Loading...
PC - Minutes - 05-16-16 Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 16,2016 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Vice-Chair Lopez at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers, 8838 E.Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-Vice-Chair Lopez INVOCATION-Commissioner Herrera ROLL CALL-Commissioners Dang, Eng, Herrera,and Vice-Chair Lopez ABSENT-Chair Tang STAFF PRESENT-City Attorney Murphy,Community Development Director Ramirez,Assistant Planner Lao, 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 Resident Brian Lewin referred to a previous approved project located at 9701 E.Valley Boulevard. He stated that the Public Hearing Sign has not yet been removed from the site and the site has not been maintained. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DESIGN REVIEW 15-12 - Michael Chin has submitted an application for a Design Review requesting to construct a 1,742 square foot addition to an existing 1,647 square foot single-family dwelling unit. The proposed project consists of a new attached two-car garage and a new detached accessory structure comprising of two enclosed parking spaces and 294 square feet of storage area. Any addition to a dwelling unit in which the total floor area with the addition 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 at 3816 Rosemead Boulevard (APN: 8594-016-001), in a R-3 (Medium Multiple Residential)zone. PC RESOLUTION 16-07 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 15-12, PERMITTING A 1,742 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 1,647 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT WITH AN ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE AND A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE COMPRISING OF TWO ENCLOSED PARKING SPACES AND 294 SQUARE FEET OF STORAGE AREA. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 3816 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD (APN: 8594-016• 001),IN A R-3(MEDIUM MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL)ZONE. Staff Recommendation- It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 16-07 with findings (Exhibit "A"), and APPROVE Design Review 15-12,subject to the 23 conditions of approval outlined. Assistant Planner Lao presented the staff report. Vice-Chair Lopez asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions for staff. Commissioner Eng asked if there is a 4-car garage. Assistant Planner Lao replied there are two 2-car garages. Commissioner Eng asked if the detached 2-car garage is a garage or a carport. Assistant Planner Lao replied it is an enclosed garage. Commissioner Eng asked if the second floor addition is going to be above the garage and is attached to the building. Assistant Planner Lao replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked how many balconies will this home have. Assistant Planner Lao replied this home will not have any balconies. Commissioner Dang stated this property is located on Rosemead Boulevard, which is a state highway and has a high traffic flow with vehicles moving very fast. He added the current garage is situated where vehicles will have to back out onto the street as opposed to turning and then backing out, and asked if this was a concern that was discussed during the Design Review process. Assistant Planner Lao replied there is a section in the code that states, no more than 50 percent of the rear yard can be occupied by an accessory structure and if it was turned the other way it would occupy more than the 50 percent. She explained that is why the applicant put the garage in that direction. Commissioner Dang stated he understands there is a zoning component but is there a safety component that staff may address when they are allowing the backing out into a major dedicated highway. He suggested that may be a discussion topic that can be looked into. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that is not something that the code addresses (how you enter a property)therefore,the design is acceptable according to the zoning code. Commissioner Dang asked what is entailed in the Design Review practice other than just the zoning components. Assistant Planner Lao replied that staff looks at the style,colors, whether or not it fits into the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Dang asked if staff considers safety concerns. Assistant Planner Lao replied no. Commissioner Dang referred to the second Agenda Item 3.B and that the applicant's dwelling was subject to a 12 foot driveway and asked if there was a reason why this application was not. Assistant Planner Lao explained that the existing driveway is being kept at 10' X 6" and the proposed driveway is at 17'X 4"so they are not subject to any regulations. Commissioner Dang asked if the driveway component is only pertaining to the new driveway not the old. Assistant Planner Lao replied yes. 2 Commissioner Dang asked if the garage door faces the public way,is it correct that a 3 foot landscaping buffer is required. Assistant Planner Lao replied yes,but the applicant has proposed more than 3 feet in the front, and after a few feet it will not be visible from the public right-a-way. She stated a condition of approval may be added if the Planning Commission would like. Commissioner Dang stated it is not dimensioned so for clarification, is the landscape feature already 3 feet, or is it 4 feet. Assistant Planner Lao replied it exist and is more than 3 feet located in the front. Commissioner Dang asked if there is something in the municipal code or zoning code that says the landscaping needs to end there, as opposed to continuing it all the way,or is this design feature that staff has agreed upon. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that the landscaping towards the rear of the property would not be seen by the public. She stated if the Planning Commission would like to add a condition requiring the continuation of the landscape they may do so. Commissioner Dang stated he was curious why it was not continued all the way because in other projects it had been. Assistant Planner Lao explained that other projects were brand new homes and this is an existing home. Commissioner Dang stated that the zoning component would affect the new part and landscaping here was not shown. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that it is not shown because it cannot be seen. Commissioner Dang asked if the NC units in the front half of the lot are existing units or are they new units. Assistant Planner Lao replied they are existing. Commissioner Dang referred to the west elevations and stated the lower roof is missing. Assistant Planner Lao stated that is a jog. Commissioner Dang agreed that is a jog but there is roofing material that is missing and it is not shown. Assistant Planner Lao explained that it is shown on the roof plan and when it is resubmitted for approval, she will require it be shown on the elevation plans. Planning Commissioner Dang referred to page A.2, on the second floor plans, and stated it is shown there and that roof is a lower roof. He added the elevation is missing that roof feature. Community Development Director Ramirez stated staff will have the applicant show it on the final plans. Commissioner Dang stated this application has gone through a Design Review and asked if there is a reason why this home looks so boxy and square. 3 Assistant Planner Lao explained that the original home is Spanish style and was boxy from the start. She added staff has worked with the applicant to achieve a design that fits with the original Spanish style home. Commissioner Dang asked if this is the design that staff has worked closely with the applicant to derive this particular feature. Assistant Planner Lao replied yes. Commissioner Dang asked if there is a reason why on the South elevation the garage does not match the existing home in terms of its boxiness. Assistant Planner Lao replied the applicant may address that question. Commissioner Dang asked if this had been a consideration during the design review process. Assistant Planner Lao replied there is a condition of approval which states that all garages must match the house in terms of roofs and the applicant can explain when this question is deferred to him. Vice-Chair Lopez referred to the detached garage stated that roof is not flat; it has a slope, and asked how high the center of the roof line is to the point. Assistant Planner Lao replied it is 4 feet. Vice-Chair Lopez recommended the applicant put a slight cut to it so that would not make a change to the house itself, and it would have flatness to it. He also referred to the storage of 294 square feet, and stated he is concerned with the power outlets. He asked if it can it be a small room. Community Development Director Ramirez replied no, but if in the future they wanted to convert it they could since it is located in a R-3 zone. Vice-Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions for staff. None Vice-Chair Lopez opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant to the podium. Larry Khu, Project Designer and Edward Chin 1/2 owner of properly stated they are present to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Commissioner Eng asked if this is a family residence or is it a rental. Edward Chin replied that it is a family residence. Commissioner Eng asked how long the owner has owned the property. Edward Chin replied 11 years. Commissioner Eng asked if the home will be owner-occupied when construction is completed. Edward Chin replied yes. 4 Commissioner Dang asked if this home is Mission or Spanish style. Larry Khu replied that it is a mixture of both and it is hard to determine the true style of the home. Commissioner Dang referred to the arched windows pictured in the staff report and the two small square windows and asked why the architectural feature of the arched window design was not carried throughout the design. Larry Khu replied while working on the design with the City and staff,the concerns were street side visibility, the rounded features would have to be custom made, cost would have been higher,and they decided to keep this project design simple. Commissioner Dang asked if the sloped roof shown in the existing home is replicated in any of the new portions of the building. Larry Khu explained that the new proposed portion is mostly two-stories, there is only a garage roof, and after working with staff a parapet roof seemed to work the best rather than a pitch roof. Commissioner Dang referred to the window dressings and stated it does not carry any of the original design features. Larry Khu stated they can change the square windows to have roundness on the top. Commissioner Dang recommended considering adding a foam veneer to the square windows, which will create an alcove that will curve in, and the cost is minimal. He referred to the garage and commented that it does not have the features of the existing home;the root is sloped at an angle that doesn't mix with the existing front. Larry Khu stated the style of the roof can be changed to comply with the style of the existing home. Commissioner Dang asked if the second story addition will remain this square type profile. Larry Khu replied he will need to talk to the Planning staff in regards to that and will work with the City to make the project look better. Commissioner Herrera agreed that adding the arched façade to the square windows is a great idea. She added the cost should be minimal and will give it that Spanish style feature also. Vice-Chair Lopez referred to the garage and asked what the distance between the edge of the garage to the second garage as far as width and square footage. Larry Khu replied he leaves a back-up space minimum of 25 feet. Vice-Chair Lopez stated he asked this question because of Commissioner Dang's concern of a vehicle backing up. He stated the driveway has plenty of room for a vehicle to back-up and turn around so there really isn't an issue with them having to back straight out. Larry Khu agreed that there is enough room and they will not have to back straight out. Vice-Chair Lopez confirmed that the applicant has met all zoning and code requirements and commented that the designer did a great job. He added the window façade is a good idea, if it's possible, but the designer took an existing home built in the 30's or 40's and he has added a lot of texture. He referred to the garage slope and stated it does not really have to match, but recommended to continue to work with staff. Vice-Chair Lopez asked if there were 5 any further questions. None Vice-Chair Lopez closed the Public Hearing and asked if the Planning Commission had any further questions or comments. Commissioner Eng asked how many bedrooms the existing floor plan has. Assistant Planner Lao replied it has 4 bedrooms. City Attorney Murphy stated before a motion is made he would like to remind the Planning Commission of the changes and amendments that have been made. He added first: Condition of Approval number 24 was added dealing with the air conditioning box and other equipment; and second; If it is the will of the Planning Commission to incorporate Commissioner Dang's discussion with the applicant of adding the recommendation on improving the window treatments and the slope of the garage root, then the Planning Commission would incorporate the two changes and the amendment and to make sure to include all three items in the motion so it may be included in the record. Vice-Chair Lopez asked if the Planning Commission would have to make a motion requesting that the applicant accept both items. City Attorney Murphy stated the motion would say "The Planning Commission accepts staff's recommendation with the amendment to the conditions of approval", and give direction to whatever items the Planning Commission would like to give. Vice-Chair Lopez stated that his concern is with telling an applicant that they have to make certain changes and expressed that it should be an agreement made between staff and the applicant with the consideration of these factors; does the applicant want to,does it benefit them, and will cost be minimal. He asked if the motion can be worded differently such as, 'if it is acceptable by staff." City Attorney Murphy explained that a Design Review is with the Planning Commission reviewing the design and making the findings. He added the Planning Commission has from time-to-time given directions or instructions on items they would like to see changed. He stated the nature of the Planning Commission is to look at the design that is proposed and say yes, and in general staff has done a good job in bringing this to the Planning Commission, and making sure it meets the code, but if there are elements they would like to see changed and if that is the will of the Commission as a whole,then that instruction is just fine. He added finding A:the plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed building and site developments that exist or that have been approved for the general neighborhood. Finding D: the proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed development in the general area. Finding E: it will be in conformity of the code. He stated if the Planning Commission finds that some of the design aspects needs to be tweaked here and there then given that direction certainly is in the power of the Planning Commission and whether they wish to give that direction and if they want to give the direction as something they would like to see but not make it an actual direction that is within their power. He added that the Planning Commission can go a step further and make the findings that they need to make. He stated rather than going back and forth and having multiple sets of plans the Planning Commission can trust that staff and the applicant will comply. Vice-Chair Lopez stated he has no problem with that and he just needed clarification. He asked the Planning Commission if there was a motion including the three recommendations. 6 Commissioner Eng made a motion,seconded by Commissioner Herrera to ADOPT Resolution No. 16-07 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 15-12,subject to the 25 conditions of approval outlined. (Conditions of Approval numbers 24 and 25 were added by staff and the Planning Commission on 5.16.16). Vote resulted in: Ayes: Eng,Herrera,and Lopez Noes: None Abstain: Dang Absent: Tang Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes 3 Ayes, 0 Noes, 1 Abstain, 1 Absent, and explained the 10 day appeal process. B. DESIGN REVIEW 15-08 AND MINOR EXCEPTION 16-08 - Khanh Nguyen has submitted an application for a Design Review and Minor Exception requesting: (1)to construct a 2,084 square foot addition to an existing 926 square foot single-family dwelling unit, and (2)a twenty percent (20%) exception from the existing driveway regulations in order to maintain a uniform appearance for the single-family dwelling. In addition,the proposed project will include a new attached two-car garage and a new detached one- car garage. Any addition to a dwelling unit in which the total floor area with the addition 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; and any project that requests a twenty percent (20%) exception from existing regulations shall be subject to a Minor Exception.The project site is located at 4232 Claudia Avenue(APN:8592.011-046), in a R-1 (Single-Family Residential)zone. PC RESOLUTION 16-08 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 15- 08 AND MINOR EXCEPTION 16-08, PERMITTING: (1) TO CONSTRUCT A 2,084 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 926 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT WITH AN ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE AND A DETACHED ONE-CAR GARAGE AND(2)A TWENTY PERCENT (20%) EXCEPTION FROM THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY REGULATIONS IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN A UNIFORM APPEARANCE FOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 4232 CLAUDIA AVENUE (APN: 8592-011-046), IN A R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE. Staff Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 16- 08 with findings(Exhibit"A"), and APPROVE Design Review 15-08 and Minor Exception 16-08, subject to the 22 conditions. Assistant Planner Lao presented the staff report. Vice-Chair Lopez asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions for staff. Commissioner Eng stated the homes on this block are all single-story homes and asked what the average square footage of the homes in this neighborhood is. Assistant Planner Lao replied she does not have that information. She added that there are two-story homes perpendicular within this proximity. Commissioner Eng agreed there are two-story homes behind it, but added that there are none on Claudia Street,and this will be the first one. She asked what is the approximate size of those homes. 7 Assistant Planner Lao replied she does not have that information. Commissioner Eng asked what the approximate height of a single-story home is. Assistant Planner Lao replied that she does not information. Commissioner Eng asked what does the code allow. Assistant Planner Lao replied 30 feet. Commissioner Eng asked what the height of this home is with the two-story addition. Assistant Planner Lao replied it is 24-feet and 1-inch. Commissioner Eng asked for clarification for what the Minor Exception is seeking. Assistant Planner Lao explained that the existing driveway is 10' x 6" and usually when there is new proposed development the applicant needs to comply with driveway regulations of 12-feet. She added that the applicant is requesting to continue the 10' x 6" driveway, which is allowed by a Minor Exception as long as they do not exceed 20%of the 12-feet. Commissioner Eng asked if the applicant has two attached garages and one detached garage. Assistant Planner Lao replied the applicant has one attached two-car garage and one detached one-car garage. She stated there is a total of three enclosed parking spaces. Commissioner Eng stated she is curious about the turning radius and will address that later. She asked how many number of bedrooms and bathrooms the existing floor plan has and how many will the new proposed floor plan have. Assistant Planner Lao replied the existing floor plan has two bedrooms and the new proposed plans add another four bedrooms. Commissioner Eng asked if the applicant is proposing four bedrooms,an office, and a bar area. Assistant Planner Lao replied yes. Commissioner Dang asked staff why the applicant is being forced to make the driveway bigger in the front. Assistant Planner Lao replied the applicant was not forced to make the driveway bigger in the front. She explained that plans are routed to Public Works and it was required by Public Works that the applicant install a new driveway. She added that the driveway had been shifted over and that is the reason why it had probably been paved. Commissioner Dang stated a 12-foot driveway is shown minus the apron on two sides and the width of the driveway is 12-feet. Assistant Planner Lao explained that it was made larger because if the landscaping had been left it would have been run over. Commissioner Dang asked for clarification if the 12-foot driveway is Public Works regulation. S Assistant Planner Lao explained that Public Works is requiring a new driveway apron and it is being relocated. Commissioner Dang stated he was curious why this 12-foot was not shown or requested on the previous project plans. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that was required by Public Works for this project and not the other project and they are not present to answer that question. Commissioner Dang asked if this is solely Public Works discretion. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. She added Planning does not have any discretion in regards to the apron. Commissioner Eng asked if there is a code that stipulates how wide a driveway should be. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that Commissioner Dang is referring to the approach to the driveway, not the driveway itself. Commissioner Dang stated he was curious to why there was a discrepancy between the two plans and now he knows that it is a Public Works requirement. He referred to the how wide the pavers are (their dimensions),stated they do not look like they are not drawn to scale,and requested that staff measure them. Assistant Planner Lao replied it is 10-feet. Commissioner Dang stated the plans show that the pavers are 12 1/2' X 20' 7". He added it is not drawn to scale and the reason he is pointing this out is because a lot of people park their cars on the side and he does not want to see this. Assistant Planner Lao stated staff can condition this concern. Commissioner Dang stated he has comments on the elevations and referred to Sheet A-1 -on the second floor plans the scale is 3/16'^and if you look at the roof floor plan it is also scaled at 3/16,h, and stated they do not match up. He stated there is a lot to look for in the Design Review process and it would be helpful if staff made sure the scales matched up. He referred to sheet A-2 and stated on the West elevation the chimney is the same height as the lower roof, and if you look at the North elevation the chimney is ramped up above the roof line and they do not match up. He stated he cannot tell what is going on and referred to the North elevation above the chimney where there is a notched corner and he cannot figure out what is going on. Assistant Planner Lao explained that notch may be one of the arches and the architect did not line it up. Commissioner Dang referred Northwest and South elevations stating they are supposed to line up so that the roof lines match up and stated they are not at the same heights. He stated there are a lot of discrepancies and it makes it difficult to see what is going on. He pointed out on the South elevation and that the fascia boards run from left to right and all of sudden the fascia board's just stops. He referred to the South elevations on the upper right hand side and stated again there are no fascia boards. He referred to the North elevation near the patio area there are kickers (45 degree braces) and stated they do not match anything in the building. He recommended that the patio area have the same arch features as exhibited throughout the covered balconies. Assistant Planner Lao explained that the patio will not be seen by the public right-away, but if the Planning Commission would like to see that addressed staff will do it. 9 Commissioner Dang stated they would like to see the whole package regardless if it is seen from the public right- away or the next door neighbor looking at the house. He recommended that everything should flow and it is awkward to have the knee braces sticking out when the rest of the house is featured with arches and trim and it should be kept consistent. He referred to the window trims that look like a box,which may be foam trims, and there are not any keynotes for them. He requested a keynote number 12 be added to the box trims around windows and doors. He referred to the East elevation, the porch covered entry-way, and stated it really does not fit because it is so narrow, tall, and does not seem balanced. He recommended staff work with the consultants because it looks awkward and narrow. He stated overall this looks great,there is just a lot of discrepancies like things not matching up, lines are not matching, roofs are missing, and he knows it is very difficult to catch everything during a Design Review. He recommended that staff makes sure everything matches because the Planning Commission does not have the luxury of speaking with them and it is imperative that they receive something that all lies together. Commissioner Eng asked if the applicant is intending to keep the same type of roof and it the existing roof was shingles. Assistant Planner Lao replied no and that it will be new roof tiles. Vice-Chair Lopez opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant to the podium. Applicant Khanh Nguyen and Kay Nguyen(wife)stated they are present to answer any questions. Commissioner Dang stated he had no questions for the applicant, his questions were for the architect, and thought the architect would be present. Commissioner Eng asked if the applicants live in this home presently and how long have they owned this property. Khanh Nguyen replied yes,they currently live there, and have owned the property 13 years. Commissioner Eng asked once the construction is completed if it will remain owner-occupied. Khanh Nguyen replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked how many families will be living there. Khanh Nguyen replied his family including his son. Commissioner Eng asked if currently it is 2 bedrooms,and 4 bedrooms will be added including an office. Khanh Nguyen replied yes. Resident Lewis Montante stated he lives next door to this property and has lived there since 1951. He expressed concern with expansion of nearby properties,too many families living in homes, lack of parking, objects to a two-story home in this neighborhood, and this project. He added this is an R-1 zone and named a few addresses that are R-2 and does not feel this property will be a R-1 residence if this project is approved. He stated that construction has taken place on Saturday's and Sunday's and that when he was in construction they never worked on the weekends. He stated that he is objecting to this project. Vice-Chair Lopez asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on this project. None 10 Vice-Chair Lopez closed the Public Hearing. He asked if the Planning Commission had any further questions. Commissioner Herrera asked if R-1 allows an accessory unit. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. She stated if the Planning Commission is concerned about this properly being divided into two homes she would recommend that a condition of approval be placed that a covenant be recorded against the property stating it must remain as one home. Commissioner Herrera asked if the size of the lot won't warrant it being divided anyway. Community Development Director Ramirez replied you never know what might be done. Vice-Chair Lopez asked the City Attorney what is the easiest way to address that concern. City Attorney Murphy stated adding a condition of approval stating that "Prior to obtaining building permits the applicant should record a covenant maintaining the house as a single-family residence and forbidding any division of the structure inconsistent with the Municipal Code". He explained that way it will remain a single-family residence and if the Municipal Code changes,then if this comes back it can be revisited. He stated the motion will be to accept staff's recommendation as amended. Commissioner Dang asked what happens to plans once they are approved and permitted by the City, and if a record of them is kept. Assistant Planner Lao replied but it was not audible. Commissioner Dang asked if someone wanted to do research at a future date after the certificate of occupancy has been issued they would be available in the file. Community Development Director Ramirez stated these will not be the final plans due to the comments that were brought up by Commissioner Dang and the applicant will have to resubmit accordingly to make sure everything does match. Commissioner Eng asked if a condition of approval could be included to request the applicant submit a set of corrected plans. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that is already required and explained staff is not going to approve plans that are not appropriate. Commissioner Eng suggested that it be explained to the applicant on why a covenant is being requested and that he understands the reasoning behind it. Community Development Director Ramirez addressed the applicant and explained a condition of approval will be added, if the Planning Commission agrees, that this home will remain as one unit and will not be allowed to be subdivided into multiple units. She added this will be a document that will be recorded against their property. She explained just like a title is recorded against their property, this will also be a document that is recorded against their property. Vice-Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions. None 11 Vice-Chair Lopez asked for a motion. Commissioner Herrera referred to the two cars parking in front and asked if the Planning Commission is recommending that they do not park in front. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that is already in the Municipal Code and the code does not allow it. She explained staff will assure that the plans indicate that something is shown, so that will not be allowed to take place. Commissioner Eng addressed the neighbor that was concerned with construction hours and informed the resident that a condition of approval is in the staff report. She also informed him that the construction hours are Monday through Saturday 7:00 am to 8:00 pm. Community Development Director Ramirez informed the resident if he finds that construction is taking place on a Sunday he may report it either on the City's website under "Rosemead's Around the Clock" or he may contact the Planning Division, so that it may be investigated by staff. Vice-Chair Lopez asked if there is a motion with the recommended amendments. Commissioner Herrera made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Dang to ADOPT Resolution No. 16-08 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 15-08 and Minor Exception 16-08, subject to the 23 conditions. (Condition of Approval number 23 was added by the Planning Commission on 5-16-16). Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang, Eng,Herrera,and Lopez Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Tang Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes with 4 Aye's, and 0 Noe's, 1 Absent, and explained the 10 day appeal process. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of 3.21-16 Commissioner Herrera made a motion,seconded by Vice-Chair Lopez,to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang,Eng,Herrera,and Lopez Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Tang Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes with 4 Ayes,0 Noes,and 1 Absent. 12 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Community Development Director Ramirez stated at the previous Planning Commission meeting that was held on April 18, 2016, "Design Review 15-10', for 9318 Ralph Street, was to be Continued until May 2, 2016. She added after that meeting took place the applicant contacted staff and withdrew his application, no longer wanted to proceed, so that May 2nd meeting did not take place because there were no other Agenda items to be presented that evening. She explained that the applicant was advised if they do decide to resubmit they will have to start the Design Review process from the beginning and it will need a new Public Hearing. She also announced the date, time, and location of the next Community Watch Committee meeting. She announced on May 30,2016 City Hall will be closed for Memorial Day but there will be a Memorial Day Ceremony and gave location, time, of the event, and invited everyone to attend. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR&COMMISSIONERS Vice-Chair Lopez asked staff what the yellow flag in the City Hall Civic Center and on Valley Boulevard represents. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that is the Vietnamese Flag, it is requested every year and City Council approves it. Vice-Chair Lopez expressed concern with this item. Commissioner Eng comments were not audible. Community Development Director Ramirez replied staff will address this with the City Attorney to discuss if or how it may be done. Commissioner Eng's response was not audible. 7. ADJOURNMENT The next regular Planning Commission ,' •e held on Mo,, ,,y,June 6 0,76 at 7:00 ■ in the Council Chambers. I ' — Daniel Lopez Vice-Chair A •.T: , �_ /, Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 13