Loading...
PC - Item 4A - Minutes of January 6, 2014Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 6, 2014 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m.by Chair Herrera in the Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Chair Herrera INVOCATION - Commissioner Lopez ROLL CALL - Commissioners Dinh, Lopez, Tang, Vice -Chair Eng, and Chair Herrera ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT: City Attorney Murphy, Community Development Director Ramirez, Associate Planner Trinh, Planning Technician Casillas, and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS Greg Murphy, City Attorney, presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DESIGN REVIEW 13 -05 • Philip Chan, on behalf of PDS Studio Inc., has submitted a Design Review application requesting approval to construct a new two -story single - family residence with more than 2,500 square feet of living area with an attached four (4) car garage. The subject property is located at 3812 Charlotte Avenue; in the R -1 (Single Family Residential) zone. PC RESOLUTION 14.01 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 13- 05, PERMITTING A NEW TWO -STORY RESIDENCE WITH 3,110 SQUARE FEET OF LIVING AREA WITH AN ATTACHED FOUR CAR GARAGE LOCATED AT 3812 CHARLOTTE AVENUE IN THE R -1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE.' Staff Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 14- 01 with findings, and APPROVE Design Review 13.05 subject to twenty -six (26) conditions. Planning Technician Casillas presented the staff report. Chair Herrera asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Lopez asked what the total square footage of the property is. Planning Technician Casillas replied it is 9,750 square feet. Commissioner Lopez asked if it meets all the requirements. Planning Technician Casillas replied yes Vice -Chair Eng referred to the number of garage's and asked if it is based on the square footage or is it based on the number of bedrooms. Planning Technician Casillas replied both. She explained that a single - family home residence would only be required to have a two -car garage, but in the case where they have over 2,000 square feet or four (4) bedrooms, then they would be required to have a three -car garage. Vice -Chair Eng stated that this home is over 3,100 feet and asked if under the existing code if they are then required to have a three -car garage. Planning Technician Casillas replied yes. Vice -Chair Eng asked if the detached home on the back is known as a granny unit. Planning Technician Casillas replied that it is known as a second residential unit and explained it is not part of this permit right now. Vice -Chair Eng asked if this detached second residential unit is by way of right under existing state law. Planning Technician Casillas replied yes. Vice -Chair Eng confirmed that there is nothing the City can do by ordinance to remove this because it is state law. Planning Technician Casillas replied yes and explained that state law regulates this and requires cities to adopt regulations to allow for it. Vice -Chair Eng asked how many cars will be able to park in the driveway. Planning Technician Casillas replied two (2) or three (3) cars might be able to park in the driveway. I he Commissioner Tang asked how the incentive program works and how do applicants take advantage of it. Planning Technician Casillas replied the Zoning Code limits the FAR to thirty -five (35 %) percent and when applicants take advantage of the incentive program by adding certain decorative aspects they can achieve up to five (5 %) percent more FAR. She gave some examples of decorative aspects including providing a landscape plan with mature trees, recessing windows in the front elevations, using double hung doors, natural agricultural materials, and decorative hardscape materials. Commissioner Tang asked what the City's Zoning Code requirements for constructing a second residential unit are. Planning Technician Casillas replied that there is a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet and they are restricted by the size of the main house. She explained it needs to be proportioned to the size of the main house with thirty percent (30 %) being the guest house, meet set -back requirements, and provide a garage. Chair Herrera asked if the floor area ratio is also including the second residential unit when completed and will it still be the forty (40) floor area ratio. Planning Technician Casillas replied yes. She explained that if they do not build the second residential unit they will be at a thirty -four percent (34 %) FAR. Commissioner Dinh referred to the height of the new two -story residence and asked if it is comparatively much higher than the other buildings nearby. Planning Technician Casillas replied the newer two -story residential homes in the area are comparable height wise. She explained that the neighborhood is a mix of single - family, two -story homes, and this is not the first two -story home to be built on this block. Vice -Chair Eng referred to two (2) similar buildings located to the North of the nearby subject site and that one appears to be a flag lot, and the other a P -D. She asked staff if they had any information on these. Planning Technician Casillas replied she pulled addresses of two -story residences in the area for size comparisons. She explained on Charlotte Avenue there is one home that is 4,400 square feet and explained there is a mixture of sizes of two -story homes nearby. Vice -Chair Eng asked what the size of 3848 Charlotte Avenue is. Planning Technician Casillas replied she does not have that address on her list. She added the address of 1817, which is in the City of San Gabriel and is directly across the street, is 4,400 square feet. Chair Herrera opened the Public Hearing and asked applicant to the podium. Al King, Residential Designer, stated he is present to answer any questions. Vice -Chair Eng stated this is a very nice design and asked if this property is for owner occupied use. Al King, Residential Designer, replied yes. Vice -Chair Eng asked if the owner will be living in the residence or is this a development. Al King, Residential Designer, replied the family will be living there. Vice -Chair Eng asked how many vehicles will be able to park in the driveway. Al King, Residential Designer, replied three (3) or four (4) vehicles should be able to park in the driveway. Chair Eng asked if there is anyone else wishing to speak for or against this item. None Chair Herrera closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Vice -Chair Eng stated before a motion is made she would like to request some clarifications on the Conditions of Approval. She stated that she appreciates the fact that the City is requiring a sidewalk and would like to see that continue this with these types of developments. She also likes the fact drainage is being addressed. She referred to Condition of Approval number twenty -two (22) and recommended that the word "approval' be added to the end. Community Development Director Ramirez clarified that Vice -Chair Eng would like to have the Condition of Approval to state, "A copy of the drainage /grading plans must be submitted to the engineering department for review and approval." Vice -Chair Eng referred to the last paragraph in the Conditions of Approval and asked if it is intended to be an additional condition as well or does it need to be added as number twenty -six (26). Community Development Director Ramirez stated the recommendation states twenty -six (26) conditions and that should be numbered as such. She stated staff will make the change. Vice -Chair Eng stated those two (2) items were all she needed clarification on. Chair Herrera thanked Vice -Chair Eng and asked the Planning Commission for a motion. Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Dinh, to ADOPT Resolution No. 14-01 with findings, and APPROVE Design Review 13 -05 subject to twenty -six (26) conditions. Vote resulted in: Yes: No: Abstain: Absent: Dinh, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, Tang None None None Community Development Director Ramirez explained the ten (10) day appeal process. B. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 13.01 - The City's Zoning Code (Title 17 of the Rosemead Municipal Code) is a "permissive" use ordinance. In a "permissive" use ordinance only the land uses specifically listed in the zoning code are allowed within the specific zoning district. Land uses that are not listed are not allowed. Although the City's Zoning Code was drafted sufficiently to permanently ban medical marijuana dispensaries citywide, choosing to incorporate the proposed ordinance will reinforce the current prohibition on medical marijuana dispensaries consistent with California Supreme Court approved law. PC RESOLUTION 13.20 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, 'iSTATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE MUNICIPAL CODE UPDATE 13 -01 TO AMEND TITLE 17 "ZONING" OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 17.40 TO REINFORCE AND CONFIRM THE CITY'S CURRENT BAN ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS Staff Recommendation - Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 13 -20, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 935, amending Title 17 "Zoning" of the Rosemead Municipal Code adding Chapter 17.40 to reinforce and confirm that medical marijuana dispensaries are prohibited citywide. Community Development Director Ramirez presented the staff report Chair Herrera asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Tang stated that in the past Cities have sided the conflict between federal law and state law and it was briefly mentioned here in the recent California Supreme Court Ruling and asked if this supports the adoption of this prohibition. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. 0 Commissioner Tang asked if this also includes home grown Community Development Ramirez replied yes. Greg Murphy, City Attomey, explained this Ordinance deals solely on dispensaries whether they are working out of homes or commercial buildings. He added this Ordinance is not getting into whether growing medical marijuana or other marijuana is legal or illegal and the City is simply focusing on prohibiting the dispensary use. He stated the key matter is that the City of Riverside case, which did come up after the Zoning Code Update, said very clearly that a City has the power to say Medical Marijuana Dispensaries cannot operate it within that City and it was decided to bring back forward the clear prohibition. He referred to the earlier question in reference to the discussion of the conflict between state and federal law only came about because the federal government continues to have marijuana on its list of controlled substances where the state allows medical marijuana to be grown collectively and under certain cases to be given by one person to another. He explained that was the conflict and that conflict is what lead to a lot of the early short term prohibitions and when the periods of moratoria ran out, it then lead to bans, and then other means to regulate them. He explained that once the City of Riverside case was in place then it could be pointed out that a ban was clearly allowed. He added that is consistent with what the City of Rosemead has done in the past and rather than rely on the new nature of the Zoning Code the City wanted to make it explicit. Vice -Chair Eng addressed Greg Murphy, City Attorney, and asked where do individuals that are allowed to use medical marijuana go to obtain it. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, replied he is not sure, and in terms of the Planning Commission what they are really looking at is the dispensaries as a use and do you want them in the City of Rosemead or not, as your City of residence and one that you represent as a Planning Commissioner. He added in terms of people with legitimate needs for substance and it helps heal them, and helps ease their pain, he is led to believe there are networks of people who do operate what one would call a true collective of growing and sharing the cost of growth of the medical marijuana, such that storefront dispensaries are not necessarily required to meet that need. He added the intendant problems of storefront dispensaries, which are spelled out in the Ordinance, are such that a lot of cities have decided to ban the storefront dispensaries. Vice- Chair Eng stated she is a committee member the "Public Safety Public Connections Forum" and added that they have concerns with people using properties or homes for growing marijuana and commented this will help with that concern. She referred to the Ordinance and asked if the only violation is a civil injunction. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, explained that this strictly deals with the citing of a commercial dispensary in a commercial or residential zone within the City. He added the City is not getting into the violations of federal or state marijuana laws. Vice -Chair Eng referred to page fourteen (14), the last page of staff report, Ordinance 17.40.020, Number B, and asked if "No Person ", also implies to any entity or does that need to be indicated. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, replied person is generally considered as a whole to include entities that operate as a natural person would, so the City is alright there. Commissioner Dinh stated that even though the Supreme Court decisions in the Inland Empire Patients case is a win for the cities to implement bans on medical marijuana dispensaries, with the closure of the store-front dispensaries this may lead to the increase of mobile marijuana operations. She added that they may argue that such operations do not fall under the City's zoning ordinances, so a lot of cities have started to include mobile marijuana dispensaries. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, agreed that cities are starting to take that route and this is not something that a Planning Commission would consider because it doesn't deal with the use of land. He explained that this is similar to the food truck issue where it will get to the City Council by another means and even though it has big impacts on uses of land because of the mobile dispensaries parking in one place for too long, you will get the same intendant issues that are discussed for store -front dispensaries. He added this not something that would come to the Planning Commission to get to the City Council, but it is something that can be looked into for the future. Commissioner Lopez asked Greg Murphy, City Attorney, if the Planning Commission approves the ban of medical dispensaries in the City will it also include mobile dispensaries from operating in the City. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, replied no. He explained that the City of Rosemead has not done anything in the respect to mobile dispensaries and it would not be the Planning Staff but with the City Manager's office. Commissioner Lopez expressed concern with how the police would react to the mobile dispensaries and commented that he would hope that the federal and state laws would pertain to them and stop them from operating in this City. Chair Herrera asked if there were any other questions or comments. None Chair Herrera opened the Public Hearing. Brian Lewin, resident, asked in terms of this ordinance and the cottage food industry law that went into effect about a year ago, what is the interaction of those two, and does the City have the leeway to prohibit it as a use for a cottage industry as well. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, replied yes. He explained that the City can prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries from operating from homes as a cottage food industry. Chair Herrera asked if there is anyone else wishing to speak on this item. None Chair Herrera closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tang, to ADOPT Resolution No. 13.20, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 935, amending Title 17 "Zoning" of the Rosemead Municipal Code adding Chapter 17.40 to reinforce and confirm that medical marijuana dispensaries are prohibited citywide. Vote resulted in: Yes: Dinh, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes - December 2, 2013 Vice -Chair Eng made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Vote resulted in: Yes: Dinh, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Community Development Director Ramirez stated the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Monday, January 20, 2014, and explained that falls on the Martin Luther King Jr Day Holiday and City Hall will be closed. She explained that staff has received a request from an applicant to present their item. She added this would be presented as a Special Planning Commission meeting to be held on Tuesday, January 21, 2014, and asked if the Planning Commissioners would be able to attend, so as to have a quorum to hold the meeting. Chair Diana Herrera and Commissioners Tam Dinh, Daniel Lopez, and John Tang stated they are available. Vice - Chair Nancy Eng stated she would have to check her calendar and get back to staff. Chair Herrera asked the dates for the Planning Commission meeting for February 2014 Community Development Director Ramirez replied the Planning Commission meetings will be held on Monday, February 3, 2014:and Monday, February 17, 2013. She added City Hall will be closed on Monday, February 17, 2013 for President's Day Holiday and that meeting will be cancelled. She added a Special Meeting may be scheduled if an applicant request their item to be heard and explained that staff tries not to hold special meetings if it is not necessary. Chair Herrera asked what the Planning Commission dates for March. Community Development Director Ramirez replied the Planning Commission meetings for March will be on Monday, March 3, 2014 and Monday, March 17, 2014. Chair Herrera stated she will be absent on Monday, March 3, 2014. Community Development Director Ramirez reiterated that Planning Commission meetings will only be held if there are Agenda items that are ready. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & Commissioner Lopez asked for an update on the signage concern not being in English located on Garvey Boulevard. Community Development Director Ramirez replied Associate Planner Trinh did check on that sign and it was found to be illegal and a "CRM" request was put in for that concern. Vice -Chair Eng stated she would like to wish everyone a Happy, Healthy, and Productive New Year. She also would like to thank staff for their hard work and dedication. Commissioner Tang also stated he would like to congratulate staff for having to move and work at the same time. He also wished everyone a Happy New Year. He referred to Rosemead Park and expressed concern that the children's sand box in the play area was in need of attention and needed to be cleaned. Community Development Director Ramirez asked Commissioner Tang if a "CRM" request was made. Commissioner Tang replied no. Community Development Director Ramirez asked if he would like staff to submit one in for him. Commissioner Tang replied yes and stated it is the one up on the hill. Community Development Director Ramirez replied she will submit one for him and confirmed the location Chair Herrera asked when will the Rosemead Community Recreation Center be open to the community and will day- care be available again. Community Development Director Ramirez replied she does not have any information on whether day -care will be available, but the facility should be up and running by the new fiscal year of July, 1, 2014. She added the Parks & Recreation Director will be re- located to this facility along with his Executive Assistant. Chair Herrera asked staff when the area in front of City Hall will be completed. Community Development Director Ramirez replied she does not have that time frame information. She stated she can ask the Public Works Director and give the Planning Commission an update soon. 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:37 p.m. The next Special Planning Commission meeting may be held on Tuesday, January 21, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. Diana Herrera Chair ATTEST: Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary