussed separately. A. Resolution No. 06 -46 — A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05 -1032, REQUESTING TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE WHICH WILL RESULT IN APPROXIMATELY 2,975+ SQUARE FEET OF LIVING AREA AND A DETACHED THREE -CAR GARAGE, TO BE LOCATED AT 3715 STRANG AVENUE IN THE R -1; SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE (APN: 8593- 031 -007). B. Resolution No. 06 -47 — A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 05 -01 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 063609 FOR THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT OF SIX (6) SINGLE - FAMILY HOMES WITH A COMMON DRIVEWAY; AND A ZONE VARIANCE TO DEVIATE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SITE AREA FOR A P -D (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) ZONE LOCATED AT 8440 — 8446 DOROTHY STREET (APN: 5288- 003 -040, 5288- 003 -041, 5288- 003 -042). Chairman Lopez asked the members of the Commission if there is any reason why Consent Calendar should not be accepted. None. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BREEN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HERRERA, to waive further reading and adopt said resolutions. Vote results: 5. 6. 7 YES: BREEN, HERRERA, KELTY, LOI, AND LOPEZ NO: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Loi asked City Attorney Wallin if defense attorneys are expensive. City Attorney Wallin said it costs about $10,000 to $20,000. Commissioner Loi also asked why a real estate broker is speaking for Mr. Lee. City Attorney Wallin clarified that he's not speaking for Mr. Lee, but supporting his project. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND STAFF Commissioners signed up for Planning Commissioner's Training Workshop. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Lopez adjourned the Planning Commission Meeting at 8:30 p.m. B WILT