Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes-03-03-10OV D04, REGULAR MEETING DOWNEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Yi Y ®' WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2010 FO CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER, 11111 BROOKSHIRE AVENUE DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA 6:30 P.M. A Regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held March 3, 2010. After the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, roll was called at 6:30 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Terry Lambros, District 4 Michael Murray, District 1 Robert Kiefer, District 2, Vice Chairman Fernando Vasquez, District 5 Louis Morales, District 3, Chairman ALSO PRESENT: Brian Saeki, Community Development Director G. Ross Trindle, III, Assistant City Attorney William Davis, City Planner David Blumenthal, Senior Planner Shion Hori, Assistant Planner Katie Crockett, Planning Intern Theresa Donahue, Secretary III. MINUTES: It was moved by Commissioner Lambros, seconded by Commissioner Murray, and passed by a full vote of the Commission, to approve the Minutes of February 3, 2010, correcting Chairman " Lambros" to Chairman "Morales ", on page 2. IV. AGENDA CHANGES: Community Development Director Saeki stated there were no changes to the agenda. V. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Community Development Director Saeki reported that the City Council, at their regular meeting of February 23, 2010, addressed the shortfall of funds in the upcoming 2010 -2011 budget. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: There were no Consent Calendar items scheduled. VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: VARIANCE NO. 10 -01 Location: 8210 Cheyenne Avenue Owner /Applicant: Raul Echemendia Authorized Agent: Same Staff: Katie Crockett CEQA: As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this request has been found to be Categorically Exempt from CEQA, per CEQA Guidelines, Section 15305 (Class 5, Minor Alterations to Land Use). Request: A Variance request to deviate from Table 9.3.3 of Municipal Code Section 9312.08 thereby increasing the ratio of the second floor to the first floor footprint from 80% to 91 %, decreasing the second floor combined side setbacks from 15 feet to 14 feet, and increasing the amount of the second floor facade built within 5 feet of the specified first floor setback from 40% to 64% for a new single family residence on property zoned R -2 (Two - Family Residential). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MARCH 3, 2010 — PAGE 1 Page 2 Chairman Morales opened the public hearing for Variance No. 10 -01. Ms. Donahue affirmed proof of publication. Planning Intern, Katie Crockett, presented staff's report and accompanying PowerPoint, noting that the requested deviations were: 1) to increase maximum second floor to 1S floor coverage from 80% to 91 %; 2) allow 2n floor frontage at 64 %, up from the 40% allowable; and 3) to allow a combined setback of the 2n floor to be 14 -feet, instead of the required 15 -feet. She stated that staff was able to support the variance request and could make positive findings because of the lot's substandard size (35' x 90'), and because other neighboring properties have enjoyed maximum lot development, of which this applicant would be denied if this variance is denied. She concluded that the proposed development would benefit the neighborhood by eliminating the vacant parcel. Raul Echemendia, Applicant, 9713 Shelleyfield Rd, 90240, addressed the Commission. He stated that he planned to develop the new home for resale. He stated that he had reviewed the recommended conditions of approval and accepted them as stated. Chairman Morales noted staff's recommendation for approval. Commissioner comments: Commissioner Vasquez congratulated Mrs. Crockett on her first presentation before the Commission. He then asked about the East and West elevations, how the homes to either side would be affected by the two -story structure, and whether there would be any line of sight issues in staff's opinion. Mrs. Crockett responded that she did not believe there were any windows on the West elevation, but she did not recall the East elevation. Commissioner Vasquez commented further on the issue of maintaining personal privacy for existing residential developments as new homes are being reviewed. He said this may not be an issue in this down -turn economy, but this issue may resurface when the market picks up. Commissioner Lambros noted that the Commission has approved projects requiring opaque windows to minimize the impact on existing neighboring homes. Senior Planner David Blumenthal added, the Commission may add the opaque glass condition as part of their approval, if it is their desire. Chairman Morales stated that he viewed this variance request as ideal for meeting the findings for a variance due to the lot size. Commissioner Kiefer inquired what type of home the applicant would be able to develop without a variance. Senior Planner Blumenthal responded that the project would be below the maximum FAR allowed for surrounding properties, but the actual size was not calculated for this presentation. Commissioner Lambros stated that she'd seen other two -story homes built on substandard parcels and was not aware of neighbors complaining about privacy, noting the side setbacks would still be maintained. Mrs. Crockett noted that there were other substandard parcels nearby with similarly sized lots. Commissioner Murray stated that he thought the design would be a welcome improvement to the neighborhood, noting that they had approved developments on similar -sized lots. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MARCH 3, 2010 — PAGE 2 Page 3 It was moved by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Lambros and passed by a 4 -1 vote, with Commissioner Kiefer voting "No ", to adopt Resolution No. 10 -2626, approving Variance No. 10 -01. Chairman Morales stated the action of the Planning Commission will be final unless the matter is appealed to the City Council, with the appropriate fee, within the specified time period as set forth in the City's Ordinance. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. 09 -45 Location: 9316 Washburn Road Owner /Applicant: Steve Martin /M & M Cutomatic Authorized Agent: Mitchell Bryant/Coastal Business Group Inc. Staff: Shion Hori CEQA: As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared for this application. Request: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 38' tall cellular monopole with 12 antennas (3 sectors, 4 antennas per sector), stealthed as a 45' tall pine tree (monopine) for T- Mobile, on property zoned M -2 and P -B (General Manufacturing & Parking Buffer). Chairman Morales opened the public hearing for Conditional Use Permit No. 09 -45. Ms. Donahue affirmed proof of publication. Assistant Planner, Shion Hori, presented staff's report and accompanying PowerPoint, noting staffs recommendation was for approval with the conditions of approval as listed in the attached Resolution. She stated that all cellular equipment would be maintained within the 2n floor room of the on -site building, that none of the seven (7) parking spaces would be lost as part of the monopine construction, that the required minimum 25 -foot driveway would be maintained at 25' -6 ". Ms. Hori also pointed out that staff has required a branch density of 2.5 branches per foot, to avoid an undesirable look. Ms. Hori noted that no correspondence had been received on this matter and all Code requirements are being met. She asked that the Planning Commission approve the Negative Declaration associated with the project. Commissioner Murray noted that the Commission had approved a cell site recently at 10000 Lakewood Boulevard. He agreed that he had seen cell site designs in other cities that he would not find acceptable, and he was happy with those conditions that the City was imposing. The applicant, Mitchell Bryant, 16460 Bake Parkway, Ste 100, Irvine, Ca. 92618, addressed the Commission, noting that he had reviewed staff's recommended conditions of approval with the managers of the project and they agreed to accept them. Commissioner Vasquez asked the applicant the reason that the new monopole site was required. Mr. Bryant responded that the new site is required to meet increased demand. Commissioner Kiefer asked the anticipated time frame to completion. Mr. Bryant stated that they hoped to complete the project in about 45 days. The City Planner, William Davis stated staff's recommendation is to approve the Conditional Use Permit and adopt the Negative Declaration. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MARCH 3, 2010 — PAGE 3 Page 4 The Commissioners stated that the project had been property conditioned; that they liked the project elevations; the antennae are properly stealthed; and that they support the need to provide for the demand of ever increasing cellular phone coverage. It was moved by Commissioner Lambros, seconded by Commissioner Kiefer and passed by a full vote of the Commission to adopt Resolution No. 10 -2627, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 09 -45, as recommended. Chairman Morales stated the action of the Planning Commission will be final unless the matter is appealed to the City Council, with the appropriate fee, and within the specified time period as set forth in the City's Ordinance. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. 10 -7 Location: 10030 Lakewood Boulevard Owner /Applicant: Amir Rajabali Authorized Agent: Same Staff: William Davis CEQA: As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this request has been found to be Categorically Exempt from CEQA, per CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301 (Class 1, Existing Facilities). Request: A request for an existing Valero gasoline service station, to operate with an Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 20 (Sale of Beer and Wine for off -site consumption) license on property zoned C -2 (General Commercial). Chairman Morales opened the public hearing for Conditional Use Permit No. 10 -7. Ms. Donahue affirmed proof of publication. Commissioner Murray stated that he would be abstaining on this item due to a potential conflict since the site under discussion is located across the street from his business. He excused himself from the dais and left the chambers. Mr. Davis, presented the staff report and accompanying PowerPoint. He stated that staff's recommendation for denial was prompted by the applicant's continual disregard to the City's sign regulations as shown by the pennants, banners and other signs that are placed on the property even after having been issued numerous warnings by the Code Enforcement Division. He stated that those signs came into conformance only after being notified that staff intended to recommend denial for this request. Mr. Davis explained staff had a concern that an applicant who disregarded such City regulations would not make a good candidate for a permit for alcohol sales. He also informed the Commission that the applicant's justification for such violations has been his fear that his business will fail. In addition, Mr. Davis noted that Police Dept. did not support the approval of alcohol sales at this site citing the close proximity to residential areas and close proximity to two freeways. Mr. Davis stated that staff was not able to make the necessary findings to support the applicant's request. He explained a Type 20 ABC license is a request for sales of beer and wine for off -site consumption). Chairman Morales invited the applicant to address the Commission. Amir Rajabali, 10030 Lakewood Boulevard, addressed the Commission. He explained that he now understands the importance of not putting up unpermitted signs, but he stated his belief that people do not know there is a car wash behind the gas station and he was getting "panicky ". He emphasized the serious status of his failing business, and that the he hoped alcohol sales would help. In response to the questions that followed from the Commission, Mr. Rajabli indicated that he would follow all sign regulations and described how he proposed to modify the existing signing to incorporate the alcohol sales and to better advertise the car wash. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MARCH 3, 2010 — PAGE 4 Page 5 Chairman Morales stated that the design of the carwash, sited behind the store, did little to help visibility. He did not see how a sign would make a difference and asked what type of signs Mr. Rajabali intended to use to advertise the beer and wine sales? Commissioner Kiefer added that he understands that the applicant had been cited for illegal signs that had nothing to do with the car wash. They were designed to draw attention to the gas station and mini market. Mr. Rajabali responded that yes he realizes the signs were a problem, but re- stated his fear because the business was were not making any money. He emphasized that they would keep the signs down. Answering questions from the Commission, he stated that he has been aware of the sign complaints for a couple of weeks and he did not anticipate this to become a problem in the future. He planned on redesigning the sign over the market, replacing "Pro Wash" with something to identify beer and wine sales on site. He said the market would be open until 11 p.m. Commissioner Lambros commented that she found the numerous banners on the corner very unattractive and informed the applicant that customers are more likely to frequent the business if the excess signs are not there and once there, he could anticipate repeat business. She inquired into the applicant's efforts to modify his sign plan to allow for a sign that stated "car wash ". City Planner Davis responded that he and Mr. Rajabali have discussed the matter and various options. Commissioner Lambros stated that she was against beer and wine being sold in the store, citing proximity to freeways and lack of control over patrons. She indicated her preference that patrons purchase such items from established markets or liquor stores, of which the City already had many. Chairman Morales asked for members of the public to address the Commission on this matter. No persons came forward at this time. Commission discussion: Commissioner Vasquez described the applicant's situation, noting that he could support the request for alcohol sales; he noted that the applicant had improved the site significantly, to the benefit of the City; he suggested that the approval be for 6 months in order to carefully monitor the applicant's adherence to City regulations, and if there are any sign violations, the Conditional Use Permit could be suspended. Commissioner Lambros stated her disagreement, and that she did not think allowing alcohol sales at this location will make a significant difference. The business will improve as people realize there is a car wash; it takes a while for people to change their car wash choice. She wanted all excess signs to remain down. Commissioner Kiefer complimented the applicant for the major improvements on the site; stated that this was a competitive business and he did not have a problem with the request; however, he stated his concern for the lack of compliance with sign code regulations and their affect on the property and surrounding properties due to the unattractive signage. Commissioner Kiefer said he could support a limited approval (6 months), in order to re- examine the condition of the property prior to giving approval. Chairman Morales asked if staff had studied how many service stations in the City sell alcohol, noting that some cities do not allow it. Mr. Davis did not know how many service stations sell alcohol Chairman Morales commented, he understands the City wants to be business friendly, but he has a concern because of the applicant's track record. However, he would support an approval that was conditioned upon compliance with all the City codes, adding that he doesn't understand why compliance has been so difficult for the business owner. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MARCH 3, 2010 — PAGE 5 Page 6 Assistant City Attorney, G. Ross Trindle III, addressed the Commission in regards to the matter of conditioning an approval based on compliance with the Sign Ordinance, stating that from a legal perspective he wants to make sure there is sufficient nexus of the conditions to the applicant's request; he said it might be a questionable nexus to condition the approval of alcohol sales on the site's conformance to the City's sign code. He said the Commission may want to consider resolving their concerns about the sign violations prior to taking an action on this item. He would then suggest continuing the request for a definite time period in order to feel confident of the applicant's character, and then re- address the matter. Chairman Morales agreed, he was looking in that direction, suggesting that the Commission include a condition to address compliance with all City Codes. He would then support sending the matter back to staff in order to develop findings and conditions of approval, which could include issues such as loitering, and other appropriate conditions. Commissioner Lambros stated that it was the duty of the Commission this evening to make a decision on the matter of alcohol sales, either yes or no, not to address the signing violations. Commissioner Vasquez noted, if the Commissioner were to remove the sign issues from their consideration, in order to consider an approval, the Commission would have to continue the item, sending it back to staff to develop conditions of approval and to bring back for further consideration. It was moved by Commissioner Lambros to adopt Resolution No. 10 -2628, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 10 -7 for the sale of beer and wine at this location. Mr. Trindle explained parliamentary procedure is that if there in no second the motion dies Commissioner Kiefer asked for direction from staff, wondering if it were best to continue the matter for a number of months in order for the applicant to show good faith toward the City's regulations. Mr. Davis stated that staff has taken a position recommending denial based on the applicant's track record. However, the City Attorney has clearly stated that such a decision whether or not to permit the sale of alcohol lacks nexus to sign violations. Said decision would then be based on whether or not the Commission is able to make the findings to support an approval. If the majority is in favor of approval, the matter should be tabled for a period of time, and the Commission should direct staff to develop said findings to support the application. Mr. Trindle said it was the prerogative of the Commission to either approve or deny the request before them. He said to "table" a matter is to say we'll take this up at another time. He outlined the options before the Commission to either make a decision to deny or approve tonight, or continue to a date certain with direction to staff to work on conditions to address the Commission's concerns. Commissioner Vasquez inquired, if the Conditional Use Permit is approved and the ownership changes, does the approval stay with the business? And if so, can we include a condition that would nullify the CUP if the business changes ownership? And if the request is denied, can the applicant re- apply? Mr. Trindle responded that the Conditional Use Permit entitlement would run with the land and it was not possible for the Commission to limit the approval to the current business owner. Some discussion ensued that included: how a delay of 30 days will benefit the concerns of the Commission and whether or not a 6 month continuation would be more viable. Whether a continuance of 6 months was procedurally correct? Whether a continuance of 6 months would meet the desire of the Commission? If continued 6 months or thereabouts, Resolutions of approval and denial would have to be brought before the Commission for their consideration and determination. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MARCH 3, 2010 — PAGE 6 Page 7 Senior Planner Blumenthal shared that the State of California's Streamlining Act requires an action by April 10, 2010, so a 6 month continuance was not an option. It was moved by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Morales and passed by a vote of 4 -0 -1 (with Commissioner Murray abstaining), to continue the public hearing to April 7, 2010, for Conditional Use Permit No. 10 -7, requesting approval for the sale of alcohol at an existing mini - market on property located at 10030 Lakewood Boulevard, with direction to staff to address the concerns discussed this evening and bring back for further discussion. VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Commissioner Kiefer stated that he would not be able to attend the March 17, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. IX. OTHER BUSINESS: Senior Planner Blumenthal provided to the Commission a PowerPoint presentation entitled "Census 2010 ", during which he noted that this census will utilize the shortest form in history. The form is called 10- 10 -10, which indicates the form has only 10 questions and should only take 10 minutes to complete, and the census is taken every 10 years. He provided the data for how the census information is kept confidential, and how the information provided was used to determine how the state funds would be divided and shared. X. ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDA: The parcel map applications for the Tesla development at the Downey Landing site have been scheduled for March 17, 2010. XI. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the Commission adjourned at 8:15 p.m., to March 17, 2010 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Downey City Hall, 11111 Brookshire Avenue, Downey, Ca. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of March, 2010. Louis Morales Louis Morales, Chairman CITY PLANNING COMMISSION I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Minutes were duly approved at a Regular meeting of the Commission held on the 17th day of March, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Vasquez, Lambros, Murray, Morales ABSENT: COMMISSIONER: Kiefer Theresa Donahue Theresa Donahue, Secretary CITY PLANNING COMMISSION H:\PLANN ING \Donahue \030310mn.doc PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MARCH 3, 2010 — PAGE 7