Loading...
PC - Minutes - 10-16-17 Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 16, 2017 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by Chair Dang in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 8838 E. Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Commissioner Lopez INVOCATION—Commissioner Eng ROLL CALL—Commissioners Eng, Herrera, Lopez, Vice-Chair Tang and Chair Dang STAFF PRESENT — City Attorney Thuyen, Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela, Assistant Planner Lao, and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney Thuyen presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MODIFICATION 17-05 (CONTINUED) - On August 21, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Modification 17- 05, a request to modify Design Review 14-06 to incorporate restaurant use by proposing to re-classify the retail use to a shopping center use. At the end of the public hearing, the Planning Commission continued Modification 17-05 and directed staff to work with the applicant to ensure that the existing conditions are sufficient to incorporate restaurant use into the commercial building. To avoid re- noticing the public hearing, the Planning Commission motioned for staff to provide an update on Modification 17-05 at the September 18th Planning Commission meeting. PC RESOLUTION 17-17 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MODIFICATION 17-05, A MODIFICATION OF DESIGN REVIEW 14-06, TO RE-CLASSIFY THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT OF THE MIXED USE PROJECT TO A SHOPPING CENTER USE, FOR THE INCORPORATION OF RESTAURANT USE IN THREE OUT OF THE FIVE UNITS. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 9036-38 GARVEY AVENUE, IN THE MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A MIXED USE AND DESIGN OVERLAY (C- 3/MUDO/D-O)ZONE(APN: 5282-026-052). STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 17-17 with findings and APPROVE Modification 17-05, subject to the 105 conditions. Assistant Planner Lao presented the staff report. Chair Dang asked if the Planning Commission had any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Eng asked if the commercial building had been constructed yet. 1 Assistant Planner Lao replied no. Commissioner Eng asked if staff knows when construction will begin. Assistant Planner Lao replied the applicant can address that question, but they have pulled permits. Vice-Chair Tang asked if the trash enclosure initially approved for retail use will accommodate the combination of retail/restaurant usage. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied the applicant/tenants will have to follow Republic Services requirements. Vice-Chair Tang asked if the plans will be revised due to the trash enclosure size. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied no, it shouldn't. Vice-Chair Tang referred to the parking ratio provided in the staff report using the dining room square footage rather than using the restaurant parking ratio and using the total square footage area of the building and asked staff to explain why this was done. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela explained that the hypothetical parking analysis was calculated in accordance to just the dining area, which was requested by Chair Dang. She added it is hypothetical and is not required by code. Vice-Chair Tang stated he appreciates Chair Dang's approach to this and it is a good way to explore that, but this may set a bad precedent for future developments in terms of setting the dining room ratio verses the total unit square footage. He asked staff if this practice has been done before in this city or other cities where they only look at just the dining room square footage verses total unit square footage. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied that staff did not survey other cities to see if that is something that they do and this was just a hypothetical concept that Chair Dang requested. She added that Chair Dang may explain his request for further clarification. Vice-Chair Tang stated he just wanted to make sure a new precedent was not being set and wanted to see if this had been practiced in the past. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated as a clarification the shopping center does meet the parking requirements and Chair Dang wanted staff to justify further why this would work. City Attorney Thuyen addressed Vice-Chair Tang and stated the current classification for it being a retail use is something that is allowed under the code and is something that staff went with. He added based on the discussion of the past two Planning Commission meetings the Commission gave staff direction to provide this information to help give some context as to the actual customers coming in and out. He stated this was not a requirement under the code and this is not a traditional analysis but it is included to give the Planning Commission more context based on the direction of the last Planning Commission meeting. Vice-Chair Tang stated he understands and he just wants to be careful on how this is approached because he does not want to set a precedent in future developments where it may come back and be said that conditions for parking ratios were set for this development and not theirs. He asked staff if in the future there is a request for outdoor dining will it be required that the applicant reapply for another modification. 2 Assistant Planner Lao replied yes, but the code does state if it is under a certain square footage then staff may review it and approve it. Vice-Chair Tang asked what that square footage is. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied that outdoor dining up to 800 square feet will not require administrative approval and anything more than 800 square feet will require an Administrative Use Permit, which can be approved by the Community Development Director. Vice-Chair Tang asked if that should be included in the conditions of approval if in the future they should request outdoor dining. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied it is included in the Municipal Code, so it is not necessary, but if the Planning Commission requests that it be included, it can be added. Commissioner Eng asked staff if there is something in the Administrative Use Permit that pertains to outdoor dining. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied yes, and explained that if the outdoor dining area is over 800 square feet, requires an Administrative Use Permit. Commissioner Eng asked if it is for per unit or for the total building. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied it is for outdoor dining room area as a total. Commissioner Eng asked for clarification if outdoor dining is requested in the future the process is not so intense and they would only have to go through the Administrative Use Permit process if it is less than 800 square feet. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied yes. Chair Dang thanked the City and staff for providing the theoretical parking ratio model and he also echo's Vice-Chair Tang's concerns. He stated he does not want this theoretical model to set precedent and explained this was created to just add more contexts to the business arrangement where if you have a dining room it would generate these types of trips. This was just to help the Planning Commission show a real world scenario and was not meant to provide precedent. He added if the Planning Commission feels this is a concern a condition of approval may be added if necessary. He thanked staff for thinking out of the box and calling this a shopping center, still living within the confides of the zoning code, and helping the applicant obtain the project they are looking for. He asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Planning Commission. None Chair Dang opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Representative Billy Huang thanked staff and addressed Commissioner Eng's question regarding construction. He stated that construction began two weeks ago and the foundation is currently been laid. He added he may answer any further questions the Planning Commission may have. Commissioner Lopez asked if retail vendors have already been assigned to this shopping center. Representative Billy Huang replied they have inquiries and potential candidates, however, because of the current situation pending approval for restaurant use there has been concerns, and they do not have set tenants yet. He 3 explained that they are trying to find the perfect tenant mix, so that parking is not overwhelmed, and also to make sure they do not make a promise to a potential candidate that they cannot deliver. Vice-Chair Tang stated he was not present at the previous Planning Commission meeting that was held, but he did read the minutes, and stated that he does not want to restrict their opportunity for growth, or to restrict bringing in businesses to make this a vibrant area. He stated his only concern was that the Planning Commission was initially under the impression that this was going to be a retail use only and it was asked if food establishments were a consideration and were told no. He added he is agreeable to having food establishments at this site and the applicant has voluntarily agreed to have three food establishments and two retail uses, and asked what have they have envisioned the retail to be. Representative Billy Huang replied there has been a lot of interest from cell phone retail stores like Verizon,T-Mobile, and Boost Mobile. He added professional services like State Farm has also shown an interest. Vice-Chair Tang stated based on what he has just said in terms of not limiting the applicant and what the applicant can bring into this plaza. He asked if they would be open to the idea if they cannot find retail tenants then their option would be to have five food establishments. Representative Billy Huang replied yes, the more flexibility they get it would be better for them, but they are there to work with the City for any tenancy or parking requirements. He added they are willing to have three out of the five, but five would allow more flexibility in locating the right tenants for spacing and timing. Vice-Chair Tang stated that flexibility is very important for them to bring in the right mix of tenants for that plaza. He asked if outdoor dining is being considered, even if it a small one. Representative Billy Huang replied they have had interested parties in outdoor dining, but they will work with the tenants, city, and staff. He added as the tenant improvements come in. He added they will see what they will want to do and see what the city will allow. Vice-Chair Tang asked the applicant if outdoor dining is incorporated,they understand they will have to come back to the City to work with staff, because this is not set in the conditions of approval today. Representative Billy Huang replied yes. Chair Dang stated there is a speakers request and invited resident Brian Lewin to the podium. Resident Brian Lewin requested that the Planning Commission not approve this item. He stated just because you don't want something to be precedent does not mean that it will not become one. He added allowing a conversion of a horizontal mix use project into a shopping center that sets a serious precedent and if you allow this, then others will try to do it also in way to intensify their uses in skirting the parking requirements. He added this loop hole in the Rosemead Municipal Code and the solution is to reject this item and put this on a list of things to fix. He stated parking limitations in that center can easily result in that sites single driveway backing up, this is not uncommon in small to medium mixed use places, especially with popular food establishments with insufficient parking, but in this case it would also impact the residents in the rear when they are coming home from work because they will not be able to get in. He stated this will also impact the resident to the east because they rely on that same driveway as part of an access easement. He stated regarding the hypothetical parking analysis,just because you don't want this to be precedent, does not mean it won't be, and that people will say let's do this instead. He expressed concern that staff did not look to see what one actually looks like and only took in ones provided by the applicant. He expressed concern that once this has been changed there may be request for a third, fourth, or fifth use in the future because the city shopping center code does not have specific limitations on use and regardless stated intent of the applicant and if the Planning Commission allows food establishments,they can be any food service establishments. He 4 requested that the Planning Commission consider those distinctions because the city code does not. He expressed that allowing this parcel to be split into two parcels in the first place to be sold as two parts was a mistake that no one saw coming and lead to effects that no one saw coming. He requested that the Planning Commission not compound it by allowing this and setting even more bad precedent. Chair Dang asked if there were any further comments or questions from the Public. None Chair Dang closed the Public Hearing and commented that this particular parking arrangement is in accordance with the Rosemead's Zoning Municipal Code and the Zoning Code is like a contract. He stated it is laid out for the public, so anyone wanting to business with the City, they can follow it to the letter, and the City is obligated to respect those parking ratios. He stated whether they call it all retail or restaurants, it is considered a shopping center and the applicant can park it as a shopping center. He expressed they are in full compliance with the Municipal Code and there has been discussion on whether it is appropriate or not, but it is not part of this Planning Commission's meeting this evening. He added if it is a concern, it can be addressed to staff and staff can discuss it at the next Zoning Code update meeting. He added the parking ratio is in accordance with the Municipal Code and relevant that it be put on record. Commissioner Eng stated that she hopes the City/Planning has learned something from this project. Her concern is that the synergy of this project has been broken from when the project was initially envisioned. She stated in moving forward this is something that needs to be double-checked with these types of projects. She stated this applicant is not the original developer,this a new entity, and she appreciates that they have attended three meetings. She added the applicant want to be successful, is willing to work with the City, and she appreciates they are willing to meet the City halfway going through a traffic study, and agreeing with having only three units out of the five as restaurant use. She stated it is a good thing, will provide a variety for that area, and for the residents. She expressed she is comfortable with the proposal of three units, she also appreciates resident Brian Lewin sharing his concerns, and concluded that these are her comments. Vice-Chair Tang asked for clarification if the Public Hearing had been closed. City Attorney Thuyen explained that the preferably method is to officially close the Public Hearing, but once it is asked if there are no further public comments, and none appear then it is closed. Vice-Chair Tang stated he agrees with Chair Dang and Planning Commissioner Eng, the code does allow them to designate this as a shopping center, and unfortunately this is a loop hole. He added that this was allowed to be subdivided into two separate entities and it allowed the property owner to sell them as two separate entities. He added this does not stop the Planning Commission from trying to find a resolution as they are obligated to do this, because the city wants them to be successful, to grow in this community in terms of having that vibrancy, and having that development particularity in an area, which has been under developed. He added he appreciates that the applicant has agreed to restrict them to having three of the five units as food establishments and the remainder as retail, however, he would like them to be successful and he would like to give them as much flexibility as possible. He stated if the applicant thinks that five food establishments can go in there and there are five companies that are willing to go in there, in spite of the parking ratio, so then be it. He added he does not want to be that person that stymies that growth opportunity. He stated that initially, Commissioner Eng and he asked a question about food establishments because that would create that vibrancy and outdoor dining will also create that. He stated if it is restricted then that opportunity would not allowing the prospect of growth and good development, because a retail store may go in there and it may not even last. He recommended that the applicant be allowed that flexibility, not be limited, and he would like to discuss this if the Planning Commission is agreeable. He also would like to work with staff on how to address and define shopping centers and on how to make sure the proper parking requirements are made. 5 Commissioner Lopez commented that originally when this project was approved by this Planning Commission, eateries were discussed. He stated this was discussed and the only thing difference is that it was subdivided and a new owner is there now. He stated that he agrees there is a need for growth in Rosemead and the Garvey Avenue district area needs more of them. He also agrees that there needs to be a detailed discussion and changes made to the Zoning Code, but the applicant is following the rules. He stated the applicant is working with staff, doing what they are supposed to do, so this needs to move forward. Vice-Chair Tang stated what he appreciates about this process, even though it took a couple of months (apologized for that) is that they did their due diligence to find creative solutions to address a situation that was presented. He added there were some good discussions and this was a good learning lesson. He stated that he would like to be supportive of ensuring that there is good opportunity and there is success at the end. Chair Dang stated he would like to reiterate Commissioner Tang's and Commissioner Lopez's thought process. He stated the applicant is in accordance with the Rosemead Municipal Code and it is kind of a contract between the City, property homeowners, and developers. He stated if there are five eateries all together it meets the language of a commercial shopping center and it should be parked at one per 250. He explained the reason he wanted to comment is because when he read the Agenda back when this project was initially developed the architect at that time used the parking ratio of 250 and called the project all retail because that's the way his numbers worked out. He stated this current City Planning staff thought out of the box and said this particular project and scope of work fits a mini-shopping center profile and can use the parking ratio for a mini-shopping center. He thanked staff for thinking out of the box and the dynamics of the project are still the same and recommended they should be able to park this at one per 250. Commissioner Eng asked what percentage of the residential units has been sold. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied that Century Communities stated most of them have been sold. Commissioner Eng stated most of the purchasers that bought homes there were under the impression that the front units were going to be retail use and there will be impacts. She approves of the mix of three of the units to be food establishments and to have two retail uses to give this more variety and also to minimize the impact. She added since most of the units have been sold, she recommends the residents be considered due to the impacts because their quality of life is important also. Vice-Chair Tang asked if there was a way to reach Century Communities and request that they inform the buyers that there will be commercial use in front will be a mix of food establishments and retail. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela reported that the owners of Century Communities is in support of five restaurants and has informed the purchasers of the situation. Chair Dang asked if that has been put in writing or was it a phone call. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied staff was told while conducting a final inspection and was not in writing. Chair Dang asked the City Attorney for direction on how this should be motioned. Vice-Chair Tang proposed a motion to adopt Resolution Number 17-17 with Modification 17-05 subject to the 105 Conditions of Approval, but he would like to add to remove that the restrictions of three food establishments and two retail, so that they may decide how many food/retail establishments they may come up with. 6 Commissioner Lopez stated he agrees with this motion. City Attorney Thuyen stated if an alternative motion is suggested then that would be motion that is before the Planning Commission, so it has been suggested by Commissioner Tang to move and adopt the resolution with one amendment to Condition of Approval number one, changing the limitation of restaurant use from three out of five units,to allowing five out of the five units. He asked Commissioner Tang if that was correct. Vice-Chair Tang replied yes. City Attorney Thuyen stated that would be the motion. Commissioner Lopez stated he would like to second that motion. Chair Dang stated before a second is motioned he would like to recommend a potential language change and requested direction on how to procedded with that process from City Attorney Thuyen. City Attorney Thuyen replied the proper procedure, since it has been moved and seconded, would be to go ahead and do the vote, unless the Planning Commission would like to withdraw the motion and entertain the amendment or additional amendments to the current motion. Vice-Chair Tang agreed and withdrew his motion. Chair Dang stated he would like to echo Commissioner Eng's concern about the potential residential units not being able to have the opportunity to be present at this meeting to possibly voice any of their opinions. He added he also likes the approach of not restricting the potential owner of any number of food establishments. His amendment is to request that three out of the five units are approved as food establishments with the understanding that, if the residential owners gives the City or applicants something in writing to have a no contest in allowing five tenant food establishments. He stated that would allow staff to have that type of permitting process if possible. Commissioner Lopez stated the first modification states no restrictions and asked why restrictions are being made now. Chair Dang replied that it is not that restrictions are being made. Commissioner Lopez stated that it is still allowing that something else needs to be brought. He added staff should be able to recognize any of that, and come to an agreement on whether three,four, or five eating establishments should be decided. Chair Dang thanked Commissioner Lopez and he does acknowledge that it is a by right project, but he is hearing what Commissioner Eng has said about these particular home owners, and when they bought the properties they bought them under the pretense that the exhibits showed retail. He added the fact that you have restaurant use makes it more intense and the parking demand is more intense. He stated trying to find a midway into this particular item and the fact that the applicant is agreeable to three units and it would be great if they got five, but to walk away with three this evening they would be happy. He stated if an amendment is added to get concurrence from the property owner of the residential company to say they have no contest in having all five units being food establishments that would give the applicant the green light to ahead and modify their plans to all five. Vice-Chair Tang stated the difference here would be getting the permission from the residential management company verses getting the permission from the future residents. He stated the residential property owners and the 7 applicant would be agreeable. He added based on what Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated they are in support of this and he would support it. City Attorney Thuyen stated based on this conversation there are a few competing motions with: 1)the first is the one recommended by staff, 2) the second one being suggested by Commissioner Tang,to adopt the resolution with the modification to allow five out of five units for restaurant use. which for the record the applicant is willing to accept, 3) the third option made by Commissioner Dang to limit this to three out of five eating establishments, but to subject to limit it to some resident approval process. He added that caution be taken with the third option because it may not be as clean as just considering the recommendation as currently proposed by staff and maybe reset another hearing at a later date if the Planning Commissions wants to, so as to get more information from the homeowners or residents at that time. He recommends that the better option is to consider the recommendation made by staff as it stands or the recommendation as suggested by Commissioner Tang. Chair Dang thanked City Attorney Thuyen for the clarification. He asked Commissioner Tang if he would like to put his motion back on the table. Vice-Chair Tang replied yes, and asked if he should read the motion again. City Attorney Thuyen replied yes, since the motion was withdrawn, and allowed for further Planning Commission discussion,the proper process is to go ahead and redo the motion again. Vice-Chair Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to ADOPT Resolution No. 17-17 with findings and APPROVE Modification 17-05, subject to the 105 conditions, including the removal of limiting potential restaurant use in all five units. (Modification made by the Planning Commission on 10-16-17). Vote resulted in: Ayes: Herrera, Lopez, and Tang Noes: Dang Abstain: Eng Absent: None Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated the motion passes with a vote of 3 Ayes, 1 Noe, 1 Abstain, and explained the 10-day appeal process. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. PC Minutes 8-21-17 Commissioner Lopez asked if the Consent Calendar will be voted on separately or together. Vice-Chair Tang requested that the Consent Calendar be voted on separately because he was not present at one of the meetings. Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eng, to approve PC Minutes 8-21-17 as presented. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Eng, Herrera, Lopez,and Tang Noes: None 8 Abstain: Dang Absent: None Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated the motion passes with 4 Ayes, 0 Noes, and 1 Abstain vote. B. PC Minutes 9-18-17 Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Chair Dang,to approve PC Minutes 9-18-17 as presented. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang, Eng, Herrera,and Lopez Noes: None Abstain: Tang Absent: None Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated the motion passes with a vote of 4 Ayes, 0 Noes, and 1 Abstain. 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela announced the date, time, and location of the following City Events: 1) Fall Fiesta and 2)Trunk or Treat. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Lopez requested that staff send someone to the Angelus Senior Housing to investigate because there is a rat infestation, the manager is not addressing the issue, and he has had 3-4 residents contact him. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated staff will address that concern. Vice-Chair Tang asked staff what the process is to update the Municipal Code as it relates to designation of shopping centers. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated that staff was intending to bring the Zoning Code Update sometime this quarter. She added due to this shopping center issue, staff is reviewing shopping centers and may develop new codes to address them. She stated surveys are being taken, staff is still investigating, and there's a process that it will have to go through.The information will then be given to the Planning Commission at the Zoning Code Update meeting. Vice-Chair Tang asked what the process is once staff completes their research and will it be brought back to the Planning Commission. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied that the process begins with staff providing rules/guidelines, and then a study session with the Planning Commission and City Council will take place. At this study session, comments and recommendations may be made for modifications. If there are no changes, then it will be ready for a Public Hearing with both the Planning Commission and City Council. Chair Dang stated Rosemead Boulevard is impacted by traffic and there are signs posted that vehicles may not be parked between certain hours (rush hours). He added there are vehicles that have been consistently parking there, 9 which is jamming up traffic and blocking the line of sight, so it makes turning left a hazard. He asked if it is Code Enforcement that would investigate this issue and requested staff pass this information on to them. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela asked if there is a specific location. Chair Dang replied it is between the 10-Freeway and Valley Boulevard. Everyone exits the 10-Freeway, which jams up Rosemead Boulevard, and the vehicles are parked adjacent to the sidewalk, so it slows up traffic even more. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated Rosemead Boulevard is maintained by Caltrans, but staff will speak with the Public Works Director and will give the Planning Commission an update. 7. ADJOURNMENT Chair Dang adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:51 pm. The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, Novem er 6, 17, at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers. Sean Dang Chair ATTE : (---4/', , , / ' c_4(4•77,c achel Lockwood Commission Secretary 10