Loading...
PC - Item 4B - Minutes of September 18, 2017Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 18, 2017 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Dang in the Council Chambers located at 8838 E. Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Commissioner Herrera INVOCATION — Chair Deng ROLL CALL— Commissioners Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Chair Dang ABSENT — Vice -Chair Tang STAFF PRESENT: City Attorney Thuyen, Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela, Associate Planner Hanh, Assistant Planner Lao, and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney Thuyen presented the procedures and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-02 AND MINOR EXCEPTION 17-18 — Frank Contreras of Open Bible Church has submitted a Conditional Use Permit and Minor Exception application, requesting to enlarge the existing legal nonconforming church, located at 7915 Hellman Avenue. The proposed project would add 3,092 square feet to the existing 13,595 square feet church, for a total of 16,687 square feet of floor area. The project site is located in a Light Multiple Residential (R-2) zone. In the R-2 zone, approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required for place of religious assembly use and approval of a Minor Exception is required for enlargement of a legal nonconforming structure. PC RESOLUTION 17-18 -- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15.02 AND MINOR EXCEPTION 17-18, PERMITTING THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING LEGAL NONCONFORMING PLACE OF RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY USE AND ENLARGEMENT OF AN EXISTING LEGAL NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, LOCATED AT 7915 HELLMAN AVENUE (APN: 5287-015-022), IN A LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL (R-2) ZONE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 17.18 with findings and APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 15-02 and Minor Exception 17-18, subject to the 28 conditions. Associate Planner Hanh presented the staff report. Chair Dang asked if there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Eng asked for clarification on the modifications and asked if one is for the rear yard setback and is it less than what is required under the municipal code. Associate Planner Hanh replied the first modification is for the front yard setback. Commissioner Eng asked if the deficiency is a result of the addition that they are proposing. Associate Planner Hanh replied no. Commissioner Eng asked if the existing is what nonconforming is. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if the addition is to the south, which is the back of the building. Associate Planner Hanh replied it is to the north and to the west. Commissioner Eng asked if the minimum 35 parking spaces take into account and include the 3,000 square feet addition. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Commissioner Lopez asked if the applicant is adding an off the premise parking area, which includes 54 off-street parking spaces, besides what is included on the church. Associate Planner Hanh replied no, all parking will be on-site. Chair Deng asked for clarification in terms of the existing site plan verses the proposed site plan. He referred to the area to the far east of the property, which appears to be a residential property/garage, and asked what happened to it, because it seems to have disappeared. Associate Planner Hanh replied that a portion of the property to the east went through a lot line adjustment (by Public Works Dept.). He added the parking that was to the rear of the residential area will now be for the residential property. Chair Deng asked if that property had always been part of the house. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Chair Dang asked if in actuality there is no change in the residential house. Associate Planner Hanh replied the residential home is not part of this scope of work. Chair Dang asked if the lot line adjustment affected this residential home. Associate Planner Hanh replied the residential property met all the minimum requirements, but the house itself was not affected. Chair Deng asked if the land that was cleared off is just a part of the residential house parcel lot area. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Chair Dang opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Frank Contreras, applicant, thanked the Planning Commission and gave a brief summary of what they are proposing, which consist of better quality of floor space for their classrooms, nursery, multi-purpose room, lobby, and to beautify the community. Chair Deng asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions or comments for the applicant. Commissioner Eng asked if the building is currently one-story or is it two -stories. Frank Contreras replied some small areas are two -stories and it will remain the same. Commissioner Eng asked if the addition will be for the one-story only. Frank Contreras replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if the church currently has classrooms. Frank Contreras replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if they are adding more classrooms. Frank Contreras replied that they are reconfiguring the space that they currently have. Commissioner Eng asked how many classes they will have after the expansion is completed. Frank Contreras replied there will be four classrooms and one room for a nursery. Commissioner Eng asked if this is a non-academic/traditional school or is it basically bible study classes. Frank Contreras replied currently the facility is used for church purposes only. Commissioner Eng asked if there are plans to expand the educational purpose and become a private school. Frank Contreras replied that is something to consider for in the future, but currently he just wants to complete this project. He added they would like to make sure the classrooms have adequate space for the students. Commissioner Eng stated if there are intentions and plans on becoming a traditional school, then there may be additional considerations to look at due to traffic impacts. Frank Contreras stated if that was the case, then they will look into those conditions at that time. Commissioner Herrera asked how long the church has been at this location. Frank Contreras replied the church itself has been there since 1948 and next year will be their 70 year celebration. Chair Dang congratulated Mr. Contreras on their 70th year. He added that the rendering is beautiful and likes that they are adopting the earth tone colors. He stated there is a block wall that is being installed around the perimeter and requested that the block wall match the earth tone colors of the building. Frank Contreras agreed and stated he likes earth tone colors Chair Dang stated that in other developments where block walls surround the area, it has been recommended to add split -face. He added it is fairly inexpensive and it helps to break up the big massing effect. He recommended that he work with staff and they have samples they can show him if he agreeable to adding the split -face. Frank Contreras agreed to the split -face and that he is sure staff will be helpful. Chair Dang addressed the City Attorney and asked if the recommendations will have to be conditioned or will staff just work with the applicant. City Attorney Thuyen replied that if the Planning Commission would like to add that as a condition of approval it would have to be added at this time. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela referred to Condition of Approval number 21 regarding fencing and recommended the requirement for split -face be added to this condition. Chair Dang requested that Condition of Approval number 21 be modified to include both split -face and earth tone colors requirements. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela agreed to the recommendation. Chair Deng asked if there were any further questions or comments. Resident Margaret Holt stated her property is located directly behind the church property and currently construction is taking place on Del Mar and Hellman Avenue. She asked if the construction for this project will add to the traffic and create more problems. She expressed that currently traffic is bad on Hellman Avenue due to construction and is scheduled to be completed in September. She asked when this projects construction will begin and if it will interfere with the current traffic. Chair Deng invited Mr. Contreras back to thepodiumand asked him when his construction will begin Frank Contreras replied he understands the concerns and he would be concerned also. He stated that he is willing to work with the City's schedule and is not sure when that project on Hellman Avenue will be completed and it would also be a concern for them. Chair Dang asked Ms. Holt if the street construction on Hellman will be completed in September. Margaret Holt replied there is a flashing sign stating it will be completed on September 5th, so she has been exiting on Brighton Street. Chair Dang asked Frank Contreras if they had submitted plans to Building & Safety yet, or is everything still in the preliminary stages. Frank Contreras replied they have not submitted for construction permits, as they were waiting for this approval to move forward. If the Hellman project is not completed they are willing to wait before commencing work. Chair Dang commented that it looks like there will be a large area to stage materials and for construction parking after the residential property on the west is demolished, so that may help alleviate some of the concerns. 0 Commissioner Eng commented she lives in that area and the intersection of Del Mar Avenue and Hellman Avenue is under construction. She added she saw a sign that said it would be completed by October 31s�. Resident Margaret Holt stated the sign she saw stated September 5th and it looks like a lot of work still needs to be completed. Commissioner Eng recommended that staff request an update and timeline from Public Works. Associate Planner Hanh stated that if this project is approved the applicant will also need to apply for a plan check from the Building and Safety Department. He added this may take some time, so it could possibly provide enough time for the project on Hellman to be completed. City Attorney Thuyen suggested that a list be complied and if there are other speakers have each one come up one at a time, so that it is clearer for the record. Chair Dang asked if there were any other questions or comments from the public. None Chair Dang closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Commission if they had any further questions or comments. Commissioner Lopez stated he likes the project and made a motion to approve this item. City Attorney Thuyen clarified that this motion includes the resolution recommended by staff and the modification to Condition of Approval number 21, regarding aesthetics, adding the split -face, and earth tone colors. Commissioner Lopez made a motions seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to ADOPT Resolution No. 17-18 with findings and APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 15.02 and Minor Exception 17.18, subject to the 26 conditions. (Condition of Approval number 21 was modified by the Planning Commission 9-18.17/. Vote resulted in: Yes: Dang, Eng, Herrera, and Lopez No:, None Abstain: None Absent: Tang Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated the motion passes with a vote of 4 Ayes and 0 Noes and explained the 10 -day appeal process. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. MODIFICATION 17.05 (UPDATE) - 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. During the Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission expressed their concerns regarding the number of proposed restaurant uses and how off-street parking could potentially be impacted as the proposed number of restaurant uses could result in a shortage of off-street parking spaces. 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. The motion resulted in a vote of four ayes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission provide staff with direction on how to proceed with Modification 17-05. Assistant Planner Lao presented the staff report. Chair Dang asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions or comments for staff Commissioner Eng stated Vice -Chair Tang is not present this evening and he had concerns with this project and it may be appropriate to discuss this item when he is present. She expressed that when this item returns to the Planning Commission for approval of restaurant use, she requested operational conditions be included in the conditions of approval to help mitigate with impacts from a restaurant use. She recommended staff to use the guidelines from previously approved mixed use projects'She stated she is recommending this to be fair to everybody because this project was approved as a mixed use. She referred to Condition of Approval number 19, read it, and asked if it is consistent with previous mixed use projects with restaurant use. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied yes, it is a standard condition of approval for mixed use projects. Commissioner Eng referred to page 18 of 24 in the staff report (PC Mtg., of 8.21-17), Utilities number 62, and in terms of lighting, requested that in case restaurant use is incorporated, there may be outdoor seating, and lighting may be necessary. Commissioner Lopez stated this item is an update and asked if staff will bring this item to the Planning Commission at a later date. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied this item was previously heard at the last Planning Commission meeting of August 21 2017. She explained that City Attorney Murphy recommended bringing this item back as an update, so the next step would be for the Planning Commission to give staff direction to bring this item back as a Public Hearing to the Planning Commission for either an approval or a denial. Commissioner Lopez recommended that staff bring the item back as a Public Hearing City Attorney Thuyen stated the purpose for this item is to provide an update per the direction from the Planning Commission from the previous Planning Commission meeting. He added this is the opportunity for the Planning Commission to hear staff's update, for further comments, ask questions, express concerns, and to have information included for the next Planning Commission meeting. Chair Dang stated he was not present at the Planning Commission when this was first presented and asked if the progress update request is to have three out of the five tenant spaces be restaurant use. He asked if the original request was to switch the retail use to restaurant use. Commissioner Lopez explained that the request was to have restaurant use in all five units Chair Deng asked what the parking ratio for a restaurant is. Assistant Planner Lao replied one per 100 Chair Dang asked if the definition of a shopping center per the zoning code is five or more tenant spaces less than a certain square feet. Assistant Planner Lao replied the off-street parking requirements states, if the shopping center has more than four tenants then it is parked at the following ratio, but since this commercial/shopping center is 6,500 square feet it is parked at the ratio of one per 250. Chair Dang asked if every single tenant space of this complex is restaurant, does it fit the definition of a shopping center. Assistant Planner Lao replied yes. Chair Deng stated there was a zoning code update in the year of "2013" and asked it this was part of that zoning update. Assistant Planner Lao replied the verbiage changed a little, but the language, numbers, and the parking ratio remained the same. Chair Deng asked Assistant Planner Lao to elaborate on the verbiage and if the old code verses the new code is available for comparisons. Assistant Planner Lao replied that the old code is not available. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela explained the definition is basically the same, but the new code is now clearer on the size of the square footage of a shopping center, where the old code stated "up to 100,000 square feet" Chair Deng asked so the fact that this is 6,500 square feet is irrelevant whether it is new code or old code, it will still be applied as the old code. Assistant Planner Lao replied yes. Chair Deng asked staff if they had an internal memo regarding the background behind the shopping center having a blanket of one per 250 to narrate this type of determination. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied when the Zoning Code Update was completed, staff looked at all the parking calculations, surveyed other cities, and because the City of Rosemead was consistent with other cities the parking ratio was kept at this number. Chair Dang requested that the applicant approach the podium. Billy Huang stated he is representing Connecticut Avenue LLC. Chair Dang asked if he is the owner of the commercial property. Representative Billy Huang replied yes, they are the current owner of the commercial project. Chair Deng asked if the residential property is owned by a separate entity. Representative Billy Huang replied yes, it is owned by a different company Chair Dang stated he looked at the site plan from the original development and it shows guest parking. He added there is a portion of the guest parking that goes into the commercial portion, it shows there will be a gate, and questioned who will have control of that portion and will it be the other company. Representative Billy Huang replied there is a gate and there is also a parking agreement between the HOA residential portion and with them as the owner of the commercial portion. He stated they have 26 parking spaces strictly allocated for their use and there is residential guest parking for strictly the residential use. Chair Deng asked if the gate that separates the residential guest parking is going to be controlled by Century Homes or by Connecticut Avenue LLC. Representative Billy Huang replied the gate belongs to Century Homes Chair Deng stated he would like to have a Planning Commission meeting where all the Planning Commissioners are present for further discussion. He would like to consider proposing that some of the residential guest parking also have the flexibility of having Billy Huang's patrons using the guest parking at the same time. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela addressed Chair Dang and stated because of the way the code is written, the guest parking stalls are required for the residential. She added that this recommendation may not be possible, because it would not meet the standards of the municipal code. Chair Dang stated that is correct, but this would be an action item that the Planning Commission would pick up, and asked the City Attorney if this would be legal or allowed. City Attorney Thuyen replied that this project was completed before he started participating in the Rosemead Planning Commission, so he is not familiar with the actual details. He added those parking spaces may have been set up specifically reserved for those residents and the users of the shopping center would have a different set of spaces. He recommended since this is an update the Planning Commission may direct staff to summarize the history of the project and how those parking spaces came into being reserved for residential use and have it as a topic for future discussion. Chair Dang stated for future discussion and the reason he has asked if the parking may be shared, is because there are 48 units and out of 48 units half of it will be guest parking. He added 24 spaces will be guest parking and it does not seem likely that all 24 families will have guest at the same time. He explained if the commercial patrons were allowed to use the guest parking also it may add flexibility to the availability of parking and signage could be installed stating, "preferred guest parking". Commissioner Lopez stated there is an assumption that the owners of the condominiums would agree to that. Chair Dang commented that this is a topic for future discussion. Commissioner Eng stated at this point the governing documents and CC&R's have probably already been recorded. She added for a project like this the CC&R's has probably already stipulated the parking requirements. She shares Commissioner Lopez's point of view. She added as a homeowner that has bought a project, which included a two -car garage, plus a guest parking, and it was a consideration when she bought this home. She added that has value and as a property owner that is something that she would not want to give up. Chair Dang stated he does not have any further questions for Mr. Huang and asked if Mr. Huang would like to add any further comments. Representative Billy Huang stated that he was present at the previous Planning Commission meeting and heard both sides of the debate. He added his goal is to add his perspective as developers and to answer the Planning Commission's questions. He added that they share the same concerns and goals and they do not want to rent too just anybody and allow parking wherever patrons want. He stated as owners of this building and to be successful they have to have tenants that are successful. As a consumer he would also be concerned with if he could not find a parking space in a plaza that he would shop in. He stated that the City, the Planning Commission, the developer, his realtor, his tenants and franchisees all have the same concerns and goals and are all working to resolve them. He explained they are not the original developers and they purchased the entitled land from Preface with a goal of building and owning this property in their long term portfolio. They are here for the long term and addressed Commissioner Eng's concern of requiring structural requirements and restaurant use. He added they have already drafted plans for grease interceptors for the building and they are willing to work with the City to follow all the guidelines for food establishments or retail use. If this is to remain as retail building there is likelihood that the tenants will be local related businesses, such as professional services, small retail boutiques, or massage parlors. He stated the parking concerns do not diminish if they are using these types of services or related businesses, however the quality of visitors and the services provided to the local residents will. He added that you lose the opportunity to have local residents and neighboring visitors spend their money here in Rosemead. He reported that they had reached out to several agencies for a parking study based on conversations that took place and the traffic studies are hypothetical calculations that are based on a specific tenant use and mix. He added they cannot have a study done for every combination of mixed use for their tenants at this time because they have no tenants and they do not know what that mix will be at this point. So having a study done at this time will be a waste of time, money, and effort to get to where they want to go, which is a solution to this current situation. He stated what they are requesting is a modification to the. zoning code and they will make sure with staff that they are within compliance of the current codes within the City guidelines. He reminded the Planning Commission that Connecticut Ave., LLC was not privy to the initial meeting with Preface and Planning Commission so they do not know why they did not initially request what they are requesting to fix. These franchises want to be in Rosemead and they would like to help them accomplish this, so working with their partners, the City, the Planning Commission, and staff, to find and provide the best tenants for this space for the City of Rosemead. He added at the next Planning Commission hopefully the expressed concerns can be shared, provide solutions, they are willing to compromise and reduce their request for three units instead of five for fast serve use. He explained they are not even certain they will have three fast serve at this location and they will let the market decide. He stated with letting the market decide they will let the franchisees, business owners; and franchisers do their own studies to see if parking is adequate, the traffic count is adequate, to have their business here and to be successful. He commented that they are also looking out for the residents and thanked the Planning Commission. Chair Dang thanked Mr. Huang for his comments and for stating they are going to be a strong stakeholder in this and not just a casual developer that wants to make a quick buck and move out of the City. He asked staff what is the parking ratio for an office. Assistant Planner Lao replied office parking ratio is one per 250. Chair Dang asked if retail is one per 250. Assistant Planner Lao replied yes. Chair Dang asked staff if this is a restaurant, do they take the entire tenant space or do they just take the dining area. Assistant Planner Lao replied they take the entire tenant space. Chair Dang recommended that the parking analysis be taken based on the dining room area only, because most of the kitchen is filled with equipment and that eats up about 95% of the space. He recommended that staff consider this and requested the Planning Commission to consider this to discuss at the next Planning Commission meeting. He added if this ratio works out then it is a rational compromise that will work. He stated when you have a retail and restaurant combination in a strip center like this you will rarely have that perfect storm where the retail and restaurant tenant is packed with people. He added this part of town the night time activity is low, so it is important to have some kind of eatery in this area to bring out the night life, especially if the goal is to revamp the Garvey Avenue area. He stated when you compare Valley Boulevard and Garvey Avenue; you can sense a difference in terms of activities, people, and pedestrian traffic. If you have all retail that night time pedestrian traffic will diminish quite a bit, people want go out and take their families out to enjoy the night time activities, so having a restaurant would be good, especially for this part of town. Commissioner Eng thanked Mr. Huang for his comments, appreciates his investment into the City, and the Planning Commission wants him to succeed. Chair Dang opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone wishing to speak on this item Resident Brian Lewin recommended that the parking study be looked at because it is required for a reason and often they are speculative. He stated he does not agree that this is seen as useless in this context because many parking studies that are required under many codes would be by definition useless. He added a parking study in this context would be useful and illuminating to these purposes. Betty M. Kwon, stated that it is important for the City to review the Memorandum of Understanding between the HOA and commercial property to make sure that even if the board changes the contract will not be revoked, so that the parking agreement will be consistent. Chair Dang asked the City Attorney if requesting to view the MOU would be a civil matter. City Attorney Thuyen stated this issue may be related to the comments earlier regarding site, guest, parking, and the parking agreement. He added this can be discussed at the next Planning Commission meeting. Chair Deng asked if this is a document that would have to be reviewed by the City even though it is an agreement between the residential and commercial developer. City Attorney Thuyen deferred this question to Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated the applicant submitted CC&R's to the City, it was reviewed by the City Attorney's office, and has been approved. Betty M. Kwon clarified that she is not referring to the CC&R's, but to the agreement of the two parties, which would be the commercial property owner and HOA. She explained that the CC&R's belong to the HOA and she is suggesting that the City review the Memorandum of Understanding between those two parties to make sure the zoning code is complied with. Chair Dang asked if there were any further questions or comments. None Chair Dang closed the Public Hearing and questioned if the recommendation is to bring this item to the next Planning Commission meeting. City Attorney Thuyen stated this item is an update and the request for the recommendation is to direct staff with their direction on how to approach this item. He explained the directions are: 1) to bring this item to the next Planning Commission meeting, 2) address the standard operational conditions for restaurant use and include this with any 10 resolution improving this item, 3) recommendation for staff to review with the applicant any outdoor seating uses that may require any tweaks to the lighting conditions of approval, 4) and review/briefing to the Planning Commission about parking, parking agreements, to ensure that parking ratios are consistent to the code. Chair Deng stated he would like to add an item and requested staff do a quick analysis (the applicant will need to work with staff with this) with a hypothetical model with parking for restaurants based on the dining room use only, excluding the kitchen. He reiterated that the kitchen is 95% equipment and employees flowing around the kitchen are just bumping into each other. He stated he would like to see how those numbers pan out and a hypothetical floor plan will have to be given to staff and this will be purely for a discussion topic for the Planning Commissioners that may help the project work out. He asked the Planning Commission if there was anything else. None Chair Deng closed the item and asked Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela what date this will be on the Agenda to be heard. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Monday, October 2, 2017, but staff is not sure if items will be ready to present. She added in that case the next Planning Commission will be on Monday, October 16, 2017. She stated this item will be brought back for an approval or a denial. Chair Deng requested exhibits using the model analysis of using the dining room be given to staff, so that they may be available for the October 2nd or 16th Planning Commission meetings. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR 6. MATTERS FROM STAFF Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela announced the date, time, and location of the following City events: 1) The Moon Festival, 2) The Mayor's City Address, and 3) Fall Fiesta. 7. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Eng announced the date, time, and location of the "NAMI Walk" which stands for National Alliance for Mental Illness. She added she will be participating in this event and invited all to join her or to please contribute to the cause, which raises awareness of mental illness, raises funds, provides education, advocacy, and support, to families and loved ones living with mental illness. She also thanked Commissioner Herrera for supporting her cause. Commissioner Herrera recommended that if the Planning Commission see's any safety issues within the City to please contact the City Council members. She explained she had two incidents that she reported to City Council and it was addressed immediately. Chair Deng thanked the Planning Commission for their work while he was on vacation 11 8. ADJOURNMENT The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, October 2, 2017, at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers. ATTEST: Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary Sean Dang Chair 12