Loading...
PC - Minutes - 04-18-16 Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 18,2016 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—Commissioner Herrera INVOCATION—Commissioner Eng ROLL CALL—Commissioners Dang, Eng, Herrera,and Vice-Chair Lopez ABSENT-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. DESIGN REVIEW 15-10—The applicant is requesting that the public hearing for Design Review 15-10 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting on May 2,2016. Associate Planner Hanh stated the applicant has requested that the Public Hearing for Design Review 15-10 be Continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 2,2016. Vice-Chair Lopez asked if a vote will need to be taken. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. City Attorney Murphy addressed Vice-Chair Lopez and explained that it would be proper to see if there is anyone from the public that would like to speak this evening, but it would be best for any interested member to speak on May 2, 2016 because the Planning Commission will hear their comments in the contexts of the item. He added if someone is present this evening, then, they should be given the opportunity to speak. If no one is present, then a motion, second, and vote will continue this matter open until the Planning Commission meeting of May 2,2016. Vice-Chair Lopez opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone wishing to speak on this item. None Vice-Chair Lopez closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Commissioner Herrera made a motion,seconded by Commissioner Dang for Design Review 15-10 to be continued to the Planning Commission meeting on May 2,2016. 1 Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang,Eng,Herrera,and Lopez Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Tang Community Development Director stated the motion passes 4 Ayes, and 0 Noes, to Continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting to be held on Monday, May 2,2016 at 7:00 pm. B. DESIGN REVIEW 15-11 - Seng Yue has submitted a Design Review application requesting approval to construct a new two-story single-family dwelling unit with 2,907 square feet of floor area at 3903 Gernert Avenue(APN: 5390-001-037). 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 proposed project includes a new 653 square feet single-story second dwelling unit at the rear of the project site. The project site is located in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential)zone. PC RESOLUTION 16-05 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 15- 11, PERMITTING A NEW 2,907 SQUARE FEET SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT WITH AN ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE AND NEW 653 SQUARE FEET SECOND DWELLING UNIT WITH AN ATTACHED ONE-CAR GARAGE. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 3903 GERNERT AVENUE (APN: 5390-001- 037),IN THE R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)ZONE. Staff Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 16- 05 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 15-11,subject to the 23 conditions. Associate Planner Hanh presented the staff report. Vice-Chair Lopez asked if there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Eng asked if the second unit being added is a granny unit. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked it granny units are by right or by statue. Associate Planner Hanh replied by right. Commissioner Eng stated she would like to compliment the property owner and designer for not having any type of fencing in the front yard because it is a very open neighborhood and this will keep it that way. Commissioner Herrera stated this is considered as a granny unit in the rear but would it be considered a duplex. Community Development Director Ramirez replied no. Commissioner Herrera commented that in the past they have been considered as a duplex. 2 Community Development Director Ramirez stated this will be a single-family home in the front and a second unit in the rear of the property. She added one of the units will have to remain owner-occupied and it does not matter which one. Commissioner Herrera stated she has a certain properly that she will talk to Community Development Director Ramirez later. Commissioner Dang commented that he believes the State Assembly Bill is 1866 and asked if Rosemead has a second dwelling unit ordinance. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Commissioner Dang asked if there are zoning parameters that needs to be met in that ordinance. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Commissioner Dang stated he would like the discussion of the parameters and asked if they are included in the staff report. Associate Planner Hanh replied the parameters have been verified on the site plan. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that all the parameters are not discussed in each of the staff reports. City Attorney Murphy explained because the second unit is allowed by fight and when staff brings a full lot development to the Planning Commission for a Design Review they are not getting into the functionality of the statutory second unit, they are simply looking at the site as whole from a pure design perspective. He stated this is avoid to a circumstance in which, an applicant may come to the Planning Commission with the main unit and immediately upon having it built go to staff with the second unit and then won't receive a Design Review from the Planning Commission. He stated staff tries to keep the agenda reports focused on the Design Review itself rather than some of the other elements so they don't get caught on things that he would then have to tell the Planning Commission that there is no control on that because it is allowed by law. He stated the discussion is strictly on the design as a whole rather than the second unit, which falls into staff's discretion for everything other than the design elements. Commissioner Dang expressed that it the second dwelling ordinance was documented in the summary it would allow for more transparency for the residents and community. Commissioner Eng stated that she understands and supports that the community should be educated on the second unit ordinance. She stated she agrees with Commissioner Dang and that a reference to the second unit in the summary would allow for transparency. Vice-Chair Lopez asked what is the total lot size. Associate Planner Hanh replied 8,935.5 square feet. Vice-Chair Lopez asked if it meets the requirement for the second unit in the rear. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. 3 Vice-Chair Lopez asked what is the maximum square footage allowed for the unit in the rear and can it be added on to it. Community Development Director Ramirez replied the maximum is 30% of the front unit or up to 800 square feet, whichever is less,and it cannot have more than two bedrooms. Vice-Chair Lopez asked once it is built can they add to it to meet that requirement. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. Associate Planner Hanh explained that the applicant can as long as it has not met the 30%, but has met the total ratio of the lot, so they cannot add anymore square footage to this lot. Commissioner Eng asked if the second unit square footage is included in the total floor area. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Vice-Chair Lopez asked the Planning Commission if there were any further questions for staff. None Vice-Chair Lopez opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Andy Yu, Designer of this project stated he is there to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Commissioner Dang referred to the floor plan, on Sheet 2, page A-1.0, and the laundry area adjacent to the garage, and stated that laundry areas are typically part of the garage if the wall in-between is at least 50% open. He stated this seems to be a laundry room all by itself and in the analysis on the cover sheet it is lumped as part of the garage, so the two garages are actually 441 square feet and adding this washer 8 dryer laundry facility adds this up to 550 square feet. He stated he does not have a problem with this; he would just like to have it on the record in case something comes up later and it is known it was addressed during this public hearing. He stated the reason this extra 100 square feet is important is because if you lump it into the floor area ratio as habitable he will be slightly over of 4.08%. He added if it is counted as a garage it will be under that threshold. Andy Yu stated this is not living area. Commissioner Dang stated this is technically habitable area for laundry. He re-iterated that he does not have a problem with it being lumped into the garage. Andy Yu stated it depends on how a laundry or storage area is defined. He added if Commissioner Dang would like it open it can be made open. Commissioner Dang stated he does not have a particular issue with it slightly being over and just wanted it brought up before a public meeting setting and put it in the record in case complications arise in the future it was an item that had been discussed. Commissioner Eng addressed Mr.Yu and asked what his inspiration for his design was. Andy Yu replied it is a more of a Mediterranean style. 4 Vice-Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions or anyone else wishing to speak on this item. None Vice-Chair Lopez closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Commission if there were any further questions for staff. Commissioner Eng asked while calculating floor area ratios are rooms that are not bedrooms and family areas not calculated at all. Associate Planner Hanh replied that a laundry room does not typically constitute as floor area and typically it is part of the garage, but in this case it is separate, so it is considered as an accessory use and is not included in the floor area. Commissioner Eng stated so it is not in the garage, it is outside, and is considered an accessory use and asked if that is a policy used by the City or is it a principle used by Planning. Community Development Director Ramirez replied it is definition by the City Municipal Code. City Attorney Murphy stated that is a great question because different cities do that different ways and explained some cities say if it is outside the door to the house is it all the way in the garage or is it not. He added in this case it is not and there is a separate wall and door, so it is not actually part of the garage and there are cities that would say that is part of the ratio area and would define it that way. He added there are others that say it can't be as described as an exit door and it would have to be internal doors to be considered part of the house and therefore part of the floor area ratio. He added it does it sticky in particular with the new types of construction where people will put them upstairs and they are clearly part of the house when they are upstairs but then you do not want to treat one upstairs differently from the one that is downstairs. He stated cities become somewhat reactive to the type of development that is going on within the City to identify how that needs to be judged. He stated staff has explained how the City has defined it and from legal's perspective we can go with that because it is within the realm of what is allowable. Commissioner Eng stated so this is pretty much a local jurisdiction policy. Vice-Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions. None Vice-Chair Lopez asked for a motion. Commissioner Herrera made a motion,seconded by Vice-Chair Lopez,to ADOPT Resolution No.16-05 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 15-11,subject to the 23 conditions. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Deng, Eng, Herrera,and Lopez Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Tang Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes 4 Ayes, and 0 Noes, 1 Absent, and explained the 10 day appeal process. 5 C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-07 - Xiao Yong Chen, representing Rice Yummy Inc., has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application requesting approval for a new On-Sale Beer and Wine (Type 41) ABC license in conjunction with a bona fide public eating establishment, located at 8801 Valley Boulevard (APN: 5391-009-001). A Conditional Use Permit shall be required for any business that sells alcoholic beverages for on-site or off-site consumption. The subject site is located in the CBD/RC- MUDO/D (Central Business District with Residential/Commercial Mixed-Use Development and Design Overlays)zone. PC RESOLUTION 16-06 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-07, PERMITTING A NEW ON-SALE BEER AND WINE (TYPE 41) ABC LICENSE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A BONA FIDE PUBLIC EATING ESTABLISHMENT AT 8801 VALLEY BOULEVARD (APN: 5391.009-001), IN THE CBD/RC-MUDO/D (CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT WITH RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN OVERLAYS)ZONE. Staff Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 16- 06 with findings and APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 15-07,subject to the 33 conditions. Associate Planner Hanh presented the staff report. Vice-Chair Lopez asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions for staff. Commissioner Eng asked how many establishments in this shopping center have a Type 41 ABC license. Associate Planner Hanh replied one. He added the 'Tatawan Restaurant' also has one,but it is not part of this plaza. Commissioner Eng asked if staff knows what the hours of operation are. Associate Planner Hanh replied no, he does not have that information for those two restaurants. Commissioner Eng asked if they did not go through with the ABC license due to financial reasons. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Commissioner Eng stated that she likes staff's condition of approval that there will not be any alcohol consumption in the patio area. She referred to the crime report and stated there were 19 alcohol related crimes committed in this reporting district. She asked how many of the 19 crimes were from this shopping center. Associate Planner Hanh replied he does not have the information on what the 19 crimes were, but staff did speak with Chief of Police Somoano and he reported there were no specific alcohol related crimes from this shopping center. Commissioner Eng stated this type of information may be helpful for in future applications, especially if there is a need for the determination of overconcentration. She asked if there is currently a surveillance camera system on this property. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked so there will not be an additional expense for the applicant to absorb in order to comply with the Chief of Police requirements. 6 Associate Planner Hanh replied that question can be deferred to the applicant. Vice-Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions for staff. None Vice-Chair Lopez opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Eric Chen stated he is the Operations Manager and is present to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Commissioner Eng asked if he is experienced in the serving of alcohol. Eric Chen replied yes,and he has gone through the LAD Program. Vice-Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions or anyone else is wishing to speak for or against this project. None Vice-Chair Lopez closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Commission it there were any further questions for staff. Commissioner Eng stated if "Kai-Tadai" is pending approval that would be one for this census tract and if this is approved then there will be two Type 41 ABC licenses in this census tract. Associate Planner Hanh replied'Tai-Kadai"already has one. Commissioner Eng stated she understands because"Tai-Kadai'is in a different census tract then it does not capture it. Vice-Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions. None Vice-Chair Lopez asked for a motion. Commissioner Herrera made a motion,seconded by Vice-Chair Lopez to ADOPT Resolution No. 16-06 with findings and APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 15-07,subject to the 33 conditions. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang,Eng,Herrera,and Lopez Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Tang Community Development Director stated the motion passes 4 Ayes, 0 Noes, 1 Absent, and explained the 10 day appeal process. 7 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of 3-7-16 Commissioner Dang stated he has a correction on page 11 and 13. Commissioner Eng made a motion,seconded by Commissioner Herrera,to approve the Minutes of 3-7-16 with correction to page 11 and page 13. 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. 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Community Development Director announced that on Tuesday, April 26, 2016 will be the last City Council meeting with the current City Manager,Jeff Allred. She added a small reception will be following that City Council meeting and invited all to attend. She announced the date,time, and location of the Civic Pride Day and encouraged everyone to come out and help.She announced that applications are being accepted for Planning, Traffic, and Beautification Commissions, so if anyone would like to apply applications are available on-line or please contact the City Clerk's office for more information. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR &COMMISSIONERS Vice-Chair Lopez reported mattresses are behind the store that previously was"Beaches Market"and requested they be picked up. Community Development Director Ramirez stated she will process a "CRM" on his behalf and make sure it is taken care of. Commissioner Dang asked if the streets will be closed off for the Civic Pride Day. Community Development Director Ramirez replied no. Commissioner Dang asked where will parking be available. Community Development Director Ramirez replied it is being encouraged to park at Rosemead Park. Commissioner Eng expressed concern with large items being left around the City in alleys but it was not audible. Community Development Director Ramirez stated notices are posted in there from time-to-time. She added the recent issue just came out and another one will not be for another 4 months. She stated unfortunately people discard large items in alleys. She suggested posting of large items can be put on the City's Facebook page. Vice-Chair Lopez stated that Republic Services allows 5 pickups for 5 large items at a time and residents just need to call. 8 Resident expressed concern with cat food being left out by an elderly couple in the Fresh & Easy parking alley and cats are accumulating. He expressed concern that he has reported it, has been told to take this issue to the Public Safety Center,and nothing has been done. He explained he has cleaned it up himself at various times. Community Development Director Ramirez explained this is an on-going Code Enforcement case that is being taken care of. She stated that when the"Grocery Outlet"opens this concern will hopefully be taken care of. Commissioner Dang asked Brian Lewin how the goats were delivered to Savannah Cemetery. Brian Lewin responded from the audience but it was not audible. 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:40 pm. The next regular Planning Commission will be held on Monday,May 2,2016 at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers. Daniel Lopez Vice-Chair Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 9