Loading...
PC - Minutes - 03-19-12Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 19, 2012 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Eng at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Herrera INVOCATION - Chair Eng ROLL CALL - Commissioners Herrera, Hunter, Saccaro, Vice -Chair Ruiz, and Chair Eng ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT: City Attorney Murphy, Acting Community Development Director Ramirez, City 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 None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DESIGN REVIEW 11 -03 - Lorraine Clark has submitted a Design Review application requesting to renovate the exterior fagade of an existing commercial building and to convert an existing 621 square foot attached garage into additional office space. The subject site is located at 9362 Valley Boulevard, in the C -3D (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) zone. PC RESOLUTION 12 -05 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 11- 03, FOR THE RENOVATION OF THE EXTERIOR FACADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND TO CONVERT AN EXISTING 621 SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED GARAGE INTO ADDITIONAL OFFICE SPACE, LOCATED AT 9362 VALLEY BOULEVARD IN THE C -3D (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH DESIGN OVERALY) ZONE. Staff Recommendation - Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is recommended that the Planning Commission APPROVE Design review 11.03 and ADOPT Resolution No. 12-05 with findings subject to the thirty -five (35) conditions. Assistant Planner Trinh presented staff report. Chair Eng asked if the Planning Commissioners had any questions for staff. Vice -Chair Ruiz asked for clarified on the number and look of the colors. Assistant Planner Trinh explained that the applicant is proposing the color of Terra Cotta. Commissioner Hunter stated she agrees with Vice -Chair Ruiz that there are too many colors, they are too bright, and will clash with each other. Vice -Chair Ruiz asked staff if the canopies are suppose to be burgundy color, according to the Downtown Guidelines. Assistant Planner Trinh replied that a specific color for the Downtown Design was never selected and this particular site is not located within the area covered by the Downtown Design guidelines. Vice -Chair Ruiz stated that sprinkler system is not included in the notes, but it is in the Conditions of Approval, and he recommends that they automatically be put on the general notes and explained why. Assistant Planner Trinh asked Vice -Chair Ruiz if he is referring to the landscaping plans. She stated these are just preliminary and on the final landscaping plans staff will assure the applicant will complete them. Vice -Chair Ruiz stated he would like to know that the City receives them and would like them on the preliminary landscaping plans also, so they may be reviewed by the Planning Commission before being approved. Chair Eng asked Vice -Chair Ruiz if this request is for future projects and applications. Vice -Chair Ruiz replied yes, and stated that he knows the sprinkler system and the irrigation system is in the conditions of approval but he would like to have them listed in the general notes in the future. Acting Community Development Director Ramirez asked Vice -Chair Ruiz if he wanted a list of Conditions of Approval on the plans. Vice -Chair Ruiz replied no, not the Conditions of Approval, he would like to see the details of what the irrigation system entails, listed in the general notes. Chair Eng explained that what Vice -Chair Ruiz requests is that when landscaping plans are submitted he would like details in the general notes of what it will entail. She asked staff if this request is already the current practice. City Planner Bermejo replied the standard method is that the applicant will submit a conceptual landscape plan and if the Planning Commission is satisfied with the conceptual design staff usually asks for a final landscaping and irrigation plan. She asked the Planning Commission if they are requesting an irrigation plan to be submitted with the conceptual plan. Vice -Chair Ruiz replied no, he would like details of what the irrigation system entails written in the general notes on the preliminary landscaping plans. Chair Eng asked Vice -Chair Ruiz if he is requesting for a detailed irrigation plan for the Planning Commission to review because currently there is not one provided. Vice -Chair Ruiz replied yes, if that can be done it would be helpful and it is computer generated so it should not be difficult. Chair Eng asked staff what is the practice and policy when an applicant is submitting an application of this type. City Planner Bermejo replied the current practice and policy is to require just the conceptual landscaping plan because during the Design Review there are times that landscaping material can change. She stated now that there is a Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance in place the landscape design will include a lot of different information of what comes after the Design has been approved. She explained when a application is submitted to the Planning Commission and once the conditions of approval have be approved, the Planning Division requires the applicant to copy the Conditions of Approval on all the development plans before they can proceed onto the Building Department. Vice -Chair Ruiz replied he knows that is done, but he still recommends that details be included in the general notes. City Planner Bermejo asked Vice -Chair Ruiz if he is requesting to include in the conceptual plans a statement that will include automatic irrigation. Vice -Chair Ruiz replied yes, he would like details included stating whether an irrigation plan or an electrical plan will be approved. City Planner Bermejo asked if he is requesting conceptual details about the type of irrigation proposed. Chair Eng asked staff if that would be acceptable. City Planner Bermejo replied yes. Commissioner Herrera asked staff if the carburetor business will have cars stored overnight. Assistant Planner Trinh replied that the previous use was a carburetor business but the new use is just office,use. Commissioner Hunter asked if the parking in the front will remain. Assistant Planner Trinh replied they will remove all the parking spaces in the front, add additional landscaping, and have all the parking spaces will be in the rear. Chair Eng asked if the applicant is present. Assistant Planner Trinh replied the designer is present tonight. Chair Eng stated she would appreciate it if he would thank the applicant for taking the steps to improve this area. She asked staff if a clarifier on the property should be removed since the use has changed. Assistant Planner Trinh deferred the question to the designer believes there are not any carburetor machines left on the property. Chair Eng explained that usually when there is automotive repair, a clarifier is on the property to catch excess oil. She added there is an agency to contact when you are converting a previous auto repair use to a different type of use and there is a process to have the clarifier removed. Commissioner Herrera added for remediation and maybe it is to have contaminates removed. Vice -Chair Ruiz stated that this particular building really did not have any big automobile repairs and he never saw any contamination or oil on the ground. He stated that he would be more concerned with the radiator shop next door. He stated this building was more of a minor re- manufacturing of carburetors. Chair Eng asked Vice -Chair Ruiz if cars were being hoisted and oil was being drained from automobiles. Vice -Chair Ruiz stated the containers that were used to clean the carburetors were more like solvents. He stated he does not think we have to worry about that. Chair Eng replied she would like staff to check with the applicant to confirm if there is a clarifier on the property. Designer commented from the audience but it was not audible. Chair Eng stated the designer can clarify the comment when she opens up the Public Hearing. She asked staff if the office building is for a multi- tenant use or is it for a single- tenant use. Assistant Planner Trinh replied it is for single- tenant use. Chair Eng noted that the staff report indicates that seven (7) parking spaces will be provided, but the site plan only shows six (6) spaces with four (4) standards, one (1) compact, and one (1) disable, and asked can the site accommodate additional parking. Assistant Planner Trinh replied there are seven (7) parking spaces on the site plan and explained there are two adjacent to the building. Chair Eng stated she likes the warm tone colors and would like the color scheme be compatible with the other developments in the area. She recommended that staff work with the applicant on the color scheme because this project will transform the area. She asked staff about the condition of the existing roof on the building. Assistant Planner Trinh replied that according to the applicant the roof is in good condition. She stated when the applicant goes through the facade renovation the roof will be repaired /replaced as needed. Chair Eng asked staff if it will remain to be a flat roof and if there are any plans to install any type of articulation. Assistant Planner Trinh replied yes it will remain a flat roof with no articulation added. She stated the applicant is just requesting to put cornice trim and other modifications. Chair Eng asked staff if there is HVAC equipment and will it be on the roof. Assistant Planner Trinh replied there is an existing parapet and it screens the mechanical equipment. Chair Eng explained that she is asking about articulation because there is a two -story building to the East and to the right and this building is a one -story with a flat roof. She recommended that if it is feasible she would like to see some sort of articulation installed to bring up the height of the building a little bit to add consistency to the area. She asked staff if the garage is living space or is it a garage. Assistant Planner Trinh replied it is a garage. Chair Eng asked staff if the outdoor bollard lights will provide adequate lighting for safety reasons. Assistant Planner Trinh replied as part of the conditions of approval we are asking the applicant to provide light cut sheets, so as staff can review the illumination and verify that there is enough lighting. Chair Eng stated that there is parking there and if the lights are coming from the ground and illuminating upward it may not provide adequate lighting for safety reasons. City Planner Bermejo explained that one light standard will be there and that the plans indicates that there is two light standards proposed, and staff is recommending the removal of one light standard along the property line and have the bollard lighting be placed there. She stated the one light standard along with the bollard lighting should be sufficient for the parking lot. Chair Eng confirmed with staff that this will be adequate lighting for safety because that is where the bulk of the parking is. She stated her concern is adequate lighting. City Planner Bermejo stated that the Planning Commission can also request a photometric survey that would indicate the light illuminations throughout the property. Chair Eng replied that is a possibility but this item should not have to be brought back to the Planning Commission and again just wants to express her concern that there is adequate lighting. She asked staff if the applicant will have to provide a drainage plan. Assistant Planner Tdnh replied staff has not requested they submit a drainage plan. Chair Eng asked staff if the drainage plan is necessary. Assistant Planner Trinh replied the Building Plan Check will determine if the drainage plan is necessary. City Planner Bermejo stated the applicant can be asked if there is a proposed change of grade on the site. She also stated there is a proposed resurfacing of the parking lot but we can defer that question to the applicant. Chair Eng asked staff to clarify three (3) Conditions of Approval. She stated the first one is number twenty (20) and asked staff if it should specify that there are seven (7) parking spaces. She also asked the Planning Commission if they agree with the specification of seven (7) parking spaces. Commissioner Herrera asked if this specification has been necessary in the past with other projects. Acting Community Development Director Ramirez replied this has not been done in the past. Commissioner Hunter asked if it should be every two- hundred and fifty (250) feet per every parking space. City Planner Bermejo stated she would recommend that condition of approvals requiring parking spaces be written to meet the municipal code requirement and explained why. Chair Eng read Condition of Approval number twenty -four (24) and asked staff if the municipal code number should be included in Condition. Assistant Planner Trinh replied it is there as reference and that the municipal code number, 17.104, can be added. Chair Eng referred to Condition of Approval number twenty -seven (27) and stated that she thought the roof of trash enclosure cabinets was to be solid and that this would be an on -going policy. She asked staff to clarify. Assistant Planner Trinh replied this is not something the municipal code requires. Acting Community Development Director Ramirez explained the policy of the Planning Commission required a solid roof for restaurants but not for office uses. Chair Eng asked the Planning Commission what they would like to recommend in terms of the solid roof. Vice -Chair Ruiz stated since there is not a municipal code requirement, and this is just an office use, it should just be left open with the decorative trellis. If this use was a restaurant, then he would recommend a solid roof over the trash enclosure. Chair Eng asked if the Planning Commission is in agreement with this recommendation. The Planning Commission replied yes they are in agreement. Chair Eng opened the Public Hearing. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, reminded Chair Eng that staff had deferred a couple of items to the applicant and maybe he can answer those for the record. He recommended that the applicant be asked to the podium first. Chair Eng asked the representative to the podium. David Smith, Designer of this project, stated he is here to answer any questions. City Planner Bermejo asked David Smith if there is any proposed grading on the property. David Smith replied there are no grading changes proposed for this property and they are only resurfacing the parking lot. Chair Eng asked David Smith if this is a single- tenant office building. David Smith replied yes it is. Chair Eng asked David Smith if there is a clarifier on the property. David Smith replied no there is not. Chair Eng asked David Smith if he understands the Planning Commission's recommendations for the color scheme of the building. David Smith replied that he is open to work with staff in regards to colors. Vice -Chair Ruiz stated that the Planning Commission is looking at colors that are earth tone and not too vibrant. He commented that the property looks good already. Chair Eng asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on this item. Brian Lewin, resident, thanked everyone involved in improving this site. He stated it looks very nice and looks forward to it being completed. He requested that staff confirm there is no clarifier on the property. He also asked the Planning Commission to please reconsider the decision to not require a solid roof over the trash enclosure in regards to storm water concerns and explained why. He requested that the roof be checked because, it had been reported to his mother by the graffiti department that the roof was determined to be unsafe. He commented that he appreciates the traffic mirrors being included in the Conditions of Approval. Chair Eng thanked Brian Lewin and asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on this item. None Chair Eng closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Commission if there are any other comments or questions. Commissioner Hunter commented that she is happy to see there is a right hand turn only on that piece of property. Vice -Chair Ruiz requested that staff verify with Code Enforcement and the Building Division to see if there are any code violations in regards to the safety standards of the roof. He requested staff verify there is no clarifier on the property. He added if there is a clarifier he requested that staff work with the applicant to have it removed. Chair Eng asked staff if building permits will be required for the roof repairs. She stated the building inspector will verify the safety standards of the roof. She referred to the clarifier and advised David Smith that the property owner may want to confirm that there is no clarifier on the property in case there is a change of ownership or if the property is transferred in the future. Vice -Chair Ruiz asked staff if the municipal code will be changed regarding the trash enclosures. City Planner Bermejo replied when a trash enclosure detail is handed out in the City of Rosemead we list when NPDS requirements require the solid roof. She stated we will incorporate the municipal code to address the NPDS requirements. Chair Eng stated that is a Public Works issue and recommended that staff work together with Public Works „to come up to speed with storm issue requirements. She stated this is something we should take care of now. She asked staff how much more the cost would be to put up a solid roof trash enclosure. City Planner Bermejo replied that the question would have to be deferred to the applicant because she does not know the cost. Acting Community Development Director Ramirez stated that as of now the solid roof over the trash enclosure is not required. Vice -Chair Ruiz suggested asking the applicant if he has any objections to putting a solid roof over the trash enclosure. Acting Community Development Director Ramirez stated that is not a requirement at this time. Chair Eng stated that according to the municipal code it is not required but this would be a preventative measure. She asked David Smith if he is agreeable to installing a solid roof cover over the trash enclosure. David Smith, designer, replied he would have to talk to Ms. Clark first as this is a condition and he is the designer, but he thinks she would agree to the condition. Commissioner Hunter stated that a solid roof over trash enclosures would be better for all businesses. Vice -Chair Ruiz recommends that a Condition of Approval be added stating that the trash enclosure requires a solid roof and that all businesses be required to follow this condition of approval. Chair Eng stated that Condition of Approval number twenty -seven (27) addresses the trash enclosure and that it would be changed to include that it should be a solid roof enclosure. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, stated it will read, "A new trash enclosure with a solid top shall be installed on site.” He stated that will be the first sentence and the rest will remain as is. Chair Eng asked for a motion. Commissioner Herrera made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Saccaro, to APPROVE Design review 11- 03 and ADOPT Resolution No. 12-05 with findings subject to the thirty -five (35) conditions. Vote resulted in: Yes: Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz, Saccaro No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Greg Murphy, City Attorney, stated then; is a ten (10) day appeal period where anyone wishing to take action against the decision made tonight by the Planning Commission may do so. He let the applicant know that staff will contact him to let him know he can proceed with his business. B. MODIFICATION 10.04 AND ZONE VARIANCE 10.02 - Fresh and Easy Neighborhood Market, Inc. (Fresh and Easy) has submitted applications for a Zone Variance and a Modification requesting to deviate from the required construction of a six -foot high masonry wall that is required by Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) Sections 17.12.090 and 17.84.130. RMC Section 17.84.130 requires the installation of a six -foot tall masonry wall where a parking area abuts property classified for residential uses. RMC Section 17.12.190 requires that a six -foot masonry wall be installed where a commercially zoned lot has a common lot line with a residentially zoned property. Based on these codes, the block wall would be required along the southern portion of the east property line where the subject property abuts a residential lot. All other block walls have been installed within the development and meet municipal code requirements. The modification request that is being sought by the applicant is not a request to modify the original project conditions of approval, but rather is a request that allows the Planning Commission to grant relief from the block wall requirement in accordance the provisions of RMC Section 17.12.190. Since the approval of a Zone Variance is required for relief of RMC Section 17.84.130, and the Zone Variance provisions impose more stringent approval regulations than those under RMC Section 17.12.190, the Zone Variance review regulations are being applied to both requests. The subject property is located at 9026 Valley Boulevard in the CBD -D (Central Business District with a Design Overlay) zone. PC RESOLUTION 12.06 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING ZONE VARIANCE 10- 02 AND MODIFICATION 10 -04 FOR THE RELIEF FROM ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 17.12.190 AND 17.84.130 FOR DEVELOPMENT SITE LOCATED AT 9026 VALLEY BOULEVARD IN THE CBD -D (CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE. Staff Recommendation - Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is recommended that the Planning Commission APPROVE Zone Variance 10.02 and Modification 10 -04 and ADOPT Resolution No. 12-06 with findings subject to the eleven (11) conditions outlined. Assistant Planner Trinh presented staff report. Chair Eng confirmed with staff that if they are adding Condition of Approval number twelve (12) to paint and mark compact parking stalls. Assistant Planner Trinh replied that is correct. Chair Eng asked if the Planning Commissioners have any questions for staff. Vice -Chair Ruiz stated he feels this wall should be installed and referred to Attachment C. He asked staff how far is the curb and drainage from the property line. Assistant Planner Trinh replied that question can be deferred to the applicant. Vice -Chair Ruiz asked staff if they would clarify why the wall cannot be installed as he does not understand, especially since there is already an encroachment on that easement and questioned AT &T's comments. City Planner Bermejo stated it would be appropriate to address some of these questions to the applicant since they were the ones that had direct contact with AT &T. Chair Eng asked staff to clarify how many Public Hearing notices went out since the staff report states fifty -nine (59) and the Resolution states fifty -six (56). Assistant Planner Trinh replied it is fifty -six (56) and the Resolution is correct. Chair Eng asked staff if the required six (6) foot wall extends all the way to Valley Boulevard or to the end of the residential line. Assistant Planner Trinh replied it is to the residential line. Chair Eng asked staff how many feet is the wall from the end of the residential lot line to the front of Valley Boulevard. Assistant Planner Trinh replied five (5) feet and two (2) inches. Chair Eng confirmed that it is five (5) feet two (2) inches. Assistant Planner Trinh replied she thinks it is a little lower closer to Valley Boulevard but towards the center it is five (5) feet and two (2) inches. Chair Eng asked staff what the current code is for commercial property walls. City Planner Bermejo replied within the Central Business District the property fencing within ten feet (10) along with the setback cannot go higher than three (3) feet. Chair Eng stated that many residential properties do about commercial properties especially the ones near Valley Boulevard and Garvey Avenue and they all have utility easements. She asked staff how has the City resolved applications that involved utility easement issues in the past. City Planner Bermejo replied that in the last seven years this is the first application that staff has come across on a commercial property. She stated this question can be deferred to the applicant as they have more experience in developing properties and can be asked how often they deal with this. Chair Eng asked if staff was aware of easement issues when the application was processed. City Planner Bermejo replied when the application came to the Planning Commission, staff was not aware of the easement issue. She also explained to build a block wall it is not required to get a building permit if the block wall is less than six (6) feet high. She explained that for this particular request the municipal code required the block wall and the applicant investigated the easement. It was AT &T that would not allowed then to encroach within that easement area. Chair Eng recommended that the City investigate options to mitigate these types of utility easement concerns for future applications. She stated according to the minutes of July 2009 when this project was approved, the project architect and the representative from Fresh & Easy did confirm that the block wall on the residential side would be six (6) feet tall, meet code requirements, and landscaping would act as a buffer for noise. She read an excerpt from the minutes to the Planning Commission and commented that she does not quite understand how the utility easement was not addressed two (2) years ago. She also asked staff for more detail on how AT &T is not able to satisfy the municipal code requirements. Assistant Planner Trinh replied the applicant researched two options; the first one is a brand new block wall but because of the easement concern they are stating it is not feasible, and the second option was to extend the block wall to six (6) feet tall but because of their structural engineer conclusions they are not able to do it. Chair Eng asked if the AT &T telephone cable is active. Assistant Planner Trinh replied according to the applicant it is. Chair Eng asked staff what is involved and how much will it cost to relocate this cable. Assistant Planner Trinh replied that question can be deferred to the applicant. Chair Eng asked staff if the existing light pole mentioned in the staff report was installed by Fresh & Easy or if it is an Edison light pole. Assistant Planner Trinh replied it is the existing light pole that was originally installed through the original development of the project. Chair Eng asked staff if it is a Fresh & Easy pole. City Planner Bermejo replied that Fresh & Easy did not install that lighting; it was installed by the Bank of the West renovation. She stated they are referring to a light standard on an Edison pole. Chair Eng asked staff if it is a Bank of West pole or an Edison pole. City Planner Bermejo replied the development site has two tenants one is the Bank of the West and the other is Fresh & Easy and they share the parking lot. Acting Community Development Director Ramirez explained to staff that Chair Eng is asking if the light pole belongs to Southern California Edison or if it belongs to the property. City Planner Bermejo replied it belongs to the property owner. Chair Eng confirmed with staff if Ficus hedges were going to be used and asked staff if there is another type of hedge that can be used that is not so root invasive. City Planner Bermejo replied staff worked with the applicant and focused on a fast growing plant. The Ficus hedge is what was recommended. She stated the applicant may know more of the root system of this plant and or of another fast growing plant. 10 Chair Eng stated she would like staff to be conscientious of impacting the neighborhood in the future and to please consider that when selecting fast growing plants. She also asked staff if there will be a space between the existing wall and the hedge that is being proposed. City Planner Bermejo replied that the plant material is evenly spaced within the planter. Chair Eng asked staff if the plant will go against the existing wall. City Planner Bermejo replied that question should be deferred to the applicant because it is not shown in detail in their plan. Chair Eng referred to Condition of Approval number fifty -two (52) that requires the market to install a 24 hour electronic surveillance system and asked staff if they know if this system will cover the parking area. Assistant Planner Trinh replied it does. Chair Eng opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to speak. John Le, architect, stated he is representing Fresh & Easy. He gave a brief description of the wall and stated he is willing to answer all questions. Commissioner Hunter asked John Le why the wall that is there now is not stable. John Le replied the wall is not stable enough to add additional weight because they do not know the original structure, or integrity of that wall. Chair Eng asked John Le, what their structural engineer means by, "the reason the existing wall is unstable is because of the existing footing, there is not enough footing, and it is something that can be reworked." John Le replied that he means by adding more weight to it. Chair Eng asked what he means by reworking the footing. Commissioner Herrera stated originally it was going to be six (6) feet and that was determined in 2009. Chair Eng referred to correspondence from Constructional Engineer Joseph Leonard and read his three recommendations which are located in Attachment F, dated Dec. 23, 2010. She asked John Le if there is anything that can be done to reinforce the grading against the wall. John Le replied that reinforcing a structured masonry wall and retaining three (3) feet from the commercial site to the residential side would need an additional footing and pole to be installed to support it. He stated he would like to defer this until the end of this hearing to see which direction they are heading. He stated it would also depend on what the existing wall is made of to see if it would support it or if it may need a new wall. Chair Eng asked John Le if it would be cheaper to build a new wall rather than reinforcing it. John Le replied no, it will cost more. Chair Eng asked John Le if at the time of the original application he had knowledge of the easement issues. 11 John Le replied no, his understanding at the time was that they had met the six (6) foot requirement. He explained that they were not aware that the six (6) foot counted on the high side of the commercial side of the property. Chair Eng asked staff to explain John Le's response. Vice -Chair Ruiz stated this does not make sense and that the Condition of Approvals stated it was suppose to be six (6) feet high on the property line all the way across. John Le explained to the Planning Commission they thought they had met the six (6) foot requirement and that there had been a ten (10) inch discrepancy on the commercial side at the time of the original condition. Chair Eng explained that she thinks John Le is stating that the grade on the residential lot is lower. Therefore, on the residential side it meets the six (6) foot requirement but on the commercial it does not. She asked staff to clarify if this is what John Le is referring to. City Planner Bermejo replied she will need to go back to the site to measure the wall from the other side of the property to verify that. Chair Eng asked staff when the requirement of the six (6) foot wall was going on was staff just focusing on the commercial lot. City Planner Bermejo replied no. She explained that it had been measured at various locations but it has been a long time since that was done so she would have to go out there to re- measure and come back with calculations. She stated she does not believe it is six (6) feet all the way through. Chair Eng asked staff what it is that the City needs to ask the applicant to do to be compliant. City Planner Bermejo replied that the Municipal Code is silent when it comes to where the wall is to be measured from and in this particular case if it is six (6) feet tall she would accept that on this plan because you would not want an eight (8) foot tall wall. Chair Eng asked staff if we are making this decision now. City Planner Bermejo asked the City Attorney for advice. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, explained that the Municipal Code requires that a new six (6) foot wall be installed; however, in this case there is an existing wall in place that might be able to be measured at six (6) feet. He stated on the commercial side it was measured at five (5) foot and two (2) inches and because of this easement issue the applicant is saying that he cannot install the new wall as required by code. He stated what the Planning Commission would be looking at is to see if a Variance should be granted to not require the new wall and if the Variance is granted, what will the Planning Commission require in that wall's place. He stated one option is to retain the existing wall in place and to add the landscaping the applicant has proposed. He stated that there are some other options like a chain link fence which is a non permanent structure and can be easily moved so that AT &T can get down into their conduit. He stated what is before the Planning Commission tonight is a Variance to deviate from the construction of a new six (6) foot wall and instead the Planning Commission would require something else. Vice -Chair Ruiz stated his concern is that the existing six (6) foot block wall is on the property line right now and asked staff if this was correct. City Planner Bermejo replied according to the plans submitted the wall is on the property line right now 12 Acting Community Development Director Ramirez stated the wall is on Fresh & Easy's property and not on the property line. Vice -Chair Ruiz asked the applicant why the block wall can't be completely torn down and put right on the center of the commercial and residential property line. He stated that would eliminate the encroachment issue because then you would be right on the residential property line. He stated that this is done in residential areas and asked why the applicant is being given a variance when they agreed to install a new block wall and hedge in the Conditions of Approval the first time. He stated that he recommends the wall be knocked down and a new wall be put up instead of granting a variance. John Le, applicant, replied they are not asking for any leniency or exception not to build that wall. He stated the Municipal Code is very clear that a six (6) foot wall is required between residential and commercial zone and the intention for that is for light, sound, and glare. He stated we are talking about ten (10) inches shorter than what is required to be built. He stated if the Planning Commission desires ' a new wall to be built the inconvenience's involved will be removing the AT &T telephone easement, which will disable phone and cable service to both the commercial and residential neighborhood for about two weeks. He explained to the Planning Commission procedures that will have to take place if a new wall is installed. Chair Eng asked John Le if that information is based on his conversion with AT &T. John Le replied that it is based on past experience and stated it will take about two weeks. Chair Eng stated that the correspondence in the staff report packet stated that the existing cable is not in a conduit and that is why you cannot build on top of it. She asked John Le how hard it would be to run cable through the conduit and not have to relocate it. John Le replied it would have to be new cable and explained you cannot put an existing cable underground into a new conduit. Chair Eng asked John Le if an existing cable could be enclosed into a conduit. John Le replied it could be encased in concrete but then that would prevent future access to that underground conduit. Vice -Chair Ruiz asked John Le if there was an earthquake could the wall be repaired. John Le replied yes it can. Vice -Chair Ruiz stated that John Le is not making sense in that respect and explained if you put the block wall inside the property line you are away from the easement. He stated a six (6) foot wall only requires an eighteen (18) inch foundation he believes and we are not talking about thirty (30) inches in depth. John Le replied it is eighteen (18) inches if you are not retaining any dirt and we are retaining dirt. Vice -Chair Ruiz asked how much dirt is being retained. John Le replied six (6) feet below on the adjacent property and five (5) feet two (2) inches on the other side. Vice -Chair Ruiz asked John Le how deep is the slope that he has to go six (6) feet because you are only missing ten (10) inches. 13 John Le replied it is six (6) feet on the adjacent property sir. Acting Community Development Director Ramirez explained the applicant is saying if you were to measure from the ground to the top it would be six (6) feet on the residential side. She stated if you are standing on the Fresh & Easy side it would measure at five (5) feet and two (2) inches. Vice -Chair Ruiz suggested with a one (1) foot back -fill, the depth for the foundation for the new block wall that should be about twenty -four (24) inches with a number six (6) rebar. He asked John Le why that can't be done with going along the property line. Chair Eng asked John Le if the existing wall is on the property line. John Le replied it is on the Fresh & Easy property side. Vice -Chair Ruiz stated he would like to hear from the residential property owner if she is present tonight. Commissioner Hunter asked John Le if the existing block wall would be stable if there were to be an earthquake. John Le replied yes it would be and the construction engineer is stating he is not comfortable, and would not want to be responsible for, putting additional weight on the existing block wall. Commissioner Hunter asked John Le what if you re- grouted the wall. John Le replied if you re -grout it will only be adding more weight to the wall and does not add any structure in reinforcing it and explained how it would have to be reinforced. Commissioner Hunter commented that the wall does sound like it would be stable enough. John Le replied it is stable for what it is doing but it is not stable enough if more weight is added to it. Chair Eng stated there is an attachment from a construction company dated in September which contained a price quote for the wall and asked John Le if that quote included the demolishment of the existing wall and to build a new one. John Le replied yes. Chair Eng asked John Le if you were to build the wall today would the cost remain the same. John Le replied it should be about the same. Chair Eng asked John Le if his main concern is inconvenience. John Le replied the cost of the wall, the construction of the wall, and that the price does not include the cost of relocating the existing AT &T cable. He explained in order to build the wall you will have to relocate or temporarily remove the AT &T cable and no one knows where the cables are currently located. Vice -Chair Ruiz stated that is if you were to build it on the Fresh & Easy property line. If you were to build it on the center of both property lines, then it would be away from the conduit and asked John Le if he was correct. John Le replied he is not sure and they do not know where the existing conduit is. 14 Vice -Chair Ruiz stated that he is not satisfied with Mr. Le's response because they have not investigated thoroughly where the conduit is. He explained if the conduit is one hundred (100 %) percent on the residential side then he would agree it should not be done. John Le replied that the easement is on the Fresh & Easy property so the conduit cannot be on the residential side. Vice -Chair Ruiz stated that is what he had asked him and that he had replied he was not sure. John Le replied he is not sure where the cable is located. Vice -Chair Ruiz asked John Le if the property owner is not against building the wall on the center of the residential and commercial property line, then why can't it be done and according to the plans in a way that would not interfere with the existing conduit that is there. John Le asked Vice -Chair Ruiz if he could guarantee that. Vice -Chair Ruiz replied there are pictures showing it. John Le replied the pictures are showing the existing irrigation line. He stated it is not showing the AT &T cable. Chair Eng stated there is a picture dated December 2, 2009, and in the caption states, "AT &T cable is six (Q) inches below existing masonry wall ". Vice -Chair Ruiz stated that John Le just stated that is not an AT &T cable, it is an irrigation line. John Le replied it is an irrigation line. Chair Eng asked if the picture of the pot hole is not the AT &T cable. Vice -Chair Ruiz stated that he is not getting the proper information. Chair Eng asked staff if they understand Vice -Chair Ruiz's concern. City Planner Bermejo replied she does understand the Vice - Chair's concern and does see the discrepancy. She stated she does not have an answer and this is what the applicant has submitted. Ben Shearer, Director of Construction for Fresh & Easy, stated that there is not a whole lot of room on their property line to move the wall to the adjoining neighbors property. He explained they would have to tear up a lot of mature vegetation on their side of the property because it has grown up against our fence. He stated we would be happy to discuss that with them but they would actually lose property because they have had the use of our property for many years as well as lose that mature vegetation that has grown on that side. He stated it is not a conduit, it is an AT &T main fbro -optic line and explained how it used to be installed which they don't do now. He stated the replacement cost would be about thirty -three thousand dollars ($33,000.00) to replace the AT &T cable just on the Fresh & Easy property and that is why they did not want to do any relocation and requested the Variance. He explained since it is a main fibro-optic line the City would lose fibro -optic connectivity in that whole area. To remove the wall, restore the wall, and put the conduit back in, would be a two week process. He stated it is not two weeks just to take the cable out. He explained that he has recently had to disrupt neighbors in Granada Hills and they were upset. He stated for this case the decision he made was that there is too much risk for knocking out the fibro -optic line and with the original proposal we thought that we had met the six (6) foot requirement because the property line goes up and down and the fence is built straight across. He explained that the masonry wall is level on the top but the topography goes up and down and when Fresh & Easy originally submitted their application they thought they had met that six 15 (6) foot requirement. He explained that the property line is just a few inches away and they have suggested putting a metal decorative iron work on top of wall but the Municipal Code requires a masonry wall. He stated that they are not trying to shirk the financial responsibility and that the City is holding on to almost sixty thousand dollars ($60,000.00) of their money for two years until this matter is mitigated. He stated that they have suggested to the City to put some vegetation that will get taller than six (6) feet down, provide a nice aesthetic asset to the community, and help block the light. He stated if the neighbor is present tonight he would be happy to discuss this with her. He stated we are a long term resident and they love being in Rosemead and this store is doing very well for them. He explained that it is the first store on the West Coast that has a state of the art CO2 refrigeration system and there is a lot of benefit that Fresh & Easy has brought to this community. Vice -Chair Ruiz stated he agrees with Ben Shearer that the store is a benefit to this community and he shops at the store frequently. He stated he is concerned for the resident and just wants to make sure the neighbor gets what they requested which is the block wall to deter noise and for privacy. Commissioner Herrera stated she would like to hear what the residents' concerns are Inez Cruz, property owner of the house next to Fresh & Easy, stated her concern is not a higher wall but that the existing wall has become unstable. She explained if you look at the wall from her tenant's, the wall inside not the Fresh & Easy side, it is all cracked. She stated her concern is if that wall can be fixed and stabilized. She stated she does not need a taller wall; they are fine with the size and with the vegetation. She added that if the vegetation goes up it will be beautiful and added that it is an extra expense but it is not really necessary and explained the house goes all the way to the back. She stated there have not been any problems with anyone jumping over and there are big pine trees and vegetation along the back. She added if Fresh & Easy plants more vegetation against the wall that is fine with them and added it will help with the noise. She stated she has gone to the City and talked to staff about truck deliveries after 10:00 p.m., in the past because it does bother their tenants, otherwise there has not been any other problems. She stated that her concern is for the wall to be reinforced and stabilized and did not even consider an earthquake until the Planning Commission brought it up. Commissioner Herrera asked Ines Cruz if it is a small section or throughout the whole wall. Inez Cruz replied it does not look like it is the whole wall and it looks like it is more towards Steele Street looking from the back of the house. She stated it looks like the wall may have shifted and all of that happened while the construction was going on and with trucks coming in and out. She stated all the houses in the neighborhood shook like crazy during construction. Michelle Ramirez asked Inez Cruz if it would be alright with her if Fresh & Easy went on her tenant's property to look at that wall. Inez Cruz replied yes anytime. Chair Eng thanked Inez Cruz for bearing with all the construction and because of her sacrifice the community has a very nice Fresh & Easy Market. Vice -Chair Ruiz asked Inez Cruz if she has any concerns about the lighting. Inez Cruz replied the lighting is fine and her tenants have not complained of all. She stated shields were installed and on the contrary she would prefer that they are taken down so there can be more lighting for protection. Vice -Chair Ruiz confirmed with Inez Cruz that she does not mind if Fresh & Easy goes onto her tenant's property to do the repairs and add vegetation. 16 Inez Cruz replied no it will be fine and will not be a problem Chair Eng asked John Le and Ben Shearer to the podium. Ben Shearer explained the pros and cons of lights on property lines and reported that sometimes it becomes a safety issue. He stated he appreciates Inez Cruz's comments. He stated they can address the issues with the cracks in the wall and will go check on it right away. He stated he will work with the property owner in regards to the vegetation. He stated they have been good neighbors and when the truck delivery issue came up they made adjustments. He stated they actually do not like building in residential neighborhoods. He stated he will work with the tenant in regards to the vegetation. Inez Cruz stated there are plants and pine trees by the fence and she would like them to remain if possible. Chair Eng asked Ben Shearer and John Le if they would be able to address and assist in stabilizing the existing wall. Ben Shearer replied yes absolutely. Chair Eng asked staff what change's they recommended for the Conditions of Approval. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, recommended that an added sentence to Condition of Approval number ten (10) stating: "The applicant shall repair cracking on the east side of the existing perimeter block wall and shall continue to maintain the wall as needed in order to ensure its continued structural integrity." Commissioner Hunter stated that a new wall is not necessary and it would be a waste of money and an inconvenience. She feels that adding the hedges and repairing the existing masonry wall will be sufficient. Vice -Chair Ruiz stated that he agrees with Commissioner Hunter and as long as Inez Cruz is in agreement with all the recommended improvements and modifications to the existing wall then we should proceed. Chair Eng asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor or against this project. None Chair Eng closed the Public Hearing. She asked the Planning Commission if there was any more discussion for this item. None Chair Eng asked for a motion for Modification 10 -04 and Zone Variance 10 -02 with the amendment to Condition of Approval number ten (10). Greg Murphy, City Attorney, explained that it is the amendment to Condition of Approval number ten (10) as well as the added Condition of Approval number twelve (12) requiring the painting and marking of the compact stalls. Vice Chair Ruiz made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, to APPROVE Zone Variance 10.02 and Modification 10.04 and ADOPT Resolution No. 12 -06 with findings subject to the twelve (12) conditions outlined. Vote resulted in: 17 Yes: Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz, Saccaro No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Greg Murphy, City Attorney, stated there is a ten (10) day appeal period where anyone wishing to take action against the decision made tonight by the Planning Commission may do so. He let the applicant know that staff will contact him to let him know he can proceed. 4. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & Vice -Chair Ruiz stated it was brought to his attention that truck deliveries are being made through a rear gate to the Panda from Delta Street. He stated the gate now has a sign on it, "For Deliveries ". He stated he thought that was zoned as no truck deliveries and that it is not from Wal -Mart because Wal -Mart does not have a gate. He asked staff to check on this matter. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that staff will investigate and have an update at the next Planning Commission meeting. Chair Eng stated that she thinks it might be South San Gabriel area. Vice -Chair Ruiz replied if it is South San Gabriel then Los Angeles County needs to be contacted and given the name of the Traffic Engineer for that area. Chair Eng asked staff what the status of the Zoning Code Update is. Acting Community Development Director Ramirez replied that staff is currently still updating the zoning code and it is being recommended that the City Council form a subcommittee to assist with the process and with that the idea would be to bring all it back at one time to the Planning Commission. Chair Eng suggested that as we look into the clean up of the zoning code that the zones have consistency and flexibility to achieve the city's short and long time goals. She stated she feels this is an important tool to be successful in achieving the City's Strategic Plan. Acting Community Development Director Ramirez stated that the Planning Division, specifically Sheri Bermejo, has been working very hard on the Zoning Code update and will attest and agree with Chair Eng that when you touch one part of the Zoning update you will have to make sure the other parts are consistent. She explained that is the difficulty in bringing sections to the Planning Commission. 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF None m 6. ADJOURNMENT The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, April 2, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. N Nancy Eng Chair AT Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 19