Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/8/2004MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 8, 2004 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner McManus led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Dan Nolan, Vice Chairman Jack Tanaka and . Commissioners Ruth Low, Joe McManus and Steve Tye. Also present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager, Ann Lungu, Associate Planner, Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant, Fred Alamolhoda, Senior Engineer, Kimberly Molina, Assistant Engineer and Stella Marquez, Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCEIPUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 3. 4 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: CONSENT CALENDAR: As Presented. 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 25, 2004. VC/Tanaka moved, C/McManus seconded, to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 25, 2004, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5. OLD BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: None VC/Tanaka, McManus, Low, Tye, Chair/Nolan None None JUNE 8, 2004 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 6. NEW BUSINESS: 6.1 Review of Fiscal year 2004-2005 Capital Improvement Program CIP for Conformity with the General Plan DCMIDeStefano presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commission approval of a resolution finding that the FY 2004-2005 Capital Improvement Program is in conformance with the City's General Plan. DCMIDeStefano responded to Chair/Nolan that the $2.45 million .'miscellaneous funding sources" item was directly related to the CIP wish list, projects for which funding sources had not yet been identified. C/McManus moved, VC/Tanaka seconded to approve a resolution finding that the FY 2004-2005 Capital improvement Program is in conformance with the City's General Plan. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McManus, VC/Tanaka, Low, Tye Chair/Nolan NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Zone Chane No. 2002-02 Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-02 Development Review No. 2003-07 and Tree Permit No. 2004-05 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.700, 22.58 and 22.48) was a request to construct a two- story commercial building of approximately 52,000 square feet with an underground parking garage, parking lot and landscaping to be utilized for general commercial and general office uses, thereby creating a shopping center. The Zone Change was related to changing the current zoning from A-1-15000 to C-2, which is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of general commercial for the project site. The Conditional Use Permit is required for a shopping center within the C-2 zone in order to review potential impacts and ensure that the proposed project will protect the public health, safety and welfare. The Development Review was related to reviewing location, design, site plan configuration and overall effects of the proposed project on surrounding properties and the City in general. Tree Permit was for the removal and replacement of one oak tree and two California pepper trees. JUNE 8, 2004 PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION 1035'/2 Banning Way (APN# 8763-007-001) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar Project Company 11618 South Street Artesia, CA 90701 APPLICANT: Myung Chung CMC Architects 3380 Flair Drive, Suite 222 EI Monte, CA 91731 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of Zone Change No. 2002-02, Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-02, Development Review No. 2003-07 and Tree Permit No. 2004-05, Negative Declaration No. 2003-06, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. DCM/DeStefano responded to VC/Tanaka that staff would like for Banning Way to remain open because it was necessary for access to the nursery property behind the proposed office building. Should Banning Way be closed, the access would be determined by Caltrans or, they could "take" the property. He felt Banning Way would remain open. C/McManus was under the impression that the nursery was located on Caltrans property to which DCM/DeStefano responded that staff understood the nursery was on leased property from Caltrans. SE/Alamolhoda stated that the second alternative would be to have an on-ramp for westbound and off -ramp eastbound SR 60. If Caltrans built an off -ramp there would be no nursery and any remaining parcels would be auctioned for sale. C/Tye felt there should be ingress/egress from Lemon Avenue as well as Golden Springs Drive. DCM/DeStefano responded that the ingress/egress on Lemon Avenue was problematic because of the topography. There could be access but it would significantly impair the proposed project site due to the grade makeup through a necessarily long -distanced access. Could this property work appropriately with one access point on Golden Springs Drive? Yes. For example, old city hall was about 60,000 square feet and had one JUNE 8, 2004 Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION driveway access for several hundred parking spaces. The building next door to old city hall was about 80,000 square feet and another example was the so-called Trenton Office Building built on Bridge Gate a couple of years ago. C/Low asked the current zoning of the neighboring properties. AssocP/Lungu responded that the strip mall property across Lemon Avenue was zoned C-2, the properties on the opposite side of Banning Way including LA Fitness and Diamond Star Plaza were zoned C-3 and the Residential properties across the street were zoned R-1. C/McManus asked if staff considered requiring gates to close off the underground parking area at night. AssocP/Lungu responded there were no plans for such a gate at this time. VC/Tanaka asked if a monument sign was proposed for the property. AssocP/Lungu responded not at this time. However, there was a condition in the resolution requiring the applicant to provide the City with a comprehensive sign program to be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to installation of any signs. VC/Tanaka said he was concerned that the only visibility of the nursery would be from the freeway. Myung Chung, applicant and project architect appreciated staff's presentation. He said the project met all zoning codes and exceeded the parking requirement. He pointed out that there was a pending address change for the building from Banning Way to Golden Springs Drive. He said that although the proposed use was contemplated for the first story as general commercial and restaurant and the second story for general offices, the owner did not wish to be locked in to those uses. He was also concerned about the fair share amount for improvements. To C/McManus's concern, he would have no problem installing a gate if the Commission so desired. Also, he would be submitting a comprehensive sign program plan in the future. He asked for Commission approval on the project and indicated he agreed with all other conditions proposed by staff. Mr. Chung responded to VC/Tanaka that he did not foresee businesses requiring a C-3 zoning and that the C-2 zone was acceptable. Dr. Antonio Coco, President of Coco Traffic Planners, Inc., 10835 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 206, Los Angeles CA 90025, said his company prepared two traffic studies for this project. He spoke with two Caltrans . officials this morning and they told him they had reviewed the traffic study and although they had not yet responded they would accept the study as JUNE 8, 2004 Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION submitted. His study was prepared using the DKS Associates adopted guidelines. However, certain issues were discussed with staff and with the City's traffic engineer Warren Siecke who was originally assigned to this project. He said he had a fundamental problem with the how the study had progressed because Mr. Siecke felt that it would be reasonable to use a three percent per year traffic growth to project traffic counts at build -out. However, the guidelines also provide that traffic should be analyzed 10 years beyond build -out. He said it was his feeling that a three percent growth was reasonable for the near future but not in the long term. Potentially, it would be disastrous if the project experienced a 30 percent increase in traffic over the next 10 years and in his opinion, it would be unfair to base the fair -share amount on that projected amount of growth. He felt this matter should be discussed and addressed by the Commission because the project could be unfairly burdened and prohibitive as a result. C/Low asked what uses the applicant anticipated for the project. Mr. Chung responded whatever the C-2 zone allowed and wanted flexibility within that limitation. He said that the owner wanted the option of retail and restaurant on the ground floor and may want retail on the second floor also. Eugene Kim, 3751 Hermosa Place, Fullerton, CA 92835, said that when he purchased the land he planned to build a shopping center to cater to the Chinese and/or Korean community. In fact, a Korean Bank had indicated interest in becoming a tenant and he envisioned retail shops that would cater to the bank and its traffic. Therefore, the basic design would consist of a retail strip shopping center for the first floor and the upstairs would possibly contain a law office, dental office, real estate office, etc. C/Low asked the owner if it was possible for him to increase the sidewalk width from six to 12 feet? Mr. Kim said it would reduce the size of the building and jeopardize the project. C/Low felt that there were many residences in the area and it would enhance the retail aspect of the center. Mr. Kim felt that a six-foot wide sidewalk would be sufficient for the size of the center. Mr. Chung responded to Chair/Nolan that he was not aware of the finished evaluation of the building but that construction was contemplated to be in the area of $5 million. Chair/Nolan expressed that he was asking to get an idea of the fair -share percentage of building value, about one percent of the construction cost and less than one percent of the finished value. JUNE 8, 2004 Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION C/McManus asked if any of the 1300 square foot office areas could be divided to which Mr. Chung responded yes. Chair/Nolan opened the public hearing. There being no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Nolan closed the public hearing. C/McManus asked staff for more information about the fair -share portion. DCM/DeStefano responded that staff is paying close attention to regional traffic impacts that affect Diamond Bar and in particular, the City of Industry's projects and traffic impacts that result from City approved projects. The City hired traffic engineers Steve Sasaki and Warren Siecke on this project. Lead engineer Sasaki carefully looked at the impacts this project would likely create. Before the Commission is staff's recommendation that came from the Public Works Director and the Planning staff as to what was considered to be the appropriate fair -share contribution, a result of this project's impacts to the immediate area. He respectfully proposed that $67,000 would not make or break a $5 million construction budget and staff believes that it is appropriate to the impacts the project would generate. If Banning Way were closed it could be retained as public property or vacated back to the property owners on either side of Banning Way with retention of utilities easements. DCM/DeStefano responded to C/Tye that a traffic signal at Banning Way and Golden Springs Drive was an issue that was yet undetermined. Worst case would be to receive the traffic mitigation fee from the developer and should a traffic signal not be necessary the City would refund the appropriate amount of the fee. SE/Aiamolhoda stated that as previously reported by AssocP/Lunge within 60 days of approval by the Planning Commission another traffic study would be done to consider closure of Banning Way. If the study determined the signal were not needed the proper fair -share portion would be refunded to the applicant. C/Low was concerned about the ingress/egress were Banning Way to be closed and asked if staff would consider an additional driveway off of Lemon Avenue in spite of the topography. Chair/Nolan said he understood that the project would move forward under the zoning of C-2 or C-3 and that the adjacent properties were C-3 with the exception of the R-1 properties across the street. He would also be concerned about the proposed uses. JUNE 8, 2004 Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSION C/McManus moved, C/Tye seconded to recommend City Council approval of Zone Change No. 2002-02 to C-2. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McManus, Tye, Low, VC/Tanaka, Chair/Nolan NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None C/Tye moved, VC/Tanaka seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-02, Development Review No. 2003-07 and Tree Permit No. 2004- 05, Negative Declaration No. 2003-06, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as'llsted within the resolution with the revision to Condition 5 to wit that "The applicant, within 60 days of approval, shall submit a revised traffic study" and addition of the following sentence to the end of Condition (w) on Page 10 of the resolution to wit "In addition, the traffic study shall be prepared in accordance with the May 3, 2004 Caltrans letter and submitted to Caltrans for review and approval." Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Tye, VC/Tanaka, McManus, Chair/Nolan NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Low ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None C/Low did not elaborate on her reason for voting "NO." PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: Chair/Nolan thanked C/Tye and VC/Tanaka for their assistance with the "Paint the Town" project. C/Tye thanked staff for the information referral manual. 9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: DCM/DeStefano reported that the retail portion and residential portion of the Lewis project was moving forward. Staff and legal counsel for Lewis and the City met to discuss the development agreement, a contract between the City and private . developer setting forth certain business terms. Tomorrow is the decision date as to whether staff would present this project to the Planning Commission on .June 22. JUNE 8, 2004 Page 8 PLANNING COMMISSION Assuming the June 22 presentation, the Commissioners would receive a multi -page proposal for the project about two weeks in advance of the Commission discussion. The first items of consideration were policy items — a General Pian change, zone change, a specific plan and development agreement. At some point soon thereafter the Commission would begin looking at the details of the project components — the residential portion, the church sanctuary portion, the retail development portion including a subdivision map for the condominium portion on the Citrus Valley property. DCM/DeStefano stated that staff was working through the budget details with Council with adoption slated for June 15 following another study session. One of the decision packages on the Planning side was an update to the General Plan to deal with areas south and west of the incorporated City being considered for annexation into the City and to deal with housekeeping measures in the Land Use Element and Noise Element and related documents. If approved, this would be a major project for next year and the Commission would not likely see the matter before May/June 2005. Another significant decision package was a proposal to hire a manager for the Planning Division, the only division in City government that did not have an operating manager. A major consideration for the City if decision packages were approved by the Council would be to proceed to conduct detailed studies now to deal with the pending loss of the Honda Dealership, look at incentives for inducing investment in the Kmart center and begin looking at uses of other potential development sites. As the City moved forward with economic development DCM/DeStefano said he would devote additional time to that effort should the Planning Manager position be approved along with approval of resources to engage experts in financial markets and land use issues. DCM/DeStefano responded to C/McManus that the Honda Dealership would be gone from the City about December 2005 with remaining revenues received by the City about June 2006. Since it was a foregone conclusion that the dealership would have to relocate, Council was anxious to move forward to conduct studies about potential uses of the property. DCM/DeStefano indicated to C/Tye that whether or not the reader board sign goes with the dealership was yet to be determined by staff. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in the agenda. JUNE 8, 2004 Page 9 PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Nolan adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Attest: ,r) Chairman Dan Nolan Respectfully Submitted, Janes DeS efano Deputy City Manager