Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/22/2003MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 22, 2003 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Nolan called -the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m: in the South Coast Air Quality Management/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 East Copley D ive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Ruzicka led the pledge of allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Vice Chairman Dan Nolan; and Commissioners -romp Mf -,i Vn- and Jack Tanaka. Chairman Steve Tye and Commissioner Nelson v Also present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Associate Planner; Linda Smith, Developmi Assistant; and Stella Marquez, Administrative A! 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS:. I 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Approval of July 8, 2003, Regular Meeting minutes. C/Ruzicka moved, C/Tanaka seconded, to approve the July 8, 2 as presented. Without objection, the motion was so ordered w abstaining and C/Nelson and Chair/Tye being absent. 5. OLD BUSINESS: None. 6. NEW BUSINESS: None. 1 U, JULY 22, 2003 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 Development Review No. 2001-04(2) and Minor Variance No. 2001-09(2) (pursuant to Code Section 22.66.060(A)(3)) is a request to revise the hours of operation from 11:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. Current hours of operation are 6:30 p.m. to 10:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and 11:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: 2020 Brea Canyon Road, Suite A-7 (Lot 180, Tract 30578) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Nathaniel Williams 3029 Wilshire Boulevard #202 Buena Park, CA 90620 Akbar Ali 8481 Holder Street Buena Park, CA 90620 DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2001-04(2) and Minor Variance No. 2001-09(2), Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. DCM/DeStefano reported that staff received three letters today in support of the project. C/Tanaka asked if the shared parking agreement was instituted because there is one owner. DSA/Smith responded that C/Tanaka's assumption. was correct. The same owner owned it but there was not a reciprocal parking agreement in effect. Parcel 3 and 4 are not within a 300400t radius. VC/Nolan opened the public hearing. Peggy Guess, Diamond Dancewear, 2020 Brea Canyon Road #A5, felt the original parking study determined there was not adequate parking. The surveys were done on April 18 and April 22. April 18 was Good Friday and there were no cars parked in that parking lot. April 22 is a holiday for the JULY 22, 2003 PAGE 3 PLANNING CIOMMIS,9ION Walnut Valley and Chino Valley School District. She did not receive a mailing. She said she was also representing Martin-Brattrud Properties, the managing general partner, who said he also did not receive a notice He wrote a letter opposing the opening of the restaurant and he is adamantly opposed to the restaurant opening earlier because overflow parking fror 1 the center parks in his parking lot. She felt the Commission sh uld take into consideration the dates of the survey and that this project will ham the existing businesses. Don Ferderer, insurance agent, 2020 Brea Canyon Road, we nted to go on record as opposing the longer hours for the restaurant. He felt that twen though the survey was conducted by an outside source, it was not a true sampling of the situation. Many times he returns from lunch ar d has to dircle his building in order to find a parking space. The restaurant pens at:00 p.m. instead of 5:30 p.m., a violation of its original agreement. Paul Park, 2020 S. Brea Canyon Road #2, deli owner, returns fj om deliveries about 12:30 to 12:45 and cannot find a parking space exceptway in the back of a different building, a long walk to his business. Mondays Care especially busy because 130 real estate agents meet at 10:00 a.m., and t sually stay to conduct business well after noon. He does not oppose the restaurant owner making money and should be open as much as possible. If aiproved, this will hurt his business because he is open only for lunch. If Mr. ikli is allowed to open for lunch the deli may have to close. Mr. Park responded to VC/Nolan that his business hours are 0:00 a.r�. to 4:00 p.m. II Mary Ferderer, Don Ferderer insurance, 2020 Brea Canyon Rc photographs taking at various times during the day showir congestion at the center. She said that one photograph clear Ali's restaurant open at 5:00 p.m. It was her understanding was not to open until 5:30 p.m. She is very concerned business. Naznin Allos, real estate agent, next door to the restaurant, h the location for several years. She feels that if the restaurant rr lunch it would not take away any additional parking spaces. customers forthe deli and Chinese restaurant are the real estat of the realtors walk from their business to the restaurant or deli. work in the center also walk to the restaurants. She did not feel i the par ing showed Mr. restaurant s works at :re open for Most of the agents. All Others 1ho was rialit to JULY 22, 2003 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION deny the applicant to open for lunch. During weekdays, his business will come mostly from people within the center. She did not feel any other businesses would suffer for having this restaurant open during the lunch hour. Parking is a problem because Chuck E. Cheese customers occupy most of the parking spaces. Ghazala Khan, agent for Ali Akbar, said her understanding from day one was that there was adequate parking. Third party consultants conducted two parking studies that revealed adequate parking for this business. Her office is located across the street from the center. She concurred with comments made by Ms. Allos. She believed that there was adequate parking. She agreed that from time to time, one must drive around the center to find parking. However, there has never been a time when there were no parking spaces available. The restaurant owner has three small children. When his restaurant burned down in Orange County, he was asked to relocate in Diamond Bar. She believed this applicant should be given equal opportunity to conduct business. There being no one else who wished to speak on this matter, VC/Nolan closed the public hearing. DCM/DeStefano stated that two years ago staff's original recommendation for this restaurant was to approve the use for both lunch and dinner. The Planning Commission chose to condition the approval to a dinner business only with a startup time of 5:30 p.m. on weekdays. In July 2001, the applicant came back to the Planning Commission for a modification to allow for a catering business prior to the dinner business startup time of 5:30 P.M. The applicant has the ability to go into the facility to prepare meals for catering with table seating to commence at 5:30 p.m. This current application comes to the Planning Commission with a_recommendation for approval for adding lunch business to the existing dinner operation. In June 2001, a parking study was conducted and.ultimately reviewed and approved by the City's traffic engineer, Warren Siecke and Associates. In July 2003, staff was supported by a parking study review by a different traffic consultant. Both traffic consultants concluded that there is sufficient parking on-site for the lunch business. C/Ruzicka asked if staff or the traffic engineers determined the number of additional cars that would visit the site if this review were approved. 1 JULY 22, 2003 PAGE 5 PLANNING CIOMMIS91ON DCM/DeStefano explained that such information would depend on the mix of use and what was occurring at any given hour. According to the parking study there was a peak -parking requirement for 20 parking spaces at lunch for this particular use. C/Ruzicka asked if a condition could be added to requirea� six -mon h or annual review of the project. DCM/DeStefano explained that the Commission could requi�e a review or termination time period. C/Tanaka felt the parking survey should be done on da s other han holidays. He had a problem with the restaurant posting hours operati n 30 minutes prior to the hour of approval. VC/Nolan asked who picked the dates for the survey? DC DeSte ano explained that the parking study was done by the applicant's parking engineer and selected the dates. It is difficult to say whether the holidays were appropriate days for the study. The only way to be certai i would t a to conduct the surrey on non -holiday days. VC/Nolan felt the center was one of the most difficult locations in Diamond Bar. Absent an adequate study it would not be respon ible of this Commission to render a decision. He felt that the bulk of the tr ffic would be foot traffic due to the types of businesses located in the center. If the agreement was that the business opened at 5:30 p.m. it sho Id adher to that agreement. He was troubled by the lack of compliance by he busi ess owner. C/Tanaka said that the application is for the business to be op n from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., not just to add on hours for lunch. He felt that the center would experience a rush of traffic when school let out in theafternoon. C/Ruzicka felt the applicant could have been more careful aboul how her ns his business. At the same time, the applicant is concerned abOL t operating a business in a section of the City that likely needs this business He was not sure how much the parking situation could be improved in the center. According to the analysis of the City's experts there is adequate parking. He ' believed the applicant should be allowed to operate and that the Ommiss ion should place a condition on the operation that would give the a 3plicant due notice that he would operate like a good neighbor. JULY 22, 2003 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Tanaka said he would like to see a new parking survey done on a more appropriate day of the week, not on holidays. He would also like for the applicant to correct his hours of operation. Ms. Kahn explained that the dates chosen for the parking survey were purely coincidental and not intentional. Tuesday and Friday were days of the week encouraged by staff. None of the businesses are closed on Good Friday and they are not aware that the school district is off. If anything, those days may offer increased traffic. The study can be repeated. She asked for clear direction about what days should be selected. With respect to adhering to the hours of business, the applicant indicated that it was most likely a new employee who scratched different hours on the sign. C/Ruzicka moved, C/Tanaka seconded, to reopen the public hearing and continue consideration of Development Review No. 2001-04(2) and Minor Variance No. 2001-09(2) to September 9, 2003. Ms. Kahn responded to C/Tanaka that the applicant's intention was to open from 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. She said she would clarify the issue of time for the September 9, 2003, hearing. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ruzicka, Tanaka, VC/Nolan NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Chair/Tye 7.2 Development Review No. 2003-10 (pursuant to Code Section 22.48.020) is a request to construct a two-story, single-family residence of approximately 12,354 gross square feet including balconies, porch, covered patio, four -car garage, and a site retaining wall with a maximum exposed height of six feet. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2878 Crystal Ridge Road (Lot A, Tract 47850) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ Diamond Bar West, LLC/ APPLICANT: Richard Gould 3480 Torrance Boulevard 4300 Torrance, CA 90503 1 JULY 22, 2003 PAGE 7 PLANNING COM DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2003-10, Fi dings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. DSA/Smith clarified for C/Tanaka that the building height is 3 feet. Kurt Nelson, applicant, said he appreciated staff's thorough report and concurred with the conditions of approval. VC/Nolan opened the public hearing. There being no one present who wished to speak on this mater, closed the public hearing. C/Ruzicka moved, C/Tanaka seconded, to approve Development Re iew No. 2003-10, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed withithe resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ruzicka, Tanaka, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Chair/Tye S. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: C/Tanaka asked if th meeting with CA/Jenkins could be moved to August 20 instead of August 13, the la t night of the Concerts in the Park series. VC/Nolan looked forward to meeting with CA/Jenkins regardless of conflict the Concerts in the Park series. DCM/DeStefano said he would check schedules. Optionally, the mee+g could place at 5:30 p.m. in order to allow for attendance at the concert. 9. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None Offered. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in the Agenda. JULY 22, 2003 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Vice Chairman Nolan adjourned the meeting at 8:14 p.m. . Respectfully Submitted, James DeSte ano Deputy City M nager Attest: Vice Chairman Dan Nolan