HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 05/02/2012MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
DOWNEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 2012
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER, 11111 BROOKSHIRE AVENUE
DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA
6:30 P.M.
I. A Regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held May 2, 2012. After the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag, Chairman Murray called roll at 6:30 p.m.
II. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
Louis Morales, District 3, Vice-Chairman
Robert Kiefer, District 2
Ernie Garcia, District 4
Hector Lujan, District 5
Michael Murray, District 1, Chairman
ALSO PRESENT: Brian Saeki, Director of Community Development
Yvette M. Abich, City Attorney
William Davis, City Planner
Jessica Flores, Associate Planner
Kevin Nguyen, Assistant Planner
Theresa Donahue, Secretary
III. MINUTES: It was moved by Commissioner Morales, seconded by Commissioner Kiefer and passed
by a 5-0 vote to approve the Minutes of April 18, 2012.
IV. AGENDA CHANGES: Community Development Director Saeki stated that staff’s recommendation
for Public Hearing Item number 3, PLN-12-00067, is to open the public hearing and allow testimony to
be provided; however, because the recommendation stated on the agenda is “Approve” rather than
“Deny”, staff would prefer a decision be postponed in order to eliminate any confusion. Therefore,
testimony can be allowed, but staff recommends continue PLN-12-0067 (Site Plan Review/Variance) to
the next Planning Commission meeting, May 16, 2012.
V. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Mr. Saeki stated there were no Planning-related items to
report from Council’s April 24, 2012 meeting.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS:
Chairman Murray noted there were no Consent Calendar items on this evening’s agenda.
VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
1. PLN-11-00253 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)
Location: 400 Stonewood Street
Owner: Gary L. Ball, et al Trs.
Applicant: Shannon Nichols
Staff: Jessica Flores
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 to allow the installation and operation of 12 antennas on three arrays
and pre-fabricated equipment cabinets on an existing building roof (Macy's) on
property zoned SP 89-1 (Stonewood Specific Plan).
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MAY 2, 2012 – PAGE 1
Page 2
Chairman Murray opened the public hearing for PLN-11-00253. Ms. Theresa Donahue, secretary,
affirmed proof of publication.
Jessica Flores, Associate Planner, presented staff’s report and accompanying PowerPoint. She noted
that the appearance of the roof would not change visibly, and a new mechanical screen would be
installed to replace the existing 12-foot high screen and painted to match the building. She provided an
exhibit showing the improved cellular coverage with the new antennae. Ms. Flores informed the
Commissioners that the screening would enclose the existing electrical equipment and new antenna
arrays, but, the antennae that are on the screening will be replaced as they currently are located
because they belong to another carrier, and will continue to be visibly. She noted that there is some
other equipment on the roof that is not visible and is not apart of this application.
Shannon Nichols, representative with Delta Groups Engineering, 6348 Colgate Avenue, Los Angeles
addressed the Commission. She thanked Ms. Flores for her assistance with the Conditional Use Permit
process, saying she was wonderful to work with.
Commissioner Kiefer inquired if approved, how long before it could be installed, and how long it would
take to install?
Ms. Nichols responded, the plan check should take about 2-3 weeks, and once approved, the
installation takes about 7-10 days. Ms. Nichols also stated there would be maintenance on the wireless
facility about every 3 to 4 months, and such maintenance usually does not cause any interruption.
Chairman Murray inquired if any correspondence had been received on this item.
Ms. Flores noted that a letter had been received from a neighboring resident, and this correspondence
had been distributed to the Commissioners. She noted that the resident had not indicated an issue with
the request before them tonight.
Chairman Murray invited members of the audience to address the Commission. No one came forward
at this time.
Chairman Murray asked staff for its recommendation.
Ms. Flores stated staff’s recommendation was for approval. The associated Resolution number will be
12-2764.
Chairman Murray asked the audience if there were any questions regarding staff’s recommendation.
There being no questions regarding staff’s recommendation, the public hearing was closed.
The Commissioners indicated that there were no concerns regarding this request, noting that the array
would not be seen from the street, nor would the view appear any different.
It was moved by Commissioner Lujan, seconded by Commissioner Garcia and passed by a unanimous
vote, to adopt Resolution No. 12-2764, approving PLN-11-00253 (Conditional Use Permit).
Chairman Murray stated the action of the Planning Commission will become 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MAY 2, 2012 – PAGE 2
Page 3
2. PLN-12-00075 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)
Location: 13109 Lakewood Boulevard
Owner: Lakewood and Gardendale Ltd
Applicant: Nellyzeth Cerecer
Staff: Kevin Nguyen
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 to operate a zumba fitness dance studio on property zoned C-2
(General Commercial).
Chairman Murray opened the public hearing for PLN-12-00075. Ms. Donahue, affirmed proof of
publication.
Kevin Nguyen, Assistant Planner, presented staff’s report and accompanying PowerPoint. He indicated
staff supported the applicant’s request for a zumba fitness studio. Mr. Nguyen noted that the proposed
hours of operation are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., Saturday’s 8:30 a.m. to 9:30 and
closed on Sundays; that each session is for an hour; there are four one hour sessions each day and one
on Saturdays. He stated staff’s one concern was about the possible impact from noise on surrounding
uses, and therefore recommended condition No. 3 to avoid it becoming a problem, which reads: “Music In
the establishment shall cease at 8:30 p.m., Monday through Friday and at 9:30 a.m. on Saturdays.” In
addition, he stated that staff was recommending that the Commission add a condition, under Planning,
which requires the applicant to keep the entry doors leading to the subject business to remain closed
during the specified training sessions.
Mr. Nguyen stated on-site parking for the property is more than adequate with 63 spaces available, and
only 58 spaces required.
Mauricio Cerecer, applicant, 10124 Maple St., Bellflower, Ca. 90706 stated that he agreed to all the
recommended conditions of approval and had no questions.
Commissioner Kiefer affirmed hours of operation, and length of sessions. The applicant also affirmed to
Commissioner Kiefer that the facility is for adults, not children; and this is his first such business.
Chairman Murray asked staff if they had received any correspondence on this item. Mr. Nguyen stated
that no correspondence had been received.
Chairman Murray invited members of the audience to address the Commission. Although no one came
forward, a show of hands revealed approximately 40-45 persons were in attendance in support.
Chairman Murray asked staff for its recommendation. Mr. Nguyen stated that staff recommended
support, and approval of the attached Resolution number 12-2765.
Commissioner Kiefer affirmed that public hearing not ices had been mailed to all property owners within
500-feet of the subject property.
There being no further questions, Chairman Murray closed the public hearing.
The Commissioners stated their support, noting that this activity was desired by the community, as
demonstrated by the turn-out. In addition, it was noted that there was no one present from the
community speaking against the zumba studio.
It was moved by Commissioner Lujan and seconded by Commissioner Morales to adopt Resolution
number 12-2765, to approve PLN-12-0075, as amended.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MAY 2, 2012 – PAGE 3
Page 4
Chairman Murray stated the action of the Planning Commission will become 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.
3. PLN-12-00067 (SITE PLAN REVIEW/VARIANCE)
Location: 10825 Lakewood Boulevard
Owner: Timothy and Irma L. Nilan
Applicant: Felipe Contreras
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 15303 (Class 3, New construction or conversion of small structures).
Request: A request to change the use of a building from Single Family Residential to
General Office, and a Variance to reduce the required number of on-site
parking spaces and reduce width of driveway to less than twenty-five (25’) feet,
on property zoned C-P (Professional Office).
Chairman Murray opened the public hearing for PLN-12-00067. Ms. Donahue affirmed proof
publication.
William Davis, City Planner, presented the staff r eport and accompanying PowerPoint, explaining how
the applicant had improved the single family home as a professional office without City approvals or
building permits. Mr. Davis described the changes made by the Applicant: 1) to construct a six-foot (6’)
high block wall along the side property line; 2) removed the garage and paved the rear yard and side
yard, creating a new driveway and parking area; and 3) interior changes which included kitchen
remodel, replacing drywall and windows, replacing pl umbing fixtures, changed out doors, installed a new
HVAC unit and stucco the house. Mr. Davis explained that the improvements to the structure were in
order to facilitate the applicant’s law office business, noting that the proposed change of use results in a
building that does not comply with the City’s development standards.
Mr. Davis explained that the applicants’ improvements to the side yard wall led to a dispute with the
adjacent property owner, which led to a determination that the wall was placed on the neighbor’s side of
the property line, based on a discovery that the proper ty line survey performed was inaccurate. Also,
the wall was built without a permit. Mr. Davis explained that the property is non-conforming and the City
has several Code requirements dealing with non-conforming structures. He stated that the variance
addresses parking deficiency, the narrow driveway width (13’-4” instead of 25’) and that the 2’-4” wide
side yard is less than the required 5-foot. Referencing pages 7 & 8 of the staff report, Mr. Davis stated
that in order to approve the variance all four (4) findings must be approved.
Having described the applicants’ request and the City’s position, Mr. Davis asked the Commission to
accept testimony from the audience and continued the item to May 16, 2012, due to the discrepancy on
the agenda.
The Commissioners directed several questions to Mr. Davis. Responding to those questions, Mr. Davis
provided the following: 1) The Commission must make all four findings to support the Variance to allow
the applicants’ improvements to remain; 2) Much of the work is illegal and done without permits and
goes against the non-conforming section of the Downey Municipal Code. 3) The City cannot attest to
the integrity of the interior work. 4) There is no on-street parking along that portion of Lakewood
Boulevard. 5) The width of the lot is fifty feet, and the building will have to be altered in order to meet
the required driveway width of 25-feet. 6) There are approximately four office buildings built recently to
today’s standards, in the CP zone.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MAY 2, 2012 – PAGE 4
Page 5
Commissioner Garcia stated that he had met with and spoken with the applicant prior to his filing the
Land Use Applications, and had directed him to meet with staff.
Timothy Nilan, 9332 Gainford Avenue, Downey noted the property under discussion was his. He has
lived in Downey 16 years and has had his practice in Downey nine years, formerly at 8344 Florence
Avenue. Mr. Nilan stated that he hoped to continue running his business from Downey while he raises
his family here. He explained that he is a sole practitioner and sees about 2 to 3 clients per day. Mr.
Nilan stated that inspectors have been inside the building; and he claimed the structure had not been
compromised. He emphasized the quality of construction to be acceptable and tastefully done. He also
told the Commissioners that it was not feasible for him to provide a 25-foot wide driveway; that his
business would not create an impact to the neighborhood of traffic or noise; that the law office is
appropriate for the CP zone, while returning it to Single Family would be inconsistent with the General
Plan, nor does it make sense to him.
Commissioner Morales inquired of the applicant how long he had owned the property. Mr. Nilan
responded, four years.
Commissioner Morales inquired if Mr. Nilan accepted walk-in customers. Mr. Nilan said he would, but
they were a rarity. He said he’d like to put a sign to indicate the acceptance of walk-ins.
Commissioner Kiefer agreed that the block was converting to office uses, and asked Mr. Nilan what
work was done without permits and why he did not obtain those permits?
Mr. Nilan explained that when his contractor began so me improvements to the garage they discovered it
was termite-ridden and determined it was not worth saving, so he had it torn down. He also suggested
that his contractor join him to provide some of the information.
Chairman Murray suggested his contractor come forward at this time.
th
Philippe Contreras, 3837 E 7 Street, Long Beach addressed the Commissioners. He explained that he
had worked with the contractor for about five years. Originally, the contractor was working off an
approved plan, along with an Engineer’s stamp. The only work he was aware of done without permits
was the kitchen remodel and re-doing/repaving the existing driveway. He said they did not obtain a
permit to demolish the garage, because of its condition (it began falling apart), therefore, they just
removed it.
Mr. Contreras said he came on board when they began the change of use activities.
Commissioner Kiefer asked Mr. Nilan the type of law that he practiced.
Mr. Nilan responded, the areas of law he practices includes family law, criminal law, some Department
of Real Estate representation, and little bit of Landlord-Tenant.
Commissioner Garcia stated that the place looks nice and provides curb appeal, upgrading the
neighborhood.
Chairman Murray stated this was a difficult situation and noted that while the Commission would be
requesting a continuance, he would entertain co rrespondence and allow testimony. Chairman Murray
asked staff for any correspondence.
Mr. Davis responded that no correspondence had been received.
Chairman Murray invited members of the audience to address the Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MAY 2, 2012 – PAGE 5
Page 6
Speaking in opposition:
Medhat Iskarous, 8420 Lexington Road, Downey, owner of the property adjacent to and north of the
subject site provided the following information: 1) The applicant demolished walls and modified his
structure to facilitate his office; he demolished the garage, paved the rear yard, paved the side yard to
develop the driveway, without the benefit of permits. 2) The applicant built a six-foot high block wall
between their properties encroaching onto his property by 16’-18”, that is only 2’-4” from the property
line. The applicant refused to remove the wall causing Mr. Iskarous to litigate the matter and have the
property surveyed all at great expense. The survey showed the applicant’s survey to be inaccurate.
After seven months the wall was removed but the former wall has not been replaced, nor the footings
back filled, leaving an unsafe situation for his tenants. 3) Mr. Iskarous described the actions of
applicant, and stated that this situation does not constitute as a hardship; that the applications came
after the applicant had made the alterations unlawfully . He stated that an approval by the Commission
would set a precedent for other similarly-sized properties to be able to obtain such variances from the
Code. He stated that allowing the improvements to be retained would permit the structure to be
maintained in a manner not established with the Ci ty’s Codes, and would not be in harmony with the
City’s General Plan. Mr. Iskarous stated that w hen he had built his building on the same block, they had
to meet all the City Codes. He noted that the City ’s Code for a wider driveway is an important safety
consideration along Lakewood Boulevard because of the high traffic and rate of speed. He stated that
he also has lived in Downey and raised his family here si nce 1988. His family’s business is here as well.
Mr. Iskarous urged the Commission to deny the applicant’s request, noting that he believes the Building
Codes are meant to be followed, as he had painstakingly done, in order to maintain the City’s health and
safety.
Chairman Murray thanked Mr. Iskarous for his comments and invited the applicant to speak in
Speaking in rebuttal, Mr. Nilan explained that he had hi red a surveyor and understood that his contractor
had obtained something, not a permit, from the City in order to build the block wall. He noted that early
on he had asked his neighbor, Mr. Iskarous, to participate in discussions on the wall replacement, but
that Mr. Iskarous had refused to participate. He affirmed that unfortunately the survey was wrong, which
required the removal of the wall. Mr. Nilan apologized to Mr. Iskarous. He informed the Commission that
he was not aware of any other property that had the identical conditions as his, that had been developed
as an office and that might benefit from an approval of this variance. Mr. Nilan stated that he was under
the impression that permits had been pulled, and the bulk of the improvements reviewed by the City,
with the exception of the gutting of the kitchen.
Phillipe Contreras stated that he was hired by the applicant as soon as the City had notified the Nilans of
the issues; he began working with Mr. Davis for this “change of use”.
Commissioner Kiefer asked if the applicant had taken out a permit for the block wall.
Mr. Davis responded that a permit had been taken out for the 42”-high block wall, and the applicant had
attempted to get the permit after the 6’-high block wall had been built. He explained that to the
applicant’s credit, he corrected that problem after he became aware of the inaccurate survey,.
Chairman Murray noted that staff’s recommendation is for continuance. City Attorney Yvette Abich
Garcia stated her suggestion that the Commission leave the Public Hearing open, and continue the
hearing to the following meeting, May 16, 2012.
It was moved by Commissioner Kiefer, seconded by Commissioner Morales and passed by a
unanimous vote, to continue the public hearing for PLN-12-00067 to May 16, 2012, keeping the public
hearing open.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MAY 2, 2012 – PAGE 6
Page 7
VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS :
1. Mr. Davis informed the Commissioners that he had heard from Heidi Llamas, the applicant for the
carnival approved at Downey High School. She called to say thank-you to the City and especially the
Commissioners for approving the event. She reported the event was successful; that the boosters were
able to raise the $27,000 needed in order for the Major League Baseball committee to match funds and
improve the baseball fields.
2. Chairman Murray reported this year’s street fa ire was a big success drawing what they believed to be
over 20,000 people, generating record sales.
IX. OTHER BUSINESS: Community Development Director Saeki stated there was no other business
to address at this time.
X. ITEMS F
OR FUTURE AGENDA: Mr. Saeki stated there were no future agenda items to be addressed
this evening.
XI. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the
Commission adjourned at 7:45 p.m., to May 16, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. at Downey City Hall, 11111
Brookshire Avenue, Downey, Ca. 90241
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of May, 2012.
Michael Murray
Michael Murray, Chairman
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Minutes were duly approved at a Regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 16th day of May, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lujan, Morales, Kiefer, Garcia, Murray
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
Theresa Donahue
Theresa Donahue, Secretary
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
H:\Community Development\Planning Commission\Minutes\May 2, 2012-Minutes.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MAY 2, 2012 – PAGE 7