Loading...
PC - Minutes - 03-18-13Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 18, 2013 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 - Commissioner Eng INVOCATION - Commissioner Herrera Chair Ruiz requested a moment of silence in the memory of Planning Commissioner Michael Saccaro. ROLL CALL - Commissioners Eng, Herrera, Vice -Chair Hunter, and Chair Ruiz ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT: City Attorney Murphy, Community Development Director Ramirez, Acting Associate 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. TGI FRIDAY'S - The Briad Group has submitted an Entertainment License application requesting a live DJ, karaoke, and quarterly bar flair fundraising events for TGI Friday's Restaurant. Flair bartending is the practice of bartenders entertaining guests, clientele or audiences with the manipulation of bar tools (e.g. cocktail shakers) and liquor bottles in tricky, dazzling ways: The drinks the bartenders make are auctioned off and the money raised is donated to a leukemia charity. The subject site is located at 3518 Rosemead Boulevard in the Rosemead Place Shopping Center, in the C -3D (Medium Commercial 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 the Entertainment License subject to the eighteen (18) conditions. Acting Associate Planner Trinh presented the staff report. Chair Ruiz asked if the Planning Commissioners had any questions for staff. Vice -Chair Hunter asked if this request is for one -time use or will it be an on -going entertainment license. Community Development Director Ramirez replied on- going. Chair Ruiz asked how often the applicant will have events. Community Development Director Ramirez asked Chair Ruiz which event he is referring to. Chair Ruiz replied Karaoke and asked how often it will be going on. Community Development Director Ramirez explained Karaoke as well as the DJ can be allowed at any time. She added the Flair fundraising is held on a quarterly basis. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, explained to the Planning Commission that Entertainment Licenses use to go directly to the City Council. He explained in reviewing the County of Los Angeles Ordinance and the way that the City implements it, City staff made the determination that the better process to follow is to have it come to the Planning Commission first. He explained this is the reason why the Planning Commission has never seen this item before. Community Development Director Ramirez explained the reason why this policy has changed is because when you read the county code, which the City follows, it reads that it will go before a board for approval or for an appeal. If it goes before City Council first then there is no appeal process. She explained if it instead goes to the Planning Commission first, then there is an appeal process to the City Council. Commissioner Eng asked what are the days, time, and hours for the Live Entertainment License, Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied that question can be deferred to the applicant. Community Development Director Ramirez clarified that the Entertainment License would allow for a DJ and/or karaoking anytime while the restaurant is open. Commissioner Eng asked how many live Entertainment Business Licenses have been issued in this shopping center. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied there is one (1) for the Mayumba Restaurant. Commissioner Eng asked how long Mayumba has had their Live Entertainment Business license. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied she does not have that information at this time. Commissioner Eng asked if there have been any problems or concerns with this use. Associate Planner Trinh replied the Chief of Police has reported there have not been any issues. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number nine (9) and asked what a karaoke laser disc is. Acting Associate Planner Trinh explained that sometimes karaoke machines have laser disc involved on the machinery and just in case they are televised, staff wants to make sure there are no adult videos. Community Development Director Ramirez explained it is when you can follow along and read the words to a song. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number ten (10) and asked for clarification on what is meant by, "any other music ". She stated currently there is music that is played in the restaurant and asked staff if that applies. Community Development Director Ramirez replied the reference to this condition of approval should state, "All doors must be closed when utilizing karaoke or DJ equipment". Commissioner Eng confirmed with staff that Condition of Approval number ten (10) will be changed. Community Development Director Ramirez stated she will defer this to the City Attorney for the proper wording. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, stated Condition of Approval shall state, "All doors must be closed when utilizing karaoke or DJ equipment'. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number twelve (12) and asked what "predetermined digital volume reading limit of (4242) means ". Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied it is part of the Rosemead Noise Ordinance and it references to that number Chair Ruiz asked staff to be more specific. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that the City Noise Ordinance is addressing noise that can be done for any business or residence throughout the entire City. She stated this condition of approval can be changed so that staff cites the actual Municipal Code if this is what the Planning Commission would like. Commissioner Eng asked if (4242) is the Municipal Code or is it the measurement of the noise level. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that (4242) is not a reference to the Rosemead Municipal Code. Commissioner Eng expressed concern that the public should be able to understand the condition of approvals and should not have to look up the Rosemead Municipal Codes. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, recommended that the applicant be asked if they know what the digital volume reading of (4242) means. He also explained to the Planning Commission that the condition of approval that staff has written already states that the applicant will be in compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance, so from a legal perspective the entire ordinance section that is hen; today or if the noise ordinance is changed over time this licensee has to comply with it. He explained the second sentence was added so there would be some specifiCity because the code refers specifically to karaoke machines. He added if someone were to go in and read the volume levels then the City would know if they are out or in compliance by reading the preset digital volume reading limit. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number sixteen (16) and commented that some municipalities and cities require a 20 ft. distance from the site where they cannot smoke. She asked staff if this provision includes this requirement. Community Development Director Ramirez replied the way the county code reads, which the City of Rosemead has adopted the County of Los Angeles ordinance as it relates to smoking and that states that they may not smoke inside a restaurant. She explained if they had outside seating they would be allowed to smoke in the outside areas, so there is not a 20 ft. distance and there would only be a distance if it is a public building like City Hall. Commissioner Eng asked what the required distance for public buildings. Community Development Director Ramirez replied she does not have that information at this time. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number eighteen (18) and recommended to the Planning Commission to add for further clarification, "Any violation of any applicable laws, ABC licenses, Conditional Use Permits for subject establishments, and all /or these operating conditions will be grounds for suspension and /or revocation of the Entertainment License ". She addressed Greg Murphy, City Attorney, and asked if these clarifications would be helpful. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, stated with respect to the conditional use permit there is sufficient nexus to tie the continued compliance to the conditional use permit to this permit. He added in respect to the ABC license he is not sure if there is, the functions that are going to be allowed such as DJ and Karaoke both would be possible without alcohol being served on site. He added if the ABC license were to be held up for some reason or temporality lifted from the site and restored later, there really is not a reason for this permit to be defaulted on, suspended, or revoked by the City. He stated if the City is suspending or revoking the conditional use permit then it would make sense for the City to also suspend or revoke this permit. He added there is good reason to tie the conditional use permit conditions to this, but the ABC license there is not sufficient nexus given what they are seeking tonight. Commissioner Eng reiterated that there is not a strong enough nexus in regards to the ABC license Greg Murphy, City Attorney, replied that is correct. Acting Associate Planner Trinh explained that the conditional use permit is for the ABC license. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, confirmed that is all the conditional use permit is for. He explained that the ABC license has other conditions involved in it so it would be a violation of the cities permit and he does not recommend listing the ABC license in the conditions of approval. Commissioner Eng stated she is referring to the conditional use permit for the ABC license. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, stated it would be fine to state, "Any violation of any applicable laws and /or these operating conditions imposed on the property pursuant to Conditional Use Permit number (fill in the number)" and explained because this Entertainment License is being used in the association with the conditional use permit that the Planning Commission has already granted, tying the two would not be problematic. Vice -Chair Hunter referred to Condition of Approval number ten (10) and asked why the doors have to be closed while utilizing karaoke or music. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that the doors need to stay closed so the noise does not affect the surrounding properties and businesses. She added that it will also prevent people from loitering outside. Chair Ruiz opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant/representative to the podium. Gina Mays, General Manager for TGI Friday's stated she is present to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Commissioner Eng asked what time of the day will the live entertainment of the karaoke and DJ be used. Gina Mays, General Manager, replied it is usually later in the evening, beginning at 9:00 p.m. so it will not interrupt the dinner hour and will end about 1/2 hour before closing. Commissioner Eng asked Ms. Mays if she knows what the predetermined digital volume reading limit (4242) is. Gina Mays replied she did not have a clear definition on what that means but will obtain that information for future use. Community Development Director Ramirez informed the Planning Commission that Public Safety is manned with the readers to go out and take readings if necessary. Patricia Castleberry, resident expressed concern that alcohol will be served at the restaurant. Chair Ruiz explained to Patricia Castleberry that the ABC license has been previously approved and tonight TGI Friday's Restaurant is applying for an Entertainment License. Charles Kuan, one of the Property Managers of 8951 -57 Marshall Complex, expressed that Ms. Castleberry is concerned that once this establishment is opened it will affect the community in a negative manner with alcohol being served, late hours, safety, and may bring an undesirable element to the community. Chair Ruiz thanked Mr. Kuan and informed him that the business has already opened, is staffed, and operating. He explained TGI Fridays Restaurant is now applying for an Entertainment License only. Commissioner Eng recommended that the community members and tenants contact staff if there are issues or concerns that arise. Chair Ruiz asked if there are any other questions or comments from the public. None Chair Ruiz closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions or comments. None Chair Ruiz asked for a motion with the amendments to the conditions of approval Community Development Director Ramirez requested that Greg Murphy, City Attorney, repeat the amendments that were made to the conditions of approval. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, stated that Condition of Approval number ten (10) shall read, "All doors must be closed when utilizing karacke or any DJ equipment." and Condition of Approval number eighteen (18) shall read, "Any violation of any applicable laws and/or these operating conditions imposed on the site by Conditional Use Permit 12- 05 will be grounds for suspension and /or revocation of the Entertainment License ". Chair Ruiz asked the applicant if they understand and agree to the amendments. Gina Mays, General Manager for TGI Fridays, replied yes. Commissioner Herrera made a motion, seconded by Vice -Chair Hunter, that the Planning Commission APPROVE the Entertainment License subject to the eighteen (18) conditions. Vote resulted in: Yes: Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez explained the 10 -day appeal process. She stated if there is not an appeal within the 10 -days, then the applicant may contact staff and staff can proceed with issuing the Entertainment Business License. B. DESIGN REVIEW 13 -01 - The Rosemead School District has submitted a Design Review application to install new exterior heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) window units on all elevations of the building. The subject site is located at 3907 Rosemead Boulevard in the P -OD (Professional Office with a Design Overlay) zone. PC RESOLUTION 13.03 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 13- 01, FOR THE VOLUNTARY SEISMIC UPGRADE, WHICH INCLUDES THE INSTALLATION OF NEW HVAC WINDOW UNITS ON ALL ELEVATIONS OF THE BUILDING. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 3907 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD IN THE P -OD (PROFESSIONAL OFFICE WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY)ZONE. Staff Recommendation - Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 13.03 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 13.01 subject to the twenty (20) conditions. Acting Associate Planner Trinh presented the staff report Chair Ruiz asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions for staff. Commissioner Eng asked what type of retro -fit is being considered. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied that question can be deferred to the applicant. Commissioner Eng asked if there is an existing HVAC system and what type is it. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied that question can be deferred to the applicant. Commissioner Eng asked how many window units are being contemplated. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied she does not have the exact number but the majority of the windows on all elevations will have these units. Commissioner Eng asked if staff had the opportunity to discuss other options rather than using window HVAC units with the applicant. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied that had been discussed with the applicant. She explained that the applicant did submit a narrative on why they chose the window units and the applicant can elaborate if needed. Commissioner Eng asked what the Zoning and General Plan designation for the area located between Valley Boulevard and Marshall Street. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied between Valley Boulevard and Marshall it varies, there is Professional Office, R -3 Multiple Residential, CBD (Central Business District), and also PD which is (Planned Development). She added within the General Plan there is Commercial Mixed -Use and High Density Residential. Commissioner Eng asked if the Rosemead Municipal Code covers fencing guidelines for properties in the PO Zone. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied it is referenced in the PO Zone when it abuts a residential property. Chair Ruiz opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant to the podium. Magdalena Romero, Facilities Consultant for the school district, and Helena Jubany, Architect stated they are present to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Commissioner Eng asked what type of retro - fitting will be used. Magdalena Romero explained that the structural retro- fitting will be completed inside the walls and that is the reason why the stucco walls will have to be removed. She added a shear wall will be installed to reinforce the building so to withstand a 7.4 earthquake. Commissioner Eng asked if most of the moving around will be taking place inside the walls. Magdalena Romero replied yes, and explained that construction will be visible because there is work that needs to be done from the outside of the building. Helena Jubany added to re- enforce the walls the shear walls will be installed and some of the plaster will need to be removed. Commissioner Eng asked how long they anticipate this will this take. Magdalena Romero replied because the building is occupied it will have to be completed in two phases. She added the scaffold will remain and explained why. Commissioner Eng asked what the existing HVAC system in place is. Magdalena Romero replied it is central air with two roof mounted units that are not operable and explained why they are unable to be replaced. Helena Jubany, explained that the initial plan was to replace the roof top units but, based on the analysis of their mechanical engineer, the units would have to be bigger. The roof would have to be extended and the roof line changed. She explained that would make an impact on the facade of the building and there is seismic strengthing to consider also due to the age of the building. Commissioner Eng asked how old the building is. Helena Jubany replied it was built in two phases. Magdalena Romero stated the two -story building was built in the late 1930's or early 1940's and the house in front was built maybe in 1918. She added they are not doing anything to the smaller building. Helena Jubany referred to the split system and explained that the fan coil is inside but the condensing unit is outside and it would have to be screened. She added that is another reason why the window type unit was proposed. Commissioner Eng explained the type of system she is referring to is a portable unit and asked if these unit types had been considered. Magdalena Romero replied they currently have been using those types of units in the areas that the older air conditioning is not working but they are designed for residential use and they are not sufficient for office use or where computer equipment is located. She stated the new units are one to one -half (1 1/2) and two (2) tons capaCity and are designed to cool larger spaces. Commissioner Eng stated she had visited the site earlier and saw an air conditioning unit that looked like it had been installed and it reminded her a motel type unit built in the 90's and asked if that is similar to what is being considered. Magdalena Romero replied yes and explained what will be done. Commissioner Eng asked if there are any renderings to show what it will look like, Magdalena Romero replied yes, she has submitted some elevations of the plans. She explained to minimize the impact they are not putting the HVAC situation of the building with only window units and that it is a combination of roof mounted units, fewer units, and some under the window units to sublimate and preserve the windows. Commissioner Eng asked how many window units total are being anticipated. Magdalena Romero replied there will be eight (8) facing Rosemead Boulevard. Commissioner Eng stated that when she did her site inspection it looked like most of the window units would be facing Guess Street and to the rear of the parking lot. She expressed concern because she feels the window HVAC units may affect the attractiveness of Guess Street. She asked for clarification how many window units will be on Guess Street. Magdalena Romero replied there are eight (8) units on Rosemead Boulevard, nine (9) on Guess Street, and fifteen (15) facing the rear parking lot. Commissioner Eng asked if most of the window units will be on the two -story building. Magdalena Romero replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked when the units are installed will the circulation feed into the central duct from the current unit or will it have its own circulation. Magdalena Romero replied it is a combination of both Commissioner Eng clarified that it is specific for the office space and asked if upgrades are being made to two existing HVAC units as well. Magdalena Romero replied yes, it is a combination of window units and central air and not using the existing installation. She explained the central air conditioning will serve the common area and the window units will serve the individual offices. Commissioner Eng asked what the noise level of these units is Magadalena Romero and Helena Jubany replied they did not have the noise decibel measurement at this time but can be provided if requested. Commissioner Eng expressed concern that this is a major street. Chair Ruiz expressed concern with the noise level and stated the HVAC systems underneath the garage will echo and the fifteen (15) units facing the west will be loud, depending on the type of units that will be used. He added the plans do not indicate how the noise level made be kept minimal such as using vegetation or anything at all. He expressed concern for the elderly gentleman that lives behind the garage. He referred to a chain -link fence that was also installed on the gentleman's property by the school district and expressed that it did not look attractive. He asked why the school district did not continue the rod -iron fence on top of the block -wall or continue the block -wall on the property to match instead of installing the chain -link fence on the neighbor's property. He also asked if the fencing was installed for security measures. Magdalena Romero replied that the chain -link fencing was installed with the neighboring property owners permission for security measures and was installed as a temporary installation. She explained at that time they did not have the structural strength information for the block -wall and they decided not to add anything to the block -wall. She added after investigating it has been reported the block wall is in good shape and now they are able to add the decorative rod -iron fencing on the block -wall. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that after confirming that the school district did install the chain -link fencing a condition of approval will have to be added to have the chain -link fence removed. She added the school district may not increase the height of the existing fence. She explained that according to the Rosemead Municipal Code it can only be four (4) ft. and the fence may be replaced but they cannot add any decorative rod -iron to the top of that four (4) ft. wall. Commissioner Eng asked why fencing is necessary on the Rosemead Boulevard side. Magdelena Romero replied that the existing block -wall is unsafe at this point because it was installed without the correct re -barb. She explained that it was decided it needs to be replaced. Helena Jubany explained that there are drainage issues, the wall is not straight, and it is retaining some dirt behind it. She added the wall will be replaced and bottom half will be a retaining wall with a decorative fence on top. Commissioner Eng asked if the fencing is necessary on Rosemead Boulevard and what purpose does it serve. Helena Jubany and Magdelena Romero explained there is a difference of elevation and the property is higher than the street level and the block -wall retains the dirt. Commissioner Eng expressed that the fencing makes the offices look caged in and asked if there are other options to address the drainage concerns other than the retaining block -wall. Helena Jubany stated the difference between the street level and the property is about three (3) ft. and asked how the dirt will be retained if the wall is not installed on Rosemead Boulevard. She also explained that the dirt may be pushed out but there is exterior lighting that is historical and a flag pole right in front of the block -wall on the higher elevation that cannot be replaced and that is why the block -wall is there. Commissioner Eng stated maybe this is an issue that staff can resolve and asked if this building has been designated as a historical building or anything on the site. Community Development Director Ramirez replied no. Acting Associate Planner Trinh stated the retaining wall is necessary to ensure the dirt will not run into the street because there is a three (3) ft. high level difference between the street and school district property. Commissioner Eng asked if there are plans of making the fencing consistent around the perimeter of the building. Magadelena Romero replied yes, and explained what is being proposed. Commissioner Eng asked what the function of the decorative fencing on the block -wall is. Magadelena Romero replied it is for additional security and to be able to lock up the building at night. Commissioner Eng asked if there is any fencing there currently. Magadelena Romero replied the wall is supposed to keep the traffic from coming into the property of the district, but it doesn't work. She added the block wall also obstructs the view of pedestrians and /or traffic as you leave the parking lot on to Rosemead Boulevard. Commissioner Eng commented she would like to see this building preserve its character and not use the screening if possible. Magadelena Romero stated it was recommended by the Rosemead District Board to increase the safety of the building and employees. Chair Ruiz asked if there were any further questions for staff or the applicant. None Chair Ruiz opened the Public Hearing. Brian Lewin, resident ,referred to the pressure- washing of the parking lot and requested that a Condition of Approval be added requiring that pressure washed water and any related wash water be collected in compliance with Chapter 12.80 of County Code regarding Storm Water, specifically the Good Housekeeping practices, Item "C" and read it to the Planning Commission. Helena Jubany stated she has an update and explained the parking lot will not be pressure- washed. Instead, they are replacing the asphalt. Community Development Director Ramirez thanked the applicant for the update and stated staff was just made aware of this update also. Chair Ruiz asked if there is anyone else wishing to speak on this item. None Chair Ruiz closed the Public Hearing and asked if the Planning Commission had any questions for staff. Chair Eng referred to Condition of Approval number sixteen (16) and asked staff if there will be any new HVAC and /or mechanical equipment placed on the roof -top or will just the existing remain. Chair Ruiz explained there will be replacements of those that can be replaced and there will be some that cannot be replaced. He added there are two different types of units and stated the ones that cannot be replaced will be the window units. Magdalena Romero explained from the audience that the existing openings will be used and there will not be any new openings made. Commissioner Eng asked where the language is regarding the fencing. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, stated Condition of Approval number twenty -one (21) will be added and shall read, "All Fencing on the site shall be brought to compliance with the Municipal Code requirements for fencing ". He explained that way staff can check and be assured that given the variety of surrounding uses and the way the Municipal Code applies the fencing requirements based on this zone based on what the zoning of the adjacent property is rather than what is on the property itself. Chair Ruiz asked the applicant if she understands that a new Condition of Approval has been added and agrees with the terms. Magdalena Romero replied yes. Chair Ruiz asked the Planning Commission for a motion. Commissioner Herrera made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eng that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 13.03 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 13 -01 subject to the twenty -one (21) conditions. Vote resulted in: Yes: Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez explained the ten (10) day appeal process. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12.12 - Verizon Wireless has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application requesting to co- locate an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility on an existing 75 -foot tall T- Mobile monopine tree, located at 8624% Rush Street in the O -S (Open Space) zone. PC RESOLUTION 13.02 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12.12, FOR THE CO- LOCATION OF AN UNMANNED WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ON AN EXISTING 75 -FOOT TALL T- MOBILE MONOPINE TREE, LOCATED AT 8624% RUSH STREET IN THE 0 -S (OPEN SPACE) ZONE. Staff Recommendation - Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 13.02 with findings and 10 APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 12 -12 subject to the twenty -three (23) conditions. Acting Associate Planner Trinh presented the staff report. Chair Ruiz asked the Planning Commission if there are any questions for staff. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, addressed the Planning Commission and stated that at the start of this year the FCC issued new guidelines or guidance regarding what is allowable in terms of your review of co- locations. He referred to last year a small section of a larger bill entitled something like, "Goodness and Freedom for All ", and explained there was a provision that limited their review of co- location to instances where there is not a substantial gap of coverage or instances of where there is a substantial change to the aesthetics effect to the existing tower. He explained that the FCC rather than going through formal rule making relied upon a rule reached in a stimulated judgment in a similar case and the nedafect for everyone dealing with this issue that on co- locations it will be very difficult to prove a substantial aesthetic change. He explained for that reason the Zoning Code update the Planning Commission will see later this year or possibly next year will include a provision that will be taking co- locations out of Commission hearings and making them more administrative since they have essentially become an administrable process. He stated this will be the last co- location application the Planning Commission will see until the Zoning Code Update has been completed. He recommended to the Planning Commission if there are any questions on how you may or may not condition this project beyond what staff has already put in front of you, please feel free to ask him because he can help guide with what the law now allows. Chair Ruiz thanked Greg Murphy, City Attorney, and asked if the Planning Commission had any questions. Commissioner Eng asked if this is the third submittal of this application. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, replied yes. Chair Ruiz opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant to the podium if they would like to speak. Yumi Kim, representative of Verizon Wireless, stated she would like to thank staff for their efforts on this project. She gave a brief summary of what is being requested and stated she is here to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Commissioner Eng asked if what is the maximum emissions level and how wide does it go. Yumi Kim replied she does not have the technical answer but can consult with the RF Engineer and get an explanation if requested. Chair Ruiz asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on this item None Chair Ruiz closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Commissioner Herrera made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eng, that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 13.02 with findings and APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 12 -12 subject to the twenty -three (23) conditions. Vote resulted in: Yes: Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 11 Community Development Director Ramirez explained the 10 -day appeal process. D. DESIGN REVIEW 12.04 - Yue Hwa Ho has submitted a Design Review application requesting approval to construct a second story addition to an existing single - family residence with more than 2,500 square feet of living area with an attached three (3) car garage. The subject property is located at 9108 Steele Street, in the R -1 (Single Family Residential) zone. PC RESOLUTION 13.04 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 12- 04, PERMITTING THE SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH 3,059 SQUARE FEET OF LIVING AREA WITH AN ATTACHED THREE CAR GARAGE LOCATED AT 9108 STEELE STREET IN THE R -1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE. Staff Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 13- 04 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 12 -04 subject to twenty (20) conditions. Planning Technician Casillas presented staff report. Chair Ruiz asked if the Planning Commission had any questions for staff. Vice -Chair Hunter expressed concern that there will not be enough room in the back lot for all that is being added and asked how many square feet is in the back. Planning Technician Casillas replied the rear yard set -back is about forty -six (46) ft. Vice -Chair Hunter asked what is the depth of the lot from the front to the rear. Planning Technician Casillas replied it is one - hundred and seventy -five (175) ft. Commissioner Eng asked what is the width of the lot. Chair Ruiz replied it is fifty (50) ft. Commissioner Eng asked if the applicant meets both side set - backs. Planning Technician Casillas replied yes. Chair Ruiz asked if the driveway meets the width requirements. Planning Technician Casillas replied yes. Commissioner Eng referred to the staff report which indicates that there will be different types of fencing installed around the perimeter of the property and asked if the fencing will be brought to some type of consistency. Planning Technician Casillas replied the Rosemead Municipal Code does not specify a specific required type of fencing; it addresses fencing for height only. She added the applicant is proposing new fencing at the rear and side property boundaries but the applicant is proposing to keep the fencing along the sides towards the front of the property. Chair Ruiz asked what type of fencing is on the sides of the property. Planning Technician Casillas replied it is a variety of wood fencing and block wall fencing. Commissioner Eng referred to the neighborhood and stated some of the homes had sidewalks and some didn't. She asked what is the cities policy regarding sidewalks for these type of developments. lira Planning Technician Casillas replied this application was reviewed by the Engineering Department and the only requirement they added was to add a street tree. She added the Engineering Department did not require the applicant to install a new sidewalk to the front yard. Chair Ruiz and Commissioner Herrera commented in the past it had been required to install a new sidewalk and explained the procedure if you did not want one. Chair Ruiz expressed that somehow the policy was changed. Commissioner Eng recommended to the Planning Commission that there are two items in which they should consider one is the sidewalk and the other is the fencing, which should be consistent through -out the perimeter. Chair Ruiz stated he agrees with the fencing but not on the sidewalk. Community Development Director Ramirez recommended this should be discussed with the applicant because of the financial increase to the project, which they would have to agree to. She explained why staff cannot require the applicant to do the recommendations for fencing as discussed and Engineering did not require a sidewalk to be put in. Chair Ruiz stated that he would like to recommend that the applicant consider the fencing recommendations. He added that the Planning Commission should support the beautification of the owner's property and the adjacent properties. Commissioner Herrera stated that her concern is with the fencing towards the front of the property and added that the side fencing should be between the property owners. Planning Technician Casillas referred to the site plan and pointed out the current types of fencing on the west side of the property and explained the new fencing that is being proposed. She stated if a condition of approval is added to have consistent fencing through -out the perimeter it would only pertain to the east property line. She stated the applicant is not proposing any front yard fencing. Vice -Chair Hunter asked if Chair Ruiz is referring to the fencing in the rear. Chair Ruiz replied no and explained he is referring to the redwood fencing and the iron metal fencing on the sides. He is recommending that the Planning Commission ask the applicant if it is possible to have the side fencing be consistent with the proposed concrete wall that is being installed in the rear of the property and if Planning Commission is in agfeement. Planning Commissioners all agreed that the applicant be asked if it is possible. Vice -Chair Hunter asked if the front of the home is brick. Chair Ruiz replied no, it is Stone Veneer. Chair Ruiz opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant to the podium. James Qu, architect for this project and representative for Mr. Ho, stated he is present to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Yue Hwa Ho, applicant and property owner introduced himself and explained why he is improving his home. Chair Ruiz asked the applicant if it would be possible for him to make the redwood and rod iron fencing located on the sides consistent with the proposed concrete block wall that is being installed in the rear. 13 James Qu replied the rod iron fencing belongs to the neighbor's property and it is not his property to remove. He stated the redwood fence located by the driveway to the gate belongs to the property owner and it can be replaced with the concrete block wall to match. Chair Ruiz recommended that the applicant speak with the adjacent property owner and ask him if he is would be opposed to a concrete block -wall installed on the center property line. James Qu stated he will talk to the adjacent neighbor as recommended. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that a condition of approval can be added to state if the owner is able to get permission of the adjacent owner, then he would agree to change the fencing. That way the applicant is not locked into it in case he does not get the permission from the neighbor. James Qu stated he does not want to do any fencing in the front yard. Chair Ruiz stated he is not requesting fencing in the front yard and explained the front yard looks fine without a fence. James Qu stated he is referring to the neighbor's adjacent rod iron fence that is from the sidewalk to the front of their home and added he does not want to put fencing there. Chair Ruiz asked if James Qu is agreeable to replacing the redwood but not the rod iron fence and also confirmed that it is rod iron. James Qu replied yes, it is rod iron. Chair Ruiz conferred with the Planning Commission and the recommendation is to replace just the redwood fencing if the applicant is agreeable. Commissioner Eng expressed that her concern is that the fencing be consistent regardless of the type of fencing. She added she understands that it may be difficult to convince the neighbor's approval also. Chair Ruiz stated he would like the property owner to try to convince the neighbor to agree to the fencing. He recommended that the property owner write a letter to his neighbor requesting the new fence and submit a copy of that letter to staff to show that you made an attempt to contact the neighbor. Community Development Director Ramirez asked the applicant if he wants to replace the rod iron fencing. James Qu replied the property owner is agreeable to replacing the rod iron fence in the front after the 30 foot set- back to the gate door if his neighbor agrees. Chair Ruiz stated if the neighbor does not agree to the fencing have them put it in writing and submit it to the Planning Division staff. Commissioner Eng asked the applicant if he is agreeable to installing a sidewalk. James Qu replied only if it is required by the Engineering Department. Planning Technician Casillas asked for clarification regarding the fencing that the Planning Commission has recommended. Chair Ruiz explained that the applicant will be replacing the redwood fence with concrete block wall to match the existing block wall so that the aesthetics is equal. Commissioner Eng commented that her concern is not to dictate what type of fencing is installed but that it be consistent. 14 Greg Murphy, City Attorney stated there will be a new Condition of Approval number twenty -one (21) that shall state, " Notwithstanding condition number one, existing fencing on the applicant's property that is proposed to be retained per "Exhibit C" will instead be removed and replaced with concrete block walls consistent with those proposed for the east and south property lines and remainder of the west property line. The applicant shall make the efforts to obtain agreement by the neighbor to the west to allow for replacement of fencing located on that neighbors side to the west property line. Such efforts shall meet with the approval of the Community Development Director." He also read Condition of Approval number one (1) for reference and commented the property lines are pointed out on the site plan marked "Exhibit C ". Brian Lewin, resident asked Greg Murphy, City Attorney in regards to sidewalks if the Engineering Department does not require a sidewalk is it within the Planning Commission's discretion to require a sidewalk. Greg Murphy, City Attorney replied no, they may ask but not require it and explained why. Brian Lewin requested that the Planning Commission consider revisiting the previous policy that was in place regarding requiring of sidewalks on new developments or substantially improved developments that were held in the past in the City and explained why. Chair Ruiz asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on this item. None Chair Ruiz closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Commission if they had any more questions or comments. He recommended that installing sidewalks be revisited and asked Community Development Director Ramirez what does the Rosemead Municipal Code or Ordinance require for a sidewalk to be installed. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that staff can research this with the City Manager and also with the Public Works Director. She stated she will have information for them at the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Hunter commented that installing a sidewalk would improve the neighborhood and make the home look better. Commissioner Eng addressed staff and stated on page 7 of the staff report there is a typo in "Exhibit A" PC Resolution 13 -04, in the fifth (5th) paragraph beginning with Whereas, the date should state "2013 ". Chair Ruiz referred to Condition of Approval number twelve (12) and asked if the correction for the address has been included. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. Chair Ruiz asked for a motion. Commissioner Eng made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, ADOPT Resolution No. 13 -04 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 12.04 subject to twenty -one (21) conditions. Vote resulted in: Yes: Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez explained the ten (10) day appeal process 15 E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13 -01 - Ye Fu Wen has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application requesting approval to operate a martial arts studio (Shaolin Temple Martial Arts Academy), located at 8717 Garvey Avenue in the M -1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial) zone. PC RESOLUTION 13 -05 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13.01, FOR THE OPERATION OF A MARTIAL ARTS STUDIO LOCATED AT 8717 GARVEY AVENUE. Staff Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 13- O5 with findings and APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 13.01 subject to twenty-five (25) conditions. Planning Technician Casillas presented the staff report. Chair Ruiz asked if the Planning Commission had any questions for staff. Vice -Chair Hunter asked if there are Code Officers that inspect Garvey Avenue. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. Vice -Chair Hunter asked why this property has not been cited and commented that it is in bad condition. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that question would have to be directed to the Public Safety Division and explained it may have been cited but that information would not be given to staff. Commissioner Herrera expressed concern with blight on Garvey Avenue and through -out the City of Rosemead is not being actively addressed. She added that it is the responsibility of the residents and Planning Commissioners to report blight. Commissioner Eng stated she would like to thank staff for doing the parking analysis. Chair Ruiz opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant to the podium. Ye Fu Wen, applicant stated he is present to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Chair Ruiz asked Ye Fu Wen if he is satisfied with the hours of operation that had been set up in the Conditions of Approval. Ye Fu Wen replied yes. Chair Ruiz referred to the Conditions of Approval and asked the applicant if he is agreeable to the one hour class sessions with ten minute intervals between each class or would he rather have just hours of operation from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., with those exemptions. Ye Fu Wen replied he would prefer to have the hours of operation from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and explained it would give him the flexibility to move classes around. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that staff added that condition with the ten (10) minute intervals to help with the limited parking concerns. Chair Ruiz recommended that there should be leniency on the length of class sessions to accommodate the students and business owner. 16 Community Development Director Ramirez explained that she agrees and if a student would like to take three classes in a row they could. She added this ten (10) minute interval was put in place to allow time for students to leave and for new students to arrive to address parking concerns. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, referred to Condition of Approval number eleven (11) and recommended removing the sentence that states, "Each class session will be one (1) hour long with ten (10) minute intervals between each class." He explained that Condition of Number twenty -one (21) allows for the ten (10) minute intervals between classes and list the maximum number of students allowed. Chair Ruiz asked the applicant if he is agreeable to the recommended change. Ye Fu Wen, applicant replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked the applicant what inspired him to open a Shaolin Temple Martial Arts Academy. Ye Fu Wen replied he was raised at a Shaolin Temple and he would like to serve the community. He added he would like to teach the community on how to become stronger mentality, healthy, and spiritually. Commissioner Eng asked how long he has been teaching Martial Arts. Ye Fu Wen replied he started training at the age of three (3) years old. Chair Ruiz asked if this style of Martial Arts was derived from the Bruce Lee style. Ye Fu Wen replied yes and gave other examples of martial art styles. Chair Ruiz asked the applicant if he agrees with the recommendations that have been made to the Conditions of Approval. Ye Fu Wen replied yes. Chair Ruiz referred to the Speaker Request Forms and invited Craig Denton to the podium to speak. Craig Denton, Operator of the Del Rey Mobile Home Park LLC, addressed the Planning Commission and explained that the business next to the proposed Shoalin Temple Martial Arts Academy is the Del Rey Mobile Home Park. He stated it has been in the community for fifty -two (52) years and operates as a Senior Mobile Home Park for seniors ages fifty -five (55). He expressed concern that approving this project would be detrimental to the health, peace, comfort, and general welfare of the seniors residing at the Del Rey Mobile Home Park. He stated the concerns are related to not enough parking spaces, exhaust and emissions from vehicles, ventilation, noise, width of the driveway, and steady flow of traffic. He submitted a picture of the site for the Planning Commission to review. Nick Weeks, student of the Shoalin Martial Arts Academy, stated he understands the concerns but expressed that the benefits will outweigh everything else. He added it will bring culture to the community and he would like to endorse this project as a student and a citizen from this community. Chair Ruiz asked Nick Weeks to describe how the students have responded after taking this type of martial arts training in regards to discipline and their moral character. Nick Weeks replied his experience has been that character and discipline is instilled by being taught on how to be respectful of ourselves and for others. Chair Ruiz commented that it is very important, and this is an art that teaches that self character is important. He stated the institution not only teaches martial arts but it also teaches character for the students. f 1Vl Sandra Loose, resident of Del Rey Mobile Home Park, expressed concern with the conditions of the driveway for the proposed Shoalin Martial Arts Academy. She stated she is concerned with the width of the driveway, cars entering or exiting from the one -car driveway, patrons entering or exiting from the front door to the building, traffic congestion, parking, exhaust fumes, and car's idling. She requested that the Planning Commission deny Conditional Use Permit 13 -01. If approved, she requested the Planning Commission consider revisions for Conditions of Approval limiting the hours of operation, limit the hours of private and semi - private lessons, and limit the number of students to three (3) for all classes. She requested the Planning Commission to review the picture that was submitted earlier. Christian Gutierrez, student and parent of students attending the Shoalin Martial Arts Academy, expressed that this Academy has taught his children patience, consideration, respectfulness, and to have compassion for others. He pointed out that it has been studied that when martial schools open in a community crime is reduced and it would be an asset to introduce a different type of cultural to the community. He addressed the mobile home resident concern regarding emissions and pointed out that there is traffic all day and there will always be emissions. Youwhai Tsau, a (73 years old) senior and student of the Shoalin Martial Arts Academy, expressed that she is a musician, pianist, and teacher and the Shoaling Martial Art training has been very beneficial to her everyday living and thanked her master for her training. Ye Fu Wen, applicant, gave a brief explanation of the Shaolin Martial Arts philosophy Chair Ruiz asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on this item. None Chair Ruiz closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Commission if they had any further questions or comments. Vice -Chair Hunter expressed concern with the building only having one door to enter the facility, which is facing the driveway entrance on Garvey Avenue, and commented that this may be dangerous. She also expressed concern that there is not an emergency exit. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that the door faces Garvey Avenue and that it leads to a ramp that wraps around the building not the driveway. She acknowledged Vice -Chair Hunter's concern that there is not an emergency exit. Commissioner Herrera asked if the building currently meets the standards Building and Safety Codes. Chair Ruiz stated it meets the building codes for commercial use. Commissioner Herrera asked in regards to schools is there a rear door exit requirement. Planning Technician Casillas replied this project was not only routed to the Building & Safety Department, but it was also routed to the Fire Department. She explained because it is small it is not classified as a school therefore the Fire Department and Building & Safety did not require a second exit. Chair Ruiz asked if the fifty (50) foot driveway meets the Rosemead Municipal Code and if it was approved by Fire Department. Planning Technician Casillas replied if this was built today currently no. She explained it was built in the 50's and was built to meet the Rosemead Municipal Code standards then. Chair Ruiz asked if this is considered grandfathered in. Planning Technician Casillas replied yes. In Greg Murphy, City Attorney, referred to Condition of Approval number fourteen (14) and asked staff if it should be 3/4" character or 1/4 "character. Planning Technician Casillas replied it should be a 3/4" character. Commissioner Eng commented that her son has taken Shoalin Kung Fu and she has appreciated that he has taken this. She added that this type of martial arts training is done in silence and there is not a lot of noise involved. Audience question what year was the building built. Planning Technician Casillas stated this building was built in the year of 1987. Chair Ruiz asked for motion. Commissioner Herrera made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eng, to ADOPT Resolution No. 13 -05 with findings and APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 13.01 subject to twenty -five (25) conditions. Vote resulted in: Yes: Eng, Herrera, Ruiz No: Hunter Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez explained the ten (10) day appeal process. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes - February 4, 2013 Commissioner Eng made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to approve the consent calendar as presented. Vote resulted in: Yes: Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF None 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Herrera stated on 3803 Delta Avenue residents have contacted her concerned with property maintenance and reported the weeds are too high. Community Development Director Ramirez stated a CRM will be initiated for that concern. Commissioner Eng referred to the City of Rosemead Website and asked staff if the Planning Fees that are available on the website dated May 2011 are the current fees. 19 Community Development Director Ramirez replied no, the current adopted fees should be dated June /July 2012, and added staff will make sure the website is updated. Commissioner Eng recommended that the Garvey Avenue and Valley Boulevard Beautification Standards be posted on the website also. Community Development Director Ramirez agreed with the recommendation and stated staff will have it posted on the website. Commissioner Eng commented that the trash enclosure behind Universal Bank is looking very nice. She thanked staff for working with the applicant. Vice -Chair Hunter asked staff what is being built behind the McDonalds. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied it was approved for a commercial building. Vice -Chair Hunter asked when it was approved. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied it was approved in the year 2004 and modified in 2007/2008. Vice -Chair Hunter asked what is being proposed. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied it is a commercial building for retail and office use. Chair Ruiz expressed concern with the condition of the site located on the comer of Temple City Boulevard and Valley Boulevard that has been reported twice before and nothing has been done. He requested that it needs to be taken care of. He also stated there is an empty lot east of Temple City Boulevard (entering the City of Rosemead on the north side of Valley Boulevard) that is not being maintained. There are a lot of weeds and requested this location be investigated. Community Development Director Ramirez encouraged Chair Ruiz to contact Public Safety directly and added that staff will process separate "CRM's" for these locations. She informed the Planning Commission that Chief of Police Tim Murakami has been promoted and Sergeant Abel Moreno is now the Acting Chief of Police. 7. ADJOURNMENT The next regulpr Planning Commission meeting to be held on Monday, April 1, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. will be Cancelled due to lack of quorum. The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, April 15,;01"" 7:00 p.m. Al i� GAy11X `C Zw� Victor L Chair 'Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary Pic