HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/13/1998__ ___�—_ L_ __i_r___wllfdL�JLL r.._rWMJHIMW:Y1Ixul.rrrNlMwxr.lr-- r._,.,-w-y-.+.re..n-t--,-. r.y�r�-il-^i�-r.r_ - -. -: Cyt rnmuruxrrrurmexxwxrwwun..ur -
r --,m.
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 13,1998
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman McManus called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality
Management Hearing Board Room, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Ruzicka.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Joe McManus, Vice Chairman Steve Tye, and Commissioners
George Kuo, Steve Nelson and Joe Ruzicka.
Also Present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager, Ann Lungu, Associate Planner and
Rob Searcy, Consultant Planner.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As submitted.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes of September 22, 1998. Continued to October 27, 1998.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 98-6 and Development Review No. 98-9 (pursuant to Code
Sections 22.56.110, 22.28. 110 and 22.72.020) is a request to add approximately 1,147 square
feet to an existing 5,181 square foot vacant bank building with a 2,119 square foot cellar for
a total of approximately 8,447 square feet to be utilized as a car wash with two oil and lube
bays and merchandise/boutique sales area. The project site is located within the C-1 zone.
The request includes a Planning Commission interpretation that the proposed use is consistent
with other uses permitted within the C-1 zone.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2845 Diamond Bar Boulevard
- Diamond Bar, CA 91765
OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 2
f
PROPERTY OWNERS: David Zemer
954 Schumacher
Los Angeles, CA 90048
APPLICANT: Lance Templeton
2899 Monte Verde Drive
Covina, CA 91724
AstP/Lungu presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
approve Conditional Use Permit No. 98-6 and Development Review No. 98-9, Findings of
Fact and conditions as listed within the resolution.
Guy Williams, Land Use Planning Consultant, 978 Amelia, San Dimas, California, stated he
represents the property owner and applicant. Mr. Templeton and his family as well as the
architect are in attendance at tonight's meeting. The applicant and all concerned parties have
reviewed staffs report and concur with the conditions of approval. He asked that the
Planning Commission give consideration to Condition 5.(x) to allow the applicant the
opportunity to work with staff to determine the legal non -conforming status of the free
standing.sign. He further stated that during the past year while working on the project the
applicant determined that there is considerable support for the Diamond Bar Car Wash in this
1 community. Endorsements have been obtained from M&H Realty Partners, the owner of the
Country Hulls Towne Center as well as, from each of the tenants within the center. A petition
requesting that the Planning Commission approve the car wash with over 400 signatures of
Diamond Bar residents, many of which reside adjacent to or near the site, is hereby submitted
to the Commission. Mr. Templeton is a resident ofDiamond Bar and resides just north of the
property. He and the owner respectfully request the Commission's approval.
C/Nelson asked how the proposed project compares with the Brea Auto Spa in its physical
appearance and operation.
Lance Templeton, applicant, stated the proposed operation will be very similar in operation
to the Brea Auto Spa. The architectural style is somewhat different yet similar in overall
quality. Operating hours are similar to those of the Brea Auto Spa.
Mr. Templeton responded to C/Nelson that the wash area will be adjacent to the center on
the back side of the property.
C/Nelson expressed concern about the noise generated in the residential area immediately
across Diamond Bar Boulevard from the proposed location.
Mr. Templeton indicated to C/Nelson that the petition for approval includes signatures of a
17 number of people who live in the area. He stated that he has not discussed the issue with the
homeowners association. However, there has been no stated opposition to the project. He
--r indicated that he concurs with the requested color changes. He further stated that a portion
of the Bank of America structure will be retrofitted. However, it is a steel structure with
girders expanding the entire building. There are no bearing walls in the building.
OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 3
AstP/Lungiu responded to VC/Tye that notification of property owners is based upon a 500
�`' `" foot radius from the boundaries of the project site.
DCM/DeStefano indicated that renters of the condominium units are not generally aware of
activities taking place because the notice goes to the property owners. 140 property owners
were notified as a result of the mailed notice for this project. Based upon 140 property
owners, a significant number of those condominiums across Diamond Bar Boulevard were
notified as a part of this process.
Mr. Williams indicated to Chair/McManus that he prepared the 500 foot radius map and he
specifically notified all of the condominium owners even though it may have been beyond the
500 foot radius. Approximately 80 percent of the notifications went to property owners who
reside in the complex.
Chair/McManus opened the Public Hearing.
Charles German, 22848 Hilton Head Drive, expressed his support for the proposed project
Chair/McManus closed the Public Hearing.
C/Ruzicka asked how future redevelopment plans may be effected by this project
DCM/DeStefano stated that the Redevelopment Agency and its staff are involved in a
marketing effort to revitalize the Country Hills Towne Center and to expand its usage and fill
vacant spaces that exist within the center. He further stated he considers the project property
to be an isolated piece of property from the balance of the shopping center and envisions the
project positively impacting the shopping center.
C/Ruzicka asked how Diamond Bar Boulevard vehicular traffic will be effected by this project
and whether the City will allow street parking.
DCM/DeStefano responded that parking is prohibited on Diamond Bar Boulevard with the
exception of specifically designated church parking which is permitted on special occasions.
Staff does not intend to recommend on -street parking for any portion of Diamond Bar
Boulevard with the exception of the aforementioned. As staffs report indicates, traffic
emanating from this project will actually be less than what was anticipated from the prior
Bank of America use.
Responding to C/Ruzicka, DCNWeStefano stated that from staffs prospective, abandonment
indicates that the bank has been vacant and not utilized for a significant period of time.
° Mr. Templeton indicated to C/Ruzicka that the project's design contemplates a single purpose
F
entry/exit.
a�
AstP/Lungu responded to C/Kuo the noise study was conducted on the blower. The
emanation will not exceed the City's standard in accordance with the resolution's condition
OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 4
of approval. Approximately 17 percent of the water utilized in the car wash process will enter
the sewer system after it is clarified by the on-site system before it enters the sewer system.
The water quality is monitored by the County of Los Angeles through the NPDES permit
process.
DCM/DeStefano explained to C/Ruzicka that this project is not a fully automated car wash.
It is a hand car wash with some automated equipment such as a dryer blower. Employees will
wash the vehicles. No brushes or other mechanical devices that are used at fully automated
car washes will be utilized at this location.
Mr. Templeton explained to C/Ruzicka that this project proposes no brushes in the wash
tunnel. This project will have personnel on site who wash and dry the vehicle which affords
a more quality wash. This is a full service operation with vacuuming, interior cleaning and
exterior wash.
Mr. Templeton confirmed to VC/Tye that the proposed project is much more comparable to
the Brea Auto Spa than the facility at Nogales adjacent to the 60 freeway.
Responding to C/Kuo's concern regarding noise, Mr. Templeton stated that the building
contains a 2119 square foot cellar where the noise generating equipment will be located. As
a result, there will be no exterior noise generated by those items.
DCM/DeStefano explained that staffs concern regarding the sign is the lapse of time between
when the bank ceased its operation and when this application will take effect at that location.
The applicant has suggested that the condition be either removed or reworded. Staff concurs
with the applicant's request to reword Condition 5.(x) to allow the applicant the opportunity
to work with staff to resolve the matter. This is a discretionary permit and the Commission
may elect to have the sign brought down to a six foot height.
C/Nelson moved, C/Ruzicka seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 98-6 and
Development Review No. 98-9, Findings of Fact and conditions as listed within the resolution
with the provision that the current signage be brought down to a six foot sign. Motion
carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Nelson, Ruzicka, VC/Tye,
Chair/McManus
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
2. Conditional Use Permit No. 98-8 and Development Review No. 98-10 (pursuant to Code
Sections 22.72.020, and 22.28.260) is a request to construct two, three story professional
buildings totaling approximately 165,888 square feet on Lot 2. - The project site is located
within the Gateway Corporate Center.
PROJECT ADDRESS: Lots 2 and 5
Gateway Corporate Center Drive
—.p._ —_.._., .- r-= —w.rma......--
OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 5
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
PROPERTY OWNER/ Trammel Crow, acting as agent for A.E.W. Diamond
Bar
APPLICANT: Business Associates
601 S. Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
CP/Searcy presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
Conditional Use Permit No. 98-08 and Development Review No. 98-10, Findings of Fact and
conditions as listed within the resolution.
CP/Searcy responded to C/Ruzicka that he intended to say that the project may not happen
all at one time.
CP/Searcy indicated to VC/Tye that Condition (aa) on Page 7 of the Resolution means that
the initial exercising of the grant must take place within two years from date of approval. If
the applicant proposes to build one building in year one and the second building in year four,
the City would then devise a plan for them to develop this lot to the extent that it feels must
implemented during phase I and bring in secondary conditions that would extend toward the
control of phase II. He said he would not anticipate a different project if it was developed
over a four or five year period.
CP/Searcy concurred with VC/Tye to correct the first line of Condition (t) on Page 7 to
indicate a commercial structure instead of a single family structure.
C/Nelson asked for explanation of the traffic mitigation measures as specifically related to the
intersection of Golden Springs Drive and Grand Avenue.
CP/Searcy responded that historically, because ofthe development of the Gateway Corporate
Center complex, mitigation measures were implemented at Grand Avenue and Golden Springs
Drive. The intersection was widened to accommodate the carrying capacity. Funds were set
aside by the applicant for the phased signalization of the intersection although it was not a
requirement set forth by the City. Additionally, second left turn pockets were installed on
Grand Avenue for turns onto Golden Springs Drive and a right turn lane was installed on
eastbound Golden Springs Drive for turn onto southbound Grand Avenue. As a part of this
project, traffic impacts have not been identified because the City needs to determine whether
it is in the original threshold that was identified upon original project approval. Staff does not
anticipate a significant off-site impact.
In response to Chair/McManus, CP/Searcy stated that the trash enclosure required by the
Gateway Corporate Center Association is usually a block wall approximately 12 to 15 feet
in height with a trellis structure over the top. He pointed out the possible location for
installation of a traffic control device at Valley Vista adjacent to the site which would alert
motorists to slow down.
OCTOBER 13, 1998
PAGE 6
CP/Searcy explained to C/Ruzicka that the applicant is required to conform to all South Coast
Air Quality Management guidelines in conjunction with project grading.
David Nazarra, Vice President of Development Services for Tooley Co. stated that Trammel
Crow Company is very pleased to have the opportunity to develop in Diamond Bar. He
indicated that his firm has worked extensively with staff on the site plan and the aesthetic
appeal of the building. He said that his company considered themselves as citizens once the
site was purchased and have functioned as such, especially since this project will be located
across from City Hall. He thanked staff. He stated that in working with them, he found staff
to be very knowledgeable, very professional and very competent.
Mr. Nazarra responded to C/Nelson that his firm has a strong prospect lined up for a large
portion of one of the buildings and another project for almost the entirety of the second
building.
Responding to VC/Tye, Mr. Nazarra stated that once escrow closes, it is his firm's intent to
build both buildings and complete construction in one phase.
Chair/McManus opened the Public Hearing.
There being no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/McManus closed the
Public Hearing.
C/Nelson said he feels the proposed project was very well thought out. He agreed that Mr.
Searcy's presentation was excellent.
C/Ruzicka moved, C/Kuo seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 98-8 and
Development Review No. 98-10. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Nelson, Ruzicka, VC/Tye,
Chair/McManus
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
3. Conditional Use Permit No. 98-9 and Development Review No. 98-11 (pursuant to Code
Section 22.72.010, 22.56. 110 and 22.78.070G.) is a request to construct a 5,029 square foot,
one story addition to an existing 5,380 square foot commercial building within a retail
shopping center identified as Diamond Bar Town Center.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
PROPERTY OWNER/ Dariush and Jacob Khakshouri and Max Netty
k.. APPLICANT: 10750 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1404
Los Angeles, CA 90024
OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 7
AstP/Lungu presented staffs report.
AstP/Lungu confirmed to VC/Tye that no parking spaces will be lost as a result of the
increase in the area of the structure.
C/Ruzicka expressed concern about the parking availability in the project area.
DCM/DeStefano stated that this property was developed under the old Los Angeles County
Code standards which called for one parking space for every 400 square feet of gross floor
area. The standards under which the City of Diamond Bar currently operates are much more
stringent with one parking space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area.. This project
has the potential to extend the hours of the shopping center from approximately 8:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m, to about 5:30 a.m. to almost midnight based upon the use. There is an opportunity
for the applicant to secure an agreement to share parking with its neighbors.
DCM/DeStefano indicated to VC/Tye that a shared parking agreement with Jack in the Box
Restaurant could provide the 12 parking spaces needed for compliance.
C/Nelson said he does not like to see vacant bank buildings and he believes the project is an
excellent opportunity to fill a vacancy. He said he is concerned about the parking. However,
if the applicant complies with staffs condition for a shared parking agreement, his concerns
are alleviated.
Mr. Jacob Khakshouri, spoke about the proposed project. He stated that it has been a
pleasure to work with the City's professional and courteous staff. He further stated he read
staffs report and concurs with the conditions of approval. He explained why the coffee house
is considered a retail establishment and not a restaurant and why the outside seating should
be considered to be a part of the landscape and not additional building area. Therefore, the
parking should be calculated based upon retail use and not upon restaurant use. He indicated
that he does not believe it will be possible to obtain a reciprocal agreement for shared parking
with his neighbor.
Mr.Khakshouri responded to C/Ruzicka that in the initial stages of discussion with staff, it
was thought that there were existing reciprocal agreements for shared parking. It was not
until recently that it came to light that no such agreements exist.
C/Ruzicka said he has visited several Starbucks coffee houses where business staff meetings
are being conducted and he indicated he views the situation differently from the applicant.
Mr. Khakshouri responded that he believes such meetings are infrequent and that the
applicant should not be penalized for providing additional seating area.
DCM/DeStefano stated that staff must consider parking based upon a worst case scenario.
Staff would assume the all seating will be utilized. One way to elevate the concern would be
to limit the number of outdoor seats available to the public.
� 1 Y911
OCTOBER 13, 1998 PAGE 8
C/Ruzicka stated he would like for the project to proceed by finding a resolution to the
parking situation.
Mr. Khakshouri stated he received his packet last evening and he has had no opportunity to
speak with his neighbor about the parking issue.
VC/Tye asked for clarification of the parking space requirement.
Chair/McManus opened the Public Hearing.
Chris Lewis, Pacific West Asset Management Corporation, stated his firm manages the
building referred to as Diamond Bar Town Center on behalf of Dr. Michael Drucker. The
property enjoys 18 tenants and two vacancies. If the project developer agreed to have no
outside seating they would be in compliance with the parking requirement within two parking
spaces which Dr. Drucker could agree to. He said that Starbucks is a restaurant. He said his
firm would be willing to enter into an agreement with the project applicant if there was no
outside seating included in the project proposal.
Chair/McManus closed the Public Hearing.
C/Nelson stated that he does not believe the parking should be restricted because each of the
tenants mentioned has the potential to generate traffic that will double park for a quick
— transaction.
C/Ruzicka reiterated he likes the proposed project and he is concerned about the parking
issue. He asked if the applicant would consider redesigning Starbucks not to have outside
seating.
VC/Tye said he does not disagree about the parking issue but he does not understand the
conflict. He takes exception to the statement that Starbucks is a restaurant. He stated he
wants the project to go forward and wishes to find a compromise.
C/Ruzicka stated he believes people frequent Starbucks because of the name and not because
they provide or do not provide outside seating. He said he would presume that the least
possible resistance would be to relent the outside seating area so as to meet the center's need
for parking spaces.
AstP/Lungu offered that the inside seating and outside seating could be reduced to comply
with the parking requirements.
VC/Tye asked Mr. Lewis if the property owner would agree to the project if the outside
seating was limited.
—I Mr. Lewis responded that he would need to discuss the matter with Dr. Drucker.
VC/Tye asked if the loss of outside seating would preclude Starbucks from consideration,
riquwil'"-�^*..r—»Taaa. u�a�'1s:.� x. w w..y«.......,_..ew.,..,..v.,wr^°•+•'BnP"MIM+%InNI'�'MNN^IM^'X
OCTOBER 13, 1998
PAGE 9
Mr. Khakshouri stated that Starbucks has signed a Letter of Intent pending the final
determination by the Planning Commission. Starbucks previously indicated that they would
not be interested in pursuing the matter if outside seating is not provided. He offered to
negotiate further with Starbucks to reduce the outside seating.
Mr. Lewis said he is willing to negotiate with the applicant. However, he cannot speak for
Pic -N -Save, Jack in the Box or Firestone.
C/Ruzicka moved, C/Nelson seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 98-9 and
Development Review No. 98-11, Findings of Fact and conditions as listed within the
resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS
Kuo, Nelson, Ruzicka, VC/Tye
None
Chair/McManus
None
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: VC/Tye stated that tonight the Commission has
heard high praise for staff from two different developers. The Commission has always felt that the
staff is very professional and thorough and it is good to hear this confirmed by the applicants. He
thanked staff for their hard work.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None
ADJOURNMENT:
C/Nelson moved, C/Kuo seconded, to adjourn the meeting. There being no further business to come
before the Planning Commission, Chair/McManus adjourned the meeting at 10:04 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
J es DeStefano
Secretary to the Pl"ing Commission
Attest:
McManus