HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/14/2000MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 14, 2000
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management
Headquarters Building Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Kuo.
1. ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Nelson, Vice Chairman Bob Zirbes, and Commissioners George
Kuo, Steve Tye, and Joe Ruzicka.
Also Present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager, Sonya Joe, Development Services
Assistant, Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant, and Stella
Marquez, Administrative Secretary.
r 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None offered.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.1 Minutes of the October 24, 2000, meeting.
C/Ruzicka moved, C/Tye seconded, to approve the minutes of October 24, 2000, as
submitted. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:. Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC1Zirbes, Chair/Nelson
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
5. OLD BUSINESS: None
6. NEW BUSINESS: None
NOVEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 2
7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
PLANNING COMMISSION
7.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 1998-09(1), Development Review No. 1998-11(1), and
Minor Variance No. 2000-19 (Pursuant to Code Sections 22.58.010, 22.48.020(A)(2), and
22.52.020(D)) is a request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 1998-09, Development
Review No. 1998-11, and to approve a Minor Variance for a decrease of 20% in the
number of required off-street parking spaces to accommodate on-site seating for twelve
persons at Togo's. (Continued from October 10, 2000.)
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1,193 Diamond Bar Boulevard
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
PROPERTY OWNER: J. Coleman Travis Trust
C/O: Glacier Peak Management Services, Inc.
7955 Dunbrook Road, Suite A
San Diego, CA 92126
APPLICANT: Parker Holt -Doyle, LLC
1193 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
direct staff as appropriate.
Lyda Holt, applicant, said the traffic analysis completed by the applicant's traffic engineer,
Mr. Greenspan, provides the information to show that there is adequate parking to
accommodate a certain amount of seating. It has been a determent to the business not to
have the seating and she hopes that the Commission will be fair to the applicants. There
are no problems with the adjacent business -owners. Specifically, the parking area adjacent
to the Drive-Thru appears to belong to Togo's. However, the owner of Jack in the Box said
he has had no complaints and would not be present to oppose the project. The parking
spaces are small and the property manager plans to re -stripe the area to code. She would
like to provide six tables. However, she would appreciate an approval with some customer
seating.
Kevin Parker responded to C/Tye that each store is different and it is difficult for the
franchiser to specify lunch and dinner traffic. On average, lunch is the busiest part of the
day (60 to 70%) for his other two franchises. He estimated that approximately 65 percent
of the business is take-out.
Lyda Holt responded to VC/Zirbes that the new property manager has cleaned up the site
and plans to re -stripe and slurry seal when the parking issue is resolved. She will include
NOVEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
the spaces for handicap compliance and delete the currently designated spaces for Cathay
Bank in -accordance with the shared parking lease.
C/Tye is concerned about Ms. Holt's statement that the property manager would
unilaterally re -stripe the development and whether the City has any input into this process.
DCM/DeStefano indicated to C/Tye that the property owners have a responsibility to not
only maintain their property but when they slurry seal a parking lot such as this one they
have a responsibility to bring the matter to the City for review and approval so that the
spaces are re -formatted in the manner that they were previous in order not to create non -
conformities with the code that may not have previously existed in order to maintain any
specific conditions that the Planning Commission may have placed on the subject site. In
reality, staff often finds out about these types of matters after the fact because they often
occur during the weekends or on non -peak days.
C/Ruzicka asked if the Planning Commission can legally do what the applicant is asking
r us to do based upon Mr. Siecke's recommendation.
DCM/DeStefano stated that what is before the Planning Commission is a request to modify
the previous Conditional Use Permit which Begins with the requirement that the property
owner seek written permission from adjacent property owners to share in the parking spaces
that would otherwise be available. The request rolls over to the Development Review for
which modification is being sought. The applicant is interested in re -striping the parking
lot and reconfigure the project to allow the seating which is also a change from the previous
Planning Commission approval. The applicant is seeking Minor Variance in order to
reduce to the maximum possible required number of parking spaces. All of these
considerations are within the Commission's purview of authority. Approval would result
in a project of approximately 37 parking spaces all larger than what presently exists on the
site which would accommodate a modest number of seats requested by the applicant. The
Planning Commission also has the authority to maintain the belief that more parking spaces
are required and either not grant the requested seating or mandate that sufficient parking
be provided, either on or off site.
Mr. Greenspan explained to Chair/Nelson t-iat in January his firm conducted a shared
parking analysis which was based on industry standards and the City's current parking code
of essentially one space per 100 square foot of restaurant which includes seating. In
addition, his firm surveyed an existing Togo's in East Pasadena, which is approximately
1800 square feet. That facility has 38 indoor seats and 36 outdoor seats. His firm re -visited
the site in October and found 27 cars parked on the site and four cars parked off site during
peak hours for a total of 31 real spaces. In January, his firm projected 32 sites. With six
two -seat tables and one car per table, the result would be an additional six spaces for a total
NOVEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
HIM
of 37 parking spaces. In his opinion, re -striping will result in 35-37 parking spaces.
Therefore, 37 parking spaces would be appropriate for the six tables.
In response to C/Kuo, Mr. Greenspan explained the formula used for calculation of parking
spaces. He believes that total average for any business is preferable to picking a certain
hour.
Chair/Nelson re -opened the public hearing.
Michael Drucker, 1155 South Diamond Bar Boulevard property owner, introduced his
property manager, Roxanne Taylor and Ken Patel, owner of Subway. Mrs. Holt signed a
lease that did not allow her to have parking for tables. As a responsible property owner,
he takes pride in maintaining the center and its parking lot. He also looks out for his
tenants and the parking' issue has been an ongoing matter and the tenants are aware of his
objections from the onset. This site was originally a bank building. When it was advertised
for sale the permissible square footage was 8,000. When he found out that the building was
proposed to be expanded to 10,000 square feet he objected to the Planning -Commission
which "got around" the matter by making compact parking spaces to increase the parking r
numbers. Togo's franchise previously attempted to persuade the Planning Commission to
grant them seating which was denied. Mrs. Holt decided to lease the space knowing full
well that the parking was insufficient to allow seating. Off-site parking effects his property
and interferes with his tenants, and their businesses. There is no off-site parking. Togo's
is required to park on their own area and if they are parking off-site they are parking in
unauthorized space. Upon review of Mr. Greenspan's January survey he finds it somewhat
flawed because the'survey is based on a non -comparable, site. He asked where the
employees of the bank, Starbucks and Togo's park because it is not addressed in the survey.
He does not believe any seating should bel allowed for the applicant.
Roxanne Taylor stated that prior to the building construction she stated her objection to the
oversized building to the City Council because of the impact it would have on the Town
Center's parking lot. She objects to shared parking between the two parcels because it
impacts her future tenants and their parking ° requirements. Her tenants complain about the
current parking situation.
Ken Patel said that he was offered the Togo's site for his Subway business. Although the
offer was attractive, he refused because of the parking issue. He does not believe the permit
for tables should be approved.
Mr. Drucker responded to VC/Zirbes that he does not own the Jack in the Box property.
I - I . I I I- - I - I - I - , " � , , .._
NOVEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION
DCM/DeStefano responded to C/Kuo that the City Code sets forth a requirement for
parking spaces per square foot of a particular use. This standard presumes and incorporates
employees as customers.
Following discussion, C/Tye moved, C/Ruzicka seconded, to continue Conditional Use
permit No. 1998-09(1), Development Review No. 1998-11(1), and Minor Variance
No. 2000-19 to January 9, 2001, to allow staff to prepare a report based upon the City's and
applicant's consultants recommendation for shared parking analysis for the applicant's
proposed palate of use with tables. Further, the Planning Commission requests that both
consultants be present at the January 9, 2001, meeting. Motion carried by the following
Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes, Chair/Nelson
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
Chair/Nelson continued the public hearing to January 9, 2001.
S. PUBLIC HEARING:
8.1 Development Review No. 2000-18, Minor Variance No. 2000-13 and Minor
Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-12 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020(A)(1),
22.52.020, 22.30.080(E) and 22.56.020) is a request to construct a two-story, single-family
residence of approximately 10,498 square feet, with a basement, balconies, porch and five -
car garage. Additionally, the request includes a swimming pool and retaining walls in the
rear and side yards with a maximum six feet exposed height. The Minor Variance request
is to construct chimneys that extend 2.5 feet above the maximum 35 -foot height permitted
for a residence and a minor variance of two feet for the front setback. A Minor Conditional
Use permit is required for the proposed driveway width greater than permitted by code.
PROJECT ADDRESS:
APPLICANT:
2250 Indian Creek Road
(Lot 66 of Tract No. 23483)
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Basant Sachdeva & Rajinder Joneja
1738 E. Meats Avenue
Orange, CA 92865
Basant Sachdeva
1738 Meats Avenue
Orange, CA 92865
NOVEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION
DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
:approve Development Review No. 2000-18, Minor Variance No. 2000-13 and Minor
Conditional Use Permit -No. 2000-12, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed
Within the resolution.
Basant Sachdeva, applicant, responded to VC/Zirbes that he read staff's report and concurs
with the conditions of approval.
Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to speak on this -matter, Chair/Nelson closed the public
hearing.
VC/Zirbes moved, C/Ruzicka seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2000-18,
Minor Variance No. 2000-13 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-12, Findings of
Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes, Chair/Nelson
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
8.2 Development Review No. 99-50). Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-16 (pursuant
to Code Sections 22.48 and 22.42.060 and 22.56.020) is a request to modify the tennis court
location and grading of the previously approved Development Review No. 99-5, and to
construct a second story guest house with decks and portico of approximately 1,055 gross
square feet.
- PROJECT ADDRESS
PROPERTY OWNER:
2856 Wagon Train Lane
(Tract No. 30578, Lot 71)
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Peichin Cheng
17800 Castleton Street #106
City of Industry, CA 91748
APPLICANT: Anchi Lee
3740 Campus Drive #B
Newport Beach, CA 92660
NOVEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION
DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
approve Development Review No. 99-5(1), Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-16,
Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution.
Anchi Lee, Architect, stated that the square footage of the cabana is a one-story structure
that is less than 500 square feet. The porticos increase the square footage to a little more
than 1000 square feet. The cabana has outside stairs to the roof, which allows a view of the
tennis court activities. The tennis court has been rotated to face true north and south, which
resulted in a reduction of exported dirt.
Anchi Lee confirmed to C/Tye that there is no problem with the fact that the cabana is not
allowed to have kitchen facilities. The cabana is not intended to be used as a guest house.
Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing.
Marie Melby, a resident on Oak Knoll Drive, said she was shocked by the appearance of
the structure, which crosses the entire ridge and the removal of all of the oak trees. Her
property faces the tennis court area. She asked if the applicant proposes to install a wall or
chain link fence, will the area be re -vegetated, and will there be mesh on the tennis court
" fence to screen her view of the tennis players.
Anchi Lee stated that the tennis court would be enclosed with a chain link fence and
landscaping outside of the fence. He explained the layout to Marie Melby and indicated
that the house and landscaping should be completed within six to eight months. The house
is in the framing stage and all of the grading has been completed.
Michael Mao, a resident on Oak Knoll Drive, asked if the tennis court will be moved
farther out and where will the guest house be located.
DSA/Smith explained the layout using graphics. Although the original setback was
proposed to be 32 feet, the rotation meets the Development Code requirement setback of
25 feet.
Michael Mao stated that this 'project pushes the envelope to the maximum regarding
setbacks and building to lot ratio. He believes this project, if allowed, will be unreasonable
and destroy the preservation of this City.
DSA/Smith stated that if staff had noticed that the proposal significantly changed the
F landscaping it would have requested that the applicant submit the landscape plan for this
public hearing. The applicant provided the landscape plan, which has been conditioned for
review and approval by staff since the previous landscape plan was approved.
__ __ I . - _ -
NOVEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION
p��i�r
C/Ruzicka moved, VC/Zirbes seconded, to approve Development Review No. 99-5(1),
Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-16, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval,
as listed within the resolution, with the provision that staff approve the landscape plan
based upon the provision that the project setbacks are within code and that there is
sufficient landscaping of a type and nature that it will provide a buffer and that no invasive
plants be included in the plan. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes,
Chair/Nelson
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
8.3 DRAFT 2000-2005 Housing Element (under the authority of Government Code Sections
65091(a)(3) and 65588(b)(5)) for the periodic review and revision to the City of Diamond
Bar General.Plan.
PROJECT: Draft 2000-2005 Housing Element
(GPA No. 2000-01)
ADDRESS: Citywide
APPLICANT: City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive
Diamond bar, CA 91765
Karen Warner, Cotton/Baland/Associates, the City's consultant, provided a review of the
Draft Housing Element Amendment.
C/Ruzicka asked what kind of discrimination complaints were lodged against the City and
how have they been handled.
Karen Warner responded that as a result of their interview with the Long Beach Fair
Housing Foundation they commented that they receive a lot of inquiries (over 140 in a five
year period) from Diamond Bar which is not unusual. What is more unusual is to see that
there were actually eight (8) discrimination cases filed. She is not aware of the specifics
of these cases. Her experience is that the cities are not involved with these types of cases.
The report indicates that seven 7 dealt with low-income households and 6 of the 8 involved
female heads of households.
irJ?a mu!
NOVEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION
DCM/DeStefano stated that the City received information from the Long Beach Fair
Housing Foundation which is a statistical summary and was not aware that staff should be
concerned about the information. Karen Warner has suggested programs to assist in this
matter which will satisfy the State's concern.
VC/Zirbes asked if the State takes into consideration the fact that Diamond Bar is a -
fledgling City that was conceived and approved by the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors.
It was not until recently that this community was able to gain local control. He is
concerned that the State is attempting to dictate what Diamond Bar should be as opposed
to what the City became under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles. People have relocated to
Diamond Bar based upon their perceptions of what the community is and he is concerned
that the incorporation of new policies and programs will effect the makeup of the
community which is very demographically diverse. He pointed out that there is a relatively
small area of Diamond Bar that remains to be developed. In addition, there are no members
of the community present for this very important public hearing. Having a certain type of
an approach that might satisfy a State requirement does not necessarily mean that it is a
good idea for the community of Diamond Bar, its citizens and homeowners. He asked for
i an explanation of a state certification versus a city certification and what types of assistance
might the City be placing itself in jeopardy of not receiving.
Karen Warner explained that Diamond Bar has a locally certified Housing Element - not
a state certified Housing Element. Current funds would not be at risk (CDBG, industry set -
asides). State housing monies ($500 million for affordable housing programs) would be
at risk. A developer that might construct an affordable housing project would likely
leverage local and industry set-aside monies with the state monies which would put this
City at a competitive disadvantage and likely disqualify Diamond Bar from state funds.
The benefits of a state approved element from a legal side is that there is a presumption of
legal validity if someone challenges the City's legal plan which means that the burden of
proof is on the litigants. If the state does not approve the element the burden of proof is on
the City to show through its own self -certification's series of findings which identify why
the City feels it complies with the statutes. Currently, Diamond Bar has three privately held
sites available for multi -family housing for which no development is scheduled.
Chair/Nelson stated that Diamond Bar is dealing with such issues as mansionization. The
average household size is 3.2 people, the second highest in the Walnut Valley. Diamond
Bar is currently being asked to address senior housing. In spite of the makeup of the City,
it is likely time for Diamond Bar to come into the mainstream.
Karen Warner responded to C/Tye that following tonight's public hearing she would like
to submit her revisions to the state and let them provide feedback.
NOVEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION
In response to VC/Zirbes, Karen Warner explained that what is being considered is a
program that facilities senior development as well as, family development. In reality, if
there is no market for a family project that is acceptable, but the state does not want the
City's Housing Element to be entirely limited to senior. The State currently requires annual
progress updates and the report needs to demonstrate a concerted effort on the part of the
city to fulfill its element.
Karen Warner responded to C/Ruzicka that it is her goal to get the Diamond Bar Housing
Element approved by the State of California. She outlined what she believes must be done
y.
to obtain approval.
Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing.
q; There being no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Nelson closed the
4`. public hearing.
i
,Ir
VC/Zirbes moved, C/Ruzicka seconded, to direct staff to prepare a revised document in
p. red-line/strike-out format showing the changes to the Housing Element with changes as
presented with the exception of the second units to be presented to the Commission at its
November 28, 2000, meeting for its consideration. Motion carried by the following Roll
Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes,
Chair/Nelson
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
k
9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: None offered.
10. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects - as noted.
11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
DCM/DeStefano pointed out that tomorrow evening the City will hold a town meeting regarding
the Community/Senior Center project during which the public will review the site plan and provide
input and pose questions that will lead to the development of an environmental document for the
Ij project. He encouraged Commissioners to attend this important meeting.
DCM/DeStefano stated that the City has employed David Meyer, LDM Associates, a professional
p planning consultant, to assist staff in the absence of certain staff members.
c
NOVEMBER 14, 2000
.,........... s ,, rye-,_,.- - — - - - -- -- -- -- - - --- 1=
PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Nelson adjourned
the meeting at 10:25 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
3 es DeStefano ,�,
Deputy City Manager
Attest:
�_. Cairman Steve Nelson