Loading...
PC - Item 4A - Minutes 10-18-21 Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 18, 2021 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Berry at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners Leung INVOCATION Chair Berry ROLL CALL Commissioners Leung, Lopez, Ung, Vice-Chair Tang, and Chair Berry STAFF PRESENT City Attorney Thuyen, Interim Director of Community Development Persico, Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela, Associate Planner Lao, Assistant Planner Wong, and Commission Liaison Huang 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney Thuyen presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no comments, Chair Berry opened and closed the Public Comment period. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 21-01 - Nenzhi Huang has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application, requesting to establish a massage services use located at 8526 Valley Boulevard, Unit 107 (APN: 5371-011-017), in the Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay (C-3/D-O) zone. The proposed project would not increase the floor area of the existing building. Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.16.020, approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required in order to establish a massage services use within a Medium Commercial (C-3) zone. PC RESOLUTION 21-17 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 21-01 FOR THE OPERATION OF A MASSAGE SERIVCES USE. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 8526 VALLEY BOULEVARD, UNIT 107 (APN: 5371-011-017), IN A MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY (C-3/D-O) ZONE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 21-17 with findings, and approve Conditional Use Permit 21-01, subject to the 27 conditions. Assistant Planner Wong presented the Staff Report. Commissioner Lopez questioned if this is an existing massage or a brand new massage business. Assistant Planner Wong replied this would be a new massage establishment. Commissioner Lopez questioned how many massage services are located within the general vicinity and if there are safety related concerns at the existing massage establishments. Assistant Planner Wong answered there are four existing massage services, and this would be the fifth location. He added, according to the Public Safety Department which includes the Code Enforcement Division and the Chief of Police, they did not Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2021 Page 1 of 8 notate any concerns or violations within the vicinity. Commissioner Ung questioned if there are other protocols that the massage establishment must follow. Assistant Planner Wong answered yes. He referred to Chapter 5.24 which outlines the business license and operation requirements. Staff will go through the application and conduct inspection with the Public Safety Department to ensure all those requirements are met. Chair Berry asked if the applicant is present and would like to speak. Mr. Jack Soong spoke on behalf of the applicants, Nancy (Nenzhi Huang) and Wendy. He stated that the applicants are both currently working at Franklyn Palace in Rosemead, where Nancy has eight years of experience managing the massage establishment. He added, she has the experience to operate a safe and legitimate massage establishment and asked the Commissioners to approve item so they can achieve their American dream to start their own business. Commissioner Lopez questioned the hours of operation. Assistant Planner Wong answered 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days a week. Chair Berry opened the public testimony portion of the public hearing. He asked if we received any written comments and if there is anyone online who would like to speak. Commissioner Liaison Huang responded that no written comment was received for this item, and there were no callers on the line who wish to speak. Chair Berry asked the audience if there were anyone who would like to speak on this matter. Public Comment: Jose Navarro, who resides in Temple City, CA stated he is in support of this establishment. He said this is not only their American Dream, but applies to others as well. Hlocal massage establishments frequently in his senior years and notice that the employees who works there are immigrants in their 50s who are making a living base on the massage service they provide. Mr. Navarro stated that this is a good opportunity for them to support their livelihood and children and believes this should be approved. There being no additional public comment, Chair Berry closed the public comment period. There being no questions from the Commission, Chair Berry closed the Public Hearing. ACTION: Vice-Chair Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 21-17 with findings, and approve Conditional Use Permit 21-01, subject to the 27 conditions. Interim Director of Community Development Persico explained the 10-day appeal process. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Berry, Leung, Lopez, Tang, and Ung Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Roll call vote resulted in 5 Ayes and 0 Noes. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2021 Page 2 of 8 B. DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 20-07 - Yimin Rong has submitted a Design Review application, requesting to construct a new two-story, 3,998 square-foot single-family dwelling unit with a detached three-car garage. The granting of a Discretionary Site Plan and Design Review is required for any dwelling unit to be constructed that equals or exceeds two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of developed living area. The subject site is located at 9250 De Adalena Street (APN: 8594-019-006) in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) zone. PC RESOLUTION 21-16 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 20-07, PERMITTING A NEW, TWO-STORY, 3,998 SQUARE-FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT, WITH A DETACHED THREE- CAR GARAGE. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 9250 DE ADALENA STREET (APN: 8594-019-006), IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 21-16 with findings, and approve Design Review 20-07, subject to the 32 conditions. Associate Planner Lao presented the Staff Report. Commissioner Lopez questioned the size of the property. Associate Planner Lao answered the proposed home is 3,998 square feet. Commissioner Lopez inquired on the size of other homes within the vicinity and questioned larger or smaller homes. Associate Planner Lao replied there are a lot of two-story homes on that street. She said staff drove around the area and conducted research. She added there are a few homes above 2,500 square feet, and there are two homes on the same street which are 3,049 square feet and 3,111 square feet. Commissioner Ung questioned the plumbing system for the new home. She noted there is currently a one bathroom to the existing home and added that the applicant is now requesting for a six-bathroom home. She questioned if the utilities could sustain the increase in plumbing fixtures. Associate Planner Lao responded that the existing home will be converted into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). She said the plans were routed to the utility companies and we received a will-serve letter from the Gas Company. She also said the plans were routed to Public Works Department and the City Engineer has reviewed the plans. She added, when it goes to the Building Division for Plan Check, it will get routed to the other agencies such as the Fire Department to ensure the development meets all requirements. Commission Ung referred to the water efficient landscape plan and questioned if that would apply to plumbing fixtures when the size of property increases within an area substantially. Associate Planner Lao stated the Building Division would review the plumbing during the Title 24 process. Commissioner Ung inquired about how many properties are mostly rental versus owner occupied in the area. Associate Planner Lao replied Staff does not have that information. Vice-Chair Tang questioned if the ADU has certain setback requirements, or does it not apply because it is an existing building. Associate Planner Lao referred to the State ADU Law and stated if an applicant is requesting to convert an existing structure Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2021 Page 3 of 8 into an ADU, they can keep the existing setbacks and they do not need to comply with current. Vice-Chair Tang inquired if it is a new ADU, would they comply with the current code. Associate Planner Lao answered yes. Vice-Chair Tang noted that the proposed project is a new two-story house with a total of six bedrooms and the ADU with two rooms, with a total of eight bedrooms, and a garage with three parking space. He added, although they have some driveway, he is concerned about the amount of people that might be residing in this area and the amount of traffic from this one location. Commissioner Ung noted that new ADU must follow the design style of the main house and inquired if the applicant must follow the same guidelines and questioned if there are any additional work being done to existing house/ADU. Associate Planner Lao stated it would still apply and has spoken to the representative regarding this matter. She said they chose a color that is similar to the existing house being converted to an ADU and noted the applicant wanted an S- tile roof but because the existing home has shingles and it is flat, they proposed a flat style roof to match. She added, no additional changes to the ADU. Chair Berry questioned if there are requirements for such a large percentage of the property being upgrading and modified as an ADU. Associate Planner Lao answered no, the law is in favor of we cannot require the applicant to adjust drastically. Chair Berry asked if the applicant is present and would like to speak. Mr. Sam Yum, designer for the project spoke on behalf of the applicant and was available to answer questions. Vice-Chair Tang questioned if this property would be owner-occupied and inquired if the owner is currently occupying the house. Mr. Yum stated it would be owner-occupied and the owner wants to build his dream house in Rosemead. He said currently, the owner is not occupying the home and lives in another city but prefers to live in Rosemead. He added, it took him several years to work on the proposed design to the City. Vice-Chair Tang inquired what was the reason for such a large development with six bedrooms. Mr. Yum responded that the owner would like a room for each of his children. Seeing no additional questions, Chair Berry open the public testimony portion of the public hearing. He asked if we received any written comments and if there are anyone online who would like to speak. Commissioner Liaison Huang responded that no written comment was received for this item, and there were no callers on the line who wish to speak. Chair Berry asked the audience if there was anyone who would like to speak on this matter. There being no public comment, Chair Berry closed the public comment period. Commissioner Lopez inquired about the utilities use for the new development. He stated it being such a big home, water and electricity would be an abundant use and questioned if a fire hydrant and new waterlines are required. He added, he does not Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2021 Page 4 of 8 see how the existing older home can support any of that water coming in on such a large project. Associate Planner Lao addressed CommisShe answered LA County Fire Department will let the applicant know during the building plan check stage whether a fire hydrant is required. She added, for the utilities, the water and electricity companies were notified of this project in the beginning stages, and letters were routed to them. Vice-Chair Tang noted that this project stands out because he has not seen a 4,000 square foot home with six bedrooms plus an ADU. Commissioner Leung and Chair Berry indicated that they share the same sentiments as Vice-Chair Tang. City Attorney Thuyen reminded the Commissioners that the following item is a Design Review and expressed that this review is for how it operates as a site and the design, and not really about the use. He added, in this case, there are any questions about the use, that would not be part of the decision for this item, rather it is for the site plan and design review of this project. Vice-Chair Tang questioned if this is within the Commissioners purview to ask whether a housing development of six bedrooms would fit within the harmony of the neighborhood, as well as the combination of parking to house that many people in one house especially when an ADU is attached to it. City Attorney Thuyen stated that the Commission can weigh in on the proposed design and how it is in harmony with those surrounding the neighborhood, which is part of the Design Review process. He referred to the roofing material as reference; whether it's ranch style houses or different types of designs and stated that those are the type of things we're looking for. He added, as far as how they can use it as a residential area, it is in a residential zone, and if they comply with the code, that would not be part of this review. He also added, for instance, if the applicant was trying to do a spaceship style home in a traditional ranch style neighborhood, or if this design is consistent and fits in with the aesthetic character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Lopez addressed his concerns for this project and shared the same sentiments as Commissioner Tang. He said he is concerned about the size of the property and parking accommodations. He noted that the property will consist of six bedrooms plus an ADU, which brings a total of eight bedrooms but only three parking spaces and added that the community could be robbed of parking around their area from these larger projects. Commissioner Lopez expressed that he was not against the home, but against how big it will be. He then said he understands that this is a motion for the design review, however, he was not satisfied with this project because we have fought hard to keep the home smaller. He indicated that he was unable to approve this item and asked if there was another way the applicant can lower the specification to bring it down to a smaller size. He added, for a single family of that size would take away from the small city, and cause issues with the neighbors such as parking concerns. Commissioner Ung questioned if the other properties in the 3,000 square feet range with an ADU. Associate Planner Lao replied staff does not have that information but knows the size of the units. single-family home of this size to have an ADU, ADU uses are relatively more recent where the state has imposed the ministerial approval requirement on it. He believes the absence of the ADU does not necessarily mean that it's incompatible to the neighborhood, especially with state law requiring us to approve ADU. Often, we cannot put it up for a hearing at the ministerial process. Commissioner Ung stated this was a follow up question to understand the parking because it is an ADU plus the large property and expressed it could be an issue. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2021 Page 5 of 8 City Attorney Thuyen understands having the ADU element makes this a unique situation and explained the state does limit how many parking spots we can require if someone wants to include an ADU. For reference, he referred to page 11 of the packet which lists the findings requirement for this approval and staff recommend approval based on their review of the findings. If the Commissioner has concerns which make them unable to make one or more of these findings, then this should be articulated for the record. Vice Chair Tang expressed his concerns and compared the home sizes on De Adalena St. He noted, there are two-story houses which are big in size, and the vast majority are single-story, single-family homes. Besides the ADU, this 4,000 square feet two-story home stands out a lot compared to the surrounding homes along the street. Chair Berry questioned what would occur if the Commission wished to deny the project. Planning and Economic Manager Valenzuela stated if the Commission wished to deny the project, we would have to come up with findings to support the denial. Chair Berry agreed that this project is very large, but unfortunately, finding no grounds to deny this application, he will motion to approve. Vice-Chair Tang inquired if there was an alternative solution; instead of denying this item, he suggested staff to work with developers to see if there might be a workable solution based on Commission comments. Interim Community Development Director Persico recommended to have the applicant speak and find a middle ground or staff could alternatively update the resolution. He believes there is enough testimony from the condition where Staff could present an alternative resolution if the applicants are not willing to modify their plans. Chair Berry invited the applicant to speak. Applicant Yimin Rong was present to speak. Interim Community Development Director Persico informed the applicant that the Commission was inquiring if they were willing to continue this item so staff could work with the applicant on a potential revision to the project and continue this item for a later date to give the applicant a chance to present an alternative project to the Commission. Mr. Yum expressed that he would not be able to re-submit within two to four weeks because it will take some time to revise. Interim Community Development Director Persico informed the applicant that alternatively, instead of setting a date to continue the item, staff can re-notice and bring the item back when the applicant is ready. Associate Planner Lao provided a brief history of the project. She said the applicant submitted their plans in 2020 and their original plans called for a 4,650 square feet home. Staff worked with the applicant to reduce the size of the home. She said the applicant informed staff that he has a lot of family members, his brothers, and his kids that live with him, and his current home is 3,000 square feet. He also said they bought the property in 2006 as they wanted to move to Rosemead and create his dream -car garage at 750 square feet is the maximum size permitted. She said the owner originally proposed for more parking, however, the code did not allow it. She also said for an existing garage, you do not have to rebuild a garage for this home, but if they wanted to build an attached garage to the ADU, that would be permitted. She added, if the Commission is concerned about parking, it would be possible for the applicant to propose an additional garage for the ADU, if they wished to. Chair Berry noted the new house is only allowed a three-car garage, and since it includes an ADU, the Commission can request to add another garage for the ADU. He questioned what the size of that garage would be limited to. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2021 Page 6 of 8 Associate Planner Lao stated a three-car detached garage up to 750 square feet. Commissioner Ung made a motion to approve this item because it follows all the Municipal Code allowances. She said aside from the home size and ADU, she was more concerned about the plumbing fixtures, but since it has been routed to Public Works, they can work with the applicant. Vice-Chair Tang inquired if Commissioner Ung is making the motion with the modification to add on a garage or as is. Commissioner Ung replied as is. City Attorney Thuyen informed the Commission that there was motion by Chair Berry for approval, so this can be treated as a second by Commissioner Ung. Vice-Chair Tang questioned if this fails the vote, would the applicant get an opportunity to revise this project and come back if they have a separate set of plans. City Attorney Thuyen explained the procedures and noted there has been a motion to approve based off Staff recommendation and if it does not pass, then this item would still be in a limbo. He said the Commission could motion for an alternative to deny or a motion to continue. He also added that according to the municipal code, we will have to wait a certain amount of time before they can re-apply. If the Commission continues it, it will be a date certain, which means to set a date right now, and does not need to be re-noticed, which will save some money for the applicant. He added, if the Commission does not want to continue it to a specific date, then we would figure out what date we want to schedule the meeting and go through the motions and pay for the public hearing notice. Vice-Chair Tang thanked City Attorney for the explanation. Chair Berry questioned if we can still offer the applicant the choice. Interim Community Development Director Persico made reference to the City Attorney explanation and pointed out that there have been two motions. He added, the Commissioner would need to continue that route, unless somebody is willing to withdraw their first or second motion and offer an alternative motion and noted there are parliamentary rules that do allow Commissioners to withdraw a motion. Chair Berry voiced his first motion and noted Commissioner Ung has second the motion. ACTION: Chair Berry made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ung, to: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 21-16 with findings, and approve Design Review 20-07, subject to the 32 conditions. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Berry, Leung, and Ung Noes: None Abstain: Lopez and Tang Absent: None Roll call vote resulted in 3 Ayes and 2 Abstain. Interim Director of Community Development Persico explained the 10-day appeal process. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2021 Page 7 of 8 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. PC MINUTES 10-04-21 Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Tang to approve PC Minutes 10-04-21 as presented. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Berry, Leung, Lopez, Tang, and Ung Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Roll call vote resulted in 5 Ayes and 0 Noes. 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Interim Director of Community Development Persico informed the Commissioners to save the date for the Joint City Council and Planning Commission Concept Presentation Workshop scheduled for Tuesday, November 9th at 6:00 p.m. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERS None 7. ADJOURNMENT The next regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for November 1, 2021, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Chair Berry adjourned the meeting at 7:51 p.m. ______________________________________ ATTEST: James Berry Chair __________________________________ Mark Persico Commission Secretary Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2021 Page 8 of 8