Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/13/2004MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 13, 2004 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Tye led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. 2. 3. 4. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Dan Nolan, Vice Chairman Jack Tanaka and Commissioners Joe McManus and Steve Tye. Commissioner Ruth Low was excused. Also present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager, Ann Lungu, Associate Planner, Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant and Stella Marquez, Administrative Assistant. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 22, 2004. C/Tye moved, VC/Tanaka seconded, to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 22, 2004, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5. OLD BUSINESS: 6. NEW BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: None None McManus, Tye, VC/Tanaka, Chair/Nolan None Low JULY 13, 2004 7. PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING(S): None 7.1 Development Review No. 2004-06 (pursuant to Chapter 22.48 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code) the applicant requests approval of plans to construct a three-story single family dwelling containing a combined floor area of approximately 13,441 square feet including porches, balconies, covered patios, veranda and a four -car garage. The proposed project would be developed on an existing vacant 1.21 gross acre R-1 40,000 zoned lot that has a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Rural Residential. The development also includes a pool, tennis court and gazebo. PROJECT ADDRESS: 24074 Falcons View Drive (Tract 30577, Lot 26 APN 8713-041-015) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT: Igbai and Fatima Vakil 22230 Steeplechase Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Syed Raza 12600 Central Avenue Chino, CA 91710 DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commission approval of Development Review 2004-06, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Syed Raza, applicant and architect, said he read staff's report and concurred with the conditions of approval. Chair/Nolan opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Nolan closed the public hearing. C/McManus moved, C/Tye seconded, to approve Development Review 2004-06, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McManus, Tye, VC/Tanaka, Chair/Nolan NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Low JULY 13, 2004 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION 7.2 Development Review 2004-11 and Tree Permit 2004-04 (pursuant to Chapters 22.48 and 22.38 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code) the applicant requests approval of pians to construct a two-story single family dwelling with a partial subterranean basement containing a combined floor area of approximately 13,737 square feet including porches, balconies, covered patios, veranda, swimming pool enclosure and a five -car garage. The proposed project would be developed on an existing vacant 1.17 gross acres R-1 20,000 zoned lot that has a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Rural Residential. The development also includes a tennis court and detached gazebo. Additionally, the applicant requests approval of a Tree Permit to remove and replace a protected tree species. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2834 Wagon Train Lane (Tract 30578, Lot 73 APN 8713-025-027) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: Li Zhao 1066 Iron Shoe Court Walnut, CA 91789 S&W Development 20272 Garrey Road Walnut, CA 91789 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commission approval of Development Review 2004-11 and Tree Permit 2004-04, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Rodel Urmatan, Project Designer for S&W Development, said he read staff's report and concurred with the conditions of approval. Chair/Nolan opened the public hearing. With no one who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Nolan closed the public hearing. C/Tye moved, VC/Tanaka seconded, to approve Development Review 2004-11 and Tree Permit 2004-04, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: JULY 13, 2004 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: , COMMISSIONERS: McManus, Tye, VC/Tanaka, Chair/Nolan None Low 7.3 Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-05 (pursuant to Code Section 22.58) was a request to utilize an existing Cal Trans Park and Ride for weekend used car sales with requested hours of operation to commence on Friday at 6:00 p.m. and end on Sunday at 6:00 p.m. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: 100 N. Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Cal Trans 120 S. Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Nabil Sakla 2640 Upper Bay Drive Oxnard, CA 93036 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommended Planning Commission denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-05. C/McManus wanted to know why this proposal was before the Planning Commission as a "completed application" in light of the applicant's failure to comply with the mandates of the City's General Plan land uses and zoning? DCM/DeStefano explained that State law requires cities to determine the adequacy of an application within a particular timeframe and whether the application was deemed complete for purposes of processing. In this case, the applicant supplied the City with proper public hearing information and enabled the project to move forward to the next level of processing versus approval of the request. The applicant was advised on numerous occasions that the project was not appropriate for consideration unless the Conditional Use Permit application included General Plan, Zone Change, Variance and Development Review applications. The applicant chose not to process the additional applications. Nabil Sakla, applicant, said the property was owned by Cal Trans and was generally used Monday through Friday as a Park and Ride. His proposal was not for a commercial dealership, only for use by private parties who wished to sell their vehicles. No dealers would be involved or allowed. He felt the public JULY 13, 2004 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION had a right to display their vehicles for sale. The State owns the land and the State said the public could use the land for this purpose. He stated his belief that it would keep "for sale" vehicles off of City streets and provide an effective means by which buyers and sellers could meet and do business and most important, more than 50 percent of buyers were single females who would not be comfortable having strangers knock on their doors to look at their car. The State owns the land and the state is exempt from zoning their land. The State initiated this project and they have the same type of activity in many locations in southern California. He stated that he would provide daily security for the property. Chair/Nolan asked Mr. Sakla if the projected $15 million in sales was based on his experience in Thousand Oaks. Mr. Sakla said he had never been involved in this type of operation and that this was a new venture for him. Mr. Sakla explained to C/McManus that individuals who want to display their vehicles would pay him a nominal fee for security. Additionally, his agreement with Cal Trans called for him to provide security for the Park and Ride facility during the week. VC/Tanaka asked why Mr. Sakla would be providing security for the entire week? Mr. Sakla responded that he hoped there would be sufficient fees to provide security for the week so that both the community and Cal Trans would benefit. VC/Tanaka asked how the participants would be protected in case of damage or theft? Mr. Sakla responded that as part of the agreement with Cal Trans he agreed to provide liability insurance coverage. VC/Tanaka asked what the typical seller's fee would be. Mr. Sakla said it would depend on the number of vehicles. The per -use fee could run $20, 25 or 30 and the fee could be reduced if the numbers of vehicles increased. Mr. Sakia responded to C/Tye that the "per -use" fee would be for the weekend. C/Tye asked Mr. Sakla if he could afford to pay for security during the week if 100 vehicles were placed on the lot. Mr. Sakla said at $20-25 per weekend that would generate an income to him of about $10,000 per month and he believed that was certainly enough to pay for security during the week. C/Tye asked how Mr. Sakla believed this was not a commercial enterprise when he was receiving income? Mr. Sakla said the public was using the property for its own private use. C/Tye said he could park his car with a "for -sale" sign at various locations and not pay anybody. He asked Mr. Sakla to help him understand why Mr. Sakla believed it was not a commercial enterprise? Mr. Sakla said that if the car were parked at Kmart for instance, there would not be anyone watching the car. Mr. Sakla said it was analogous to The Farmers Market. If you wanted to sell your goods you JULY 13, 2004 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION would display them at The Farmers Market or swap meet. C/Tye agreed that it was analogous to a swap meet and felt the Park and Ride location was not appropriate to a swap meet type of operation. He was interested -in what Mr. Sakla felt the public benefit would be "to single women?" Mr. Sakla said the seller and buyer would be meeting at his third -party secured location. C/Tye asked Mr. Sakla why he ignored the City's process, why he felt it was not necessary to follow the City's procedures and why Mr. Sakla refused to submit the necessary recommended applications? Mr. Sakla said that Code Section 22.50.030 specifically referred to "temporary use." Mr. Sakla said he had been explaining for the past year and one-half to the Planning Department that this use was not temporary even though it was just for weekends because it would be continuous and systematic. He said he had several correspondences with Mr. Jenkins and that in his letter of August 27 Mr. Jenkins agreed that Code Section 22.50.030 would not apply because it dealt with "temporary use." This proposal was not "temporary use." C/Tye said that this project would require a General Plan Amendment, a Zone Change, a Variance, a Development Review and a Conditional Use Permit. Staff's report indicated that Mr. Sakla felt the process was "not necessary." C/Tye pointed out that he was not speaking to the specific code, he was asking Mr. Sakla to comment on the process the City follows to determine if the use in Diamond Bar is proper for the location and the community, etc. He asked Mr. Sakla why he decided that the process was not necessary. Mr. Sakla said his words were misinterpreted. C/Tye asked Mr. Sakla if he had filed the required applications and Mr. Sakla said "no." Mr. Sakla stated that all he said was that Code Section 22.50.030 did not apply and a variance also did not apply because he planned to have a structure office, a permanent building so there would be no reason for a variance. And why would this project be any different than a Farmers Market or Swap Meet? C/Tye responded that the Diamond Bar Farmers Market at Grand Avenue and Golden Springs Drive had no permanent facility. It was held at the location on Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 P.M. In this case, if the applicant planned to install a permanent facility, would it not make sense that the applicant would need to follow the process to approve the permanent facility for proper usage? In fact, this property was not zoned so whether or not the applicant believed it should be zoned, staff believed it needed to be zoned to even consider this proposal. To get to the point that State property was exempt from local zoning applied only "when engaging in governmental activities and this project was not a governmental activity. VC/Tanaka asked if there were any benefits for the City of Diamond Bar. Mr. Sakla responded that absolutely when the state benefits so too the City benefits. This project would create a much more enhanced sales opportunity JULY 13, 2004 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION for people to sell their private vehicles and would create and generate an enhanced sales and use tax that would go to the state as well as to the City. If anything benefited the State, he said, it directly or indirectly benefited any city in the entire state of California. Chair/Nolan opened the public hearing. Harold Eschner, Agent for Cal Trans District 7, Los Angeles said that in District 7 there was only one Park and Ride facility used for private party automobile display and that facility was located in Thousand Oaks. The facility was placed into operation in 1993 and continues to this day. He stated that there were initial objections from the City of Thousand Oaks. However, the facility had grown to be very successful. Mr. Eschner said this was a security concept, a method to enhance the Park and Ride facility and that there was no question that Mr. Sakla was proposing a commercial activity. Cal Trans directed Mr. Sakla to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. He said that Cal Trans respects the local mandates even though the properties are state-owned. For several years individuals were provided an RV space with utilities and one additional parking space in exchange for monitoring vehicles in the Park and Ride lot. As a result, use of the lot increased to nearly 100 percent. He felt there were a number of benefits for residents who wished to sell their automobiles. Each vehicle would be labeled with a certain amount of information for the potential buyer to digest before contacting a potential seller. Chair/Nolan asked if the Thousand Oaks property was zoned for this type of use. Mr. Eschner responded that State property was open zoned. Cal Trans understood this is a gray area because the project would generate income. Cal Trans asked Mr. Sakla to go to the City to apply for a Conditional Use Permit because Cal Trans felt it was unreasonable to ask Mr. Sakla to put up $15-18,000 for a lengthy process without any guarantees. However, Cal Trans wanted input from the City and that was the reason Cal Trans asked Mr. Sakla to go for the Conditional Use Permit. C/McManus asked how the State would know that the tax benefit would come back to the City? Mr. Eschner was not sure about the sales tax revenue. He felt there was some kind of participation that would come back to the City indirectly. He also felt the assessor's office would levy a possessive interest tax on long-term leases which in this case if successful would probably be a five-year lease. DCM/DeStefano pointed out that quite often, private sales of vehicles are underreported for purposes of sales tax and license plate tags. This type of JULY 13, 2004 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION activity provides minimal revenue back to the City of Diamond Bar. Sales that are recorded are brought into a pool of sales generated at the County level with revenues disbursed by the County back to the cities and there was no significant impact to the City by the use or non-use of this property from a sales tax perspective. VC/Tanaka asked Mr. Echner to explain why since this program had been so successful it was not in place in other areas? Mr. Echner responded that there was widespread use outside of Cal Trans properties. This was only the second such use for a Cal Trans property. Most auto display businesses reside on private property. VC/Tanaka said he was speaking specifically about Cal Trans properties. Mr. Echner said Cal Trans had another facility in Stockton but he was not aware of the details of the operation and that he might be marketing a property for this type of use in Northridge later this year. C/Tye asked Mr. Echner if he was an employee of Cal Trans and Mr. Echner responded that he was. Mr. Echner indicated there would be no significant economic impact for the City and that it would instead be a security issue. Donald Sizemore, 23751 E. Goldrush Drive, was opposed to the project. Kmart does not allow the sale of used cars. In fact, they tow for -sale vehicles. There are used car sales places all over the county and those are licensed as car dealers. He did not want the Park and Ride to become littered. He said he was the Area Maintenance Manager for Cal Trans and that it was not right-of-way property, it was operating right-of-way property i.e., part of the SR 60 freeway that was maintained by his maintenance division of Cal Trans. In addition to the lot being full during the week at least 40 cars were parked at the Park and Ride each weekend. The lot is not closed on weekends. In fact, the lot was enlarged a couple of years ago to accommodate increased parking needs. This Park and Ride had always had two hosts living on the premises. One recently moved out and Cal Trans did not attempt to find another host because this permit was underway. The hosts are under contract to be present on the facility 24/7. He had a lot of concerns with used cars on the lot. He cited storm water runoff issues as an example. If the City issued a permit for this type of use Cal Trans would expect the City to monitor and clean up the area. His family owns used car lots and they pay $3,000 per month for each facility. In addition, the State constitution provides that "you shall not use State property for personal gain." Chair/Nolan closed the public hearing. JULY 13, 2004 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Tye reiterated a number of facts that would preclude approval of this project. Chair/Nolan moved, VC/Tanaka seconded, to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-05. Motion carried by the following Rall Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McManus, Tye, VC/Tanaka, Chair/Nolan NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Low 7.4 Development_ Review No. 2004-20 (pursuantto Code Section 22.48.020.A) was a request to construct a two story single-family residence of approximately 9,333 gross square feet including balconies, porch, attached four -car garage and retaining wall with a maximum exposed height that ranged between forty-two inches and six feet. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: 3119 Windmill Drive (Lot 7 of Tract No. 50314) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Windmill Estates, LLC 3480 Torrance Boulevard #300 Torrance, CA 90503 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2004-20, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Kurt Nelson, applicant, asked for clarification of Condition (d), (e) and (f) on page 6 of the resolution. All pads were graded with minor finish -grade matters to be addressed to meet plan check. He respectfully requested that he be allowed to submit for plan check and meet those conditions at that time. DCM/DeStefano indicated that the conditions could include wording "if required by the Public Works Director" and Mr. Nelson concurred. To Mr. Nelson's concern about the statement regarding prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy the Mitigation Monitoring Program under Landscaping, Irrigation and Trees, DCM/DeStefano explained that staff's comments pertained to this particular lot. Mr. Nelson was satisfied with DCM/DeStefano's explanation. Chair/Nolan opened the public hearing. JULY 13, 2004 E:3 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Nolan closed the public hearing. C/McManus moved, C/Tye seconded to approve Development Review No. 2004-20, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed in the resolution subject to the addition of "if required by the Public Works Director" to Conditions (d), (e) and (f) on page 6. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: McManus, Tye, VC/Tanaka, Chair/Nolan None Low PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/McManus congratulated staff on their very fine Lewis Development presentation, one of the best presentations he has ever witnessed. 9. STAFF COMMENTSANFORMATIONAL ITEMS: DCM/DeStefano reported that at its June 29 Adjourned Regular Meeting City Council approved the Lewis Diamond Village project forwarded by the Planning Commission. On July 6 Council approved second reading of the ordinances. Accordingly, the bulk of the issues for the project would become effective about August 5. Staff was working on the implementation of the agreements and planning a study session for July 27 to provide the Planning Commission with additional details about the residential component of the project. Staff expects to receive details on that day or the day prior to the meeting. As of today staff expected to have the package before the Planning .Commission for its decision on or about September 14. Lewis was working on a number of details regarding the commercial aspect of the project and among Home Depot, Lowe's and others, Home Depot had indicated the greatest interest by spending the greatest amount of time and money toward locating within the project. DCM/DeStefano told the Commission about staff's July 6 presentation to Trader Joe's. From that meeting additional information was prepared to attempt to provide Trader Joe's with a differentiation between the D.B. and Chino Hills rumored site. DCM/DeStefano elaborated on the many reasons D.B. clearly beat the Chino Hills location in categories considered by Trader Joe's when looking at new locations. In response to C/Tye DCM/DeStefano stated that while Trader Joe's did not take delivery of the 11,000 postcards, they indicated they were aware of the postcards and said it was the most impressive campaign they JULY 13, 2004 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION had seen. DCM/DeStefano said he was urging Lewis to present the commercial portion of the project to the Planning Commission sometime in September. DCM/DeStefano reported that the Banning Way office project would be presented to the City Council for consideration on Tuesday, July 20. C/Tye asked if the July 29 study session could be rescheduled since he would be out of town. DCM/DeStefano asked Commissioners if they would be available for a study session on August 10 and there was concurrence. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in the agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Nolan adjourned the meeting at 8:44 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Jambal)eStefano Deputy City Mana Attest: /- �i1, Y . Dan olan, Chairman