Loading...
PC - Minutes - 06-03-13Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 3, 2013 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice -Chair Hunter in the Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Hunter INVOCATION - Commissioner Eng ROLL CALL - Commissioners Eng, Herrera, and Vice -Chair Hunter ABSENT – Chair Ruiz ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT: City Attorney Murphy, Community Development Director Ramirez, Acting Associate Planner Trinh, and Commission Secretary Lockwood— 1. 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. CONTINUATION OF MODIFICATION 13.01 - On May 20, 2013, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing for Modification 13.01, a request to modify condition of approval number 37 of Design Review 03.104 (Modification) to permit 10,000 square feet of restaurant and fast food use and 15,500 square feet of retail or office use within Buildings A and B of the shopping center currently under construction at 8536 Valley Boulevard. Due to the concerns dealing with traffic and the height of the wall located along the west property line, the Planning Commission continued this item to the June 3rd Planning Commission meeting. PC RESOLUTION 13.06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING MODIFICATION 13.01, TO MODIFY CONDITION OF APPROVAL NUMBER 37 TO PERMIT 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANT AND FAST FOOD USE AND 15,500 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL OR OFFICE USE WITHIN THE SHOPPING CENTER' LOCATED AT 8526 VALLEY BOULEVARD. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: a. Receive information from staff. b. By motion and vote of the Planning Commission, reopen the public hearing to take public testimony. C. Approve Modification 13.01 and Adopt Resolution 13 -06. Community Development Director Ramirez stated Chair Ruiz was not able to attend tonighfs meeting and has requested this item be continued to a date in July. The applicant Diamond Head LLC was asked if they would agree to this request and they have replied that they are not. They explained that the project is under construction almost completed and have leases that prohibit them from being able to extend this any further and would like to request that the Planning Commission hear this item this evening. Acting Associate Planner Trinh presented staff report. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, addressed the Planning Commission and stated at the first hearing of this item there was a lot of discussion regarding the general nature of the project. He recommended as the Planning Commission consider this item they focus on the Modification itself and any on- site /off -site impacts of the Modification that is being requested and any conditions that may need to be added, modified, to address those impacts or to mitigate those impacts. He added they don't want to get into a whole review of the project because that is not what is called for by the requested Modification and it is better that the administrative record does not include a wide range of discussion. Vice -Chair Hunter asked if the Planning Commissioners had any questions for staff. Commissioner Eng referred to Modification 13 -01 and asked staff when the decision or desire to include restaurant usage was made. She added the application was submitted March 2013 and asked if this was a recent decision. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied yes, and that date is when the applicant submitted their application to the City. Commissioner Eng addressed Community Development Director Ramirez and asked if the leases that are prohibiting the applicant from extending this meeting any further, requested by Chair Ruiz, have to do with the restaurant use. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that question will need to be addressed by the applicant. Commissioner Eng asked staff if they have had the opportunity to contact the applicant and the homeowners of Hidden Pines to discuss some of their concerns in regards to the intensified use that had been brought up from the previous Planning Commission meeting. Community Development Director Ramirez replied staff has spoken with the applicant President of the HOA did not contact staff to have any discussion. Commissioner Eng stated some of the concerns previously discussed were in regards to the intensified use, the possibility of creating more traffic, the ability to look over the fence, and loss of privacy to the Hidden Pines residents. She asked staff if they have ,I into options to address these concerns. Community. Development Director: Ramirez replied the fence height on the residential side is 6' ft., which is the maximum height allowed by the zoning code. She explained the commercial property developer built that wall according to the zoning code on the commercial side and it is 3' ft. 10" in., which is the highest it can go because of the 6' ft limit. She suggested that the Homeowners Association if they so choose, apply for a variance in regards to their rod iron fence and install a fence higher than 6' ft. if they are concerned about the height on their side of the property. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, explained that the City cannot require the applicant to put in a wall or fence that is higher or taller than 6' ft. when measured from the property on either side. He continued explaining that there is a significant grade separation between the pad that goes over the wash of the flood control panel and the natural grade to the west on the homeowners association side, that significant difference in grade means that the wall is measured at the homeowners side is already a 6' ft, tall wall even though it is measured at 3 ft. 10" in. on the applicant's side. He added based on Rosemead's own Municipal Code it cannot require a wall to be taller than what it allows, so we can't require what we already prohibit. He stated as the Community Development Director Ramirez stated there are some options the Homeowners Association has if they decide the operations of the commercial center wind up infringing on them. He reiterated that the City cannot force someone to put in a fence taller than what the City allows. Commissioner Eng stated the site plan indicates there is vegetation and asked if the existing vegetation will remain or is there new vegetation being proposed. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied that the landscaping has not been completed because the construction has not been completed. Commissioner Eng asked if additional vegetation will be installed between the block wall. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied yes and added the landscaping will be improved. Commissioner Eng asked who is responsible for the upkeep of the vegetation between the two walls. Community Development Director Ramirez replied it is the Los Angeles County Flood Control.. Commissioner Herrera asked if the Los Angeles County Flood Control is responsible for the ownership and the vegetation itself. Community Development Director Ramirez replied between the two fences it is the Flood Control. Commissioner Herrera asked if something is being proposed to install there., Community Development Director Ramirez replied the Flood Control already has a lot of vegetation there such as tall trees and so forth. Commissioner Herrera stated she saw that and a lot of weeds. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that staff is talking about the additional landscaping going on the applicants side of the block wall. Commissioner Herrera;stated she saw cement, wall, weeds, some trees, and a rod iron fence. She asked where the current is located. Community - Development Director Ramirez replied there is none currently and they have not completed their project to install the additional vegetation. Commissioner Herrera asked where that vegetation will go at that point. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied that question can be addressed by the applicant. Commissioner Herrera stated she did not see a planter for this vegetation and thanked staff. Vice -Chair Hunter asked if Commissioner Herrera is referring to the vegetation in between the block wall and the rod iron fence and who will take care of it. Commissioner Herrera replied yes and she would like to know what is going to be planted, who will take care of it and who does it belong to. Vice -Chair Hunter asked the Planning Commission if they had any more questions for staff. None Vice -Chair Hunter asked for a motion to re -open the Public Hearing for Modification 13 -01. Commissioner Herrera made a motion, seconded by Vice -Chair Hunter to reopen the Public Hearing for Modification 13.01 and PC Resolution 13.06. Vote resulted in: Yes: Eng, Herrera, Hunter No: None Abstain: None Absent: Ruiz Corkran Nicholson, Planning Consultant for Simon Lee & Associates, stated that Simon Lee and the Traffic Engineer are present to answer any questions. He stated that his' applicant would like to resolve this item tonight. He explained that he is working with national tenants and until this is resolved there is not much the,applicant can do. He also clarified that it was mentioned that the proposed 10,000 square ft. of restaurant use is "more intense than retail or office, and they realize that, and is the main reason why they exceeded the parking standards for the City. He explained that 116 parking spaces were required and they,hav'e provided 153 parking spaces. He added that they also provided the parking study, which was not required but the applicant and staff felt it was necessary to do and it, shows a favorable recommendation. " Vice -Chair Hunter asked if the Planning Commission had any questions for the applicant. Commissioner Eng stated she tias questions for the traffic engineer. Vice -Chair Hunter asked Hui Lai, Traffic Safety Engineer, to the podium. Hui Lai, Traffic Safety Engineer, stated he is the traffic engineer that did the parking study analysis for this project. He explained he has'been practicing as "a field traffic engineer for over 40 years and currently services as a contract traffic'ehgineerforsevera1 Cities. He stated the Rosemead Municipal Code requires 116 parking spaces for this project and explained 6ofmally you do not need to conduct a parking study. He added because of the concerns of the City and Joanne Itakgaki; City Traffic; Engineer Consultant, over the amount of the proposed restaurant use an the developer agreed to a independent parking study to reinforce that there will not be any concerns. He explained that he has worked very closely with Joanne Itagkaki and based on the maximum use of the restaurant the amount of parking spaces is still adequate for this project. He asked if the Planning Commission had any questions. Commissioner Eng thanked Hui Lai and stated the parking standard is not a major concern of hers. She stated her concern is the circulation of area and when she visited the site it was difficult exiting the residential area. She stated as discussed previously there is a residential property, the New Valley Plaza, and then this project. She explained all three driveways are close to each other, and with restaurant usage this will increase the traffic congestion. She asked if there is a way to mitigate and relieve some of the congestion or are there any plans proposed to help with that concern. Hui Lai, replied the peak hours of the restaurant are usually later in the evening and explained the traffic on the main boulevard should not be as congested and exiting should be easier. He commented that the City did a good job, the signal lights are all synchronized, and has done all that they can. Commissioner Eng asked if the parking for employees was also accounted for when doing the parking study. Hui Lai replied yes. He explained the Municipal Code includes that in the formula/ratio and it adds the employees. Commissioner Eng referred to the parking study and pointed out that two were completed (one on Friday and one on Saturday). She confirmed that it looks like the highest peak hours are between noon to 1:00 p.m. on Saturday. Hue Lai explained that they looked at the existing McDonald's at the worst time and the worst day of the week, usually a week day and a weekend day is used. He explained they use that amount and compare it to the overall parking of the project and explained the concept of shared parking. Commissioner Eng stated the peak traffic demand is on Saturday at 43 and that,is just looking at McDonald's. She stated their floor area is 3,300 square ft. and the request here tonight is for 10,'000 square ft. She asked Mr. Lai if he is saying the proposed restaurant use will not have as high as traffic as McDonalds. Hua Lai replied that the peak hours for McDonalds is during lunch time:from noon to 1:00 p.m. and for a Saturday it is counted as 43 occupied parking vehicles. He explained you do not use that ratio for 3,000 square ft. and McDonalds is considered a fast food, which is usually the highest parking generator among other restaurants. He explained that other restaurants can take over an hour to disperse of their traffic. Vice -Chair Hunter asked if there are any plans into making the 10,000 square ft. into two (2) 5,000 square ft. restaurants. Hua Lai replied that question can be answered by the architect. Vice -Chair Hunter explained that she asked this question because, if there are two restaurants there will be more employees for each restaurant and asked if there are parking spaces for these extra employees. Hua Lai reiterated that the architect would be able to answer that question. Simon Lee, Architect, explained when this project initially started they knew restaurant use would be one of the tenants of the shopping center. He explained it is impossible for the shopping center only to have retail /office use and is the reason they provided 153 parking spaces and not the required retail of 116 parking spaces, which is a surplus of 37 parking spaces. He stated they did this because they wanted restaurant use and it is needed to make this shopping' center successful. He stated at that time staff indicated to not put down restaurant use and requested that they only put retail /office use, and it,was even put into the Conditions of Approval that there would not be any restaurant use. He stated staff' recommended applying for the restaurant usage when the project was almost completed. "He stated this was the similar situation for the New Valley Center, which was also was retail /office use in the beginning and restaurant use was applied for later. He stated at that time they did a traffic study and this time it was a parking study, He stated there are several national tenants talking to his client including Yoshinoya who would like to use Building A: -He added there are two (2) additional franchises that have been talking to his client also. He requested this project 6e , dpoJ ed tonight so their client can confirm with the tenants on how many square ft. can be used for restaurant use. He stated he supports the parking study by the City traffic engineer and confirmed that only up to 10,000 square ft. will be used for restaurant use. He referred to the concerns of the neighbors on the residential property to the west and expressed they have addressed their concerns. He stated that it had been requested at the first Planning Commission meeting to build an additional 3 ft. solid block wall in the back parking lot to block the vehicle headlights, which they did. He added they have added more to the block wall and it is now TY to almost 4', which should block vehicle headlights. He referred to the landscaping between his 4' block wall and the condominium's 6' fence. He explained that the 12' landscaping belongs to the condominium property according to the Plans or it may belong to the County Flood Control. He stated if there is not enough landscaping for gaps they are willing to plant more trees to fill gaps subject to City staffs discretion. Community Development Director Ramirez asked Simon Lee for clarification when talking about adding more trees and asked if he is referring to the flood control property. Simon Lee replied that his client has purchased the flood control property and owns it. Community Development Director Ramirez asked if Simon Lee can go on the property and plant more trees. Simon Lee reiterated that his client owns the land of the flood control. Acting Associate Planner Trinh stated his property line ends at the block wall and explained the condominium property would have to authorize it. Simon Lee stated if they are willing to let them plant more trees they will do so. He referred to McDonalds and stated they will be sharing the parking spaces with them and the shopping plaza will be more vibrant. He stated there will not be a restaurant facing the condominiums and the proposed restaurants will tie: facing Valley Boulevard or McDonalds. Commissioner Eng thanked Mr. Lee for his presentation and stated she learned a lot from it: She asked for clarification if when he first embarked with this project he had intended to have restaurant use in this project. Simon Lee replied yes, which is why they have surplus parking. Commissioner Eng asked if he was asked by staff not to include that use in his proposal. Simon Lee replied he is not sure if that staff person is still with the city, but she advised him to submit for retail /office use first and retail later, which had been don Commissioner Eng thanked Mr. Lee for ad( and she agrees with him that he and his stated she supports this- project and resti development will impact the residents and meeting. She,stated they have been patien center and;when` the' center is operation the in the -essing the concerns of the residents from the residential development client have invested a lot of time and money into this project. She irant use will enhance this shopping center. She commented this ie would like to thank them also for taking the time to attend tonight's in enduring the noise, loss of privacy, and construction of the shopping the noise level should not be as high as during the construction they are happy to hear he is willing to off -set some of their privacy that adding to the block wall is not possible. Simon Lee explained that you cannot add to the block -wall because it is not possible to add to the rebar wire for reinforcement that is currently in place. Commissioner Eng asked Mr. Lee if he has any other ideas other than the landscaping that may address privacy concerns for the residents., Simon Lee explained the building is about 70 ft. away from our property line and there is 12 ft. of very dense landscaping and explained they are 82 ft. away from the residential property. He stated we have agreed that none of the restaurants will be facing the residential site and that is all he can suggest. Commissioner Eng confirmed that the restaurants will not be open to face the residential side and asked if the majority of the restaurant usage will be in Building A. Simon Lee replied that is correct and explained that they have already installed grease interceptors for Building's A & B. Commissioner Eng asked if he would be acceptable to having a condition of approval stating that the majority of restaurant use be confined in Building A. Simon Lee replied yes. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number thirty -five (35) and reciprocal parking and asked if there is a written agreement between the parties and property owners. Simon Lee replied yes and that document has been submitted to the City. Mike Sawada, representative of the Hidden Pines Place Homeowners Association, stated that they are concerned that once the restaurant use is in place traffic will be busier regardless of the,, peak time. He explained it is very difficult to exit from their driveway and turning left to go westbound on Valley Boulevard is even more difficult. He stated they were told the original application for this project was to be`otfice /retail use only and now the developer is stating that he was told to apply for restaurant use in the future like New Valley Plaza. He stated this will impact the residents of Hidden Pines and they currently have concerns from the New Valley Plaza. He stated they are concerned with the fence height and explained the block wall was to be 6 ft. and they considered that would measure from the ground level not from the base of the foundation and feel -that have been tricked by the number and the fence height is now only 4 ft. He requested something be installed that is more secure so it will prevent individuals from going over the fence onto their property. He expressed concern with preventing crime, safety, and privacy. Vice -Chair Hunter stated that staff explained the block -wall fence height is due to the grading. Mike Sawada commented the block -wall is fine; he is concerned with theheight. Vice -Chair Hunter explained that is why the height is what iris. Mike Sawada asked if something can be done such as an extension or barb wire added to it. He reiterated that his concern is that someone will jump over the fence onto their property. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that barb wire is illegal in the City of Rosemead and suggested that the Homeowners Association apply for a Variance increasing the height of the fence on their side. Mike Sawada asked what the maximum height they can apply for is. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that the Homeowners Association would have to submit how high they would like it and then they, would have to support why it needs to be that height. She added the developer agreed to add landscaping, which will help deter individuals from jumping the fence. Mike Sawada stated he appreciates that too Commissioner Herrera commented that will look better too because there are a lot of weeds in- between the properties that look unsightly. Mike Sawada stated he did not know who he should contact to clean up the weeds but now he does and he will take care of it. Community Development Director Ramirez clarified that where the weeds are located currently it is the Homeowners Association responsibility to clean them up. Mike Sawada replied that he had contacted the Los Angeles County in the past and they cleaned it up. He explained the homeless use to come in and sleep there, so he had called the City and it was recommended that he contact the Los Angeles County office. He added that Los Angeles County came and cleaned it up but he is not sure if this is the correct procedure. He also asked if the developer will be cleaning up their debris when the project is completed before he does anything. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. She explained that staff will be inspecting the property to make insure that is cleaned up and will not give final approval until it is done. Mike Sawada stated since there will be restaurant customers coming to eat he is concerned with vehicles turning into their private driveway by mistake and damaging fences, sprinklers, and lawns'. He added they have spent time and money on repairs and requested the developer put an entrance sign into their shopping plaza. Commissioner Eng asked Mr. Sawada if the Homeowners Association has considered'putting a gate up. Mike Sawada replied they have considered it but the cost is too expensive. Vice -Chair Hunter suggested a Private Resident sign could be put up. Mike Sawada replied they have put up signs but they did not work:' Commissioner Eng encouraged Mr. Sawada that he discuss with the Homeowner Association members to look into investing into a gate to ensure prevention of vehicles entenng their property: Mike Sawada stated the Homeowners Association discussed installing agate in the past and explained that the New Valley Plaza and Hidden Pines borderline only has trees and there is not a wall which makes positioning the gate difficult. He suggested a'sign be installed on Valley Boulevard to prevent cars from coming into Hidden Pines Place. He stated the Homeowners Association did send;a fax to the owner of the New Valley Plaza requesting where they would like a sign., Greg Murphy, City Attorney addressed :the Planning Commissioners and stated understanding the very real and serious concems 'of the, Hidden Pines Homeowners Association it seems they are getting off course by the Modification requested by the applicant, He added it seems the primary issues seem to go to the New Valley Plaza to the:wesf and encouraged them to move back to the applicant's request. Commissionet,Eng addressed Mr: Sawada and re- iterated that the developer has agreed to mitigate some of his concerns such'as privacy including. that most of the restaurant use will be dedicated to Building A towards Valley Boulevard, and hasagreed to add some trees in the wash area to offset the openness. Mike Sawada stated he appreciates everything but the residents of Hidden Pines are not really concerned which direction the restaurants are facing, but they are concerned with the restaurant patrons mistakenly driving into Hidden Pines Place and requested that something be done to prevent this. Commissioner Eng stated since the Traffic Engineer is present she would like to invite him to the podium and requested that he address this concern and maybe give some ideas to mitigate this issue. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, advised the Planning Commission that this is only the difference in the number of visitors between the already approved retail center and the new visitors that would be attracted by the 10,000 square ft. of restaurant. He added they cannot go back to revisit the original center approval, which has already been approved, and what they can look at tonight are changes to be made based on the additional visitors that would be generated by changing the 10,000 square ft. from office /retail use to restaurant use. He stated if the Traffic Engineer believes that those additional users would create the kinds of problems that are being discussed it would have to be limited to the application for the modification only. Hie Lai, Traffic Engineer, re- iterated the location of driveways, traffic flow, and peak hours. He stated he does not feel the 10,000 square ft. of restaurant use will have any impact at all in regards to traffic. Vice -Chair Hunter asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on this item. ►= Vice -Chair Hunter closed the Public Hearing. Community Development Director Ramirez addressed the Planning Commission" and; recommended this would be the time to recommend how they would like to move on this item. Commissioner Herrera made a motion to APPROVE MODIFICATION 13 -01 and PC RESOLUTION 13.06. Greg Murphy, City Attorney thanked Commissioner Herrera for her motion and clarified that there were two (2) items that are able to be modified to the current Conditions of Approvals that are being proposed. He recommended that he read them so as Commissioner Herrera may change her motion. He referred to Condition of Approval number thirty -seven (37) to state, "Building A and B shall, consist of up to 10,000, square feet of restaurant or fast food use and 15,500 square feet of retail or office use. Restaurant uses shall open to the outside of the site or towards the McDonald's pad and not toward the housing adjacent to the west of the site. In addition, no less than seventy -five (75) percent of the restaurant use allowed by this condition shall be located in Building A." He referred to Condition of Approval number thirty -nine (39) and stated it to read, "Screening shall be provided on the entire west property line in the form of a of a 3'0" split face'block Wall if the shrubbery is not dense enough to prevent light from spilling over into the adjacent lots. If required to provide- additional screening and the owners of the adjacent lots are willing to provide access, therefore, additional shrubbery shall be provided to the satisfaction of Planning Division staff." Vice -Chair Hunter requested that the applicant' please approach the podium to confirm that he is agreeable to the modifications to Co' of Approval numbers thirty- seven (37) and thirty -nine (39). Simon Lee clarified that he requested that the area for Building B food places somewhere between 2,500 to 3,000 and asked'if that could be corrected. Greg Murphy; City Attorney stated`so it will state seventy (70) percent and not seventy-five (75) percent for Building A that would allow up to 3,000 in Building B. He asked if that would be acceptable. Simon Lee replied yes. Community Development: Director Ramirez asked if he is acceptable to the planting of additional shrubbery acceptable to the satisfaction of the Planning staff if you have access to the side of the residential area (modification of Condition of Approval number thirty -nine (39).) Simon Lee replied yes. Commissioner Herrera made a motion to APPROVE MODIFICATION 13.01 and ADOPT PC RESOLUTION 13- 06 subject to the modifications to Conditions of Approval numbers thirty -seven (37) and thirty -nine (39) and Vice -Chair Hunter seconded the motion. Vote Results: Yes: Eng, Herrera, Hunter No: None Absent: Ruiz Abstain: None Community Development Director Ramirez stated this item has been approved and explained the 10 -day appeal process. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR None 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Community Development Director Ramirez stated that Chipotle is having a trial run on June 4, 2013 from 5:00 to 7:30 p.m. and gave each Planning Commissioner an invitation /flyer which is for one person only. She stated the official opening of Chipotle is on Wednesday, June 5, 2013. She added the Habit has contacted the Cityand they are having their opening on June 12, 2013 and staff if not aware if they are planning a trial run. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Herrera expressed concern that the.site located on Valley Boulevard and Delta Avenue is still in bad condition. She stated there is graffiti on the sidewalk on the east side of the street right in front of the residential property. She added there is graffiti also on the wall and stated it looks bad. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that a "CRM" has been submitted for that location and staff will check on the status and have a report for the next Planning Commission meeting. Vice -Chair Hunter referred to the location of Mission;Drive and Walnut Grove Avenue and asked what can be done in regards to the,Jack of property maintenance. She added staff has submitted a "CRM" but nothing has been done and asked if the owner is just not responding. Community Development Director Ramirez; replied Public Works has been in contact with the property owners to clean this location up and there has been some. difficulty getting the property owner to comply. She stated staff will contact Public Works and Code Enforcement to see what the status is. 7. ADJOURNMENT. Meeting Adjourned at 8:12, p.m. The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, June 17, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. ATTEST: Joan Hunter Vice -Chair Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 10