Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/24/1996MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMIdSION JUNE 24, 1996 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Goldenberg called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by vice Chairman Ruzicka ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Goldenberg, vice Chairman Ruzicka, Commissioners Fong, McManus and Schad. Also Present: Community Development Director James DeStefano; Senior Planner Catherine Johnson; Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Deputy Director Public Works David Liu, and Recording Secretary Carol Dennis MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: Craig Clute, 21217 Fountain Springs Road, asked for an update on the Diamond Bar High School cellular site project. AstP/Lungu responded to Mr. Clute that the Diamond Bar High School cellular site landscape plan is at the State Architect's office awaiting approval. The applicant is aware that his expiration date is at hand and that no additional time extensions will be allowed for.this project. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of June 10, 1996. VC/Ruzicka made a motion, seconded by C/Schad to approve the minutes of June 10, 1996 as presented. The motion was approved 5-0. OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS: 1. Presentation by Joe Foust of Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. regarding parking. CDD/DeStefano stated that as a preamble to the discussion of Item 2, New Business, Mr. Foust will present information pertaining to basic parking issues. Mr. Foust outlined his credentials and presented parking studies including shared parking concepts. He referred the Commissioners to The Institute of Public June 24, 1996' Page 2 Planning Commission Transportation Engineers manuals, "Trip Generation" and "Parking Generation", and The Urban Land Institute's document, "Shared Parkingl'. Mr. Foust responded to C/Schad that peak theater parking statistics are based upon unit numbers without regard to specific movie releases. 2. City Council referral regarding parking issues at 2707 South Diamond Bar Boulevard (Dr. Cho's Building). CDD/DeStefano stated the City Council has referred this item to the Planning Commission for discussion and requested that the Commission provide comments to the City Council. The matter is a recommendation by t�e Traffic and Transportation Commission to the City Council that the portion of red curbing on the south side of Fountain Springs Road ,between Diamond Bar Boulevard and 'Crooked Creek Drive be removed. SP/Johnson read the staff report into the record. Chair/ Goldenberg declared the item open for public comment. Don Gravd,ahl, a Diamond Bar resident, urged the Commission to recommend retention of the red curbing on the south side of Fountain Springs Road between Diamond Bar Boulevard and Crooked Creek Drive. Mr. Clute concurred with Mr. Gravdahl. He stated that Dr. Cho has changed the use of his building which has impacted the parking: He further stated that in his opinion, residential streets should not be used to accommodate commercial parking. Dr. Cho stated he has not changed the use of his building. Shortly after he completed construction of his building, Los Angeles County .changed the parking code. He indicated that he was not information regarding the Neighborhood Traffic Study which recommended the red curbing. He indicated he agrees that the red curbing should be retained on the north side of Fountain Springs Road. He requested the Planning Commission recommend!: to the City Council that the red curbing be removed from the south side of Fountain Springs Road to offer his building's clientele and lessee employee's with additional parking. Chair/ Goldenberg stated public streets are for public use and safety concerns dictate standards. He asked Dr. Cho to consider the impact of street parking to the residents surrounding his building. He further stated that in the June 24, 1996 Page 3 Planning commission i . eight years Dr. Cho has owned the building, he has not spoken with the management or owner of the Country Hills Towne Center about securing additional parking for his building. Dr. Cho responded to Chair/ Goldenberg that on four occasions he has attempted to enter into discussions with the shopping center management regarding an agreement. Chair/ Goldenberg reminded Dr. Cho that his attempts to negotiate with the shopping center have been in the recent past. C/Schad asked Dr. Cho how many patients and how many employees are impacted by the lack of adequate parking. Dr. Cho responded to C/Schad that he has two employees and he previously requested that they park on the street. He indicated that the only time he needs parking relief is from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. weekdays when the dance studio is holding classes. VC/Ruzicka stated that as a Commissioner, he wants to improve the business climate in Diamond Bar. In addition, the concerns and needs of the 55;000 citizens must be considered. He referred the Commission to Page 4 of the staff report which states that "In Summary, the building was legally permitted with the number of parking spaces required by the code at the time of approval prior to any tenant occupying the building. Because of a change in parking regulations, the building almost immediately became non -conforming. As tenants moved into the building, the parking was, not monitored and the building owner did not comply with the regulations for non -conforming uses." He further stated that, in his opinion, the City should have monitored this situation from the beginning. He indicated.he believes that Dr. Cho will have to modify his leasing policies so that tenants occupying his building will not overtax the current parking facilities. He should also have to conform to Los Angeles County's original provision that tenants be Retail or General Office type businesses. He stated he believes the City needs to conduct a study of which Diamond Bar businesses are facing similar parking situation, and which businesses do not comply with their parking codes. He asked if any businesses in Diamond Bar have permission to use the public right-of-way for e parking. If so, it is a City problem which should be resolved. In addition, Dr. Cho should state in his lease n. agreement that -there is no on-site parking provided for employees of the building. Even if the red curbing is removed from the south side of Fountain Springs Road it would not guarantee that the parking spaces would be June 24, 1996 Page 4 Planning Commission available only for Dr. , Cho Is building. There would still be a shortfall of ,parking spaces for -the building according to the current usage. VC/Ruzicka continued that even if Dr. Cho exercised his easement and built a stairway from his building to the shopping center, there would be no parking provided for his building because only the tenants of the shopping center are provided use of the shopping center parking. Dr. Cho's building is not part of the shopping center. VC/Ruzicka: requested that if the red curbing is removed from the south side of Fountain Springs Road, the City engage a parking expert such as Mr. Foust to 'enter into the record -that removal of the red curbing would not cause an undue traffic safety problem to the area. He stated that he cannot recommend to the City Council that the City provide additional commercial.parking in the public right-of-way. However, he stressed that he wants to -the City to assist businesses in the community 'to stay in business and make a profit. He further stated that in his opinion, he does not believe that everything that can be done, has been done to alleviate the situation. C/McManus recommended that the red curbing be removed from the - south side of Fountain Springs Drive between Diamond Bar Boulevard and Crooked Creek Drive and that the hours of,stre;et parking be limited. C/Schad concurred with VC/Ruzicka. He indicated his concerns that businesses within the City should be treated fairly. and equitably. CDD/DeStefano responded to Chair/Goldenberg that during a two week period from '10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., staff observed a range of 6 to 12 available parking spaces at Dr: Cho's building. He acknowledged that during peak afternoon hours there may not be sufficient parking spaces to accommodate the current uses. Chair/Goldenberg suggested Dr. Cho designate parking spaces for his lessees. He concurred with C/McManus that a compromise! to allow street parking between the hours Iof 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. may provide relief for Dr. Cho's parking concerns. A time limit compromise may be acceptable to the residents as well. CDD/DeStefano stated it is not uncommon to have limited time street parking in the City. He sited several examples. DDPW/Liu responded to C/Fong that the red curbing on the north side of Fountain Springs between Diamond Bar Boulevard and Rising Star Drive was installed in June, 1993. The red curbing was installed to mitigate safety M June 24, 1996 Page 5 Planning commission and sight distance concerns. The balance of the red curbing was installed on the north and south sides of Fountain Springs Road approximately six months ago as a result of the Neighborhood Traffic Study consultant's recommendations. The traffic study took approximately one year to complete. In response to VC/Ruzicka, DDPW/Liu stated that all area business owners were mailed Neighborhood Traffic Study notices. DDPW/Liu continued that the follow up study evaluating the effectiveness of all mitigation measures initiated as a result of the Neighborhood Traffic Study is due June 28, 1996. Residents have been requested to provide input for inclusion in the follow up study. DDPW/Liu responded to C/Fong that five parking spaces would be gained by removing the red curbing from the south side of Fountain Springs Drive between Dr. Cho's building driveway - and,. the Country Hills Towne Center driveway. CDD/DeStefano indicated to C/Fong that the theoretical parking space shortfall for Dr. Cho's building is nine spaces based upon the current parking standards. At issue is management of the tenants occupying the facility to ensure the appropriate mix of tenants to parking spaces. C/Fang stated he agrees with VC/Ruzicka's comments. The City needs to monitor the building usage and Dr. Cho needs to manage his building to insure the proper tenant mix to building parking availability and not rely on public parking to solve his parking needs. He further stated that he has difficulty making a recommendation to the City Council because of the conflicting information between staff and Dr. Cho regarding the parking space usage. CDD/DeStefano stated a detailed study would be required to adequately monitor Dr. Cho's parking lot. He suggested that Dr. Cho provide a study which would substantiate his contention that he has a parking problem. Dr. Cho stated that in the future he will carefully consider the code when leasing space to tenants. He reiterated that he did not receive notification from the City regarding the Neighborhood Traffic Study. Chair/Goldenberg suggested that it may be in the City's best interest to request Dr. Cho conduct a study to June 24,"1996 Page 6 Planning Commission confirm his contention that.he needs additional parking spaces and offer recommendations for mitigation of the situation. VC/Ruzicka concurred with Chair/Goldenberg. He reiterated that he cannot recommend that the City Council give permission for commercial parking in the public right-of-way for which the City may,incur additional liability.. C/Fong concurred that Dr. Cho should provide a traffic study which would substantiate the fact that there is a need for additional street parking and that street parking would not present the City with a safety liability issue. Dr. Cho stated that he paid,for a traffic study for his building in March, 1996 when he petitioned the City to lease space for a Taekwondo studio. The study revealed there was adequate parking for his building with respect to current uses except during a 30 minute period in the late afternoon when the dance studio required additional parking. He further stated that he cannot afford to pay for an additional study. CDD/DeStefano stated that approximately one year ago Dr. Cho suggested a Taekwondo studio as an appropriate tenant for his building. City staff was concerned about traffic and parking related to that type of business and requested Dr. Cho provide a traffic study which would substantiate the appropriateness of the business to the building. As a result of the study, the Taekwondo studio was denied because there was not an appropriate number'of parking spaces' available during the studio's hours of operation. I Chair/Goldenberg reiterated his recommendation for Dr. Cho to provide a traffic study. The Commission concurred. CDD/DeStefano confirmed that all comments will be forwarded to the City Council via the Planning Commission minutes. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Variance No. 95-2, (pursuant to Code Section 22.56, Par 2), is a request to construct four retaining walls (crib`' walls) with interjacent planters within the rear portion. of the project site. The maximum proposed height of three retaining walls is eight feet and one retaining wall is six feet. Additionally, this project includes Development Review No. 96-1, (pursuant to Code Section __.._ . - 1 - I— . , ,.-<,,. - 1 1-X1,1 m,7' ,1 b -...,,�..,_ i i"�:,,t�, ,,,!. }araF111 1 ir. i>>lc r - June 24, 1996 Page' 7' Planning Commission 22.72.020), a request to construct an 8,334 square foot two story single family residence with a cellar, deck, pool/spa, and four car garage. The project site is a 1.2 acre vacant lot located within a gated community identified as "The Country Estates". Project Address: 1729 Derringer Lane, Diamond Bar Property Owner: Jeffrey and Eddy Hu, 933 Leyland Drive, Diamond Bar Applicant: Frank Piermarini, 2100 S. Reservoir, Pomona, CA 91766 AstP/Lungu read the staff report into the record. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 95-2, and Development Review No. 96-1, Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the attached resolution. AstP/Lungu responded to C/Schad that the landscaping firm has suggested appropriate planting materials for the crib wall construction to accommodate City requirements to transition from the bottom of the hill to the home. The landscape plan includes trailing plants. C/Schad suggested indigenous trees such as California Oak be incorporated in the landscape plan. AstP/Lungu responded to C/Fong that a condition of approval requires a geotechnical report be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of permits. Chair/Goldenberg declared the public hearing open. Frank Piermarini stated he agrees with staff's recommendations and concurs with the conditions of approval. The soils engineer has confirmed that the ground will handle the project. VC/Ruzicka asked if five six-foot walls could be utilized instead of the requested three eight -foot walls and one six foot wall. Mr. Piermarini responded to VC/Ruzicka that five six-foot walls would not be any more structurally sound than three eight -foot walls and one six foot wall. Mr. Piermarini responded to C/Schad that the depth of the wall is determined by the soils engineer. In addition, the soils engineer monitors the fill for no less than 90 percent compaction. June 24, 1996 Page 8 Planning Commission Mr. Piermarini suggested the oak tree roots may cause damage to the retaining walls. C/Schad stated in his opinion, the .higher elevation would support the oak trees because they require much less water than other forms of vegetation.' He indicated he is concerned that too much irrigation required for -other types of growth could cause excess penetration to the soil and undermine the retaining walls. Careful pruning of the oak1tree will limit growth to 10 percent. With proper maintenance the root structure of an oak tree is almost symmetrical to the°drip line of the tree. In addition, the oak does not shed leaves to the extent that other varieties of trees shed leaves. Kenneth Welch, Engineer, responded to C/Fong that the base of the wall is not level and slopes away with the flow of the natural ground. As a result, the fifth wall would not catch the ground and therefore, an eight foot wall would be needed. He indicated that in his opinion, the proposed walls optimize the situation to the best possible solution. Craig Clute asked for a definition of "cellar" and whether it is a third story to the home and'if it is a LA finished or unfinished area. Mr. Piermarini stated,the "cellar" area will be finished by him. The area will serve as a recreation room for the property owner. CDD/DeStefano stated the "cellar" area is a habitable area. Chair/Goldenberg closed the public hearing. CDD/DeStefano responded to VC/Ruzicka that the Planning Commission may consider various portions of the proposed floor plan as it relates to the variance issue. The City approves very few variances. He sited four homes within "The Country Estates". In response to Mr. Clute's comment, he stated to his knowledge there has been no parking variance granted since the City's incorporation. When reviewing a project seeking a variance from the code, each case stands on its own merits. C/McManus stated oak trees will die if they are over watered. He further stated he prefers that trailing vines be utilized for this project. Chair/ Goldenberg stated he is concerned about granting variances on a lot that has inherent difficulties. June 24, 1996 Page 9'- Planning Commission i Mr. Piermarini responded to C/Fong that his understanding is that'the Planning Commission is asked to approve the concept of the project and that the project will require approval by the City's Engineer. In addition, the neighbors of the project who were present at the last public hearing stated their concerns which have been addressed in the revised project plans. He stated that if the neighbors were concerned about the new plans he feels they would have appeared this evening to speak in opposition to the project. CDD/DeStefano responded to C/Schad that approximately 27 neighbors to the project site were notified of this public hearing. CDD/DeStefano stated that any project within the area will require a soils and geotechnical report to be prepared by the appropriate certified engineering professionals. In addition, the City's consultants will. review the report and approve or request changes as they do with every project. The Planning Commission is reviewing a project that has been advertised as having « three or four eight foot high walls. If the Planning Commission is of the opinion that the project should be approved, a condition exists which states that the project shall be constructed in accordance with the submitted drawings. C/McManus made a motion, seconded by VC/Ruzicka, to approve Variance No. 95-2 and Development Review No. 96- 1, Findings of Fact and conditions as listed in the resolution. C/Fong recommended adding the following amendments to the conditions of approval. Add the following to condition (f), Page 5: "The geotechnical report prepared shall state that the project site is not subjected to landsliding, slope creep, slope instability or subsidence which will significantly affect or preclude the construction of the planned development. The proposed construction of the planned development shall not create a condition of geologic instability that will adversely effect adjacent properties during construction and the life of the development." Add the following to condition (m), Page 5: "Differential settlement due to varied fill thickness beneath the proposed structure shall be considered in the final selection and design of the building foundation which may include deepened footings or caissons established in the underlying bedrock." June 24, 1996 Page 10 Planning Commission In response to VC/Ruzicka, CDD/DeStefano recommended that etas recommended by the City Engineer" be added to both °amendments recommended by C/Fong. C/McManus and VC/Ruzicka agreed to the proposed amendments to be included in the motion for approval. The motion was approved with the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McManus, VC/Ruzicka, Fong, Schad NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Goldenberg ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None RECESS: Chair/Goldenberg recessed the meeting at 10:10 p.m. RECONVENE: Chair/ Goldenberg reconvened the meeting at 10:20 p.m. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 96-4 and Development Review No. 96-8 is a request for a roof mounted telecommunications antenna as part of a national wireless Personal Communication Service (PCS) telecommunications system by Pacific Bell, which will be part of a regional telecommunications network. The proposed antenna will,be screened from the view of the surrounding land uses by a single roof -mounted structure, designed to resemble a clock tower and constructed of materials to match the existing architecture. This structure will be approximately 22 'square inches and 16 feet in height, 11 feet of which will be visible above the existing roof. This proposal also includes an equipment cabinet which will be placed at ground level on the southerly building elevation and painted to match the building. Project Address: 21308 Pathfinder Road, Diamond Bar Property Owner: Terrell and Carol Ann Rinehart, P.O. Box 4428, Covina, CA 91723 Applicant: Kent Norton, Keith International Companies, 22690 Cactus Avenue, Moreno Valley, CA 92553 SP/Johson read the staff report into the record. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 96-4 and Development Review No. 96-8, Findings of Fact and conditions as listed within the resolution. --- --------- --- - -- June 24, 1996 Page 11.- Planning Commission SP/Johnson responded to C/Fong that the antenna will be screened within panels inside the clock tower which will be visible.. Chair/Goldenberg opened the public hearing. Craig Clute indicated he likes the proposed plan. Kent Norton stated he read staff's report and concurs with the conditions. He questioned Conditions (c) and (d) because the proposed project has no effect on parking surfaces or signage. He respectfully requested deletion of Conditions (c) and (d) on Page 4 of the Resolution. As a replacement Condition he offered a 2:1 replacement of landscape materials as a result of the cabinet installation on the west side of the building. Mr. Norton requested the Planning 'Commission consider approving an unshielded antenna panels which would, in his opinion, afford a lesser visual impact than the screened structure. Mr. Norton responded to C/Schad that the only sound generated by the proposed project is a computer equipment hum. In addition, the equipment is adjacent to the SR 57 which would obscure any equipment sound. CDD/DeStefano responded to VC/Ruzicka that staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the project with screening. The project conditions were recommended to bring the aesthetics of the property into compliance with the intent of the City's General Plan. Staff believes the proposed solution is appropriate for this location. In response to C/McManus, CDD/DeStefano stated the conditions for parking lot improvement and signage compliance are included as a means of bringing the property into compliance to the City's standards. Staff feels this discretionary permit request is an opportunity for the Planning Commission and for the City to capture these improvements. C/Schad made a motion, seconded by VC/Ruzicka, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 96-4 and Development Review No. 96-8, Findings of Fact and conditions as listed ° within the resolution. The motion was carried 5-0. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS - None INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None 1 June 24, 1996 Page 12 Planning Commission ADJOURNMENT: At 10:45 p.m., there being no further business to come before the, Planning Commission, Chair/ Goldenberg adjourned the meeting to Judy 8, 1996. Respectfull Submitted, mes DeStefaao Community Development Director Attest: I Ifx L Michael Go denberg Chairman I - -- I - - � 1 1--, "1! 1 i,� l� �' � r, , , , i I �i", �IiV I "I � 1� �1-1 " , 'Pd' ' "O'ff'OR, t r 11 r 11 , 1, 11�� , " , , '