Loading...
PC - Minutes - 08-20-18Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 20, 2018 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 pm by Vice -Chair Eng in the City Hall Council Chambers. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Commissioner Lopez INVOCATION — Commissioner Herrera ROLL CALL - Commissioners Dang, Herrera, Lopez, Vice -Chair Eng ABSENT— Chair Tang STAFF PRESENT — City Attorney Thuyen, Community Development Director Kim, Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela, Associate Planner Hanh, Assistant Planner Lao, and Commission Secretary Lockwood.. City Attorney Thuyen presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Bone A. DESIGN REVIEW 17-05 - Philip Chan of PDS Studlio Inc. has submitted a Design Review application to construct a 2,875 square feet single-family dwelling with, an attached three -car garage. Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.136.030 requires any dwelling unit that equals or exceeds 2,500 square feet. of developed living area shall be subject to a discretionary Site Plan and Design Review by the Planning Commission. In addition, the applicant is also proposing to construct a separate 2,776 square feet duplex with two attached two -car garages. However, the proposed duplex is reviewed as an Administrative Site Plan and Design Review and is not subject to the Planning Commission's Discretionary Site Plan and Design Review as each unit is under 2,500 square feet in living area. The project site is located at 8056 Emerson Place (APN; 5287-030-058)., in the Light Multiple Residential and Automobile Parking (R-2 and P) zone. PC RESOLUTION 18-12 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 17- 05, PERMITTING A NEW 2,975 SQUARE FEET SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT WITH AN ATTACHED THREE -CAR GARAGE AND A SEPERAT'E 2,776 SQUARE FEET DUPLEX WITH TWO ATTACHED TWO - CAR GARAGES. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 8056 EMERSON PLACE (APN; 5287.030.058), IN THE LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL AND AUTOMOBILE PARKING (R-2 AND P) ZONE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No.. 18-12 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 17.05, subject to the 31 conditions. Assistant Planner Lao presented the staff report. Vice -Chair Eng asked if there were any questions or comments for staff. None Vice -Chair Eng asked staff to clarify why this item is zoned as R-2, but the total development has three units. Assistant Planner Lao replied in the Rosemead Municipal Code, Table 17,12,030.1, Residential District Development Standards, and in the R-2 zone, the minimum lot area per unit is 4,500 square feet. She added the applicant has well over this amount, so they are able to construct three units. Vice -Chair Eng asked they are able to fit the three units because the applicant has the lot coverage. Assistant Planner Lao stated that is correct. Vice -Chair Eng asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions for staff. None Vice -Chair Eng opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium, Phillip Chan, Designer of this project, stated that the property owner and his design team has been working on this plan for about a year and have been working closely with a City Planner, He added that the site plan shows that the lot is irregular and there were lots of concerns and issues that needed to be considered, such as the wash and some of the easement area. He stated they have overcome some of the issues and requested that the Planning Commission support their project. In addition„ he offered to answer any questions that the Planning Commission may have. Vice -Chair Eng asked if the Planning Commission had any questions for the applicant. Commissioner Dang stated according to the staff report the landscaping adjacent to the wash is going to be a block wall with a chain-link fence, Designer Chan explained that the current condition has some sort of barrier and they did look into it. He said that at one point, they were thinking of b0cling a wall between the easement and the property, but the property owner is against that idea. The property owner would like to leave it open between the easement area and his property, so he can maintain it better and to keep people from the easement area. He added the easement area is north from the property line and if Commissioner Dang's question is if they will be building any wall fencing there, the answer is no, but the existing chain-link fence highlighted in the staff report will remain. He asked Comm'ussioner Dang if that was his question. Commissioner Dang replied yes, and he was confused because he was looking at the landscaping plan, L1, because, he understood it as they are going to landscape the easement area. Designer Chan explained that yes, they are going to make it look nice, so it looks like it is one property. He added usually easement maintenance is not taken care of and has overgrown weeds. The property owner will be residing in Unit Three, so they would maintain that area, so they will not get unwelcomed visitors. He stated they will also get the consent from the Flood Control and if any issues arise, they will have to come before the Planning Commission again, Commissioner Dang stated he read the staff report and saw there are some constraints dealing with the U.S. Army Corp Engineers and the timing of it. He questioned if the applicant is open to plant creeping vines, so it can just climb up the chain-link fence. Designer Chan replied yes, that is an option the property owner would agree to. Commissioner Clang stated it blends very nicely to the existing landscaping they are already proposing. He added if anything, it will just enhance it, and at the same time, it will give coverage, so the property owner will not have to look into the wash. He referred to the second floor plan of Unit C and questioned if you would need to go all the way down the stairs to the ground floor, and then come all the way up to go into bedroom four, from bedrooms two and three. He asked if this is part of the design, Designer Chan replied yes, and it is a personal preference because the owner will be living with his son and their family together. He explained typically you do not see two accesses on this size of a home, but you will see it in a much larger designer home with 5,000 or over square feet, where it is common to see two staircases. He stated the point of it is to have ease of access for the property owner, so he does not have to go the front of the house, go to up to the second floor, and walk to the end of the haflway. With that said, the reason they decided to close the hallway, is so the closet can be a little bit bigger. The previous design initially did have a connecting hallway, but with working with the owner, they wanted a Kittle more closet space, but due to the restriction of the setback and articulation, they can get more space by using the hallway to be a little more efficient of the use of space. He added this plan would be going back to the Fire Department for their review, which they reviewed previously, and it they did not mention any concerns. He stated if in their second review if there were problems then they would have to redesign it back to the previous design in the hallway. Commissioner Dang thanked the designer. Vice -Chair Eng asked in regards to the duplex if each of the units would have a two -car garage. Designer Chan repfled yes. Vice -Chair Eng asked if Unit C would have a three -car garage. Designer Chan replied yes. Vice -Chair Eng asked how long the current property owner has owned the property. Designer Chan replied based on his information, and the assessor data, the property was transferred in 2012. Vice -Chair Eng asked if the property is currently owner -occupied or an investment property, Designer Chan replied he would have to ask the property owner to reply to that question. Vice -Chair Eng stated she would appreciate if the property owner could clarify that. She stated there will be three units and asked what the intended use is. Designer Chan replied they are intending to use Unit C and lease out Units A and B. Vice -Chair Eng confirmed that Unit C Wil be owner -occupied and the duplex will be rentals. Designer Chan replied yes, but he will confirm this with the property owner for an accurate answer. Vice -Chair Eng thanked Mr. Chan, She stated she has one speaker request and called James Berry to the podium. Resident James Berry asked if afternate materials for walkway and garage space had been considered for a property of this size, so that the water does not drain into the streets and into the wash. He also asked if the consideration of energy efficiency standards for the homes to further less burden the City and their resources. He added that more housing is needed in the City and thanked the designer for a beautiful design and use of materials. Vice -Chair Eng asked if there is anyone else wishing to speak on this item. None Vice -Chair Eng closed the Public Hearing, She asked the Planning Commission if there were any further comments or questions on this item for staff. Commissioner Herrera asked for clarification if easements are done for R-1 properties. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela clarified that flag lots are not permitted throughout the City. Commissioner Herrera asked if this project is going to be an easement, Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied this property is under one ownership. Commissioner Herrera asked if the property could be subdivided. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied no. Commissioner Dang commented that he has a few colleagues that work for the Fire Department and the fact that the second floor does not really inter -connect reafly poses a problem for them if they are fighting a fire. He added that it they will not know there is a physical barrier on the second floor and it may cause some confusion. He added this is a concern to him, but aside from that, he would like to applaud the designer and property owner because this is a difficult lot to develop and especially if you have to deal with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, which puts an additional level of scrutiny. He stated he applauds the design, the rendering, and the color scheme, but he is concerned with the second floor and asked if the Planning Commission aiso had concerns regarding this. Vice -Chair Erg referred to Commissioner Dang's concern and asked staff if this project wifl be going back to the Fire Department for a second review, Assistant Planner Lao replied the first review was routed to the Fire Prevention Division and it was approved. She said she has a copy of the approval stamp and it is on the plans. She added during the Building & Safety plan check process, it will be routed to the Fire, Department for their review again. Vice -Chair Eng, asked Commissioner Dang if his concern was addressed. Commissioner Dang asked if the first time it went to the Fire Department for review was it an inter -connecting second floor or was it barricaded off., Assistant Planner Lao replied it was barricaded off. Commissioner Dang agreed with the response. Vice -Chair Eng asked if there were any further questions or comments. None Vice -Chair asked for a motion. 0 Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, ADOPT Resolution No. 18.12 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 17-05, subject to the 31 conditions. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang, Eng, IHerrera, and Lopez Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Tang Community Development Director Kim stated the motion passes with a vote of 4 Ayes and 0 Noes and explained the 10 -day appeal process. S. DESIGN REVIEW '18-02 AND MINOR EXCEPTION 18-15 - Vanna Phung has submitted a Design Review and Minor Exception application to construct a new detached single-family dwelling with an aftached two -car garage on the rear portion of the lot, and construct an attached two -car garage and patio to the front existing legal nonconforming single-family dwelling. The total floor area of the new rear single- family dwelling would be 3,235 square feet, while the front single-family dwelling will remain at 1,588 square feet. Any dwelling unit to be constructed that equals or exceeds 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 9541 Guess Street (APN: 8593-003-016), within the Single -Family Residential (R-1) zone. PC RESOLUTION 18.13 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 18- 02 AND MINOR EXCEPTION 18-159 PERMITTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 3,235 SQUARE FEET SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED TWO -CAR GARAGE ON THE REAR PORTION OF THE LOT, AND CONSTRUCTION' OF AN ATTACHED TWO -CAR GARAGE AND PATIO TO THE FRONT EXISTING LEGAL NONCONFORMING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 9541 GUESS STREET (APN: 8593-003-016), IN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 18-13 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 18-02 and Minor Exception 18-15, subject to the 32 conditions. Associate Planner Hanh presented the staff report. Vice -Chair Eng asked if there were any questions or comments for staff. Nene Vice -Chair Eng opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Project Designer Kamen Lai stated this property has been owned by the Phung family for eight years and they have recently moved back to this property a year ago. He added the family has decided this is where they would like to stay, they would like to build a (brand new home in the front, and they will live in the back home. The front home may be for the extended family or it may be a rental they have not decided yet. He stated the goal is to build this home and live here for a long time. He added they agree to all the conditions of approval and hope the Planning Commission will approve this project. He stated he is present to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Vice -Chair Eng thanked Kamen Lai and asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions or comments. Commissioner Lopez stated he has one question but it has nothing to do with the project and asked how many homes has Kamen Lai built in Rosemead. Project Designer Lai replied many, (Laughter) Commissioner Lopez stated they are always very nice homes. Project Designer Lai named a recent completed project of five homes on the corner of Marshall and commented that he has many homes in Rosemead that he has designed. Vice -Chair IEng asked the Planning Commission it they had any further questions or comments for Mr, Lai. None Vice -Chair Eng asked if currently it is one home and if it is owner -occupied. Project Designer Lai replied yes, it is owner -occupied. He stated the property owners have lived there for the past two years and are planning to live there for a long time. Vice -Chair Eng commentedit is nice they are moving back and it is a nice street. She thanked Mr. Lai, stated there is a speaker request, and called James Berry to the podium. Resident James Berry stated this a very large house and for large properties as this, there should be considerations for alternative materials for driveways for water run-offs to the street. He added there should also be considerations for energy efficient standards and asked what are they doing about that. He stated this is a beautiful designed home and the City does need more housing, Vice -Chair Eng thanked Mr. Berry and asked if there is anyone else wishing to speak or comment on this item. None Vice -Chair Eng closed the Public Hearing. She asked staff to ciarify if this property is zoned as R-1 Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Vice -Chair Eng stated once this project is completed there will essentially be two units on the lot and asked if this is because the lot coverage allows for it. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes, they meet the density requirement, which is 6,000 square feet per unit, He explained they have over 12,000 square feet and it satisfies the requirement. Vice -Chair Eng stated, as pan of new project impacts, there is a water run-off condition, and asked if that is pan of an existing Building & Safety code for new developments. She referred to LID Ordinance and asked if it was pan of this. Associate Planner Hanh replied the Low Impact Development is through the Building and Safety Division. He added there is a Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance that is applicable to this project, so they will have to submit a, water efficient landscape plan before they apply for permits. Vice -Chair Eng asked if all projects whether it is residential or commercial will have to comply with the LID Ordinance. No Associate Planner Hanh replied if it is applicable. Vice -Chair Eng asked if this project is. Associate Planner Hanh replied it would have to be reviewed by the Building & Safety Division, Vice -Chair Eng thanked staff and asked the Planning Commission if there any further questions for staff. Commissioner Dang replied he has comments for staff, but he would like to address Mr. Berry's comment. He continued and asked Mir. Lai to correct him if he was wrong, but whenever you build a new home you have to comply with the California Energy Code and the energy standards will satisfy the concerns of Mr, Berry's energy efficiency homes. He added there is an energy code written for that and in terms of the alternative pavers, there are a few codes involved with that. He stated one is the California Green Code and it deals with reflective properties of pavers and secondly the Vice -Chair is correct in terms of the LID, which is the Low Impact Development and the counties trigger mechanism is 5,000 square feet of impervious surface. He added this project and the previous project would have to go through those levels of requirements. He addressed staff, said he understands you get FAR incentives for planting mature trees, and asked what qualifies for a mature, tree, can it be a fruit tree or do you have to go through a City Arborist to see what qualifies as a mature tree. Associate Planner Hanh replied according to the code a mature tree is defined as having a 24 -inch box or larger. The City Arborist would review the final landscape plan and they are required to have a certified water efficient plan by their landscape architect. Commissioner Dang asked if it prohibits them, from having a fruit tree. Associate Planner Hanh replied the code does not specifically state that it cannot be a fruit tree, but typically as a policy we do not consider fruit trees. Commissioner Dang stated he sees that a tree is being proposed: in the front yard and was curious to see what type of tree it was. Associate Planner Hanh stated they have not decided on the type of tree yet. Commissioner Dang addressed the designer and staff and commented that he noticed a lot of care had been taken to provide the pavers to break down the massing effect of the driveway and the existing looks like a block wall on the side -yard, which will be stucco to match the house, and it will be a real good touch. He also gave kudos to the designer for putting in a the roof to match the new house in the back and stated that is a good accent. He congratulated the designer and commented the house is great, the color scheme, renderings, and the style of it is a great product for the City. Vice -Chair Eng thanked Commissioner Dang and asked the Planning Commission if there were any further questions or comments for staff, None Vice -Chair Eng asked for a motion. 77 Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera to ADOPT Resolution No. 18-13 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 18-02 and Minor Exception 18-15, subject to the 32 conditions. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang, Eng, Herrera, and Lopez Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Tang Community Development Director Kim stated the motion passes with a vote of 4 Ayes and 0 Noes and explained the 10 -day appeal process. C. MUNICIPAL CODE 18.03 - The proposed Municipal Code Amendment (MCA 18-03) would amend the Rosemead Municipal Code sections relating to the regulation of vacant lots. Currently, vacant lots are required to comply with the same standards as lots that are under construction or being demolished, as set forth in Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.68.100. The purpose of regulating vacant lots is to mitigate health, safety, and fire hazards, reduce negative visual and aesthetic impacts, and protect property values. The minimal standards required by this section are appropriate for lots that under construction or being demolished, as such activity is temporary in nature. However, such minimal standards are not effective in serving the purpose for vacant lots, as they could potentially remain vacant indefinitely. The proposed amendment would strengthen, the Rosemead Municipal Code to more effective combat potential blight resulting from vacant lots and would provide consistency in defining vacant lots throughout the Rosemead Municipal Code. PC RESOLUTION 18-14 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 982 FOR THE APPROVAL OF MCA 18-03, AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 17.68 (FENCES, WALLS, AND LANDSCAPE SCREENING) OF TITLE 17 (ZONING), AND ADDING CHAPTER 8.48 (VACANT LOTS) OF TITLE 8 (HEALTH AND SAFETY) OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING VACANT LOTS STAFF RECOMMENDATION - That the Planning Commission: Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; and Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 18-14 with findings, a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 982 for the approval of MCA 18-03. Planning & Economic Development Manager Vale,nzuela presented the staff report and power point presentation. Vice -Chair Eng asked it there were any questions or comments for staff, Commissioner Lopez asked staff if fences are not currently required for vacant lots. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzu0a replied the, Municipal Code currently requires that vacant lots have chain-link fences, which has become very b4ght. Commissioner Lopez asked if the vacant lots are being kept up. K Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied no, so therefore, it becomes a Code Enforcement case, and it takes a lot for staff to enforce the property owner to redo their fence. Commissioner Lopez asked if this ordinance is adopted will this change. He added, currently, property owners can get fined and the City can go in there to clean it up, but it is not stopping them. He asked how can the City get the property owners to understand why this is being done. Community Development Director Kim replied that what is being added is a vacant lot registry and that is the first step. Staff has identified all the vacant lots in the City, has done that inventory, and has a current list, He added, so if City Council authorizes the code amendment, staff will initiate with the vacant lot inventory, give notice to the vacant lot owners that the new ordinance is in place, and certain improvements will have to be done. He stated there is also the enforcement measure, which is becoming stronger. He stated language is being added to the code, where should the property owner or the responsible party not maintain those vacant lots, then additional enforcement measures, for example, the City would go in remedy the situation, and send the invoice to the responsible party. Commissioner Lopez commented that was a good answer. Commissioner Herrera asked if ultimately a lien would be placed on the property. Community Development Director Kim replied there are several ways to do that. The way he is most familiar with and believes to be most efficient, is an assessment that is placed on the property tax bill annually. He added so it would go to the City Council, City Council places an authorization for the City to place a tax on whatever the assessment may be, they would forward that information to the County Tax Assessor, and they automatically place it on the bill, which becomes an automatic payment. Commissioner Dang referred to the picture of the white picket fence in the power point presentation and asked if a current property owner of a vacant lot has a chain-link fence and it is secured, this ordinance would remove the chain- link fence and it would be replaced with the white picket fence. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes, Community Development Director Kim stated there is a little discretion also, if it becomes a security problem, then they can require additional height on the property. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela explained that if there is a security issue and the property owner needs to extend the fence to six feet, the Community Development Director will have the ability to approve it. Community Development Director Kim explained that the reason for that is, if the property becomes a continued issue, a dumping issue, and where it is only necessary that additional height or additional measures are necessary, then it will be implemented. Commissioner Dang stated that if you put a two -foot fence and if there are people doing all this illegal dumping at night, what would the remedy be. He added Community Development Director Kim clarified that they will have the option of putting the six-foot fence back. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela stated that is correct. Commissioner Lopez referred to the six to eight foot wide fence and asked if there will be other types allowed because the openness of the fence shown would not stop to it. He asked if tighter fences would be allowed other than just the white picket fence. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied there is no specific detail. Staff is just requiring a white rail type fence. She said staff contacted the City of Monterey Park and they explained that this type of fence works for them and staff hopes this will work for the City of Rosemead as well. Commissioner Dang stated they like the while picket fence, the landscaping, the green buffer zone between the pedestrian and white picket fence, but the vacant lot is quite often dry, and asked if there is a mechanism that will deal with the dust. Vice -Chair Eng stated that she believes Commissioner Dung's question is in regards to landscaping and asked for clarification if there was something in the staff report that requires irrigation. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela commented yes, there is. Commissioner Dang stated the irrigation is the green part, but inside the picket fence it is barren land with dust, he asked if there is a dust mitigation perimeter within the ordinance, Community Development Director Kim replied dust mitigation is not addressed because it is not a primary issue and not the intent of this ordinance. He stated currently the properties are vacant and that condition does not really change. He added what is being addressed is the fencing and buffering requirement. He said if there is a site that is, extensive and large enough requiring landscaping throughout the entire property is difficult and provided an example property on Valley Boulevard in Rosemead. He stated it would be infeasible to require landscaping for that entire property• Commissioner Dang stated that he thought maybe that is why they put the green screen there. Community Development Director stated that might be more for the visual. Commissioner Herrera referred to the power point presentation slide, stated the buffering area looks like grass, and asked if it was. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes, Commissioner Herrera asked how that would be maintained and watered. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied there will be irrigation. Commissioner Herrera stated irrigation will need to be installed and commented that will be quite an expense. Community Development Director Kim stated the intent is to have a positive impact to the community in regards to visual blight. He added there is a cost factor to this because there is a fencing cost, an, installation cost for fencing and irrigation, the landscaping, and the maintenance cost as well because the grass does need to be mowed and maintained. He added the overall benefit to the community will be significant. Commissioner Herrera asked if the property owner would have the option to say no, do not do it, they have their own people to do it, and then do it their own way. Community Development Director Kim replied that the property owner will actually be responsible to do this and the City will only step in it the property owner does not comply,. Commissioner Herrera asked to be in compliance will the property owner just have to maintain the property to where it looks nice or will they have to bring it to these standards. 19 Community Development Director Kim replied this will be the standard. Commissioner Herrera asked if this will be the only standard and the property owners will have to do this themselves. Community Development Director Kim replied yes, and asked staff if alternative landscaping measures were put in because some cities/communities do have low impact water efficient landscaping, If they should choose to. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied that was left pretty open because a landscaping plan will have to be submitted to staff. She added staff will review these on a case by case basis. Commissioner Herrera asked how and if an irrigation system will be installed if it is an undeveloped vacant lot, Community Development Director Kim replied yes, and explained they would have to tap into the main, install a water meter, and run the irrigation system. Commissioner Herrera asked if this will all be at the owner's expense. Community Development Director Kim replied yes, and if the property owner should not wish to maintain a vacant property, the owner is more than welcome to develop their property. Vice -Chair Eng stated to address Commissioner Herrera's concern, most of these vacant lots may have some sort of watering infrastructure in place, they may have had to demo the building that had been there, so she does not foresee this as a magor concern, as they are not new undeveloped lots, She added most of the lots, may have previously been developed and the water infrastructure has been in place, so the owner will only have to hook it up. She thanked staff and commended the City Council for taking the leadership in putting this ordinance in place, as it is needed. She asked staff approximately how many vacant lots does the City currently have. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied approximately 53. Vice -Chair Eng asked if most of them are located in the north or south area. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied they are throughout the City. Vice -Chair Eng asked staff how the registration of vacant lots by the property owner be enforced. Planning & EconomIic Development Manager Valenzue,la replied a process will be implemented, which is in Chapter 8.48, and letters will be sent out to all the property owners notifying them when this is adopted. She stated once the code has been adopted, the letter will inform the property owners of the adoption and they have 60 days to comply with the ordinance. She said at that point, property owners will know they have to register and submit a plan. Vice -Chair Eng asked what the definition of a vacant lot is. She stated near her residence there has been, a half developed project that has been sifting there for a long time and asked if this will fall into that category or how will those be addressed, Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied in those cases if the permits are no longer active they would be considered as a vacant lot. She added they will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and staff would have to analyze them, III MINIMIZE III INIRI 111111 Commissioner Lopez asked what will happen if a property owner of a vacant lot states they do not have the funds to cover the expenses of irrigation, planting grass or sod, landscaping, and fencing to comply with this new ordinance. He asked If the City will help or how will the City address the feedback of the new ordinance requirements. Community Development Director Kim replied the preview and discussion for the Planning Commission at this time is for the land issue decision, so this specific ordinance is being proposed to address, a land use concern. He added the economic aspects of it is something staff will have to work with the individual applicants. He stated it was a valid comment and thanked Commissioner Lopez for it, but this is specifically a land use issue and is an impact to the community in terms of aesthetics. Vice -Chair Eng opened the Public Hearing and invited speaker request Brian Lewin to the podium. Resident Brian Lewin thanked staff for puffing this ordinance in place, stated this is something that this is needed, and he is pleased this is finally being done. He expressed that he is concerned with the fencing because he does not know if that type of fencing will be sufficient to keep people out. He stated there is a giant lot on the eastern border of the City on Valley Boulevard that has had a long history of people going in and doing improper things. He, stated that some of those lots would need a significantly higher level of security than a six feet tall fence. He recommended considering adding some additional fencing options or clarifying the fencing options to address those type of concerns. He said that lot may, be unique compared to what some of the other sites are, but he recommended this be considered for some of the big lots. He referred to Section (A)(1) Landscaping and statedhe likes the idea. He asked if this had been considered, where there is a gas station with a parking lot made of asphalt and (the City actually owns a lot behind a 7 -Eleven, which is in progress that is entirely asphalt), in order to be in compliant with this, will the property owner have to dig up the appropriate frontage of asphalt or concrete to install the drought tolerant landscaping that is required by the ordinance. He stated he is not sure if he is opposed to this, but he recommends it be addressed or considered in some fashion. He referred to 8,48,050 "Noncompliance Declared Nuisance" and especially thanked staff for this and recommended considering a timetable or number of citations against the property before the City would be entitled to enter the property and take action. He stated he is in favor of doing that because one of the issues the City has long had is absentee landlords that do not maintain their properties, so you can cite them all year, and, they are not going to do anything. He stated the City might want to put a progressive enforcement regime in there to make it clear on what stage they will do what and to specifically tie it in to the effect of, "Failure, to comply shall constitute a public nuisance as defined in Chapter 8.44.020 of the code. He stated, as similarly to that, the fees and costs not paid he recommends empathizing the tax lien for the same reason. He stated if a property lien is put on it, the City has properties that has been dormant for 20-30 years and the City may never collect any money from it. He stated a tax lien is the best way to go and if that is the option, he suggests they do that. He referred to Vice -Chair Eng's comment about properties starting construction and then just stopping for a long time and there have been many projects like that. He recommended adding a little more specificity to the exemption in 8.48.060 and tighten that up a bit in terms of that ties into building permits and construction projects in terms of when a project lies dormant because a person cannot get funds is it still off this. He questioned ff it's still exempt or at what point would that kick in. He said if somebody gets halfway into the project and the money dries up and they need another six months to a year to get the money, are they still exempt from this code. He stated they should not be, it should kick in, and recommended that the language in that provision be a little clearer to determine when and how that happens. He thanked the Planning Commission for this and he does have these questions and concerns, but overall this looks good and he is looking forward to this becoming code. Resident James Berry stated he would also like to thank the City Council and Planning Commission for doing this. He added this has been a problem in the City for a very long time, this will make things a lot better, and make it so that people will want to live here and be a part of the City. He thanked the Planning; Commission again. Vice -Chair Eng asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on this item. Milo MW M Vice -Chair Eng lcNosecl the Public Hearing, She asked if the Planning Commission had any further comments or questions for staff, Commissioner Dang stated he was following some of Mr. Lewin's points and one of them was in regards to the construction site that Vice -Chair Eng brought up. He said during the course of construction, from what he understands, each time you call for an inspection it renews a permit for another sN months. So the fact that you have no construction activity within six months, it does not mean that there is an expired permit, it just means they need to call for an inspection one day of the six months. He added there are other points he wants to discuss and asked Community Development Director Kim for his assistance. Community Development Director Kim stated the first comment was in regards to the type of fencing. He explained that the height might not be tall enough on larger lots from people entering the properties for security purposes. Commissioner Dang stated that the Municipal Code maximum for fencing is at six feet and if you put anything higher than six feet it becomes a fortressing effect and if it is taller, it will not prevent someone from getting in. He added they wouild just get a bolt cutter and snip the fence to get in and walk right through. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela stated that it is typically at six feet but the Municipal Code does state a minimum of six feet. She added anything over six feet does not work anymore, CommissVoner Dang stated structurally there are some issues too, and explained you have to drive the foundation and things like that. He added with the temporary footings when the fence gets very tall it will not work, you will have to start driving concrete foundations with something more permanent, and it will be a more cost effect. Community Development Director Kim stated another one of Brian Lewin"s comment was in reference to commercial properties and the landscape requirement. Commllssioner Dang stated that Brian Lewin mentioned a property that has a gas station that has asphalt, and if the Cfty is going to ask them to tear it out, but if there is a structure like that, he does not consider that as vacant, Community Development Director Kim asked so we will not be requiring the landscape bluffer, it will only require the fencing on the property fine. He added that putting in the buffer is a hardship and it will effect either the circulation or parking. Commissioner Dang stated his breakdown of the presentation was to add some beautification to the commercial site and add the white fence element to beautify the commercial site. Community Development Director Kim stated the next item was for the number of notices before the City enters the property and does the work, Commissioner Dang stated the City already has some Code Enforcement protoc6l's in place, so he does not recommend adding anymore clarity to it. Community Development Director Kim stated the City does have protocols in place and the City does not want to be challenged if the notices were received or not, He added the City would implement the current procedures in place. He stated there was also a comment regarding the tax lien and not a property lien, Commissioner Dang stated the tax lien is an excellent vehicle, so every year they will be paying that lien off opposed to waiting for the property to be sold and that fine is garnished. W Community Development Director Kim stated that is an annual action by the City Council and he is familiar with that process with other cities, so staff will recommend that to the City Council. Commissioner Dang stated that this is an excellent idea and this is an excellent ordinance, Vice -Chair Eng thanked Commissioner Dang and asked if the Planning Commissiion had any further cluestiions or comments. I 0=1 A Vice -Chair Eng asked Community Development Director Kim if' the tax lien was something that the City of Montebello uses for their trash services. She asked if the trash bill is collected as part of their property tax bill, Community Development Director Kim replied that it is this is an abatement type of process,, so it is different. Vice -Chair Eng stated Brian Lewin's concern about the fences was not so much about the height, but it was about the type of fences. She added his, issue is how do we address the openness of the fence for security features and to keep the people from accessing the properly. She added that is what Mr. Lewin was alluding to in terms, of his concern, Community Development Director Kim stated there is a homeless issue not only in Rosemead, but also in the San: Gabriel Valley, and throughout California. He explained what the homeless does not like is being seen, so if there is a property and there, are no weeds, there is no trees, no bushes, arid if they set up an encampment, and they are visible they do not like that. He provided an example from a property in Monterey Park at Atlantic and Garvey and stated it is a sizable piece of property and about seven to eight acres in total size, there are no homelessness. This is because this is just open, and even though there is rail fencing, and the fending is only four feet high, the homeless just does not congregate there, He stated there are different measures for security aside from just putting up a four -foot high fence or tafler, Vice -Chair Eng stated another comment that Brian Lewin brought up was properties that are under construction and sit dormant. She stated she appreciates Brian Lewin' s comment and where he is coming from in terms of enough is enough. Each: of those cases should be looked at separately, and individually, because sometimes it is a financial feasibility issue, and that is something that needs to be addressed on a case by case basis to understand the reasons those properties are not being able to be completed in a timely manner. She asked if there were any further comments or questions for staff. None Vice -Chair Eng stated with no further questions or comments and asked for a rnotion. Commissioner Herrera made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 18-14 with findings, a resolution recommending, that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 982 for, the approval of MCA 18-03. Vote resulted in: Yes: bang, Eng, Herrera, and Lopez No: None Abstain: None Absent: Tang RH MIMI' presented to the City Council at a fut�ure hearing. A. PC MINUTES 8-6-18 Vice -Chair Eng stated she has a correction on page 5 and ciarifled it shoWd state, "She noticed a number of shuttles in front of the restaurant". ornmissionei correction to page 5. "07TWOMM Ayes: Dang, Eng, Herrera, and Lopez Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Tang Community Development Director Kim stated motion passes with a vote of 4 Ayes 0 Noes, Commissioner Daniel Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sean Dang, to approve Item B. Revised Planning Commission Resolution Numbers. Vote resulted in: Ayes- Dang, Eng, Herrera, and Lopez Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Tang Meeting adjourned at 8:11 pm. The next regular Planning Commission meeting for Monday, September 3, 2018 will be Cancelled due to City Hall being closed for the Labor Day Holiday. M The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be on Monday, September 17, 2018, at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers. Nancy Eng Vice -Chair ATTEST�, Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary