Loading...
PC - Item 4A - Minutes of Novemebr 17, 2014Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 17, 2014 The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Eng in the Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Lopez INVOCATION - Commissioner Tang ROLL CALL - Commissioners Herrera, Lopez, Tang, Vice -Chair Dinh, and Chair Eng ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT: City Attorney Murphy, Planner Trinh, and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND Greg Murphy, City Attorney, presented the procedure and 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Brian Lewin, resident, referred to "Vape" stor same as cigarettes /smoking and to take action Daniel Luevanos from "One Legacy /D briefly described the organization. He organization, and gave the address of Hall and contacting the Recreation Cei up for "April of 2015" for a proclamati participate in the placing of arose on th California have been invited to do this a Chair Council; issues the pr( to educate the public. Director Ramirez, Associate of the Planning Commission regulate Vape stores the ire are only a few stores. Life" stated he is the City Ambassador for the City of Rosemead and ned they would like to educate the public on their organ procurement vebsite. He added that he will be dropping off some pamphlets to City hopefully set; up a health fair event. He requested that a date be set m the City. He stated that he has sent an invitation to the Mayor to it, 'The Never Ending Story". He stated all of the Mayors in the State of ided he attend a City Council meeting and explained that City Mr. Luevanos on his success story and thanked him for wanting Community Development Director Ramirez stated the next City Council meeting will be held on Tuesday, December 9, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. and recommended Mr. Luevanos speak under Public Comment. She recommended Mr. Luevanos contact the City Clerk in regards to the obtaining a proclamation for City Council. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS =r A. DESIGN REVIEW 14 -08 - Yunshan Tan has submitted a Design Review application requesting approval to construct a 1,649 square foot addition to an existing 1,148 square foot single - family residence. The addition includes an 837 square foot addition to the first floor and a new second -story addition totaling 812 square feet. In addition, the applicant will construct a three -car garage which consists of a one -car garage at the rear of the property. The subject property is located at 8632 Edmond Drive, in the R -1 (Single - Family Residential) zone. PC RESOLUTION 14 -17 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 14- 08, PERMITTING A 1,649 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 1,148 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE. THE ADDITION INCLUDES AN 837 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE FIRST FLOOR AND A NEW SECOND -STORY ADDITION TOTALING 812 SQUARE FEET. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT WILL CONSTRUCT A THREE -CAR GARAGE WHICH CONSIST OF A ONE -CAR GARAGE ATTACHED TO THE SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE AND A DETACHED TWO -CAR GARAGE AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 862 EDMOND DRIVE, IN THE R -1 (SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 14 -17 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 14 -08 subject to twenty -two (22) conditions.' Associate Planner Trinh presented staff report. Chair Eng asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions or comments for staff. She asked staff if this is the applicant's primary residence. Associate Planner Trinh replied this question may be referred to the applicant Chair Eng asked if the existing floor plan is a thr Associate Planner Trinh replied yes. Chair Eng asked if the majority of the addition is Associate Planner Trinh replied ves, and clarifie Chair Eng asked if the final will Associate Planner Trinh replied, yes. Chair Eng asked if it is currently a one'i Associate Planner Trinh replied: the of two -car garage and a new attached on( Chair Eng asked when construction is c garages. Associate Planner Trinh'reolied no. Chair Eng asked what the width of the property is. will there be any additional parking within the property excluding the Associate Planner Trinh replied it is 50 feet. Chair Eng referred to the other two -story homes on the block and confirmed that this is not the only two -story home. Associate Planner Trinh agreed with Chair Eng. Chair Eng asked staff if the roof is being changed from a flat roof to a pitch roof. (3) bedroom with one (1) bath. rear of the property. he existing home has two (2) bathrooms. (6) bedrooms and five (5) bathrooms. car garage and if they are relocating the existing garage. is demolishing the existing garage and constructing a new detached 2 Associate Planner Trinh replied yes. Commissioner Tang asked if the existing structure will only be changing towards the rear where they will be adding the addition for access to the addition and the roof. Associate Planner Trinh replied yes and explained the roof of the existing home will be changed to compliment the addition. Commissioner Tang referred to the neighboring properties having their doors front it facing to the side. Associate Planner Trinh explained this property is an existing property. Commissioner Tang asked if there is an ordinance that limits the residence. Associate Planner Trinh replied no. Chair Eng asked if there were any further comments or None Chair Eng opened the Public Hearing and Representative and Designer Andy Yu stated he is present t have. Chair Eng asked if this residence is currently owner- occupied Representative Andy Yu replied yes. Chair Eno asked what the plan is after the addition. and stated this property has amount for a single - family the Planning Commission may Andy Yu replied the owner currently has a small baby and his in -laws will be moving in. Chair Eng asked if the access to the second floor will be from inside the residential home. Representative Andy Yu replied Chair Eng asked Mr. Yu what was his inspiration for this design. Representative Andy Yu replied that he tried to keep the original design of the existing home. Resident Amelia Tract asked if the City allows or if there is a law for a single - family residence with a one -car garage to expand and have more than one garage. Community Development Director Ramirez requested the speakers address. Resident Amelia Tract gave her address but someone from the audience spoke up to state that was his address and Amelia Tract gave her correct address. Community Development Director Ramirez continued to explain that the number of garages is based on the number of bedrooms. She explained if there are four (4) bedrooms you will need to have a two -car garage, if there are five (5) or more bedrooms you will need to have a three -car garage. She added the garages do not need to be attached but do have to be on the lot. Resident Amelia Tract asked if she has more bedrooms she can ask for more garages. City Attorney Greg Murphy stated he believes the resident's question is, "Can you have more garage space than what is technically required ". Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. Resident Amelia Tract requested further information regarding the requirements. Community Development Director Ramirez and Chair Eng visit City Hall where staff will be able to assist her in further ( requirements that she Chair Eng asked if there were any further comments or None Chair Eng closed the Public Hearing and for staff. any further questions or comments None Chair Eng asked staff if they knew the square footage was. Associate Planner Trinh replied no, she did not have th other two -story homes in the residential neighborhood Chair Eng asked if the applicant has met the correct set -backs and are invoking the FAR incentive program for this project. Associate Planner Trinh replied yes. Chair Eng requested that Associate Planner Trinh describe the incentive program Associate Planner Trinh explained: that the current FAR is at 35 %, however there are design incentives that can be incorporated to gain up to a 40% FAR. She added for this project the applicant applied for a 5% incentive and they are including five items; 1) they are recessing all their windows in the front elevations 4 inches, 2) they will have eave overhangs of 18 inches, 3) they incorporated a landscaping plan with three or more mature trees, 4) the second floor set -back exceeds the minimum by more than 10 feet, and 5) they are not incorporating any fencing within the front yard. Chair Eng commented the purpose of the incentive program is to reduce the mass of the building. Associate Planner Trinh stated it is also to incorporate decorative designs to single - family residences. H Chair Eng asked if there were any further questions or comments. None Chair Eng asked for a motion. Vice -Chair Dinh made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera to ADOPT Resolution No. 14-17 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 14 -08 subject to twenty -two (22) conditions. Vote resulted in: Yes: Dinh, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez explained the 10 B. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 14.01 (N Code Amendment 14 -01 is a City initiated to comply with newly established Federal collocation of wireless telecommunication PC RESOLUTION 14 -16 - A ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS COUNCIL APPROVE MUNICIP CITY'S MUNICIPAL 17.54 ENTITLED WII in process. IUNICATION FACILITIES) - Municipal )sea to amend the Zoning Ordinance emission ( "FCC ") regulations for the Rosemead. OF THE CITY OF IG THAT THE CITY FACILITIES. TITLE 17 "ZONING" OF THE TED CHANGES TO CHAPTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION - Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is recommended that the Planning, Commission ADOPT Resolution 14 -16, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 944, amending Title 17 "Zoning" of the Rosemead Municipal Code to incorporate into Chapter 17.54 "Wireless Telecommunication Facilities" certain Federally - mandated changes to the procedures and standards for approval of the collocation of wireless facilities. Community Development Director Ramirez presented the staff report. She referred to the Resolution 14 -16 on pages four (4) and five. (5) of the Staff Report that the word "FACILITIES" is spelled incorrectly and will have to be corrected. She stated on page twenty -one (21) of the Staff Report the subsection listed as 17.44.60" is incorrect and will need to be corrected to read "17.54.60 ". Chair Eng asked if the Planning Commissioners had any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Herrera asked if these are the only corrections to be made. Community Development Director Ramirez replied no and explained it is also adding additional language for collocations as required by the FCC. She explained the additions are marked in red in the Ordinance. Commissioner Tang asked how many wireless facilities are currently within the City and where are they located. Community Development Director Ramirez replied she does not have that information available. 5 Commissioner Dinh asked if there are a maximum number of towers that are allowable within a square mile radius. City Attorney Greg Murphy replied that the Ordinance is not set up that way and even if the over -all Ordinance were set up that way, with respect to collocations, which is essentially adding a second carriers wireless facility on a pole or facility owned by a first carrier, the federal government has told us you will approve those with some very limited exceptions. He stated the Ordinances before the Planning Commission this evening does not go into huge depth into what those exceptions are, but they are listed in there. He added the key ones for the City of Rosemead considerations are, "If the proposed co- location were to defeat the shielding or masking of the facility as it currently exist ", then it would come back to the Planning Commission. He stated the second key is "If the proposed location were to somehow conflict with the conditions of approval, other than some "very detailed and technical specifications in the conditions of approval ", then it would come back to the Planning Commission. He stated the reason for that is that when you originally approved a wireless location you're looking at what it is going to look like and how aesthetically is it going to affect the community. He stated if the aesthetics is going to change to a substantial degree, then the collocation will have to come to the Planning Commission and will have to be a new conditional use permit, but if they are able to add additional wireless facilities (e.g. the high school roof) then it will not come back to the Planning Commission because there is no real aesthetic impact to the City. He stated if there is already on an Edison Tower and if on another leg of the Edison Tower a wireless carrier wants to put on a facility there is not going to be a substantial change to the aesthetics impact on the;City, so it would just; be processed through staff. He added the primary reason for that is because the Federal Government now has something called "shot clocks" so that if you don't approve it within a short period of time the applicant can go to the court, and the court will just say let's approve it just like the applicant wants it. For those collocations on existing sites the time frames are ridiculously small. He added that it has been taken out of the public's fear and put that into staff's level of approval. He explained it saves the Planning Commission from having unnecessary meetings for small items and it also insures that the City is not the subject of a lawsuit just because an approval needed to be scheduled out two to three weeks before the "shot clock" would run. He stated the FCC regulations become effective in about 90 (ninety) days, and every City will need to amend their Ordinances to comply. Commissioner Lopez asked so if they are already in a co- location they will not need an approval. City Attorney Greg Murphy replied they will need approval, but it will be a staff level approval if the collocation doesn't have any substantial aesthetically impact. He stated for example if this is a very old installation, with the old style ugly pole, and if they want to collocate there, then they will fall into the administrative level of approval and staff will be responsible for ensuring that everything is technically correct, the way the Planning Commission would look at the technical aspects of it. He stated if they wanted to move into an existing mono -pine where the shielding was designed to shield one row of panels and now if they want to add another second row of panels that will completely defeat the purpose of the shielding, then that is when it will come to the Planning Commission for approval, because now it will have a major aesthetic change. He stated after some discussion with one of the major providers, that provider at least is not looking for collocations that won't be shielded because they want to take advantage of what is now available to them and their hope is to have collocations in architectural elements on buildings because it is much easier to get in underneath the architecture that was required the first time around. He stated that is where staff will probably see the majority 'of %collocations. He also noted that staff still has discretion to shift the application to the Planning Commission anytime there is that lack of coverage or lack of stealth hiding. Chair Eng addressed Commissioner Tang and stated that she has requested in the pass when these applications have come to the Planning Commission that staff provide a map with all the locations of wireless facility towers. She added that she believes there are currently over forty (40) wireless facility towers. She explained that one of the reasons she requested a map be made is because the City of Rosemead is only 5.5 square miles and we have over the double wireless facility towers than the City of Glendora. She commented they are an eyesore and the City is a small City. She stated staff would probably send him the PDF of the map showing the location of wireless facilities if he requested it. She asked staff if under the current Municipal Code are they able to approve collocations. 0 City Attorney Murphy replied yes and explained that in the Ordinance that is set before the Planning Commission there are certain types of collocations that are approved at staff level rather than the Planning Commission level. He added this was done under the previous set of FCC Regulations, which were more lenient to the City, and so fewer things were done at the staff level. He stated FCC Regulations were tightened up a bit two weeks ago, so we are moving forward. Chair Eng asked if any collocations been approved at the administrative level recently. Community Development Director Ramirez replied no. Chair Eng asked City Attorney Murphy for clarification that after speaking on buildings. City Attorney Murphy replied the one carrier he has been fall into FCC's new regulations. Chair Eng asked if the FCC's definition of "substantial City Attorney Murphy replied yes, and explained what extension. Chair Eng referred to the terms of standards and bec FCC will have maximum frequency regulations for ea they stay the same. City Attorney Murphy replied the applicant will hay regulations for whatever kind of electromagnetic, RF added just like any individual application they would meet FCC regulations. Chair Eng asked because of City Chair Ena replied emissions to the phvsical structure in areas where they will "substantial change" including the are going to be collocating on sites, she asked if the ire they expanding the capacity for those sites or will to staff that they are remaining within the FCC or RF frequency radiation comes from the site. He ow by their maps and studies that they are going to did the FCC expand the capacity. on what is meant by capacity. City Attorney Murphy explained each individual panel still has to meet the FCC emission levels. He stated the FCC is keeping the levels for each installation what they have been in the past. He added collocations have always been allowed and preferred in the City of Rosemead's code and all that is being done this evening is treating a sub -set of them in an administrative level. ` Chair Eng asked if collocations are only permitted on existing sites City Attorney Murphy replied yes and explained the definition of co- location is putting a second facility on an existing FCC regulated approved broadcast site. He stated the vast majority of them will be on existing wireless sites and every once in a while you will see one on an existing FCC broadcast tower rather than a wireless site. they are looking to collocate Chair Eng asked if staff will need any new types of standards to process the administrative level of approvals for collocations. Community Development Director Ramirez replied no. Chair Eng asked if staff is confident with the tools in place when these types of applications are submitted to make the determination for administrative approval. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. Vice -Chair Dinh asked once collocations have been approved is there a statute of limitations as to when it expires, is there a renewal date, or does it continue until it is removed. City Attorney Murphy replied yes that is correct. Vice -Chair Dinh referred to the front page of the staff report and stated the Ordinance states 944 but on Page 5, Section 3 and Section 4, the Ordinance is referred to as 935 and asked if it was a typo or is it another Ordinance. Community Development Director Ramirez replied it should be Ordinance 944. Chair Eng commented the amendment is the Ordinance. City Attorney Murphy explained that the motion should be with Chair Eng asked if the Planning Commission had any other questions or comments. None Chair Eng opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone wishing to speak on this item. None Chair Eng closed the Public Hearing and asked if the Planning Commission had any further questions or comments. None Chair Eng asked for a motion. Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera to ADOPT Resolution 14 -16, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 944, amending Title 17 "Zoning" of the Rosemead Municipal Code to incorporate into Chapter 17.54 "Wireless Telecommunication Facilities" certain Federally- mandated changes to the procedures and standards for approval of the collocation of wireless facilities. (Corrections made to pages 4, 8, and 21 by the Community Development Director Ramirez and Correction to page 5, Section 3'and 4, by the Planning Commission on 11/17/14). Vote resulted in: Yes: Dinh, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez explained the 10 day appeal process. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of October 6, 2014 The Planning Commission meeting Minutes of October 6, 2014 were approved as presented. Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Vote resulted in: Yes: Dinh, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Community Development Director Ramirez announced t Lighting Ceremony" and "Dinner with Santa ", and gave Commission and public to attend. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & Commissioner Lopez thanked staff for taking care Angelus Senior Center. He stated there are two ( fence be repaired because it is leaning and has cc area there are only two (2) machines working and Community Development'; provider to provide four (4) that osemead events "The Annual Tree locations. She invited the Planning (plumbing leak, and air conditioning repairs) at the ie would like address and requested that the front qd it. His second request is that in the laundromat it will take to repair the others. recently signed an agreement with a new laundry ie added she will look into the fencing issue also. Commissioner Herrera stated the development on Delta Avenue and Valley Boulevard is coming along. She thanked Brian Lewin for his volunteering at the 'Bright Light Night' event sponsored by the Rosemead Chamber of Commerce. She added the event was successful and enjoyed by the community. Commissioner Tang reported that the "Rosemead Place' lighting signage located next to the 10 Freeway, the letters "S & E" have been out for some time and recommended it be repaired. Commissioner Lopez reported that the street light located in between 9020 -9024 Garret Street has been flickering off and on and recommended it be repaired also. Community Development Director Ramirez confirmed locations, concerns, and stated she will address both of these requests. Vice -Chair Dinh reported that the traffic signal light located on the Northeast side of Jackson Avenue has been hit by a bus again. Commissioner Herrera asked the dates of the Planning Commission meetings to be held in December. Community Development Director Ramirez replied the Planning Commission meetings will be held on December 1st and December 15th. Chair Eng stated she would like to thank Brian Lewin for bringing up the topic of "Vape" stores. She stated that has been on her mind for some time and requested that staff bring to a future Planning Commission meeting the current process for that type of business. She stated it would be helpful to get some type of guidance regarding regulating that type of business. She thanked and commended the Rosemead Chamber of Commerce on the "Bright Light Night" event. She added her family attended and enjoyed the event. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:52 p.m. The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, December 1, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. Chair ATTEST: Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 10