Loading...
PC - Item 4A - Minutes 3-5-18 Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 5,2018 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chair Dang in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 8838 E.Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-Vice-Chair Tang INVOCATION-Commissioner Lopez ROLL CALL-Commissioners Eng, Herrera, Lopez,Vice-Chair Tang and Chair Dang STAFF PRESENT- City Attorney Thuyen, Community Development Director Kim, Associate Planner Hanh, Planning Intern Barron,and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney Thuyen presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MINOR EXCEPTION 17-20 - Linda Lee has submitted a Minor Exception application, requesting to construct a new single-family dwelling, attached two-car garage, and detached four-car garage on a lot where a nonconforming structure exists.The granting of a Minor Exception is required in order for new structures to be constructed on a lot where nonconforming structures exist. The requested Minor Exception for the proposed single-family dwelling, attached two-car garage, and detached four-car garage may be granted only after a public hearing before the Planning Commission. The proposed single-family dwelling would consist of 2,190 square feet of floor area. The project site is located at 7708 Columbia Street,in a Light Multiple Residential(R-2)zone. PC RESOLUTION 18-04 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MINOR EXCEPTION 17-20, PERMITTING A NEW 2,190 SQUARE FEET SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE, AND DETACHED FOUR-CAR GARAGE ON A LOT WHERE A LEGAL NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE EXISTS, LOCATED AT 7708 COLUMBIA STREET (APN:5286-036-004), IN A LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL(R-2)ZONE STAFF RECOMMENDATION-It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 18-04 with findings and APPROVE Minor Exception 17-20, subject to the 23 conditions; or take alternative action denying Minor Exception 17-20;or take other action. Associate Planner Hanh presented the staff report. Chair Dang asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Eng stated there are two structures on the property and asked which structure is the duplex. 1 Associate Planner Hanh replied the duplex is located at the rear of the property and explained it is one structure with two units. Commissioner Eng asked what the structure in front is. Associate Planner Hanh replied the structure in front is a single-family dwelling that will be demolished and replaced with a new single-family dwelling. Commissioner Eng asked if currently there are three units on this parcel. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked after the renovation of this development will there still be a total of three units. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if the legal nonconforming status still remains. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes,the duplex that is nonconforming will continue to remain. Chair Dang asked if the existing laundry room is a permitted structure. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes,there are building permits for that structure. Chair Dang stated he sees two driveways and asked if that is a requirement from Planning or a Public Works requirement. Associate Planner Hanh replied that Public Works reviewed the plans and approved the two driveways. Chair Dang asked if there will be a fence along the front property line. Associate Planner Hanh replied the existing fence will be removed and replaced with a new 4' high iron fence. Chair Dang asked if the staff report describes the fence in regards to color or pattern. Associate Planner Hanh replied the staff report does describe fencing, but it does not include the aesthetics of it. Chair Dang asked if there is an exhibit of the fence on the plans. Associate Planner Hanh replied the plans do not include the elevation for a fence. Chair Dang recommended this question be deferred to the Architect and invited the Design Architect to the podium. Tim Law, Designer, stated he designed this project and once it is completed, it will be occupied by the family consisting of three generations. He gave a brief description of the project design,colors, and materials. Chair Dang asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions or comments for staff. Chair Eng asked if this is currently an owner-occupied use. 2 Designer Law replied yes. Chair Eng asked if it will continue as an owner-occupied use. Designer Law replied yes. Commissioner Lopez asked if there will be any upgrades to the existing units in the back or will they stay exactly the same. Designer Law replied they remain that the same. He explained the front unit will be new and the materials, colors, and everything will match the rear units. Commissioner Lopez asked what the square footage of the whole property is. Designer Law replied the lot is 13,500 square feet. Commissioner Lopez asked if the existing laundry room will remain the same also. Designer Law replied yes, it will remain the same,and added the storage in the rear was removed. Chair Dang asked if the proposed 4'fence in the front yard will be a wrought iron or a mixture of masonry pilaster. Designer Law replied this was discussed with the Planning Department and explained the existing wrought iron fence will be removed and a new 4'fence will be built to the City's standards. Chair Dang asked if the color scheme for the new building will match the existing building and if the existing building is earth tone colors. Designer Law replied yes, and a rendering was passed to the Planning Commissioners to look at. Chair Dang stated it looks to be earth tone colors and requested that the wrought iron fence also be painted an earth tone color. Designer Law replied it is currently black and asked what color would Chair Dang like it to be. Chair Dang replied earth tone colors are typically browns and suggested that the designer work with the Planning Department. Designer Law agreed to the brown color and requested it be listed in the conditions of approval as a requirement. Commissioner Eng asked if the exterior of the building will be an Eggshell or Swiss Mocha color. Designer Law replied yes, it is called Eggshell. Chair Dang asked what type of roof it will be. Designer Law replied it is called"Shakewood"shingle"and the color is dark brown. Chair Dang suggested as a baseline any of those brown colors would be fine for the fence and are considered earth tone colors. He added to work with the Planning Department staff if another color is chosen. He asked it the Planning Commission had any further questions or comments for this agenda item. 3 None Chair Dang opened the Public Hearing and asked if there is anyone wishing to speak in favor or against this item. None Chair Dang closed the Public Hearing. He asked the Planning Commissioners if there were further questions or comments. None Chair Dang asked for a motion. Commissioner Lopez made a motion,seconded by Commissioner Herrera,to ADOPT Resolution No. 18-04 with findings and APPROVE Minor Exception 17-20,subject to the 23 conditions. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang,Eng, Herrera,Lopez,and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Kim stated the motion passes with a vote of 5 Ayes, and 0 Noes, 0 Abstain, and explained the 10-day appeal process. B. MINOR EXCEPTION 17-24 - Huu Duc Ta has submitted a Minor Exception application, requesting to construct a new single-family dwelling and an attached three-car garage on a lot where a nonconforming structure exists. The granting of a Minor Exception is required in order for new structures to be constructed on a lot where nonconforming structures exist. The requested Minor Exception for the proposed single-family dwelling and attached three-car garage may be granted only after a public hearing before the Planning Commission. The proposed single-family dwelling would consist of 1,991 square feet of floor area. The project site is located at 9267 Pitkin Street, in a Single- Family Residential(R-1)zone. PC RESOLUTION 18-05 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MINOR EXCEPTION 17-24, PERMITTING A NEW 1,991 SQUARE FEET SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED THREE- CAR GARAGE ON A LOT WHERE A LEGAL NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE EXISTS, LOCATED AT 9267 PITKIN STREET(APN: 8592-016-017),IN A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(R-1)ZONE STAFF RECOMMENDATION-It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 18-05 with findings and APPROVE Minor Exception 17-24, subject to the 23 conditions; or take alternative action denying Minor Exception 17-24;or take other action. Planning Intern Barron presented the staff report. Chair Dang asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Eng asked if the applicant is proposing to knock down the existing home. 4 Planning Intern Barron replied no, the applicant is proposing to add the additional unit behind the existing single- family dwelling. Commissioner Eng asked if there will then be two units on this lot. Planning Intern Barron replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if the legal nonconforming unit is for the new unit. Associate Planner Hanh explained that the existing single-family unit in the front is nonconforming and the rear unit will be conforming to the City's Zoning Code. Commissioner Eng commented that had not been made clear to her in the staff report. She stated that she was under the impression the existing unit was going to be knocked down and it would be rebuilt. She asked staff if this unit is in the(R-1)zone. Planning Intern Barron replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked it the site plan could be displayed. Associate Planner Hanh replied it is not accessible. Vice-Chair Tang asked what does the current code state when it comes to a (R-1) zone and there is a proposal to build a second unit. Planning Intern Barron replied that for the (R-1) zone you are allowed 6,000 square feet per unit and this is on a 15,900 square feet parcel. Vice-Chair Tang asked if there is a possibility in the future that they may subdivide this parcel. Planning Intern Barron replied no. Commissioner Lopez asked staff to explain why this is nonconforming if the applicant is just building something else on their on the lot. Associate Planner Hanh explained that the existing single-family dwelling is nonconforming through the setbacks and it does not meet the setback requirements of today's codes. Commissioner Lopez commented it is because of the setbacks. Commissioner Eng asked if there are other properties in this area similar to this type of development. Associate Planner Hanh asked if she is referring to single-tamily dwellings. Commissioner Eng replied yes. Associate Planner Hanh stated the street is all residential uses and are primarily single-family dwellings. Commissioner Eng asked if there are other properties with two units on a single-family dwelling. 5 Commissioner Lopez suggested that the question is how many big lots are there that possibly can have it, or have two single-family dwellings on it. Associate Planner Hanh replied the property to the west is a similar size and also has two units. He added the properties to the east are flag lots, they are two parcels,one parcel at the rear, and they each have single-family dwellings. Commissioner Lopez asked if any of those other properties are subdivided because that makes a difference if they are and whether they can in the future request to be subdivided. Associate Planner Hanh replied the properties to the east have been subdivided in the past as flag lots, however,the current code no longer permits flag lots. Commissioner Lopez asked if someone would be able to challenge the city in the future to request a flag lot. Associate Planner Hanh replied that the current code clearly states that flag lots are not allowed. Chair Dang requested clarification regarding the nonconforming side yard and questions what it should be if built today. Planning Intern Barron replied it should be six feet. Chair Dang asked if the wrought iron fence is proposed or is it existing. Planning Intern Barron replied that the front wrought iron fence currently exists. She added that the gate is being proposed. Chair Dang asked it they have a color scheme defined in the plans or should he defer the question to the applicant. Associate Planner Hanh replied currently there is no color scheme for the gate. Chair Dang stated that the applicant may address that question. He asked if the Planning Commission had any further questions or comments for staff. None Chair Dang requested that the Design Architect approach the podium. Henry Ho,stated he is the Architect and gave a brief description of the project. Chair Dang asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions or comments for Mr. Ho. Commissioner Eng asked if both units will be owner-occupied. Designer Ho replied he cannot answer that question and deferred it to the owner. Commissioner Eng requested that the owner step to the podium to address that question. Huu Duc Ta,owner,stated he has two sons and the two homes will be passed on to them. 6 Commissioner Herrera stated she is guessing the homes will be owner-occupied and sometimes they do covenants on the property that allow for no rentals. She stated she has experienced this and explained that it has to be family occupied because it is R-1. She commented that the project looks good. Chair Dang asked City Attorney Thuyen if there was legal binding in regards to that. City Attorney Thuyen replied that for the purpose for this particular application that information is relevant or in addition the Municipal Code does not require that as a condition of approval for approving this application. He added this information is good for the Planning Commission,but it is not the basis for findings for this application. Chair Dang stated for clarification,the rendering does not give the project justice,that it looks light blue, and asked if it was a printer in error. Designer Ho replied yes. Chair Dang stated there are two stucco samples, one is an Eggshell and the other is a gray. Designer Ho stated that the stucco is a bluish gray and they trim around the windows is a dove gray. Chair Dang stated that the top color is the trim and the bottom color is the actual wall color. He asked if the roof is composition or is it tile. Designer Ho replied it is an asphalt shingle roof. Chair Dang asked if it is staff's recommendation to match the existing home. Designer Ho replied yes. Chair Dang asked what the color of the new fence will be. Designer Ho replied it will be black. Chair Dang asked if they would be inclined to match the color with a gray. Designer Ho replied yes. Chair Dang stated he had no further comments or questions and asked the Planning Commission if they had further questions or comments. None Chair Dang opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in favor or against this project. None Chair Dang closed the Public Hearing. He asked if the Planning Commission had any further discussion with this item. None 7 Chair Dang asked for a motion. Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to ADOPT Resolution No. 18-05 with findings and APPROVE Minor Exception 17-24,subject to the 23 conditions. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Eng, Dang, Herrera,Lopez,and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Kim the motion passes with a vote of 5 Ayes, 0 Noes, and explained the 10-day appeal process. C. MODIFICATION 17-06 — Wheel House Tire Auto Body & Paint, Inc. has submitted a Modification application, requesting to install a new automotive spray paint booth within the indoor storage area of an existing automotive specialty shop, located at 8630 Garvey Avenue. The project site is located in a Light Manufacturing and Industrial (M-1) zone. Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.120.110(C), a proposed change that does not comply with the criteria identified in [Section 17.120.110(B) of the Zoning Code],or any other provision of the Zoning Code, may only be approved by the original review authority for the project through a modification permit application filed and processed in compliance with[Chapter 17.120]. PC RESOLUTION 18-06 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD,COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MODIFICATION 17-06, FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AN AUTOMOTIVE SPRAY PAINT BOOTH WITHIN AN EXISTING AUTOMOTIVE SPECIALTY SHOP, LOCATED AT 8630 GARVEY AVENUE (APN: 5282-001-005), IN A LIGHT MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL(M-1)ZONE STAFF RECOMMENDATION-It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 18-06 with findings and APPROVE Modification 17-06, subject to the 30 conditions; or take alternative action denying Modification 17-06;or take other action. Associate Planner Hanh presented the staff report. He added that his applicant spoke to him before the meeting and they have requested to also conduct auto bodywork. He added if that is approved then Conditional of Approval number 16 would have to be modified to remove the word automotive body work from the second line. Commissioner Eng asked Associate Planner Hanh to repeat the request and modification. Associate Planner Hanh stated that staff spoke with the applicant prior to tonight's meeting and the applicant would like the option of doing automotive bodywork at his location in the addition to auto spray painting. He added if that is allowed,Condition of Approval Number 16 would have to be modified. Commissioner Lopez asked if the applicant is doing automotive bodywork now. Associate Planner Hanh replied currently the condition of approval is for an automotive specialty business with tire and rim installations. Commissioner Lopez stated so they do not do any automotive spray painting currently. 8 Associate Planner Hanh replied that is correct. Vice-Chair Tang asked how stall would define auto bodywork compared to auto repair work. Associate Planner Hanh stated the Zoning Code has a definition for auto repair work but not for auto bodywork. He stated auto repair is defined as, " A business conducting within a fully enclosed building which services and repairs motor vehicles, but exclusive of all body and fender repair and painting, steam cleaning, mechanical and non- mechanical car washing, recapping of tires, engine or transmission overhauling or replacement and other major repairs". He added there is no definition for bodywork. Vice-Chair Tang asked if the bodywork would be restricted to the exterior of any vehicle. Associate Planner Hanh replied it would be body and fender repairs. Commissioner Eng asked if under the existing code for this zone is auto body and painting a permitted use. Associate Planner Hanh replied it is a permitted with a conditional use permit, but not by-right. Commissioner Eng asked if staff knows if there have been any code violations or issues. Associate Planner Hanh replied staff checked and there are no violations. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval Number 18 and asked if the applicant will have to get Fire Department approval. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval Numbers 29 and 30 and asked if this is a one-time permit process or do these agencies require regular inspections for compliance. Associate Planner Hanh replied the South Coast Air Quality Management District does have an initial approval, but they are required to renew it every year. Commissioner Eng stated so there is an annual review program. Associate Planner Hanh confirmed yes. Chair Dang stated that while the definition of auto repair work was being read, did staff say excluding, excluded, or exclusive of fender auto repair. Associate Planner Hanh replied he read"exclusive of". Chair Dang asked what that would that mean. Associate Planner Hanh replied that would mean 'does not include" and added that would be strictly for an auto repair garage. Chair Dang asked Community Development Director Kim for a further explanation. 9 Community Development Director Kim explained that it may not be included in the definition, but if they refer to the permitted use matrix, not every single use will be included in the definition section because it may not need a definition. He added auto repair and auto body shops are permitted with a conditional use permit. He said that the Planning Commission has the discretion to approve the use with a conditional use permit. He stated that auto repair is the repair of automobiles that are mechanical in nature and auto body is the shell/body of the vehicle. Chair Dang asked if the floor plan layout,the auto repair component,will it mimic the floor plan they have today or will it be a different floor plan. Associate Planner Ranh replied it will mimic the floor plan they currently have. Chair Dang asked if staff had visited the site when he drafted the staff report. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes, he visited the inside and outside. Chair Dang referred to the inside where it says warehouse and storage and asked if there are just tires there right now. Associate Planner Hanh replied there is shelving and there are tools,tires,and things of that nature. Chair Dang stated he has no further comments for staff and called the applicant/Design Architect to the podium. Nick Ip slated he is the owner of the existing "Wheel House Tire's" and he would like to incorporate "Wheel House Tire& Paint". He also stated he would like to expand his business and add a spray booth. Commissioner Eng stated when she drove by the site she saw a sign that said "JC Auto Body& Paint"and asked if that is an existing business. Nick Ip replied that it was his old business that was located on River Avenue in Rosemead and he would like the sign there so customers will know that was his business in the past. Commissioner Eng asked how long he has operated Wheel House. Nick Ip replied Wheel House Tires opened in the year"2007". Commissioner Eng asked if he has been the proprietor since then and when did he start doing auto painting. Nick Ip replied that is correct and he started auto painting in the year"1995"in Rosemead. Commissioner Eng stated she is trying to picture how auto painting will take place in his facility and asked for details. Nick Ip explained his building is close to 6,000 square feet and it has a high ceiling. He also stated he has installed tires since 2007 and there are three car lifts and a lot of space/storage in the back. He added he sold his property located on River Avenue to the City for parking then he moved his business to Garvey Avenue and would like to expand and do bodywork. Commissioner Eng asked the applicant what measures have they taken in terms of paint fumes, spray paints, ventilation, and how it is controlled and managed. Nick Ip replied it is indoors, it is a spray booth,which is the future and does not have the air pollution, and is passed by the AQMD. 10 Commissioner Eng asked if AQMD has an annual inspection. Nick Ip replied yes,every year, and so does the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Commissioner Lopez asked if there will be only one oven for the baking of the vehicles. Nick Ip replied yes. Commissioner Lopez staled even though the spray is alright with the air, he asked if it is going through filters no matter what. Nick 1p replied that is correct. Commissioner Lopez commented that he and Commissioner Herrera approved this project back in"2007". Nick Ip thanked Commissioner Lopez. Chair Dang asked if the storage in the back is currently filled with tires. Nick Ip replied 30%of the storage is filled with tires. Chair Dang asked if the other half is vacant. Nick Ip replied no, it is not vacant, it has storage and that will be moved to a storage place that they are going to rent. He added the spray booth will be placed in the back where the storage room is located. Chair Dang stated if the Planning Commission decides to allow this additional work to be included, he understands there is going to be work on the hoist, and asked if there will be other work where it currently is storage. Nick Ip replied no. Chair Dang stated that he has experienced other auto repair shops where they service/repair autos and when finished the autos are parked in the customer parking area, so that when the customer arrives they have to park in the street. Nick Ip stated they work indoors. Chair Dang stated he would like to reiterate that the striped parking stalls outside are for customers and asked it they will be used for temporary storage. Nick Ip stated they will be for parking. Chair Dang stated he has no further comments and asked if Mr. Ip was also the applicant and if he was representing the Design Architect. Nick Ip replied yes, he is the applicant and representative. Chair Dang opened the Public Hearing and invited Floyd Vigil to the podium. 11 Resident Floyd Vigil stated he is the representative for the Walnut Grove Garden Home Association. He introduced three ladies that were present and stated they are concerned with the proximity of the 8630 Garvey Auto Painting shop because it sits against their wall. He said a family of 5-8 members resides right next to this, and 12 elderly people,which some are in their 80's, and two blind adults are also living in the building. He commented that it is inappropriate to put a paint booth at this location even though it is in an industrial zone. He expressed concern that the odors will not be contained within the building and that one of residents live about 75 feet away from the back of this business. He asked who will be checking if odors are escaping and will there be periodic inspections. He stated he has health issues and it should also be taken into consideration that there is also a daycare nearby. He recommended all aspects should be taken into consideration before approving this auto paint shop. Chair Dang asked if the Planning Commission had any further questions or comments. Commissioner Lopez asked how the City will make sure this business is maintained and continue to be maintained. City Attorney Thuyen recommended that the Planning Commission determine if whether or not there are any additional public comments left and if there is not they may continue with their discussion. Chair Dang asked if there were any further public comments. None Chair Dang closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Commission if there were any further questions or comments. Commissioner Lopez stated he understands what the resident is saying and the Planning Commission is here to not only deny and approve projects, but they are also here to help and protect the residents. He asked how the City will know that nothing will fail and make sure inspections take place. He expressed concern on how this will be maintained to make sure this is kept as a safe environment. Associate Planner Hanh replied that South Coast AQMD will do their annual inspections and the City operates on a complaint basis. He explained if the City receives any complaints of offensive odors, issues, or concerns staff will then take the appropriate inspection to resolve them. He stated the zoning code does state, "No use may generate obnoxious or adverse odor that can be detected beyond the boundary of the lot occupied by that use. He added that the zoning code does specify that the odor should be contained within the subject properly. He stated if this use is approved then staff would do final inspection before this use/conditional use will be finalized. He said at that time a test run may be conducted to check if odors go beyond the boundary line. City Attorney Thuyen explained that what Associate Planner Hanh is referring to is called a "Nuisance Provisions' and if there are obnoxious odors that come out and harms the public there are two types of nuisances that can apply. He said one is a public nuisance which affects the public at large and there is also a private nuisance, which would be private right of action against the property owner from the particular people who were affected. Vice-Chair Tang asked before South Coast Air Quality Management District issue's a permit do they evaluate the business and make sure it does not have a negative effect on the surrounding businesses/homes. Community Development Director Kim replied yes, and explained this type of facility is called a multi-tier approval process, so they will need to obtain the local jurisdiction approval of the Planning Commission. He added the applicant would also need to file an application with South Coast Air Management Quality District and go through their permit process as well. He added at that time they would go through a "plan check process' and their equipment would be checked and also make sure they comply with their rules. 12 Vice-Chair Tang stated he is confident because there are two regulatory agencies that are keeping an eye on it. Commissioner Herrera stated she hopes there is an odor meter to detect it it is emitting toxic odors. Associate Planner Hanh asked if she means if the Public Safety staff has a meter. Commissioner Herrera replied no,she means AQMD and they have theft ways of detecting issues. Commissioner Eng stated her concern is that the expanded use is a lot more intense than the existing use and there is also other retail, office buildings, and residents in the back. She said it is not a simple expansion of use, but an expansion of a more intense use that will have impact to the quality of life in that industrial area and community. Chair Dang requested that the City Attorney or Director advise him, and expressed two concerns. His first concern is that the Agenda item may be changing from the original posting of a spray booth to potentially saying, it is going to be an auto repair, and he is not sure if the Planning Commission is in the right arena to extend that Agenda item because it was not posted and it came on board as of 7:30 pm. He stated his second concern is that even though the applicant has stated that he will do the auto repair as shown on the floor plans, if he sells the business the Planning Commission will not know if the next operator will be using the storage warehouse location and basically just do auto repair.He added they may extend the intensity of the use and it may trigger more parking. He stated if the Planning Commission decides to approve this auto repair use,would they would be comfortable in asking the applicant sign an affidavit stating that this floor plan is basically where they are going to conduct their business and wherever as shown as storage/warehouse will remain storage/warehouse. He stated this is primarily to protect the City in case the business is sold and there is a transfer of ownership. Commissioner Lopez asked staff if the applicant is going to do auto repair because the staff report states 'Wheel House Tire Auto Body&Paint". It does not state that they are going to do auto repair. Vice-Chair Tang recommended that the City Attorney rule on Chair Dang's first concern regarding if this item has to be a separate agenda item. City Attorney Thuyen stated that he has conferred with the Community Development Director and there is no issue with the agenda posting. He said it was noticed as a modification of a conditional use permit,and explained auto spray paint booth and auto body work are both related uses. He addressed Chair Dang's second concern and explained that they are talking about a conditional use permit and those run with the use of the land regardless of ownership and the conditions that are here now would apply to the subsequent owner. He stated if there are issues they would probably be issues regarding complaint driven system subject to Code Enforcement and it may not get to a point where an affidavit is needed because it is already covered by the conditional use permit process. Community Development Director Kim stated there is a standard condition of approval that is in all of the resolutions, which is Condition of Approval Number 4. It states that the approval of a project will not take into effect until the applicant has signed a notarized affidavit agreeing to all the conditions of approval. He said the conditions of approval are also printed on the construction documents so that gets recorded and noted as well. He added when there is a transfer of business, staff will go out to the property to do an inspection prior to the business getting a business license. He said there is a check and balance later on. Chair Dang thanked Community Development Director Kim and stated he did not know that staff did such a diligent job when transferring ownership. He asked if the Planning Commission had any further comments or questions. None Chair Dang asked for a motion. 13 Vice-Chair Tang made a motion,seconded by Commissioner Lopez,to approve ADOPT Resolution No. 18-06 with findings and APPROVE Modification 17-06, subject to the 30 conditions. (Modification to Condition of Approval number 16 was made by the Planning Commission). Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang, Herrera,Lopez,and Tang Noes: Eng Abstain: None Absent: None City Attorney Thuyen clarified that motion includes the modification suggested by staff. Community Development Director Kim stated the motion passes with a vote of 4 Ayes and 1 Noe and explained the 10-day appeal process. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. SPECIAL MEETING PC MINUTES 1-17-18 Commissioner Eng stated she has a correction on the PC Minutes 1-17-18 on page 24 and clarified that the word acquired is supposed to be required. City Attorney Thuyen stated since there was a correction he recommended the Consent Calendar be voted on separately. Chair Dang asked it there were any further comments or questions. None Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Tang, to approve 4A. Special Meeting PC Minutes 1-17-18 with a correction on page 24. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Eng,Dang,Herrera, Lopez,and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Kim stated the motion passes with a vote of 5 Ayes and 0 Noes. B. PC MINUTES 2-5-18 Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Tang, to approve 4B. PC Minutes 2-5-18 as presented. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Eng, Dang,Herrera, Lopez,and Tang 14 Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Kim stated the motion passes with a vote of 5 Ayes and 0 Noes. 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Community Development Director Kim announced the time, date, and location of the "Ross Grand Opening' and extended an invitation to the Planning Commission. He stated it will be a short ceremony welcoming "Ross' into the City of Rosemead. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR&COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Eng addressed Community Development Director Kim and requested an updated list of pending projects. Community Development Director Kim replied he will get a list to her. Vice-Chair Tang stated he would like to thank Community Development Director Kim for extending the invitation to the Ross Grand Opening. He added it is nice when Planning Commissioners are involved in that process. Commissioner Lopez stated he knows that the City of Rosemead ends at the 10 Freeway and requested staff to contact the City of El Monte because Rosemead Boulevard looks terrible. He added that there is trash beginning at the freeway to Garvey Boulevard. He asked if it is Caltrans that cleans that area and added the "7-11" located nearby has trash left there, homeless are there,and it really needs to be cleaned. Community Development Director Kim stated staff will note this, research it, and contact them. Chair Dang stated the plans for review that are provided are nice, but they are quite bulky and requested that staff provide 11 X 17 plans if possible. 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:04 pm. The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday,March 19,2018,at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers. Sean Dang Chair ATTEST: Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 15