Loading...
PC - Minutes - 07-18-16 Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 18,2016 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Lopez at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers, 8838 E.Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-Commissioner Eng INVOCATION-Commissioner Tang ROLL CALL-Commissioners Eng, Herrera,Tang,Vice-Chair Dang and Chair Lopez 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. DESIGN REVIEW 16-05-Todd Van has submitted a Design Review application to improve the facade of an existing commercial building, located at 4108 Rosemead Boulevard (APN: 5391-015-051 and 5391- 015-003). The proposed project would not add any new floor area to the property. The project site is located in a CBD/D-0(Central Business District with Design Overlay)zone. Design Review procedures shall be followed for all improvements requiring a building permit or visible changes in form, texture, color,exterior facade,or landscaping for properties located in a Design Overlay. PC RESOLUTION 16-12 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 16- 05, PERMITTING THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE EXTERIOR FACADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING, LOCATED AT 4108 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD (APN: 5391-015-051 AND 5391-015-003), IN THE CBD/D-0(CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT WITH DESIGN OVERLAY)ZONE. Staff Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 16- 12 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 16-05,subject to the 29 conditions. Associate Planner Hanh presented the staff report Chair Lopez asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Eng asked if this is two attached buildings. Associate Planner Hanh replied it is one building. Commissioner Eng asked how many tenants spaces are there. 1 Associate Planner Hanh replied one tenant is proposing to use the entire building. Commissioner Eng asked if the main use will be office. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked what the parking standard for office use is. Associate Planner Hanh replied 1 per 250. Commissioner Eng asked if there are 27 parking spaces. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Vice-Chair Dang thanked Cory for the nice rendering board and asked what happened to the Billboard roof sign. Associate Planner Hanh replied one of the conditions of approval is that a Master Sign program be submitted and signage is not part of this project. Vice-Chair Dang asked so the fact that its an existing sign, it may or may not end up being there. Associate Planner replied that building permits will have to be verified and if permits are there,then the applicant may keep it. Vice-Chair Dang asked if the signage will then be re-phased to whatever the new tenants will he. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Vice-Chair Dang asked if the signage will increase in size. Associate Planner Hanh replied no. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions or comments. None Chair Lopez opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Kamen Lai, Project Designer gave a brief summary of the project, stated his client has read and accepts the conditions of approval,and he is present to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Chair Lopez commented that the project looks nice and will beautify that area. Commissioner Tang also expressed that this will look very nice and thanked the project designer for his work on this project. Vice-Chair Dang stated the site plan indicates planters along the street and asked if they are all existing planters. Kamen Lai replied some are new and there is also some rehab landscaping. Vice-Chair Dang asked if there will be landscaping to help soften it. 2 Kamen Lai replied yes. Vice-Chair Dang asked if it will also be the same thing on Bentel Avenue. Kamen Lai replied yes, and explained it will be handled during the plan check process. Vice-Chair Dang asked if landscaping has been included in the budget along with construction cost. He also asked if the trees could be a little taller. Kamen Lai replied yes, landscaping cost is included in the budget. He explained that there will be a couple of taller trees in the parking lot next to the entrance. He added if during the plan check process, and if it is deemed necessary,they will work with staff to get plan approvals. He added there will not be enough room for larger trees in the front, so they are providing another layer to soften the façade towards Rosemead Boulevard. Vice-Chair Dang asked if the parking lot will have to be resurfaced. Kamen Lai replied currently the surface is acceptable and the owner is waiting to see the outcome of the project. Community Development Director Ramirez referred to the parking lot maintenance concerns and stated that Condition of Approval number 28 addresses that parking areas must be maintained. Vice-Chair Dang recommended that landscaping features be incorporated into the parking lot improvements to help soften the hardscape features. Chair Lopez asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on this project. None Chair Lopez closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Commission if there were any further comments or questions. Commissioner Tang requested that colored rendering be incorporated into the staff report if possible, even if it is in the administrative analysis. Community Development Director Ramirez replied it the applicant is able to provide it in a PDF form, staff will incorporate this into the staff report. Commissioner Tang requested that it be provided preferably for façade improvements because appearance is also considered when brought to the Planning Commission. Vice-Chair Dang asked if the rendering is available on-line also. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. Chair Lopez asked for a motion. Commissioner Herrera made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eng, ADOPT Resolution No. 16-12 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 16-05,subject to the 29 conditions. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang,Eng, Herrera, Lopez,and Tang 3 Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes with a 5 Ayes, 0 Noes vote and explained the 10-day appeal process. B. DESIGN REVIEW 15-10 - Loc Van Tran has submitted a Design Review application to construct a new two-story single-family dwelling unit with 3,288 square feet of floor area at 9318 Ralph Street (APN: 8594-014-026). Any new dwelling unit to be constructed that equals or exceeds two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of developed living area shall be subject to a Discretionary Site Plan and Design Review.The project site is located in a R-1 (Single-Family Residential)zone. PC RESOLUTION 16-11 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 15- 10, PERMITTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT WITH A TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF 3,288 SQUARE FEET AT 9318 RALPH STREET (APN: 8594-014-026), IN A R-1 (SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)ZONE. Staff-Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 16- 11 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 15-10,subject to the 22 conditions. Associate Planner Hanh presented the staff report. Chair Lopez asked if the Planning Commission had any questions or comments for stall. Commissioner Eng asked if the pool shown on the site plan exist or is it proposed. (Barely audible) Associate Planner Hanh replied it is proposed. Commissioner Eng asked if parking is based on square footage or bedroom count. (Barely audible) Associate Planner Hanh replied it is based on both bedroom count and square footage. He added the applicant needs to meet both thresholds to obtain a 3-car garage. Commissioner Eng asked what the threshold is. (Barely audible) Associate Planner Hanh replied over 2,000 square feet of floor area and more than 4 bedrooms. Commissioner Eng asked if there are other rooms that can be considered bedrooms. (Barely audible) Associate Planner Hanh replied if it is something that resembles a bedroom or something closely related to a bedroom then it can be counted as a bedroom. Commissioner Eng stated this home has an upstairs den. (Barely audible) Associate Planner Hanh replied the den is next to a railing, not a wall. Commissioner Eng commented there are still a lot of single-level homes on this street and the street is very narrow, where cars have to pull over to let the other car go by. She asked what the height of the adjacent properties is. (Barely audible) 4 Associate Planner Hanh replied he does not have the height of the adjacent buildings. Commissioner Eng asked if staff has the square footage and room count of the adjacent properties. (Barely audible) Associate Planner Hanh replied he has the square footage but not the room count. He stated as you're facing the building, the square footage for the property located to the West of the building has 3,728 and the property to the East the square footage is 2,404. Commissioner Eng asked if either building had balconies. (Barely audible) Associate Planner Ranh replied he does not know. Vice-Chair Dang referred to the ground floor, Sheet A2, bath 4, and asked why it includes a bathtub. Chair Lopez asked it that is a bathtub or shower. Associate Planner Hanh replied it is a shower and explained that there is nothing in the code that does not allow another bedroom. He stated as far as the intent of the bedroom that can be deferred to the applicant. Vice-Chair Dang referred to the two existing fence walls that run parallel on the East and West of the neighbor's property line,and stated that the staff report states that the walls are on the neighbors properly. He added that he is used to seeing on construction plans that if it doesn't belong on your property, then it shouldn't be shown. He stated his concern is that the staff report states that the property owner does not propose to enhance the wall at all because it is the neighbor's wall and he does not want to touch it. He stated if this was a brand new project and there were no walls then the City would obligate the owner and developer to install a new decorative block wall; and it is not fair to have the neighbor's wall satisfy a condition of approval. He asked if there is a consent letter from the neighbor that he is aware or agrees to this. Associate Planner Hanh stated there is not a minimum requirement that the applicant has to put a wall on his properly. Vice-Chair Dang asked if it is typically a Design Review theme that staff would request or would it be an element that is typically requested. Community Development Director Ramirez stated it could be but it does not necessarily have to be a block wall; it could be rod iron fencing wood fencing or chain link would not be requested because it is not allowed by code. Vice-Chair Dang stated if this was a new project and the Planning Commission was obligated to ask the property owner to enhance the properly with a wall, rod iron,or what not,we would hold the owner and developer responsible for it. He added in this project they are borrowing the neighbor's wall without their consent or knowing and are utilizing the neighbor's wall to justify it as the enhancement. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that the City would not ask for two block walls to abut each other and since there is an existing block wall, it is not up to staff to determine where that block wall sits. She stated, instead, it is one of the conditions of approval for new walls being installed to be consistent with those existing walls that are in place. She suggested that City Attorney Murphy may have more information to add to this. City Attorney Murphy explained that the Community Development Director has explained it well, if not spurned on by the City because there is no right under the code, or a basis to say there needs to be double walls, and the property owner wanted to go to the neighbors on their own and say we would like the wall for our brand new house to look better, then they have every right to do that. He added the City on their own cannot force them to do that and if the existing fencing is sufficient to meet City code, then they have purchased a property that has a benefit, whereas 5 some properties do not have that. He stated it would be beneficial to have everything have a unitary look especially for a new house but in terms of staff,the Planning Commission, or the City in general forcing the issue based on the way the Code is written,they do not have a lever to force that with what they currently have. Vice-Chair Dang stated he understands what the City Attorney and Community Development Director is trying to communicate but expressed that something is missing and that the staff report was written acknowledging that the neighbor wall and the wall will provide a benefit to this property. He expressed that it seems as if the neighbor was not informed of this and there is not a consent letter to state this. Chair Lopez stated there is a wall,it has been there,and it has not moved, so being a new project the properly owner can do what he wants to on his side of the wall to enhance it. He added there is nothing missing and he understands that there is an existing wall, and he understands what the City Attorney and Community Development Director is saying. He stated that it cannot be part of the design because it is a wall that is on the neighbor's properly. He added when you buy property,you get what is there and what is given to you. Vice-Chair Dang stated Chair Lopez has phrased it better than he has. He added for instance, if you have a nice house and you want the walls to match then the owner cannot touch the wall because the wall does not physically sit on their properly. Chair Lopez explained that the property owner can go ask his neighbors on his own, offer to install new walls or enhance them by working it out with the neighbors. He added because this is an existing wall there is nothing that needs to be done unless it is between the neighbors. Vice-Chair Dang stated perhaps if there is a more drastic picture and the wall was deteriorated but this is a brand new house and it did not really tit into the neighborhood. He asked as Planning Commissioners are they obligated to require vegetation,shrubbery, or something to shroud that. City Attorney Murphy replied yes, if it was deteriorated and not meeting the requirements of the code, then at that point the applicant would be told to put up a wall on their side of the property line or get an agreement with the neighbor to rebuild what is there, or build a new one. He explained that would have to be worked out before it even comes to the Planning Commission for approval. He explained, in this case the applicant has a benefit because they have purchased a property where there is an existing wall that is up to code in terms of their building going forward. Commissioner Herrera commented it is in good shape. Commissioner Eng asked a question but it was not audible. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that is correct, staff sends them within a 300 foot radius of the actual project. Commissioner Eng commented but it was not audible. Vice-Chair Dang asked if the neighbor would have access to the same staff report as the Planning Commission. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes,they are available on the City website and at City Hall. Commissioner Eng asked if the building will be totally demolished. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if the lot will be graded also. 6 Associate Planner Hanh replied whatever Building&Safety requires will be done. Commissioner Eng stated the existing building is in good shape and the property is well maintained. Chair Lopez stated it is a beautiful design and there are balconies. He asked how it is related as far as site into the neighbor's yard. His concern is that since it sits all away around and you look in all four directions they can oversee a lot. He asked what is being done to provide some privacy. Associate Planner Hanh replied the balconies exceed the minimum requirement for set-backs and they are sifting back a little more than needed. Chair Lopez asked if they are the standard 6 foot walls and if anyone can look into the yards. Associate Planner Hanh replied it is possible. Chair Lopez stated he is concerned and asked if additional landscaping or heighten shrubbery in-between the neighbors to provide additional privacy. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that the balconies as designed meet the Rosemead Municipal Code. She explained staff discusses privacy concerns with the applicants, whether it is a single-family residential property or multi-family mixed-use projects to make them aware of it. She stated staff makes suggestions not only for the applicant's side but also the neighbor's side by adding shrubbery to both sides. She noted, however, they do they have to do it. She added this is a Design Review so if the Planning Commission wishes to add additional shrubbery through this process,then they can do that. She explained if they wanted to add ivy, trees, or shrubbery to the fence, then that can be done and staff will work with the applicant. She asked it the City Attorney had any additional comments. City Attorney Murphy recommended that it be left to the discretion of the Planning Commission but if the landscaping plan shows that trees and shrubbery needs to be added in an area that will off-set the ability of the people on a balcony looking down at another house or look straight across to other windows, then this is something that the Planning Commission may discuss. Chair Lopez recommended that privacy is important, a condition of approval be added, and put into the record. Commissioner Tang agreed and stated a condition of approval should be drafted and left open-ended to determine where plants should be placed at a later date. Community Development Director Ramirez agreed that it should be open-ended in case a complaint came in from a neighbor, then the applicant would have to come back and work with staff to do additional landscaping. She explained staff can have the applicant add additional ivy/trees and until someone complains they will not know if this is working or not. She added the City Attorney may have further suggestions on how to incorporate this into the condition of approval. Commissioner Tang asked if there was a way it can be incorporated into the plan check before getting final permitting. Community Development Director Ramirez stated they will submit the landscape plan and staff will not know if it works until the planting is done and a complaint comes in. She added that is why staff would like that condition of approval be left in a way that if the complaint came in after the additional landscaping had been added, then staff could have the applicant come back to work with staff for further landscaping. 7 Commissioner Tang asked if they go onto the balcony during a final inspection walk-thru and see that there may be shrubbery that needs to be planted can it be requested. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes, staff can do that but she recommends leaving the condition of approval in place in case it is needed. Commissioner Eng stated she shares the concern in terms of privacy and that is why she asked if the other two buildings had balconies. She recommended in moving forward on projects of this type that staff advise the Planning Commission about the surroundings so they can make a determination on whether or not there is an issue with balconies. She stated she appreciates that there is out-door space for this project so that the architect can incorporate outdoor space for the occupants to enjoy. She added for mixed-use projects and commercial buildings there is a site-line standard and asked staff what other communities have done to address issues like this. She explained that in the City of Rosemead lots are close to each other and does not have the vast space to provide distance between each other. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that it has been awhile since a survey has been conducted but while the Zoning Code was being updated staff did find that the City of Rosemead is still more restrictive than our surrounding cities. She explained that the site-line and set-back requirements are more restrictive than surrounding cities. She reiterated Commissioner Eng's request and asked that concerns regarding visibility from balcony to balcony and into neighboring properties be included in future staff reports. Commissioner Eng replied yes. Community Development Director Ramirez stated staff can accommodate that request. She added with a Design Review there are items that can be added or deleted and staff is open to the Planning Commission's recommendations. Commissioner Eng stated she would just like staff to consider this concern and asked if the designer is present this evening to provide any information or solutions in regards to this topic. Community Development Director Ramirez stated staff can easily accommodate that. Commissioner Tang stated this is a difficult issue and is not limited to just the balcony because if you see out of your window into someone else's property that makes it difficult. He recommended that staff address the line-of-site into someone's property if it is a one-story or two-story. He stated it will be a difficult challenge to address it entirely. Community Development Director Ramirez stated it will but staff can do their best in regards to the balconies, and we won't be able to address all the windows because that will be an issue. She stated staff can advise the applicant's also so before they appear before the Planning Commission they will be able to say they were advised by staff. Vice-Chair Dang asked Associate Planner Hanh if he worked with the architect on the styles. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Vice-Chair Dang stated he likes the design, it flows, there is a lot of articulation, the choices of finishes around the windows particularly around the eaves are very good choices. He added Associate Planner Hanh did a good job with the architect. Associate Planner Hanh replied thank you and that it was mostly the architect. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that staff has listened to the Planning Commissioners comments and things that the Commissioners would like to see. She added while working with the applicants they really try to S incorporate that so by the time they appear before the Planning Commission hopefully a lot of those questions that have been asked in the past are now being addressed. The Planning Commissioners thanked staff. Chair Lopez asked the Planning Commission it there were any further questions or comments for staff. None Chair Lopez opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant's designer to the podium. Kenneth Lee, Designer stated he is available to answer any questions. Commissioner Eng asked if the home will be a rental or owner-occupied. Kenneth Lee replied it will be owner-occupied. Commissioner Eng commented this is a very nice design and she appreciates the common use areas. She asked how long the owner has owned the property. Kenneth Lee replied 10 years. Commissioner Eng stated there will be a pool and asked how long they anticipate the length of construction will be taking place. Kenneth Lee replied that he is not sure but the pool and solar panels will be installed first. Vice-Chair Dang asked where the solar panels are going to be placed. Kenneth Lee replied they will be placed in the back-yard on the patio roof. Vice-Chair Dang asked if it will be facing the pool area. Kenneth Lee replied yes. Vice-Chair Dang referred to the site plan and stated the gate into the property is located in the upper right hand corner. He commented it is an awkward to have the main gate in the corner as opposed to having it centered and placing it closer to the front porch and asked if there is a reason why the gate was located in the corner. Kenneth Lee replied that the homeowner requested it to be located there. Vice-Chair Dang commented that it is awkward that way and recommended for a good design element it should be toward the center and then you have a nice path-way from the door to the entrance gate which is in the middle of the properly. He stated it was probably put in the corner because once you have a sliding gate that slides open it will block the access. He stated the solution would be if the gate was moved to the middle,you put a swinging gate that hinges from that corner, the motor will be in that corner,and the swinging gate will give you access and the design will flow better. He referred to the 25 feet wide paved driveway and stated that is very big. Kenneth Lee stated the 25 feet set-back is in order for the vehicle to enter the garage. 9 Vice-Chair Dang stated he agrees a 25 back-up distance is needed from the garage door but the 25 feet does not need to be continuous all the way back to the street. He expressed concern that this portion seems quite large. He recommended if a swing gate is installed which is about 16 feet. Kenneth Lee stated 25 feet is what is needed to get out. Vice-Chair Dang stated he is not disagreeing that 25 feet is what is needed but it is awkward to continue the 25 feet all the way to the street. Community Development Director Ramirez stated 7 feet is part of the walkway for the pedestrian gate. Vice-Chair Dang asked Kenneth Lee if he had any reservations of moving the gate to the middle of the property because it gives it more symmetric design and will flow a little better. Kenneth Lee replied he will work with staff to meet the requirements Vice-Chair Dang asked if Kenneth Lee had any reservations in regards to the swing gate because it flows better. Kenneth Lee replied he does not want the swing gate because it breaks easily. Vice-Chair Dang stated if the sliding gate is used,then it will be interrupting the door. Kenneth Lee explained that is why they placed the door on the side. Vice-Chair Dang stated he has a swing gate himself, he has had it for the last 15 years, and it has not had any faulty mechanism. Chair Lopez recommended that the gate issue be discussed between the owner, staff,and designer. Vice-Chair Dang asked the Planning Commissioners for their comments in respect to the gate being moved to the middle. Commissioner Eng asked if Vice-Chair Dang's concern is more aesthetic or functional. Vice-Chair Dang stated it is aesthetic and it is awkward to have an entry door right up to the extreme corner of the lot. He added that if you move it to the middle, then that sliding gate would be an obstruction and that is why he is proposing a swing gate as a resolution to it. Commissioner Tang asked if Vice-Chair Dang would be opposed to relocating that main gate to the opposite side. Vice-Chair Dang replied it would be better but it would still be awkward. Commissioner Tang stated it does not sound like the applicant wants to move it to the center because of the obstruction of the automatic sliding gate. He asked if it is less awkward if it is moved to the other side. Commissioner Herrera asked if there is not enough room and would like it have it right in the middle. Vice-Chair Dang replied if it is placed in the middle it just gives symmetry to the project and most main gates are proportioned to the middle of the building. 10 Commissioner Tang stated he understands Vice-Chair Dang's concerns with the first concern being the obstruction of gate, but the main gate does not necessarily lead into the entrance of the house. He asked if that proposed gate is closer to the front door of the house. Vice-Chair Dang stated you would have to walk across the driveway to get to the front door. Commissioner Tang agreed and stated if the gate is located more centered to where the two-car garage is, you would get the obstruction of the gate. He added even if it is moved to the other end you would still have to walk around where the garage is and that would be awkward also. Community Development Director Ramirez stated if the gate is located towards the garage side and the applicant is in the house and wanted to look to see who is at the gate,then they will not be able to because there is a block wall. Whereas, if it is left where it is,then they could see who is there to determine it they wanted to let them in or not. She asked Kenneth Lee if that was correct. Kenneth Lee replied yes and explained that if he uses a sliding gate two cars will be able to park in the driveway and not have to park in the street. He added if a swing gate is used,then they will not be able to park in the driveway. Vice-Chair Dang stated he sees that too and in substituting for a three-car garage they will be parking all these cars in the driveway. Kenneth Lee replied no, and explained that when guest are visiting they can park in the driveway instead of parking in the street. Vice-Chair Dang stated that they could also park them in tandem with two cars in the garage, three cars in the front, and three cars in the back with eight cars total. Kenneth Lee stated that if they have a big family and have family gatherings, then there will be plenty of parking available in the driveway and will not have to park in the street. Commissioner Eng asked Kenneth Lee if he had any solutions to mitigate the privacy concerns in regards to the balcony's. Kenneth Lee replied he does not see a concern with the balcony because neighbors have a view from the window also. Commissioner Eng stated she sees his point but the residents will be spending time outside and the Planning Commission is concerned with the residents having privacy and from his experience what can he do to help mitigate this concern. Kenneth Lee replied he is willing to work with staff to help mitigate issues that may arise. Community Development Director Ramirez addressed the applicant and explained the Planning Commission is considering adding a condition to add landscaping for blockage. She asked if he understands this and is agreeable to accept this condition it added. Kenneth Lee replied yes. Commissioner Tang stated he would also like to request that during construction he considers the neighbor's privacy, particularity in the areas where the balconies are so that the City does not have to impose a certain condition on the property. 11 Community Development Director Ramirez stated that she is not sure if the applicant understands the question fully but they are willing to add the additional landscaping. She added that is easy to put into the existing condition and staff can make sure to monitor it. She stated that staff can address any issues that may arise from this concern. Commissioner Eng referred to the existing site plan, the side, and rear landscaping and stated it is just walls. She asked if there is any shrubbery, or any type of plants, that are being considered for any landscaping. She stated she sees a tree by the pool but other than that she does not see any other landscaping. Associate Planner Hanh replied that the applicant has not proposed any shrubberies. Commissioner Eng recommended that is something to consider. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that can be added as part of the condition of approval if that is the Planning Commission's desire. Commissioner Eng stated that may be something that the designer may need to discuss with his client as they may not agree with this. Community Development Director Ramirez asked Kenneth Lee if the owner was present or if he has the authority to speak on their behalf to agree to this condition of approval. Kenneth Lee replied the owner is not present. He added he has the authority to speak on their behalf and to agree to the condition of approval. Vice-Chair Dang referred to the earlier discussion of the three-car garage and because this building has less than 5 bedrooms it is within the code limit to allow a two-car garage. He added in seeing this big/wide driveway he requested that the designer communicate to the owner that the intent of the driveway is not to let more cars park outside. Kenneth Lee stated he mentioned cars parking in the driveway in case they have a party only. Vice-Chair Dang stated he understands and it is nice to be able to park on the property verses the street. He just is requesting that they are not parking outside on a daily basis. Commissioner Tang asked for clarification and stated the applicant does not meet the requirement for a three-car garage because they only have 4 bedrooms and not 5 bedrooms. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions. None Chair Lopez called resident Brian Lewin to the podium. Resident Brian Lewin asked if City notifications sent out to residents included the City's Website address and provides informationldirecfion on how that they may obtain further information. Associate Planner Hanh read the Notice,which includes if anyone would like further details to either appear in person or to contact him directly (his information included) by mail, email, or by phone. He added the City's Website information is not included on the Notice. 12 Brian Lewin recommended that the City Website address be included, direction on how to view/obtain documents, and date of availability to view agenda items be provided in the notices that are sent out by the City. His concerns with this project include; 1)parking and he commented that the street is very narrow, which makes it difficult for oncoming traffic passing each other 2) He recited a RMC regarding parking requirements and what may be considered as bedrooms. He stated he is concerned because he sees the potential for bedrooms and more cars that may end up on the street making traffic worst. He requested that this be considered in the future as a potential lever to get better parking standards until such time as the Zoning Code gets updated. He also addressed the balcony concern and suggested to consider making the balcony wall taller for this and future projects. He added trees and shrubbery sometimes end up not being what residents had hoped for. Chair Lopez asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on this item. None Chair Lopez closed the Public Hearing. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that staff can provide the additional information requested in regards to the Public Hearing Notice, it is a good idea, can easily be accommodated, and will be added to all future notices. Commissioner Tang asked if a direct link will be provided to get to the City Website. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. City Attorney Murphy stated that often times those links are not very precise and there may still be some confusion, as there are a number of documents and departments. He added that is why it is encouraged that the public contact staff directly. Community Development Director Ramirez explained there is a page where the Planning Commission Agendas are listed by date. She added staff will adjust according and make the process as simple as possible. She addressed the comments about the rooms and incorporating them into bedrooms. She stated walls would have to be built to make them into rooms. She added in staff's review they did acknowledge 4 bedrooms, it will only require a two-car garage, and is happy the applicant and designer designed a much larger driveway to accommodate cars so it would not impact the street. She stated as far as additional cars on the street,the City cannot control how many cars are driving on the street. City Attorney Murphy requested that the Planning Commission reach a consensus for a landscape plan and stated he has drafted a condition of approval. He stated once he has read it out they can let him know what changes they would like to do to it. The Planning Commissioners stated they are all in agreement to a landscape plan. City Attorney Murphy stated that it would be Condition of Approval number 23 which will read, "The applicant shall present for Planning Division review and approval a landscape plan designed to minimize the impact of balcony views on neighboring properties.The Planning Division shall retain the authority to require revisions to the plan as the landscaping matures". He added hopefully that will meet concerns if within a year or two after landscaping is planted and if it is not doing the job it is intended to do, or if complaints come in, then by retaining that authority the Planning Division could require some changes to the landscape. The Planning Commission agreed that the condition is acceptable. 13 Community Development Director Ramirez stated she would like to make sure the applicant understands the condition of approval that was read into the record and has the authority to accept that condition. Commissioner Tang stated he would still like to address the shower that is in bathroom number 4 and requested that the applicant speak on that matter. Kenneth Lee stated that if a pool is installed in the future,then they will need a shower and changing room. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions. None Chair Lopez closed the Public Hearing and requested a motion. Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to ADOPT Resolution No. 16-11 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 15-10, subject to the 23 conditions. (Condition of Approval number 23 was added by the Planning Commission on 7-18-16) Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez,and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes with a 5 Ayes 0 Noes and explained the 10-day appeal process. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of 4-18-16 Commissioner Eng stated she had requested corrections to PC Minutes of 4-18-16 and asked staff if they had been corrected. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that staff did go back and listened to the meeting,and the minutes do reflect what was said. She explained after speaking with the City Attorney the minutes do need to reflect what is said and not what the intent was. City Attorney Murphy stated because the minutes are the primary official record of the proceeding it needs to reflect what was actually said. He stated if a challenge was ever brought to the decision of the Planning Commission, appeal to the City Council, and reviewed by the City Council,and then ultimately in litigation they would need to show both the video or audio recording of this meeting and the minutes are consistent. Vice-Chair Dang stated he has corrections to page 3 on the PC Minutes of 4-18-16 (perimeters was spelled incorrectly and should be parameter). Commissioner Herrera made a motion and it was seconded by Vice-Chair Dang,to approve Minutes of 4-18- 16 with corrections on page 3. Vote resulted in: 14 Ayes: Dang, Eng, Herrera,and Lopez Noes: None Abstain: Tang Absent: None B. Minutes of 5-16-16 Planning Commission requested Minutes of 5-16-16 are voted on first. Commissioner Herrera made a motion,seconded by Vice-Chair Dang,to approve Minutes of 5-16-16 as presented. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang, Eng, Herrera,and Lopez Noes: None Abstain: Tang Absent: None 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Community Development Director Ramirez announced that Concerts in the Park has officially began and gave the location, time, and dates of the concerts added that the schedule is also available on the City's website. She also announced the date,time, and location of the"National Night Out"event and encouraged all to attend. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR&COMMISSIONERS No items discussed. 7. ADJOURNMENT The next regular Planning Commission will be held on Monday,August 1,2016 at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers. Ills. i ATTEr: //JJ /� Daniel Lopez ete� // ,,� // Chair Rachel Lockwood G/2{��G�'� Commission Secretary 15