HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/28/2005MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 28, 2005 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman McManus called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Nolan led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Joe McManus, Vice Chairperson Ruth Low, and Commissioners Dan Nolan and Steve Tye. Also present: James DeStefano, Assistant City Manager, Nancy Fong, Planning Manager, Ann Lungu, Associate Planner, Linda Smith, Development Services Associate, and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. RECOGNITION OF OUTGOING COMMISSIONER JACK TANAKA— continued to July 12, 2005. 3. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: 8. PUBLIC HEARING(S): Move Item 8.2 before Item 5. 8.2 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 2004-34— In accordance to Chapter 22.48 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code, the applicant requested approval of plans to construct an approximate 8,076 square foot addition to an existing 2,777 square foot two-story single family dwelling on an existing 9.10 acre R-1 9,000 zoned parcel with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Low Density Residential (RL). The development also included an attached 1,008 square foot 4 - car garage, swimming pool, tennis court, basketball court, and detached gazebo. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: 701 Featherwood Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Randy and Olga Rodriguez 701 Featherwood Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 JUNE 28, 2005 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION PM/Fong advised the Commission that due to technical issues that needed to be resolved, staff was recommending that the project's review be continued to July 12, 2005. Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/McManus continued the public hearing to July 12, 2005. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: 5.1 Minutes of the Study Session of June 14, 2005, and Regular Meeting of June 14, 2005. C/Nolan moved, C/Tye seconded to approve the minutes of the Study Session of June 14, 2005, as presented and the Regular Meeting of June 14, 2005, as corrected. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 6. OLD BUSINESS: None. 7. NEW BUSINESS: None, 8. PUBLIC HEARING(S): Continued: Nolan, Tye, VC/Low, Chair/McManus None. None. 8.1 AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2004-01 — Between the City of Diamond Bar and Lewis -Diamond Bar, LLC for the Diamond Bar Village Specific Plan, a 71 -acre development consisting of 180 multi -family residential units and up to 270,000 square feet of commercial, retail and institutional uses. The proposed amendment is to consider proposed changes to the financial terms of the contract and the minor changes to the schedule of performance. PROJCECT ADDRESS: South of Grand Avenue, East of Golden Springs Drive PROPERTY OWNER/ Lewis -Diamond Bar, LLC APPLICANT: 1156 N. Mountain Avenue Upland, CA 91765 JUNE 28, 2005 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION ACM/DeStefano presented staff's report and recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending City Council approval of Amendment to Development agreement 2004-01. Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. ACMIDeStefano confirmed to C/Nolan that the City had an agreement in place that called for the commencement of construction by June 1, 2005, and assured the City that if that did not occur the City could draw down the Letter of Credit in the amount of $41,000 plus, and the City could exercise its agreement right as it was currently written. C/Nolan asked ACMIDeStefano to explain the downside of not adhering to the agreement as written. ACMIDeStefano said that at this juncture both parties were working to resolve the issues of the agreement and working to get Target and Brookfield under construction. The downside would be a financial loss to Lewis and the corporate concerns of the cashed collateral and it would have significant impacts on the City's relationships with Brookfield and Target. C/Nolan asked if staff was certain that the $2 million fee was the correct fee and wanted assurance that the City would not find itself liable for not covering itself in the bargain (the traffic impact fee). ACM/DeStefano explained that the traffic impact fee was a direct result of the identified traffic impacts as a result of the residential, commercial and church portion of the development. Staff went through the numbers a year ago. However, no dollar amount was attached to the improvements. Over the course of several months after June 2004 staff attached a dollar amount to the physical improvements and negotiated a conclusion and staff believes that the $2 million is an appropriate number. The City has a responsibility for improvements as a result of existing conditions at the various intersections for which $2 million was set aside with the largest portion of the set-aside going toward the Grand Avenue/Golden Springs improvements already underway. ACOM/DeStefano further explained that the City felt it was possible for Lewis to construct the residential component and never construct the commercial component. In order to protect the City's interest it was willing to grant the residential component but wanted the security that Lewis would build the commercial project so a $2 million Letter of Credit was established representing approximately four years of sales tax revenue and if Lewis never built the commercial component the penalty would secure that the City received the projected tax revenue from the commercial component to which the City believed it was entitled. C/Nolan had some reservation about the City losing an additional two months of sales tax revenue. Staff said that Lewis had been working very hard to get the City an anchor tenant of the quality sought by the residents. Target is an outstanding corporate partner, a great retailer and will do well for Diamond Barand, staff is very excited that Target has chosen to locate in this community and that the Commission approved the project. The City selected an opening date of April for the JUNE 28, 2005 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION anchor. However, staff learned that Target opens stores only three times during the year and April is not one of those times. During recent discussions with Target it became abundantly clear that a target date of July 2006 would not happen. Therefore, the public opening was pushed out to October 2006. Yesterday staff was assured by Lewis and Target that everyone could meet the October 2006 date. C/Tye asked if CA/Jenkins had reviewed the language of the amendment because he was concerned about interjecting "at the sole discretion of the developer." ACM/DeStefano responded that CA/Jenkins reviewed and approved the amendment as presented to the Commission. C/Tye, referring to page 3 said that anytime it said that the amendment would "provide a City agreement to not impose any additional development exactions or development impact fees" it led him to believe the developer felt the City had done so in the past. The City was getting what it felt was the fair -share of traffic mitigation but nothing over and above. If everything cost $2 million the City had determined that the Brookfield Homes and Target projects should be about $1.2 million and the City would pick up the rest because it was time after 16 years to retrofit that intersection. C/Tye asked if the foregoing was a fair and accurate statement. ACM/DeStefano responded that based upon the impacts that the projects would create it owed the City $1.2 million in traffic impact fees. What the City was doing with this agreement is memorializing what the two parties have already agreed to do and that the contribution was a part of the overall funding needed to improve Grand Avenue and Golden Springs. If the City finds additional problems once the improvements are underway it is his assumption that the City would be responsible for any additional cost. ACM/DeStefano explained that the agreement not to exact any additional fees from Target has nothing to do with the City of Diamond Bar and nothing to do with a relationship issue or decisions made in the past. It has to do with Target needing reassurance that the City would not exact additional fees. Retailers operate on a very slim margin with every dollar going toward the cost of construction affecting the bottom line. And in his opinion, there was nothing else that would or could be necessary to protect the City and for the City to agree not to impose any additional fees was not an issue for Diamond Bar. Target is a successor in interest and thus has concerns about what it is purchasing and this amendment offers Target a sense of security. Darren McCleve, Vice President of Development, Community Development, for Lewis Operating Companies, thanked the Commission. This development agreement was recorded and runs with the land and as the portions are sold it affects the purchasers. Target approached Lewis because they had been burned on other projects around the country and wanted assurance that a) the development agreement was what it said and would do what it said and b) as the lot line adjustments were processed for the Parcel Map that additional conditions would not be imposed. He thanked staff for standing fair. He felt that staff and Lewis and their JUNE 28, 2005 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION contractors had adequately and fairly arrived at the $1.2 million that would be provided toward traffic impacts and he said he believed that staff had made Herculean efforts to move the Target project forward. He asked for the Commission's recommendation for adoption. VC/Low asked if Mr. McCleve anticipated requesting an amendment prior to completion of the project and Mr. McCleve said he felt there would be no further amendments requests. VC/Low asked if the construction commencement and completion dates contained in the amendment were in his view realistic and Mr. McCleve responded that they were because they came directly from Target. Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/McManus closed the public hearing. C/Nolan moved, VC/Low seconded, to recommend City Council approval of Amendment to Development Agreement 2004-01. Motion carried by the following Rall Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, VC/Low, Tye, Chair/McManus NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. 8.3 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2005-14 — In accordance to Code Section 22.48.020(x)(1), this was a request to construct a three-story single-family residence with two car garage and balconies totaling to approximately 5,187 square feet. The request also included retaining walls within the front, side and rear yards not to exceed an exposed height of six feet. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER 1198 Chisolm Trail Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Mitchell Won 5719 Paramount Lane Pico Rivera, CA 90660 APPLICANT: Brent Hallam Westwood Design 133 E. Bonita Avenue, Suite 202 San Dimas, CA 91773 JUNE 28, 2005 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION AssocP/Lungu presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2005-14, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Brent Hallam, Project Designer, stated that he and his client read the conditions of approval and agreed to the terms. In addition, he said he would make all pertinent adjustments with staff. Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/McManus closed the public hearing. C/Tye moved, C/Nolan seconded to approve Development Review No. 2005-14, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Tye, Nolan, VC/Low, Chair/McManus NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. 8.4 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2005-19, MINOR VARIANCE NO. 2005-05, MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005-05 AND TREE PERMIT NO. 2005-11 — In accordance to Code Sections 22.48.020(x)(1), 22.56, 22.30.080(5) and 22.28, this was a request to construct a three-story single-family residence with three car garage, balconies and deck totaling to approximately 7,100 square feet. The request also included walls, retaining and non -retaining, with the front, side and rear yards not to exceed an exposed height of either feet. The Minor Variance was for a 20 percent reduction in the required 30 -foot front yard setback. The Tree Permit was related to the removal, replacement and protection of oak and walnut trees. The Minor Conditional Use permit was for a driveway wider than the maximum 14 feet allowed at the street property line. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2142 Rusty Spur Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ Mr. and Mrs. Saeid Shantiyal 1250 Valley View Avenue Pasadena, CA 91107 AssocP/Lungu presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2005-19, Minor Variance No. 2005-05, Minor JUNE 28, 2005 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-05 and Tree Permit No. 2005-11, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Tye asked where the resolution specified the number of trees that were to be replaced. AssocP/Lungu referred C/Tye to 5(c) on page 5 indicating 12 trees were scheduled for replacement. Mr. and Mrs. Saeid Shantiyal indicated they read the conditions of approval and concurred with the findings. Mr. Shantiyal explained that with the 3:1 replacement ratio there would be too many trees planted on the property because the rear of the property was planted with trees and if there were a way to reduce the number he would like to exercise that option. They were told that one option would be to pay for trees being planted in an alternate location. Chair/McManus explained that the number could not be reduced but that a certain number could be planted off-site. Mr. Shantiyal indicated he would work with staff on that matter. VC/Low asked if staff was recommending that 12 trees be planted off-site. PM/Fong stated that the resolution called for replacement of 12 walnut trees the size of 24" box. Whether the applicant would be placing 12 trees on the site, staff would work out the formula. Perhaps half the replacement trees would be planted on-site and half off-site for example. Mr. Shantiyal indicated to VC/Low that he concurred. Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/McManus closed the public hearing. C/Nolan moved, VC/Low seconded to approve Development Review No. 2005-19, Minor Variance No. 2005-05, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-05 and Tree Permit No. 2005-11, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, VC/Low, Tye, Chair/McManus None. None. 8.5 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2004-45 — In accordance to Code Section 22.48.020(a)(2), this was a request to establish private college classrooms at the University of Phoenix in existing office business park suites. PROJECT ADDRESS: 1470 S. Valley Vista Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 JUNE 28, 2005 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION PROPERTY OWNER: 1470 S. Valley Vista Drive, LLC 4641 District Boulevard Vernon, CA 90058 APPLICANT: Apollo Group, Inc., Harlan Lindholm 4305 Hidden Oaks Yorba Linda, CA 92886 APPLICANT'S AGENT: CB Richard Ellis, Inc., Travis Boyd 3501 Jamboree Road #100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 DSA/Smith presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2004-45, Findings of Pact, and conditions of approval as listed within the amended resolution. Chair/McManus wanted confirmation that the building would be cleared out prior to commencement of the 6:00 p.m. classes so that there would not be a parking conflict. DSA/Smith responded yes and referred the Commissioners to the matrix. Harlan Lindholm thanked the Commission and DSA/Srriith and staff for their assistance. He reviewed the report and conditions. He also reviewed the occupancy figures with campus personnel and was comfortable with the numbers indicated in the report. VC/Low asked if Mr. Lindholm had spoken with his neighbors about the parking situation. Mr. Lindholm said he had not but felt the owner/landlord would have done so or at least taken the situation into consideration. Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/McManus closed the public hearing. C/Tye moved, C/Nolan seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2004-45, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the amended resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: Tye, Nolan, VC/Low, Chair/McManus None. None. COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JUNE 28, 2005 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION 9. PLANNING COMMSSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Tye asked PM/Fong to use photos he provided to explain the bulldozing that took place. PM/Fong explained that last Friday staff received a call about the site which as a proposed development of 19 single-family lots. The application was incomplete and not ready for Planning Commission review. The applicant must do an environmental review and one of the required studies was a geotechnical study. In order to do the geotechnical study they must have access to the site to conduct soil borings to analyze whether the slopes are safe for development. A tree removal permit was required to be approved for slope access. Unfortunately, the workers attempted to shortcut a pathway and got onto a neighbor's yard. Staff immediately took action to stop the workers and revoked the Tree Removal Permit. The applicant has yet to return staff's call. Staff plans to monitor the situation and make certain that an Arborist is on-site to monitor the work when it resumes. Of course, the applicant will be required to mitigate the problem the workers created. CITye stated that the affected homeowner appreciated staffs quick and efficient response to the matter. He felt that it was a problem for the two debris piles to remain close to development because they could quickly present a fire hazard. The homeowner believed that there was a drainage channel that went through the back of their property that was destroyed by the developer's actions. PM/Fong indicated that if a drainage ditch existed prior to the damage the developer would be required to replace the drainage ditch before the rainy season. C/Tye asked if AssocP/Lungu observed the property north of the Chisolm Trail project that was somewhat fenced. There was no home on-site and there was a pool sign. The property is accessible from either end of the fence and the gate does not come together. He feared for the safety of children in the area. ACM/DeStefano said that staff would look at all four properties and report back to the Commission at its next meeting. C/Tye commented about Lewis's praise of staff. He appreciated ACM/DeStefano's statement about negotiating in the best interest of Diamond Bar and said there was no one he would rather have negotiating on his behalf. C/Nolan echoed C/Tye's comments about staff receiving positive comments from a 50 year-old development company. C/Nolan reiterated his concern about the broken neon/lastic Diamond Bar Village monument sign. He wished everyone a happy July 4 h. VC/Low echoed C1Tye and C/Nolan's comments about the high praise for staff on their fine work on the Lewis project. She said she appreciated C/Tye's activism and JUNE 28, 2005 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION rapport with the citizens but was concerned about his bringing photos to the meeting for discussion because she felt it bordered on having a public hearing without the applicant, owners and affected homeowners being present. She asked staff if the matter should have been scheduled for public hearing or due process in a public forum. ACM/DeStefano said that if he felt the Commission or a Commissioner were going askew he would certainly step in and he had not seen or heard anything that would be detrimental to the future public hearing request for development of the property. What he heard and saw was a reaction to an issue in violation of specific direction given to the developer by staff and most definitely a code enforcement issue and he said he was comfortable with the way in which it was discussed. Chair/McManus said that as a contractor he had appeared before a lot of cities and had extensive experience dealing with cities and city staffs. It was nice to hear Lewis Homes speak well of Diamond Bar's staff especially knowing that problems had existed early on in the City's history. 10. STAFF COMMENTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: PM/Fong asked the Commissioners if they would like to participate in the San Gabriel Valley COG Leadership 21 conference meetings. She said that staff was attempting to determine the dates. C/Nolan said he would be in a position to respond when he had actual dates. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/McManus adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Ily Submitted, James DeSteflno, Assistant City Manager Attest: Me cManus, Chairman