Loading...
PC - Minutes - 01-05-15 Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 5,2015 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-Chair Eng INVOCATION -Commissioner Herrera ROLL CALL-Commissioners Herrera, Lopez,Tang, and Chair Eng ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT: City Attorney Murphy, Community Development Director Ramirez, Associate Planner Trinh, and Planning Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney, Greg Murphy, presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MODIFICATION 14-02 AND 14-03-Hui Dong He has submitted Modification applications requesting to modify Design Review 01-93 and Conditional Use Permit 01-840, to add 1,372 square feet to an existing 5,650 square foot restaurant. In addition, the applicant is requesting to expand the existing on-sale beer and wine(Type 41)ABC License into the added area. The subject site is located at 3939 Rosemead Boulevard in the CBD-D(Central Business District with a Design Overlay)zone. PC RESOLUTION 14-20 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MODIFICATION 14- 02 AND 14-03, A REQUEST TO MODIFY DESIGN REVIEW 01-93 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 01- 840, TO ADD 1,372 SQUARE FEET TO AN EXISTING 5,650 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO EXPAND THE EXISTING ON-SALE BEER AND WINE (TYPE 41) ABC LICENSE INTO THE ADDED AREA. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CBD-D (CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT 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. 14-20 and APPROVE Modification 14-02 and 14-03 with findings,subject to thirty-five(35)conditions of approval outlined. Associate Planner Trinh presented the staff report. She added due to past noise issues the restaurant has had,staff is adding two (2) additional Conditions of Approval, 1) "All cleaning service vehicles shall be parked on Rosemead Boulevard",and 2)"A locking device shall be installed on the existing grease trap". Chair Eng addressed the Planning Commission and stated she has requested staff to project the site/floor plan if possible and asked staff if it was. 1 Associate Planner Trinh replied yes and explained it can be done one at a time. She asked Chair Eng which one she would like projected first. Chair Eng replied the site plan and thanked staff. She asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions for staff. Commissioner Tang referred to the area that is being requested to add the 1,372 square feet and asked if this is going to be for excess parking and will the number of parking spaces remain the same. Associate Planner Trinh replied yes. Commissioner Tang asked referred to the South wall and asked what type of use will be used in that space. Associate Planner Trinh replied VIP rooms. Commissioner Tang clarified that he is referring to the exterior area not the added area. Associate Planner Trinh replied that area is walkable/landscaping area. Commissioner Tang stated he has been to this establishment before and it meets and exceeds the parking requirements. He added that parking will always be an issue and something for the Planning Commissioners to consider is that even though establishments meet the parking requirements you will see that an establishment with the reputation that provides good service and food, is going to attract a lot of people in the community. He referred to Condition of Approval number thirty-three (33) stating that, "No parking shall be allowed along the north side of Nevada Street" and asked if that has always been an existing condition of approval. Associate Planner Trinh replied that is a Condition of Approval that the City Engineer added. Commissioner Tang asked if that was for the entire street of Nevada or for just near the restaurant. Associate Planner Trinh replied just adjacent to the restaurant. Chair Eng stated the expansion is to add three(3)VIP Rooms and asked how many VIP rooms they currently have. Associate Planner Trinh replied they currently have two(2). Chair Eng asked where they are located. Associate Planner Trinh replied they are on the Northeast corner of the restaurant. Chair Eng requested that the floor plan be projected and verified that the current VIP rooms are on the Northeast side and asked what the current occupancy load of the restaurant is. Associate Planner Trinh replied she does not have that information available. Chair Eng asked how much more seating will be added with the additional VIP rooms. Associate Planner Trinh replied it will be an additional forty-eight(48)seats. 2 Chair Eng requested the site plan projection and referred to the area that is getting expanded and the rotation of the parking spaces. She asked if there are six(6)to seven(7)compact parking spaces. Associate Planner Trinh replied yes and explained through this process the applicant has revised their parking stalls to meet all of the City requirements and codes. Chair Eng asked if the parking standard being applied to this project is under the City's current Zoning Code. Associate Planner Trinh replied yes, and explained that the Modification is under the new Zoning Code. She added whether they are under the old or new Zoning Code,the applicant does meet both parking standards. Chair Eng stated for restaurant use the City has a stacker parking standard, and for the first 2,000 sq. ft. It is one space for every hundred square foot floor space, then its stack from there. She asked staff what is the thinking behind that. Associate Planner Trinh replied that is correct and this is under the Code Amendment, but she does not have any information on why it is calculated that way. Chair Eng stated aside from the one (1) resident that has come forward to share his concerns, this area has historically had complaints from the residents in the past. She asked if the applicant or staff had done anything to reach out to the other residents in this neighborhood to see what the concerns are. Associate Planner Trinh replied a Public Hearing Notice was mailed to all the residents within a 300' radius, which included the neighbors on Nevada Street, and staff did not receive any comments. Chair Eng asked if the Public Hearing Notice went beyond the 300'radius or just to the 300' radius. Associate Planner Trinh replied it went to just the 300' radius area. Chair Eng referred to Condition of Approval number thirty-three (33) pertaining to "No parking on the North side of Nevada Street", and asked staff if they knew why this restriction was made. Associate Planner Trinh replied she does not have that information. Chair Eng asked if there were any other questions for staff. None Chair Eng opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Manson Ly, Representative for the business establishment and applicant, explained the restaurant has been there for quite some time and is getting request, according to the owner, for upgrades, addition of VIP rooms, and more privacy for the patrons. He explained the expansion is for VIP rooms with eight per room,which will allow for more privacy and will upscale the restaurant for the community. Chair Eng asked what the current occupancy load is. Representative Ly replied he does not have that information but someone will look that up right now. Chair Eng asked when the restaurant's busiest time is. 3 Representative Ly replied lunch time. Chair Eng asked if that is every day or just during the weekend. Representative Ly replied it is busier on the weekends.He stated the parking issues are only during lunch time and during that time cars are coming and going quickly. He stated by adding the expansion it should help alleviate the parking issues allowing patrons to park. He stated in the past the establishment did not have a representative to reach out to the community and see what the concerns and problems that are needed to be addressed. He added he is the liaison now, and there is also another representative Mr. Tang, but he was not able to attend this meeting. He stated they are trying to accommodate and do the best they can to make it a better way of life for the neighborhood. He stated he understands with businesses there are noises,and various concerns and they are trying to do everything they can to address issues that are in their control and named examples of what has been done. Chair Eng thanked Mr. Ly for taking the time and effort to reach out to the community. Representative Ly stated that he looks forward to working with the community and he hopes they can work everything out. He added that there have been minor issues such as trash, but they will keep it clean and make sure the neighbors and community are happy. He stated the community may approach them so that issues can be worked out and the City will not have to hear it. Commissioner Herrera asked if communication is something that has been taken care of and if the neighbors are now happy. Representative Ly replied yes, and explained they have already made an effort of trying to take care of some of the issues. Commissioner Herrera asked when they started doing this. Representative Ly replied about one and half (1 1/2) months ago. He expressed that in the past there wasn't any communication and now the community can approach them directly to address issues that are in their control. Chair Eng stated she did a couple of site inspections at different times and noticed parking is more congested in the afternoon than in the evening. She stated she noticed there was a security guard there during her evening inspection and asked when the security guard is present. Representative Ly replied security is usually there in the afternoon and in the evening, but are needed primarily in the evening, because that is when more incidents occur. He added they also have security cameras on the premises, which has help deter the stealing of oil from the grease traps. He explained they have also installed a lock on the grease trap door. Chair Eng asked if the applicant would consider asking the neighboring commercial businesses in the area to share parking options during the busy lunch time hour. Representative Ly replied currently there is an agreement, but they would like to get a formal agreement and bring it to staff and the City Council for approval in the future. He explained a formal agreement may deter future conflicts. Chair Eng expressed that she is glad the applicant is open to this suggestion and asked if Mr. Ly is currently discussing parking options with nearby commercial businesses while their offices are closed for business. Representative Ly replied yes. 4 Chair Eng asked what time does the restaurant start serving alcohol. Representative Ly replied in the evening. Chair Eng explained that her question in regards to the Security Guard was for her personal interest and suggested the Security Guard may also help with the circulation of parking. Representative Ly stated that they have considered a Valet Service as another option in the future in regards to parking concerns. Commissioner Tang stated he had seen a vehicle parked at the entrance of the kitchen loading items and asked if loading and unloading hours will be changed also. Representative Ly replied no and deliveries are usually made before 11:00 am. Commissioner Tang stated he has observed deliveries when the parking lot is full and commented that this does not help with parking lot circulation. Representative Ly stated deliveries usually do not take very long. He added the cleaning of the grease trap takes longer,but that is usually done in the late hours when it is not busy. Chair Eng stated there is a condition of approval addressing power washing the awnings and asked if the awnings were metal or fabric. Associate Planner Trinh replied they are canvas. Chair Eng asked if they have a long shelf life. Representative Ly stated the awnings are probably going to be replaced with new ones. Chair Eng asked staff if the condition of approval will need to be revised it the awnings are going to be replaced. Associate Planner Trinh replied if the applicant is agreeable and asked Representative Ly if he agrees to replace the awnings. Representative Ly replied yes. Associate Planner Trinh stated that the Condition of Approval number ten (10) will be revised to state, "All existing awnings shall be replaced and all awnings shall be power washed periodically". Commissioner Tang asked if the Fire Department will need to review this because it is a restaurant establishment. Associate Planner Trinh stated this project was routed to the Fire Department, but staff did not receive any comments. She explained through the Building Department process they will have to submit to the Fire Department for approval. Commissioner Tang referred to the opening to the VIP room and asked why it was placed in that certain location and why it was not aligned to the hallway. Associate Planner Trinh stated it was placed there for privacy and this will still be reviewed by the Fire Department. 5 Representative Ly received the occupancy load count and stated the current occupancy load is 225 occupants. Chair Eng stated there will be an additional 48 occupants, so it is still under 300 occupants and will add up to 273 occupants. She thanked Representative Ly and called Speaker Request Joseph M. Giammanco. Resident Joseph M. Giammanco stated that the residents on Nevada Avenue are concerned with the expansion of this restaurant. He stated parking is a major concern and expressed it is due to the restaurant. He added that another concern not related to the expansion is casino buses with their customers parking on Nevada Avenue,which has been brought to the City Council's attention. He stated he is favor of small independent businesses, but on Nevada Avenue it comes at the expense of the residents, when it comes to parking. He stated parking is a safety hazard due to every parking space being used, the street is not very wide,and the residents are having a difficult time getting in or out of their driveways. He added people use Nevada Avenue as a shortcut and residents use their trash containers to get a traffic break so that two cars may pass. He stated the restaurant has been there 7- 10 years and the residents have gone to the restaurant to discuss parking concerns in the pass, but the restaurant did not acknowledge them. He stated that parking was offered by a business owner on Valley Boulevard for the restaurant's employees but the restaurant turned down the offer and did not want to pay for it. He stated the employees are also parking on Nevada Avenue and he has seen their cars towed away in the past from other businesses. He recommended the restaurant have a designated area for employee parking to help alleviate the parking on Nevada Avenue and their restaurant parking lot. Chair Eng stated the applicant has noted what solutions they are proposing. She added it has been stated that the applicant is in negotiations with a commercial neighboring property owner to provide excess parking for the patrons and the residents of Nevada Avenue. Resident Giammanco stated that the City has had a problem like this in the past,and referred to the Universal Shopping Center and stated that the owner of this shopping center acquired a separate location for their employees to park. He added there are solutions, but safety concerns need to be addressed to prevent someone from getting hurt or from getting sued. Resident Chester Jung stated he lives on Ivar Avenue which is within the 300'radius and he did not receive a Public Hearing Notice for this meeting. He stated he is on the City's website email list for notices, and email alert's, and that it was his neighbor that showed him the Public Hearing Notice. He added he has lived on Ivar Avenue for forty (40)years and has seen this restaurant when it first arrived and the parking has always been a concern, especially on Saturday and Sunday. He stated the restaurant patrons are parked on Nevada Avenue, Ivar Avenue, and are now parking in the City Hall parking lot. He added there were thirty-one(31)cars in the City Hall parking lot on a Sunday when City Hall was closed. He expressed parking is difficult and there are times he cannot even park in front of his own home. He recommended that parking specifications be increased and explained why. He expressed parking is also a concern due to the casino buses being allowed to park in the City and parking is getting to be progressively worst. He stated the restaurant is doing well and suggested that a good solution would be for the restaurant to build its own parking structure. Resident Lazaro Fonta stated he has lived on Nevada Avenue for thirty(30) years and parking is a problem. He expressed that his family cannot even park in front of their home. He added he has four personal vehicles that need to enter and exit his property at various times and that he has had to put his own trash cans in the street to save a spot for his wife or son to park their vehicles. He explained that patrons of the restaurant do not respect when he has placed his trash containers to save parking in front of his home and that they simply move them so they may park. He submitted pictures of vehicles to the Planning Commission parked on Nevada during the restaurant's busy hours. He stated he has nothing against the restaurant, but he cannot even invite family to visit due to lack of parking, and suggested that the restaurant find a storage parking lot as a solution. He expressed 6 parking, traffic, and accidents have increased over the years and requested his pictures be returned to him this evening. Chair Eng asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on this item. None Chair Eng closed the Public Hearing. She asked the Planning Commission it there were any further questions or comments. Commissioner Lopez stated the City if faced with issues of lack of parking, businesses being close to small streets, communities getting upset because there is not enough parking in the streets, and suggested that the City slow down. He recommended the City needs to find ways to park better. If restaurants don't have adequate parking,then it ends up with the neighborhood suffering. He stated establishments need to understand that they want progress, and request additions, but they are leaving the parking the same. He recommended the Planning Commission, staff, and the City re-analyze parking concerns and what is brought into the City. Chair Eng stated the City recently updated the Zoning Code and asked staff if this is the current best parking standard for restaurant use. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. Chair Eng asked if other communities surrounding the City of Rosemead are using similar parking standards. Community Development Director Ramirez replied the surrounding communities have less restrictive parking requirements and the City of Rosemead has more stringent parking requirements. Commissioner Herrera commented that because the restaurant is popular, parking is not sufficient and if it wasn't popular, parking it would be sufficient. She asked staff if the City had done something in the past to regulate casino tour buses. Community Development Director Ramirez stated the City of Rosemead currently has an Ordinance stating that any private bus company that would like to load or unload within the City must enter into an agreement with a property owner for the loading or unloading of that bus. She explained there is nothing in the Ordinance that requires the parking of the patrons also be provided on that site. Commissioner Herrera commented she had a situation on her street but it has cleared up. Community Development Director Ramirez stated currently there are two (2) locations that are allowed to load and unload. She stated staff spoke with both property owners of those locations and requested that they require all bus patrons park on site and both property owners agreed to that request. She added it was her understanding that the bus parking along Nevada and Ivar Avenue had lessened since staff had spoken with them. She stated this is the first that she has heard that it is different, so she will discuss this with the City Manager. Commissioner Tang stated this is a rare and unique situation, in the fact that this restaurant is popular, and because of that the demand is so high. He added just because they build the addition, it will not solve the parking situation nor is it going to solve the situation of people coming into the establishment and he agrees with the applicant that it will increase the flow of patrons coming in and out. He stated since the applicant has already met the ordinance for parking and if they are willing to meet the needs of the neighbors as well as their customers, he would encourage them to look for alternative parking means across the street on Nevada Avenue or on the other side of Rosemead Boulevard to see if there are opportunities where they can leverage that space for parking. 7 Chair Eng stated the parking is not a 24-hour 7-day situation and the restaurant is only open at certain times for example lunch time and weekends,that there is a major parking concern. She stated the applicant has indicated that they are in active conversations with neighboring property owners to use their lots as overflow parking. She added that is something to consider and she would like to propose that the Planning Commission think about and find out when the high peak hours are for traffic for confirmation. She asked if staff can do an informal survey of a count parking demand and see what type of commitment the applicant is taking in regards to the overflow parking situation and to see what gets worked out with the neighboring property owners. She asked staff if this is feasible. Community Development Director Ramirez replied she is not sure how feasible this request would be and explained staff does not have the equipment on hand to do such a count. She added she does not know what the cost would be and or a commitment that the City Council would like to make for such a study. She stated this is something that would have to be discussed with the City Manager and possibly City Council. Chair Eng stated she agrees with Commissioner Lopez in regards into looking for solutions for parking. She added we want to help businesses and we want them to stay in the City of Rosemead. She stated this project is not a huge expansion and the applicant is doing this to service the customers,the expansion will make the business better, and make the area look nicer, because they are looking to upgrade the façade and exterior of the building. She also agrees with Commissioner Tang that the lack of parking is a city-wide problem and it's a discussion the Planning Commission needs to have at a city-wide level looking at parking structures. She added at the same time the City cannot hinder successful businesses in the City, we are here to support them, the City wants those services, and we are dependent on those dollars to be able to service the community. She explained that the City of Rosemead was incorporated much later than the neighboring cities; therefore we do not receive the level of property tax dollars back from property owners as other cities do. She stated the major revenue is based on sales tax and there are businesses willing to make the effort and investment so we need to work together. She added the applicant has indicated that they have reached out to the residents, communicated with them to find solutions for parking, and has contacted adjoining property owners to use their facilities for additional parking. She stated she hopes that the applicant will continue to do this after hearing the residents' concerns and make the effort to make a better quality of life for them. She added that the City of Rosemead is unique that a lot of commercial properties abut residential properties,so we need to work together with the residents and businesses. Commissioner Herrera asked how it will be ensured that dialog will continue and resolutions will be taken for parking concerns. Chair Eng asked City Attorney Murphy if a condition of approval may be added directing the applicant to submit a reciprocal parking arrangement to the City. City Attorney Murphy replied there were two questions being asked the first being: "can the condition request that", and he advised there are not conditions requesting they are conditions requiring. He stated the second question was: "can the City demand a reciprocal parking arrangement', and given that the parking demands in the City's Municipal Code have been met,the City cannot legally require a shared parking agreement and explained why. Community Development Director Ramirez stated the applicant meets the Municipal Code and staff knows the applicant has an agreement with another property owner for additional parking, but they do not have this in writing.She continued that staff will not accept this until it is in writing and staff cannot elaborate on it because they do not have the actual agreement. She added staff does know they are in negotiations with a property owner for some additional parking. She stated staff is comfortable that they do know the applicant is working on that. Chair Eng requested that staff clarify the two additional conditions of approval. Associate Planner Trinh stated the first condition that is being modified is Condition of Approval number ten (10) 8 which will state, "All existing awnings will be replaced and power washed periodically'.She stated the added conditions are Condition of Approval number thirty-seven (37) which will read, 'All cleaning service vehicles shall be parked on Rosemead Boulevard'. She stated Condition of Approval number thirty-eight (38) will state, "A locking device shall be installed on the existing grease trap.' Community Development Director Ramirez addressed the Planning Commission and clarified that the two additional Conditions of Approval should be numbered as thirty-three (33)and thirty-four(34). She explained that Conditions of Approval numbers thirty-three (33) through thirty-six (36) are Engineering Conditions of Approval and should be moved down because the two additional conditions are not Engineering Conditions of Approval. She stated the Engineering Conditions of Approval will be numbers thirty-five(35)through thirty-eight(38). Chair Eng asked if there were any other clarifications. Associate Planner Trinh replied no. Chair Eng addressed the Planning Commission and requested a motion. Commissioner Tang for reasons that staff has noted and the applicant meets the parking demands and this addition is being built to meet the demand verses trying to increase the demand, he moves the Adopt Resolution No. 14-20 and Approve Modification 14-02 and 14-03 with findings, and additional edits to the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to ADOPT Resolution No. 14-20 and APPROVE Modification 14-02 and 14-03 with findings, subject to thirty-eight(38) conditions of approval outlined. (Condition of Approval number ten(10)was modified by the Planning Commission. Conditions of Approval number's thirty-three(33)and thirty-four(34)were added by the Planning Commission). Vote resulted in: Yes: Eng, Herrera, Lopez,and Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez explained the ten(10)day appeal process. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR None 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Community Development Director Ramirez announced the next Planning Commission meeting on Monday, January 19, 2015,will be cancelled due to the Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday and City Hall being closed. She explained that a Special Meeting will be scheduled it necessary and if not, the next Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, February 2, 2015. She also announced the time, date, and location of the Re-Dedication of the Garvey Park Gymnasium and invited all to attend. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR&COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Tang stated the letter "E" in the signage located next to the 1-10 Freeway heading westbound, located in the Rosemead Place Square is still not working. 9 Community Development Director Ramirez stated that she contacted the properly management company and will follow-up on the status of that concern. Chair Eng stated she has three items she would like staff to present back to the Planning Commission for discussion; 1) what is the current process to modifying or updating zoning codes/issues from previous projects presented to the Planning Commission. She stated a major Zoning Code Update was processed recently and asked staff for efficiency and mitigation purposes is there something currently in place. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes, and explained the public may request an amendment to the Zoning Code at any time and there is a fee involved. She added if there is something the Planning Commission would like to have amended,then they would have to let her know and she will discuss it with the City Manager and, if necessary,presented to the City Council for directions on a proposed amendment. Chair Eng asked if for workflow and efficiency purposes does staff look at the items once a year or are they only looked at as they arrive. Community Development Director Ramirez replied they are looked at constantly and are on-going. She explained when a Code Amendment is done staff tries to bring all needed changes at once and explained the process. Chair Eng stated her second item is; 2) Signage Compliance and Citations- She asked what the process is for change of business ownership when a new business enters, or an old business exits the City, in regards to their business sign. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that all signage must be submitted to the Community Development Department staff for approval. She stated staff reviews all signage and signs are sometimes changed without staff's knowledge. She explained a "CRM" is submitted and assigned to Code Enforcement to investigate, cite, and/refer to the Community Development Department for approval. Chair Eng stated with the anticipation of large developments entering the City of Rosemead, she requested that it be put on an Agenda for a future Planning Commission meeting, to discuss options for Community Public Outreach, especially for projects that may have a significant impact. She referred to the City of San Gabriel and stated they require developers to conduct Community Public Outreach meetings for projects of a certain scale. She requested that staff check neighboring cities procedures in regards to Community Public Outreach. Community Development Director Ramirez clarified if Chair Eng's first two questions were answered. Chair Eng replied yes and only was requesting for the last item to be brought back. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned in "Jazmyne Ha Eng's" honor and memory at 8:15 p.m. The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday,January 19,2015,at 7:00 p.m. 10 Nancy Eng ATTE - Chair Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 11