Loading...
PC - Minutes - 08-20-12Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 20, 2012 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by Chair Ruiz in the Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Chair Ruiz INVOCATION - Vice -Chair Hunter ROLL CALL - Commissioners Eng, Herrera, Saccaro, Vice -Chair Hunter, and Chair Ruiz ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT: City Attorney Murphy, Community Development Director Ramirez, Assistant Planner Trinh, Planning Technician Casillas, 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. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12.07 - Randy Planegger, property owner of 'Rio Hondo Plaza ", has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application, requesting to expand the existing Asian Pacific Family Center located at 9353 Valley Boulevard into another building within the same commercial center, located at 9363 Valley Boulevard. The subject site is located at 9353.9363 Valley Boulevard, in the C -31) (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) zone. PC RESOLUTION 12.16 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12.07, TO EXPAND THE EXISTING ASIAN PACIFIC FAMILY CENTER LOCATED AT 9353 VALLEY BOULEVARD INTO ANOTHER BUILDING WITHIN THE SAME COMMERCIAL CENTER, LOCATED AT 9363 VALLEY BOULEVARD. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 9353.9363 VALLEY BOULEVARD IN THE IN THE C -31D (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE. Staff Recommendation - Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 12 -07 and ADOPT Resolution No. 12-07 with findings and subject to the twenty -three (23) conditions. Commissioner Eng recused herself from the Public Hearing item 3.A Conditional Use Permit 12 -07. Assistant Planner Trinh presented staff report. Chair Ruiz asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions for staff. Vice -Chair Hunter asked staff if there is enough parking stalls for this business and the other tenants. Assistant Planner Trinh explained that according to the Rosemead Municipal Code, office use with less than required parking is permitted. She explained that the applicant is required to have seventy-four (74) parking stalls, but is deficient and only has sixty -six (66). Vice -Chair Hunter asked with patients going in and out will it make a difference. Assistant Planner Trinh reiterated that the Rosemead Municipal Code allows it because it is an office use. Chair Ruiz asked if there were any other questions. None Chair Ruiz opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium Randy Planneger, representative for Pacific Clinics, stated that he is surprised by the comments that Pacific Clinics has never had a Conditional Use Permit, since they have been there since 1992, and has proposed their business on behalf of occupying their property. He referred to the question in regards to parking and stated that most of the patients do travel by bus. He stated that there is parking along the back of the building that is usually not utilized. He explained that they are going into the old Pizza Hut location that was previously approved by the Commission on a parking ratio of 10 per 1000. He added the office space use is only 2112 per 1000 and explained they are actually increasing parking availability per the use code compared to what was previously there. He stated they are not changing any exterior items on the property and this tenant has been in the city for decades providing services to the community and he would hate to lose them due to a lack of space. Chair Ruiz asked if the Planning Commission had any questions for the applicant. Commissioner Herrera asked why there is not a Conditional Use Permit. Assistant Planner Trinh replied that staff is not sure why there was never a Conditional Use Permit Greg Murphy, City Attorney, explained that as the applicant stated, they have been in business for decades and when staff looked through the file, they found that there was not a permit to begin operation. He explained the business has been in operation for years in compliance with city codes and staff is requesting that the Conditional Use Permit be approved and granted. Chair Ruiz explained why the city is requiring this Conditional Use Permit Commissioner Saccaro asked if Building "A" is addressed at 9363 Valley Boulevard. Randy Planneger, applicant, replied yes and explained it will be corrected. Commissioner Saccaro stated behind Building "A" there is some sort of a sign and currently there is just the frame Randy Planneger, applicant, replied the frame use to be the Pizza Hut sign and it has been left there. Commissioner Saccaro asked if it will be utilized as a future sign. Randy Planneger replied not for Pacific Clinics, but may be used sometime in the future for another business Commissioner Saccaro asked the applicant if something could be done with the sign frame to be more presentable. Randy Planneger, replied, yes he can look into that. Chair Ruiz asked if there were any more questions or comments on this item. None Chair Ruiz closed the Public Hearing. Assistant Planner Trinh clarified that she had stated the wrong Resolution Number in the Staff Report and that the correct Resolution Number is 12 -16. Chair Ruiz stated the correction will be made and asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions. None Chair Ruiz asked for a motion. Commissioner Herrera made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Saccaro, that the Planning Commission APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 12.07 and ADOPT Resolution No. 12.07 with findings and subject to the twenty -three (23) conditions. Vote resulted in: Yes: Hunter, Herrera, Ruiz, Saccaro No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Recuse: Eng Greg Murphy, City Attorney, explained the 10 day appeal process, and stated if within 10 days if no one has appealed the ruling tonight then building permits may be applied for. B. DESIGN REVIEW 12.03 - Dzung Xuan Pham submitted a Design Review application requesting approval to remodel the exterior fagade on an existing commercial building and proposed parking lot improvements located at 8729 Valley Boulevard, in the C -3D (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) zone. PC RESOLUTION 12.15 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 12- 03, PERMITTING THE FACADE REMODEL OF AN EXISTING COMMERICAL BUILDING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT 8729 VALLEY BOULEVARD IN THE C -3D (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission APPROVE Design Review 12 -03 and ADOPT Resolution No. 12.15 with findings and subject to twenty -five (25) conditions. Planning Technician Casillas presented staff report. Chair Ruiz asked the Planning Commissioners if they had any questions for staff. Vice -Chair Hunter asked staff what will happen if there are only eighteen (18) parking spaces and they are suppose to have twenty -two (22). She commented that she had visited the site and it looked like there may be more space in the back for parking. Planning Technician Casillas replied there are five (5) packing spaces in the back of the building and those parking spaces have been included. Commissioner Eng asked what is the maximum height of the existing building. Planning Technician Casillas replied the maximum height in a C -3 zone is 75 feet but the maximum height of the facade that is proposed is at 24 feet. Commissioner Eng asked if that includes the building itself, it is not 24 feet from the top of the building. Planning Technician Casillas replied that is measured from ground level to the top of the tower element, which is the highest point of the building. Commissioner Eng asked if the tower is the middle portion. Planning Technician Casillas replied yes. Commissioner Eng confirmed that there is more articulation on the side and that it will go up to 19 feet. Planning Technician Casillas replied that is correct, and explained the parapet walls will go up to 19 feet, which is the maximum height of the building, and the tower element will be a little higher at 24 feet. Commissioner Eng asked currently there is not a parapet wall and there is only a roof. Planning Technician Casillas replied that is correct. Commissioner Eng asked if the roof is being removed. Planning Technician Casillas explained the roof will have to be removed in order to construct the parapet walls. Commissioner Eng asked if any type of equipment will be put on top of the roof. Planning Technician Casillas replied mechanical equipment will be added to the top to cool and heat each unit. Commissioner Eng asked if the existing HVAC system is being relocated. Planning Technician Casillas replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked where the existing HVAC system located currently is. Planning Technician Casillas replied this questioned may be deferred to the applicant. Chair Ruiz referred to the mechanical equipment and asked if it will be shielded from the view of the public. Planning Technician Casillas replied yes and it will be one of the conditions of approval. Chair Ruiz commented that keeping the HVAC from the public view is a concern that Commissioner Eng may have. rd Planning Technician Casillas stated that Condition of Approval number seventeen (17) will address the mechanical equipment concern. Commissioner Eng stated that is one of her concerns. She explained her other concern is, since there is a parking deficiency and depending the HVAC is located currently, there may be room to add another parking space or some landscaping. Chair Ruiz stated the designer is present tonight and may address those concerns. Commissioner Eng referred to signage and asked staff if a monument sign is the direction that is being taken. Planning Technician Casillas replied that the applicant is proposing building wall signage and not a monument sign. Commissioner Eng reminded staff that signage is something the Planning Commission looks at and asked staff how close is this project to downtown area. Planning Technician Casillas replied it is within the downtown area. Commissioner Eng asked if it will have to conform to the Downtown Design Guidelines for downtown projects. Planning Technician Casillas replied yes. Community Development Director Ramirez explained to the Planning Commission that when staff looks at signage they look at what will make the building more attractive including if a monument sign will fit. Unfortunately a lot of times they will not fit because the sign protrudes into the public right -a -way. She explained cost is usually the biggest problem a developer to put a monument sign in, so a lot of times they usually go with the building signage. She stated this is something that staff discusses with the applicant. Chair Eng asked if the parking deficiency for this lot will be continued. Planning Technician Casillas replied yes, they do not have enough space to add additional parking stalls. Commissioner Eng asked Greg Murphy, City Attorney, if it needs to be reiterated that the parking deficiency that was granted in the past needs to continue into the Conditions of Approval. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, explained that original deficiency, and he is not sure it was a deficiency at that time the building was built, but if it were a deficiency at that point, then it would be applied to those Conditions of Approval. He explained the Municipal Code requires now, that if you allow office uses, then a deficiency can continue, so there is no need to call it out separately in the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Eng asked if the future use is intended to be office space or retail. Planning Technician Casillas replied the use will continue to be office, due to the parking deficiencies. Commissioner Eng requested that the applicant confirm the type of use. She asked staff if the trash enclosure will have a solid roof top. Planning Technician Casillas replied yes, and explained it is identified in the plans, but can be added to the Conditions of Approval if requested. Commissioner Eng stated the plans indicated that the roof top will be steel and commented that is something she would like to see, so that it will compliment the facade of the building if possible. Chair Ruiz opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant to the podium. Kamen Lai, Designer of the project, stated that the Conditions of Approval are acceptable and can answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Commissioner Eng asked if the tenant use, after the renovation, will be used exclusively for office use or will it also be used as retail. Kamen Lai replied it will be used as office only and explained why. Commissioner Eng asked if the tenant just recently acquired this property Kamen Lai replied, yes. He also referred to the mechanical units and explained that there are currently five (5) HVAC units on the property that cannot be seen. He explained that the building is currently sixteen (16) feet high with a parapet screening those units. In the future, the building will be 24 feet tall, the parapet itself is 19 feet, and the roof level will remain the same. He explained that the mechanical units will not be visible in the future. Commissioner Eng expressed concern of the scale of signage for the building and asked what the design vision will be. Kamen Lai explained there will be two (2) main building signs (with one (1) facing Valley Boulevard and one (1) facing Bartlett Avenue) and four (4) small signs for each unit. Chair Ruiz asked what type of sheet metal will be used for the trash enclosure roofing. He expressed concern that sheet metal will rust and start to leak. Kamen Lai replied it is a galvanized corrugated sheet metal and it will be painted. Chair Ruiz stated paint will not adhere to galvanized metal. He suggested they use a powder coated and explained why. Kamen Lai stated that they are willing to use any finished or painted materials that is feasible and will accept additional Conditions of Approval if needed. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, stated there is not a need for a Condition of Approval at this time. He explained that the plans are sufficient, which states it will be sheet metal. He added if the Planning Commission is in agreement that the top of the enclosure be painted to match the building, then the direction should be clear. Commissioner Hunter referred to a picture and asked if the signage will be changed for different offices coming in. Chair Ruiz stated that picture is the old signage. Commissioner Hunter stated she knows this is the old signage from the market and asked if similar signage will be used. Kamen Lai replied that signage will not be used. Steve Young, resident, stated he is representing the single - family home adjacent to the north of the subject property. He stated that his family is excited about the proposed development because it will add value to the existing homes and area. He expressed concern with the parking deficiency and that there is not enough lighting on the north side of the building. He stated the subject property is very close to a motel and requested more lighting be placed on the north side of the building to help prevent crime and for safety reasons. He explained there is a lot of loitering, illegal activities, and illegal dumping on the north side of the building. Chair Ruiz asked the applicant how many lights are on the north side of the building. Kamen Lai referred to the color board and pointed out that there is one (1) light fixture on the north wall and there is three (3) to four (4) facing Bartlett Avenue. He stated there are two facing Valley Boulevard and six (6) light fixtures facing the west side. He added that there is sufficient lighting for the parking lot. Commissioner Herrera asked if this is an increase of lighting. Kamen Lai replied yes. Chair Ruiz asked if the new lighting is different than the existing lighting. Kamen Lai replied there will be a lot more lighting than what exist currently. Commissioner Eng asked if the lights will be on continuously throughout the night or are they motion detectors. Kamen Lai replied that some of the lights will be set up from dusk to dawn, and some lights will be set to motion sensors. He stated he will work out the details with staff. Chair Ruiz recommended that some of the lights on the north side of the building be left on from dusk to dawn and the other lights set on timers or motion sensors. Commissioner Eng suggested if lighting does not help the safety concerns, then perhaps a security system be used in the future if needed. Chair Ruiz closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Commissioner Eng reiterated that she is concerned with the massiveness of the signage of the parapet and would like to remind staff to consider the Design Guidelines while working with the applicant. Commissioner Herrera made a motion, seconded by Vice -Chair Hunter that the Planning Commission APPROVE Design Review 12.03 and ADOPT Resolution No. 12.15 with findings and subject to twenty -five (25) conditions. Vote resulted in: Yes: Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz, Saccaro No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Greg Murphy, City Attorney, explained the 10 -day appeal process and stated if within 10 days if no one has appealed the ruling tonight then building permits may be applied for. C. ZONE CHANGE 12.01 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12.01 - Selina Luong has submitted a Zone Change and Conditional Use Permit application requesting to operate an automotive sales business located at 7850 Garvey Avenue (Parcel "1 ") in the C -3 (Medium Commercial) zone and 2743 Strathmore Avenue (Parcel "2 ") in the P (Parking) zone. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit would allow onsite storage of vehicles for sale on Parcel "1:' Since an automotive sales lot is permitted in the C -3 (Medium Commercial) zone, upon the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, a Zone Change has also been requested. Zone Change 12 -01 would amend the zoning map by reclassifying Parcel "Y' from P (Parking) to C -3 (Medium Commercial). PC RESOLUTION 12.14 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ZONE CHANGE 12.01 CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 2743 STRATHMORE AVENUE FROM P (PARKING) TO C -3 (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL), AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12 -01 FOR THE OPERATION OF AUTOMOTIVE SALES BUSINESS LOCATED AT 7850 GARVEY AVENUE AND 2743 STRATHMORE AVENUE. Staff Recommendation - Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 12.14, which is a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 923 amending the zoning map by reclassifying Parcel "2" from P (Parking) to C -3 (Medium Commercial). Assistant Planner Trinh presented staff report. Chair Ruiz asked the Planning Commission if there are any questions for staff. Vice -Chair Hunter asked why they have two addresses. Assistant Planner Trinh replied it is currently two individual lots and explained Parcel 1 is addressed at 7850 Garvey Avenue and Parcel 2 is at 2743 Strathmore Avenue. Vice -Chair Hunter asked if it is going to be one business, will it need two addresses. Assistant Planner Trinh explained once the Zone Change has been approved, it will be referred to as 7850 Garvey Avenue. Commissioner Eng referred to the staff report and asked if the light fixture in the parking lot area is in Parcel 2. Assistant Planner Trinh replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if cars are going to be stored, is there sufficient lighting for the parking lot. Assistant Planner Trinh replied yes, it looks sufficient. Commissioner Eng expressed concern about if there will be sufficient lighting. She referred to the chain link fence on parcel 2, at the back of the property, and asked staff if it will be screened. Assistant Planner Trinh replied the applicant is modifying all the fencing on the property and will bring it to compliance to the Rosemead Municipal Code requirements. She explained the fencing that is over height will be reduced to 4 ft. within the front, the northern and eastern property lines. She stated that all the rod iron will be removed. Commissioner Eng asked if the new fencing facing Garvey Avenue will be rod iron and will it be closed so that you cannot see through it. Assistant Planner Trinh replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if it will be closed during business hours or is that a movable fence. Assistant Planner Trinh replied that question can be deferred to the applicant. Commissioner Eng stated there is an operation located at 7910 Garvey Avenue with the same business name and asked if there is a connection. Assistant Planner Trinh replied that is the existing business and we can request that the applicant elaborate on her current business. Commission Eng requested that it be reinforced in the Conditions of Approval that no automotive services be conducted on site. Assistant Planner Trinh stated that Condition of Approval can be added. Chair Ruiz opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium Kamen Lai, Designer of this project, explained that the applicants business has been in the community for over twenty years. They have spent a lot of money to purchase this property so that they may expand their business and continue their business in the City of Rosemead. He explained once their plans are approved the applicant will relocate to the new property and lease out the existing building the business is currently operating from. He reiterated the improvements of the fencing and stated the applicant accepts all the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Eng stated she would like to thank Kamen Lai and the business owner for keeping faith and believing in the City of Rosemead. She explained a Garvey Avenue Vision Plan has been implemented and the applicant is a leader and example of what the City of Rosemead wants Garvey Avenue to look like. She thanked the applicant and asked for clarification if he is going to relocate his current business from 7910 Garvey Avenue to this new property. Kamen Lai replied, yes. Commissioner Eng asked if Kamen Lai has worked with staff in regards to the proposed landscaping in regards to pedestrian safety and view obstruction. Assistant Planner Trinh stated that will be addressed during the approval process. Chair Ruiz asked if there were any more questions or comments on this item. None Chair Ruiz closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Commission if they had any more questions or comments. Commissioner Eng clarified that a Condition of Approval will be added that will not allow automobile repairs to be permitted on the facility. Assistant Planner Trinh stated that Condition of Approval will be added tonight 0 Greg Murphy, City Attorney, stated Condition of Approval number twenty -four (24) will be added to read as follows, "No automotive repair operations shall be deemed to be authorized on the property by this permit and the applicant agrees that no automotive repair shall take place unless and until all the appropriate permits and licenses have been obtained" Assistant Planner Trinh asked if detailing will be added to that Condition of Approval also. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, replied if that is the wish of the Planning Commission. Chair Ruiz and Commissioner Hunter recommended that detailing and car washing not be eliminated because when selling cars you will need to wash them. Assistant Planner Trinh stated there is not space to wash the cars. Chair Ruiz asked if the cars can be hosed down. Assistant Planner Trinh replied they can be hosed but then there are NPDES requirements. Chair Ruiz stated if detailing is eliminated there will be dirty cars at the site all the time. Commissioner Hunter stated she agrees with Chair Ruiz and it should not be eliminated because the cars need to be kept clean. Chair Ruiz stated the cars need to be kept clean and maintained. Commissioner Eng stated if car washing and detailing is permitted, she would like staff to look into and address storm water issues or requirements. She addressed Greg Murphy, City Attorney, and asked for his recommendation. Chair Ruiz suggested that the only requirement may be is that bio- degradable soap be used. Commissioner Hunter asked if soap is necessary and suggested the cars can just be washed down. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, recommended that a Condition of Approval number twenty -five (25) to state, " That all washing and detailing of automobiles parked on site for sale will comply with state and federal clean water laws and the city's NPDES requirements. No washing and detailing of automobiles not parked on site for sale will be allowed on the site" Chair Ruiz thanked Greg Murphy, City Attorney, and asked the Planning Commission if they are in agreement with the added Condition of Approval. The Planning Commission replied that they all agreed. Chair Ruiz stated he is not opening the public hearing this is just to ask the applicant to the podium to confirm that he understands and is in agreement to the added Condition of Approval. Kamen Lai, replied yes, he understands and agrees to all the Conditions of Approval. Chair Ruiz stated there have been two amendments to the Conditions of Approval and asked for a motion. 10 Greg Murphy, City Attorney, clarified that the motion will be the recommendation that the Rosemead City Council will approve both. Commissioner Herrera made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Saccaro to ADOPT Resolution No. 12- 14, which is a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 923 amending the zoning map by reclassifying Parcel "2" from P (Parking) to C -3 (Medium Commercial). The Planning Commission recommended that two additional Conditions of Approval be added. Vote resulted in: Yes: Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz, Saccaro No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Greg Murphy, City Attorney, stated there will not be a 10 -day appeal period. This will go to City Council for approval and the Zone Change will be first and the Conditional Use Permit will be second. He explained staff will contact the applicant when this meeting will take place. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Extension of Conditional Use Permit 11.10 Assistant Planner Trinh presented the Memorandum. Chair Ruiz asked if the Planning Commission if there were any questions or comments. None Chair Ruiz asked for a motion. Commissioner Herrera made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Saccaro, to APPROVE the Consent Calendar and Extension of Conditional Use Permit 11.10. Vote resulted in: Yes: Eng, Herrera, Ruiz, Saccaro No: Hunter Abstain: None Absent: None 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF A. Wal- Mart's Annual Review of Conditions of Approval Assistant Planner Trinh presented the staff report. Chair Ruiz asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions or comments for staff. None 11 Chair Ruiz asked for a motion. Commissioner Herrera made a motion, seconded by Vice -Chair Hunter, to APPROVE Wal -Mart's Annual Review of Conditions of Approval. Vote resulted in: Yes: Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz, Saccaro No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez stated there are no further items from staff. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERS Chair Ruiz asked if there were any items for staff. Commissioner Hunter asked staff why the "Babies -R -Us" sign is still up, when the business is no longer operating. Community Development Director Ramirez replied this item is currently a Code Enforcement issue. She stated she will contact Code Enforcement to get an update of the status and inform the Planning Commission at a later date. Commissioner Herrera stated the City of Rosemead has made a lot of improvements lately and the city looks beautiful. She expressed concern that there are two properties that have been taking a long time to complete, one being the bank across the street and the other is on Delta Avenue and Valley Boulevard. 7. ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of Monday, September 3, 2012, will be Cancelled in observance of the Labor Day Holiday. The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, September 17, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. Victor Ruiz Chair ATTEST: ejG Rachel Lockwood uNf)?!`(/ — Commission Secretary 12