Loading...
PC - Minutes - 02-01-16 Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 1,2016 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Tang at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers, 8838 E.Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-Chair Tang INVOCATION-Commissioner Eng ROLL CALL-Commissioners Dang, Eng, Herrera,Vice-Chair Lopez and Chair Tang STAFF PRESENT-City Attorney Murphy, Community Development Director Ramirez, Associate Planner Hanh, and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney Murphy presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-05 (CONTINUED) - Christina Lin submitted a Conditional Use Permit application to establish a religious assembly use at 2739 Stingle Avenue. The existing building consists of 3,396 square feet of floor area. The proposed project would not add any new floor area to the property. The subject property is located in the C-3D RC-MUDO (Medium Commercial with ResidentiaVCommercial Mixed-Use Development and Design Overlays) zone. On January 4, 2016,the Planning Commission conducted a duly notice public hearing for Conditional Use Permit 15.05. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project and received testimony from members of the public. The Planning Commission expressed concern regarding the potential for the utilization of the outdoor courtyard area for assembly use. In order to provide ample time to modify Condition of Approval No. 28, as it relates to the restriction of area for assembly use, the Planning Commission voted to continue the subject item to the Planning Commission meeting on February 1, 2016. To clarity the exact colors that would he applied to the existing building,the applicant has provided samples of the proposed colors(Exhibit"C"). PC RESOLUTION 15-21 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-05, TO ESTABLISH A RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY USE AT 2739 STINGLE AVENUE(APN: 5282- 009.007). THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE C-3D RC-MUDO (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH RESIDENTIALJCOMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN OVERLAYS)ZONE. Staff Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 15- 21 with findings, and APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 15-05, subject to the twenty-nine (29) conditions. Associate Planner Hanh presented the staff report. Chair Tang asked it the Planning Commission had any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number twenty-eight (28) and asked if the new language will prohibit the applicant from utilizing the outdoor area. Associate Planner Hanh replied the applicant may still utilize the outdoor area. Commissioner Eng referred to the maximum occupancy load determined by the Rosemead Building Official and asked if there are guidelines to follow. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes, and explained the reasons staff does not include a number. The building code can change. If it did, then the Conditional Use Permit would have to be brought back to the Planning Commission. If tenant improvements are made internally, then the occupancy load can be affected. By leaving it to the Building Official,staff will always know they are in compliance. Commissioner Dang referred to Condition of Approval number twenty-eight (28) and recommended that the last sentence read, "The combined maximum number of people that may be permitted in the outdoor and indoor areas for assembly use shall be equal to the maximum occupant load of the building as determined by the Rosemead Building Official". Chair Tang deferred the wording to City Attorney Murphy. City Attorney Murphy stated the wording is capturing the attempt and since it has been read into the record, no further changes would be necessary. Commissioner Dang stated at the previous Planning Commission meeting he had requested renderings along with color samples for this project. He added the staff report provided a color sample(which were in color and noted where they will be located and utilized), but the staff report only provided a black and white picture. He explained that it is difficult to visualize how this building will look with these colors. He stated a rendering would help to see how it will interplay with the existing neighborhood elevation. Chair Tang asked if the Planning Commission had any further questions for staff. None Chair Tang opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Applicant Christina Lin declined to comment. Resident Ivy Lee stated she resides on the property next to this facility and asked if religious assembly is equivalent to a temple in this case. Associate Planner Hanh replied a temple can be categorized as religious assembly. Resident Lee stated she had a discussion with the applicant in Chinese and was told that this is not a temple. She referred to Commissioner Dang's comments from the previous Planning Commission meeting that this use may be considered as an educational entity or school and asked if this was a possibility. City Attorney Murphy explained that after Commissioner Dang's comments from the previous Planning Commission meeting, he did look up the Rosemead Municipal Code to determine if this might be a school or a place of religious 2 assemble. He stated the first important item is that the applicant did seek this to be a place of religious assembly. He explained that religious assembly's, religious institutions, and religious buildings do have certain protection's under California and Federal law, so it is important to take into account what it is that the applicant has applied for. He stated the second item in looking at Section 17.04.050 had definitions of different types of uses within the City and there is not one for schools, but there is one for an educational institute, which is how we refer to schools. He stated those are defined as giving, "General academic instruction in the several branches of academic learning" and have at least five (5) students or usually more. He stated conversely a place of religious assembly would include the gathering of people for the purposes of fellowship, worshiping, or similar conduct and includes limited accessory uses. He added this is important in the legal analysis is that religious school activities that are not full-time as opposed to, "schools with regular daily sessions', so the Rosemead Municipal Code has called out religious schools as being more similar to other educational institutes and actually requires a second permit for those type of schools. He stated school activities are instead grouped with fellowship, worship, and similar conduct, so the fact that there is learning going on as opposed to prayer is not conclusive as to whether this would be a school or a religious institution. He strongly urges if the Planning Commission is going to grant the permit, it gets granted in the way it was sought as a place of religious assembly. Chair Tang thanked City Attorney Murphy and asked if there were any other questions or comments from the public. None Chair Tang closed the Public Hearing. He asked the Planning Commission if there were any further questions or comments. Vice-Chair Lopez asked if anything has changed since the previous Planning Commission meeting and if the use is remaining the same, limitation has been placed on the outdoor assembly, and if the applicant will be allowed to return to request Special Event Permits for other activities. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. Chair Tang stated he is comfortable with the change to Condition of Approval number twenty-eight (28), and asked City Attorney Murphy because religious assembly has protected rights will this change overburden the applicant. City Attorney Murphy replied it is appropriate because it goes directly with parking, which is an issue that the courts have consistently found to not infringe on the religious aspect of the use. He added if the City let unlimited use or widespread use of the outdoors and only limited the parking to the occupancy load for the indoors you could end up with a way under parked site. He explained the way the condition has been written and recommended by the Planning Commission, it will continue to show that it will keep the parking onsite to be appropriate with the number of people that will be indoors. Chair Tang thanked City Attorney Murphy and asked if there were any further questions or comments. None Chair Tang asked for a motion. Vice-Chair Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to ADOPT Resolution No. 15-21 with findings, and APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 15-05, subject to the twenty-nine (29) conditions. (Modification to Condition of Approval number twenty-eight(28)was made by the Planning Commission). Vote resulted in: 3 Ayes: Dang,Eng,Herrera,Lopez,and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes with 5 Ayes and 0 Noes vote and explained the 10-day appeal process. B. DESIGN REVIEW 15-13 — CVS Pharmacy has submitted a Design Review application to request to improve the facade of an existing commercial building at 8225 Garvey Avenue (APN: 5288-009- 052). The proposed project would not add any new floor area to the property. The subject property is located in the C-3/D-0(Medium Commercial with Design Overlay)zone. PC RESOLUTION 16-01 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 15- 13, PERMITTING THE REMODELING OF THE EXTERIOR FACADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING. THE SUBJECT PROERTY IS LOCATED AT 8225 GARVEY AVENUE(APN: 5288-009-052), IN THE C-3/D-0(MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH DESIGN OVERLAY)ZONE. Staff Recommendation— It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 16- 01 with findings,and APPROVE Design Review 15-13,subject to the 27 conditions. Associate Planner Hanh presented the staff report. Chair Tang asked if there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Herrera asked if this is just a facade improvement including colors and a paint job. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes and a parapet will be added. Commissioner Dang asked how much taller is the building getting if a parapet is being introduce. Community Development Director Ramirez stated the applicant may address that question. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number twenty-three (23) and twenty-four (24) and stated that she likes that there is updated irrigation and drainage. She asked if this was part of the updated facade or part of the original application. Associate Planner Hanh replied the conditions of approval are standard conditions and the applicant has not proposed any changes to the site in terms of landscaping or grading. If they were to in the future, then they would have to follow these conditions of approval. Commissioner Eng asked if the applicant is required to submit drainage, grading, landscaping, or an irrigation plan. Associate Planner Hanh replied if the applicant wanted to change the landscaping, then they would have to get the landscaping and irrigation plan approved. Community Development Director stated the applicant is not doing anything to affect this or cause this to be needed and these are standard conditions of approval that are included in all Conditional Use Permit applications. She explained that if the applicant was going to do something that would be affected,then these standard conditions would be required. 4 Commissioner Eng thanked staff for the clarification and stated when she read the staff report she was under the impression that the irrigation and drainage was getting updated also. Chair Tang stated he was under the same impression as Commissioner Eng and recommended that the language be changed to, "should the applicant make adjustments to landscaping then they would have to follow this condition'for future reference. Community Development Director Ramirez stated staff can clean up that language or add a title for clearer understanding and future referencing. Chair Tang asked staff if there were any thoughts in changing the existing stone facade to brick layers to make it more harmonious with the building. Associate Planner Hanh replied the existing stone façade matches and mirrors the building right across the parking lot. Chair Tang opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Representative Lorenzo Dimaano slated the architect is not present but he can answer any questions if needed. He addressed Commissioner Dang's previous question. Commissioner Dang stated he had asked how tall the building will be with the parapet but he found the information on the plans and it shows the existing is 20 feet in height and it will be going up to 25.8 feet. Resident Brian Lewin thanked Community Development Director Ramirez for indicating the actual duration for the appeal time and that it is useful information that is needed if someone would like to appeal an item. He stated he would like to request that the Planning Commission consider asking staff to provide PDF's of the plans so that they can be uploaded along with the staff report. He added especially for this item, when he read the staff report he had no clue what this project would look like, or it he would have any issues with it or not. He stated knowing what it will look like, if it may have an impact in the neighborhood, or knowing things that are not apparent on the staff report, can only be seen by having plans and diagrams available to the public. He stated most architect or design firms have programs that can convert cad straight into PDF and having that information would be useful and he would appreciate it. He stated this site needs a facelift,so it is welcomed and recommended that they do something nice with the black out windows because the current ones are not very attractive. He also requested that some cleanup be done on the lot area on the north face of the property. Chair Tang thanked Mr. Lewin and asked if there were any further questions or comments from the public. None Chair Tang closed the Public Hearing. He stated this is the first time he has seen the renderings in color and also recommended to staff that the Planning Commission get an electronic version in advance, especially when it comes to the design of the facade and colors. Community Development Director Ramirez replied staff will look into that. Chair Tang asked if the Planning Commission had any further questions or comments. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number twenty-two (22) regarding restripinghesurfacing the parking lot and asked if it can be addressed now as part of this facade. 5 Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes,and stated the applicant will be required to do that. Chair Tang asked if this is a property owner improvement or did the tenant request the improvement. Associate Planner Hanh replied the applicant is CVS. Commissioner Dang asked for clarification in regards to Condition of Approval number twenty-two(22) and asked in the event that the applicant will be restriping,will they come back to Planning Commission. Community Development Director Ramirez replied no and the applicant is required to do it as a condition of approval. Commissioner Dang asked if they will have to re-slurry. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes, if it is needed. Commissioner Dang asked if staff has gone to see if it is needed. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. Associate Planner Hanh stated there was a Design Review in "2013'for the building across the parking lot and it was restriped at that time and is not in need of it at this time. Chair Tang stated he has been to the properly and that it is in better condition than it has ever been. Commissioner Dang asked what triggers a landscaping requirement, is it a dollar amount, or is it a conditional use permit where upgrades can be requested. Associate Planner Hanh replied when site improvements are requested or when the applicant wants to add square footage to the building, staff would review landscaping. He added this is only a remodel for the facade, and staff does not review for site improvements. Staff only reviews for site maintenance. Community Development Director Ramirez stated if the landscaping was in bad condition, then the applicant would be asked to improve it but not necessarily to add new landscaping in new areas. Commissioner Dang referred to storm water perspective and that California has some mandates that if you touch a certain percentage of the impervious surface, (the parking lot in this case), you are automatically triggered into that storm water provision. He stated that provision forces you to put planters in so that it can percolate a certain amount of water back into the soil and he does not know if in"2013"that was brought up. Community Development Director Ramirez stated the Public Works Department reviewed this application and if it was needed,then they would have been added it as a condition of approval. Commissioner Dang stated he would like to see more trees in the parking lot because it is very hot and just having a pure black top is not very appeasing. He also reiterated Brian Lewin's comments in regards to having renderings because they are helpful and it would be nice if they were also available on I-Pads because the color is nicer and you can zoom in. Commissioner Eng asked when applicants submit their applications, plans, and renderings does stall as a practice request a PDF copy also. 6 Community Development Director Ramirez replied no, staff does not, but it is something staff can look into. She stated larger architect firms may be able to produce PDF copies that but individuals on their own may not be able to do it. She added staff will look into it, request PDF copies,and see how it works. Commissioner Eng stated this seems possible and larger companies should be able to provide them. Commissioner Dang asked if the approval of a façade remodel is the main reason it is presented to the Planning Commission. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes because it is in a Design Overlay zone. Chair Tang asked if there were any further questions or comments. None Chair Tang asked for a motion. Commissioner Herrera made a motion,seconded by Commissioner Dang,to ADOPT Resolution No.16-01 with findings,and APPROVE Design Review 15-13,subject to the 27 conditions. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang,Eng,Herrera,Lopez,and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes, the vote is 5 Ayes and 0 Noes, and explained the 10 day appeal process. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of 12-7-15 Chair Tang stated a speakers request has been submitted for item 4.A and asked City Attorney Murphy if the two items should be taken separately. City Attorney Murphy replied no, they are taken together and people are allowed to speak on the entire consent calendar and unless a member of the Planning Commission pulls one of the two items, then a single vote will be made for the entire consent calendar and approve both items. Chair Tang asked Brian Lewin to the podium. Resident Brian Lewin read a portion of RMC 17.30.040.E.2 "the crime rate in the reporting district and adjacent reporting districts as compared to other areas in the city" and requested that his comment on page nine (9) of PC Minutes 12-7-15 reflect that"The Planning Commission could not do that because the Planning Commission was not provided the crime statistics for the two adjacent reporting districts to make that comparison'. Chair Tang stated staff will check and make the clarification. He stated he also had a clarification and asked City Attorney if it should be pulled separately. 7 City Attorney Murphy replied yes, and instructed the Planning Commission to go forward with item 4.B and return to Item 4.A afterwards. Chair Tang stated he is requesting that a correction on page 4, in the middle of the page, beginning with the Chief of Police Somoano statement should read, "The applicant offered that they purchase the ABC license so that there will not be a net increase to the number of ABC licenses since this area is already over concentrated". Community Development Director stated staff will check and clarify. Commissioner Eng stated on page 9, last paragraph,that a correction to Commissioner Tang's name be changed to Commissioner Dang's. Chair Tang asked for a motion to approve PC Minutes Of 12-7-15 with the corrections. Commissioner Herrera made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Dang,to approve the PC Minutes of 12-7- 15 with corrections. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang,Eng,Herrera,and Tang Noes: None Abstain: Lopez Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez stated the PC Minutes of 12-7-15 has been approved with corrections the vote is 4 Ayes, 1 Abstain by Vice-Chair Lopez,and 0 Noes. B. ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT 15-03 - Juan Cuevas submitted an Administrative Use Permit application to establish a vehicle towing with storage use at 8723 Garvey Avenue. The existing building consists of 1,800 square feet of floor area. The proposed project would not add any new floor area to the property. The subject property is located in the M-1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial) zone. On January 4, 2016, the Planning Commission considered the proposed project and oral and written testimony at a duly noticed and advertised public hearing. After considering all testimony and facts available,the Planning Commission voted to deny Administrative Use Permit 15-03. The Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution for the denial of Administrative Use Permit 15-03. PC RESOLUTION 15-22 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT 15-03, A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A VEHICLE TOWING WITH STORAGE USE AT 8723 GARVEY AVENUE (APN: 5289-010-026). THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE M-1 (LIGHT MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL)ZONE. Staff Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider the resolution to deny Administrative Use Permit 15-03. Commissioner Eng made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to approve the resolution to deny Administrative Use Permit 15-03. Vote resulted in: 8 Ayes: Dang, Eng,Herrera,Lopez,and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes with the vote being 5 Ayes and 0 Noes and explained the 10 day appeal process. 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Community Development Director Ramirez announced the date,time,and location of the Joint City Council, Planning Commission, and Traffic Commission workshop which will be presented by the Joint Powers Insurance Authority. She also announced the date, time, and location of the Community Area Watch Committee and the Annual Community Wide Yard Sale Event. She stated flyers are available this evening if anyone would like to participate or they are available on the City of Rosemead website www.cityofrosemead.org. Commissioner Herrera asked if there had been another Joint Meeting scheduled. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes, but it has been postponed. Chair Tang asked if a time frame has been set for that postponed Joint Meeting. Community Development Director Ramirez replied no. Commissioner Herrera reiterated that she would not be able to attend that meeting. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR &COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Dang referred to the Annual City-Wide Community Yard Sale and asked if there is an option to donate the proceeds back to the City. Community Development Director Ramirez stated the City of Rosemead will always accept donations. Chair Tang clarified that the City will accept cash donations. Commissioner Dang stated the rose petal on the pylon signage in the Rosemead Place Shopping Center located by the 10 Freeway is not lit. Community Development Director Ramirez stated they are aware of that and they are having some difficulties with their sign. Commissioner Herrera stated a resident has informed her that traffic is always backed up in the left hand turn lane located on the corner of Walnut Grove to Hellman Avenue heading towards the East. Community Development Director Ramirez stated Public Works is in charge of that but she will let them know about this concern. She also announced that the previous intern of Community Development,Annie Lao, will be returning to the City of Rosemead as an Assistant Planner on Monday, February 8, 2015. Staff is fortunate to have her back as she is fluent in Cantonese and understands Mandarin. Commissioner Herrera asked if it has been confirmed that the City Manager, Jeff Allred, will be leaving the City of Rosemead. 9 Community Development Director Ramirez replied he has given his resignation. Commissioner Herrera expressed that things have been running smoothly and hopes he reconsiders his decision. Chair Tang stated good news is that the letters in the signage located in the Rosemead Shopping Square have been illuminated but now it is the rose petal that is out. 7. ADJOURNMENT The next regular Planning Commission meeting to be held on Monday,February 15,2016,at 7:00 p.m.will be cancelled due to lack of quorum and the next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday,March 7,2016. John Tan. Chair VCS Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 10