Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/24/2006MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP OCTOBER 24, 2006 CALL TO ORDER: Community Development Director called the workshop to order at 6:05 p.m. in Room CC -2 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. 1. 2 ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Kathleen Nolan, Tony Torng, Osman Wei. Absent: Vice -Chairman Steve Nelson. Due to a business conflict, VC/Nelson recused himself from participating in this matter and was not present. Also present: Nancy Fong, Community Development Director; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; Sandra Campbell, Contract Senior Planner; Peter Lewandowski, City Environmental Consultant; Gregg Kovacevich, Assistant City Attorney and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE SOUTH POINTE WEST SPECIFIC PLAN AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. CSP/Campbell presented staff's report. The purpose of the workshop was to provide information to the Planning Commission on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process as it applied to the South Pointe West project as well as to provide information on the South Pointe West project design. The developer, South Pointe West, LLC, submitted an application for the development of a vacant approximately 31.43 -acre site with 99 residential units and an approximately 4.7 gross acre public park. The project site is located south of Larkstone Drive, east of Morning Sun Avenue, and west of Brea Canyon Road near the South Pointe Middle School. The applicant has submitted the following for entitlements for the proposed project. • Conditional Use Permit CUP 2005-01 • Development Review DR 2005-27 • Tree Permit TP 2005-06 • General Plan Amendment GPA 2005-01 • Specific Plan SP 2005-01 • Vesting Tentative Map No. 063623 OCTOBER 24, 2006 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP proposed by the applicant is the best for the City, best for the applicant and best according to CEQA definitions. CEQA defines that the responsibility of cities is to avoid impacts and if you do nothing you obviously do not take down trees, etc. Some of the alternatives that CEQA requires consideration on are all alternatives that would result in a reduction in environmental impacts; either less grading or less traffic or fewer homes, or smaller homes/pads. In short, one of the alternatives CEQA requires is to "do nothing." CEQA is not expecting that applicants will do nothing, but it is giving a baseline. C/Torng asked if all issues could be resolved to which Mr. Lewandowski responded that they could. There are questions before the City and questions that need to be asked. For example, one of the issues to be resolved is that the project in CEQA is different from the project that is proposed and there are requirements for a park to be dedicated. So the issues to be resolved are to ensure that the school district's interests are being considered. All issues to be resolved can be resolved they merely require consideration and awareness on the part of the City. C/Torng referred to the Vesting Tract Map and reiterated that the numbers confused him. There are 31 acres and the applicant says he has to acquire something from the school board. Mr. Nelson explained that the Tract Map boundaries do not include a couple of acres of property that the school has already agreed — has committed to donate to make up the park. It will be part of the park; it is simply not part of the acreage depicted in the Tentative Tract Map. C/Torng asked the applicant if they discussed this with the school board and the school board agreed to let the City use the additional lot. CDD/Fong showed C/Torng the site of the project. The portion closest to the school will become part of the park site. Basically, the applicant needs to have the park, the park is "this" size, and if the applicant cannot get the school to convey the land to the City for a park site, the park site will be located in its entirety on the applicant's property. Therefore, the applicant has the incentive to work with the school district to convey the additional land outside of the project area for parkland. If the applicant were unsuccessful, he would lose more of the project area. C/Torng asked when it was the proper time to discuss tree replacement. CDD/Fong responded that the EIR listed tree removal as a significant impact with mitigation so the application is required to perform mitigation to replace the trees. C/Torng said there was no mitigation plan on EX -14. Mr. Lewandowski said that CEQA has to assume that the applicant will be required to comply with certain requirements. In this case, the City has a Tree Replacement Ordinance. C/Torng said that because there was not a significant impact that is why the applicant did not mention it but the City still has the code to make sure these trees are coming back. Mr. Lewandowski OCTOBER 24, 2006 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP responses to the public hearing. The Planning Commission will receive input from the applicant, staff and public speakers during the public hearing process. The Planning Commission will deliberate and forward its recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will conduct its own public hearing process after which the City Council will render its decision, one of which could be to return the project to the Planning Commission for further consideration. RECESS: The workshop was recessed at 6:55 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting wherein C/Lee stated that he would have to excuse himself when the workshop reconvened after the regular Planning Commission meeting. RECONVENE: The workshop was reconvened at 7:30 P.M. following the Regular Planning Commission meeting. C/Nolan asked if the designs reflected staff's recommendations. Mr. Nelson responded that his firm is very respectful of staff's recommendations and he said he respectfully disagreed with staff's assessment. He said he did not believe garages located at the front of houses reflected a substandard development because it is the predominate style in southern California. If the garages were tucked around to the back or side of the structure the density would be reduced substantially and the project would be economically unfeasible. The third story is 500 square feet and has been set back in the area where it does not loop. About half of the photographs depict a project that the applicant does not want to do because it is vertical massing with the third story going straight up. In addition, there is no driveway, no sidewalk and no curvature and change of grade of the street. It is a very easy planning cliche to call structures boxes with architectural detail added. There is a change in the mass of the second story and there is a drastic change to the third story. There are many multi-million dollar homes in "The Country Estates" that are nothing more than rectangular boxes with gingerbread. Are those structures Architectural Digest material? No. This project will rise or fall depending on how many units can be supplied at a certain price point and the applicant is doing the very best to create an attractive and high quality development that is economically feasible. Mr. Nelson stated that he has been doing business in Diamond bar for 10 years and he does not come to the City with bait and switch projects. In addition, the turn the market has taken in the three years the applicant has been in escrow has taken away any capacity to present an inferior project. If this project cannot be done it will be vacated. C/Nolan asked how revolutionary detached condominiums were and Mr. Nelson said that they were not because his firm had been building these types of projects since 1992. About 1992 the legislature changed the definition on statutes for OCTOBER 24, 2006 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP units, which would create more than 2000 vehicle trips. Mr. Nelson said that in fact, there would be far less than 2000 vehicle trips per day according to traffic engineering reports. C/Wei said his other concern was that there would not be enough parking spaces and people would have to leave their cars on the street. Also, in a private community there are normally only two directional lanes for the 40 - foot wide street and most do not have center dividing lines. Lanes are general 16 feet wide leaving only four feet at the curb. Cars are between seven and eight feet wide. Mr. Gould explained that all streets in "The Country Estates" are 36 feet wide from edge of pavement to edge of pavement. This project proposes 36 feet wide streets as well. "The Country Estates" allows parking on both sides of the street. The project streets allow parking on both sides. C/Wei said that "The Country Estates" is having a problem with the lack of parking. C/Wei said the documents indicate that streets are 40 feet wide in "The Country Estates" and Mr. Gould explained that there is a 40 -foot right of way but the streets are 36 feet from edge of pavement to edge of pavement. Mr. Gould further explained that the right of way is 36 feet plus 12 feet plus 12 feet. C/Wei said his point was that when the streets were narrowed and street parking was allowed vehicles would be pushed to drive down the center of the street. Mr. Nelson explained that the project would accommodate two cars in the garage and two in the driveway. People could park on the street but it would be the exception and not the norm. C/Nolan asked what the average distance was between driveways and Mr. Gould responded that it was approximately 24 feet. He further explained that in many areas there is parking along the sides of streets where there are no homes as well as in front of existing homes. As proposed, the project includes a considerable amount of additional parking. Mr. Nelson stated that with this project there was plenty of additional parking and it would be up to the homeowner's association to enforce covenants that include parking in one's garage. VC/Torng was not sure how the applicant could enforce the CC&R's. Also, as C/Wei was trying to say, when there are too many cars outside of the garages it will reduce the property values. Mr. Nelson explained that when one is designing a project that is desirable to a particular market that is trying to remain in a desirable area one has to design to feasibility and the developer believes that in this type of development with a two -car and two -car parking pad was sufficient and preferable. This project is based on what the developer has to pay for the land, the cost of grading to stabilize the area and so forth and there is no room to reduce density and let this project go forward. The park alone will cost about 70 units. In a perfect world he would like to have 10 more acres so that he could include three -car garages. OCTOBER 24, 2006 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP $900,000 for a home would ignore the CC&R's that are necessary to protect the quality of life. He believed that there would be an average number of cars with reasonable enforcement and some cars would be parked in driveways, some parked on the street and most in the garages. Mr. Nelson said he envisioned the buying community to consist largely of the Asian community who are move -up buyers with one or two children. It should be a very good demographic mix — young married couples with one child, older couples, multi- generational families and so forth. CDD/Fong responded to VC/Torng that the EIR envisioned a larger project and would not have to be redone since the project was reduced. She said there would be additional hearings to review the Specific Plan and the project, which includes the pads and the house, the Tree Permit, General Plan Amendment and Zoning for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map. Mr. Lewandowski outlined the following future considerations for review of the project: 1) General Plan Amendment and Adoption of the Specific Plan 2) Review of the Tentative Tract Map and design of the Subdivision 3) Design issues CDD/Fong reiterated Commissioners' concerns: Traffic; numberof parking spaces; number of bedrooms in relationship to vehicles and whether there would be too many vehicles parked on the street; the safety of pedestrians (sidewalk on only one side of the street); views; 20 foot high retaining wall; artist's rendering including streetscape to be provided by the applicant; setbacks with respect to driveways; and, trees. CDD/Fong responded to VC/Torng that staff had some concerns about the design issues because of the small pad and limitation of the 20 -foot wide garages. Staff felt that the garages should be de-emphasized and the building entry be better articulated. Mr. Nelson said he understood design philosophies of planners and had seen communities that were able to hide the garages with a particular layout and a particular grade and buyers paying a particular price. He said he did not see any design flaws with two -car garages in California. With a pad of this size to get a two -car garage and two -car parking with a generous floor plan the side entry works best in most cities in southern California. MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 24, 2006 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Nelson 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. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Kathleen Nolan, Tony Torng, Osman Wei and Vice Chairman Steve Nelson. Also present: Nancy Fong, Community Development Director; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; Gregg Kovacevich, Assistant City Attorney and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. REORGANIZATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION: C/Torng nominated C/Nelson to serve as Chairman. C/Wei seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations offered. C/Nelson was unanimously elected to serve as Chairman of the Planning Commission by the following Roll Call vote: C/Lee AYE C/Nolan AYE C/Torng AYE C/Wei AYE C/Nelson ABSTAIN Chair/Nelson assumed the gavel and opened nominations for Vice Chairman. C/Lee nominated C/Torng to serve as Vice Chairman. C/Nolan seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations offered. C/Torng was unanimously elected to serve as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission by the following Roll Call vote: OCTOBER 24, 2006 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lee AYE C/Nolan AYE C/Torng AYE C/Wei AYE C/Nelson AYE MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. CONSENT CALENDAR: 5.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 10, 2006. C/Lee moved, VC/Torng seconded to approve the Minutes of October 10, 2006, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Wei ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: 7.1 Comprehensive Sign Program No. 2006-05 — Applicant requested approval of a comprehensive sign program for a monument and wall signs for a commercial center. PROJECT ADDRESS: Plaza Diamond Bar PROPERTY OWNER: 1900-2040 Brea Canyon Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Metro Properties, LLC 3029 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 202 Santa Monica, CA 90403 OCTOBER 24, 2006 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANT: Bill Henigsman TNT Electric Signs, Inc. 3080 E. 29th Street Long Beach, CA 90806 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Comprehensive Planned Sign Program No. 2006- 05, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Bill Henigsman responded to VC/Torng that one tree might have to be removed to accommodate the monument sign. CDD/Fong explained to C/Torng that because the tree in question was not a protected species the applicant could remove the tree without a tree permit. There were no public comments offered on this item. C/Nolan moved, C/Lee seconded, to approve Comprehensive Sign Program No. 2006-05, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Lee, Wei, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None. 9. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: VC/Torng congratulated Chair/Nelson on his appointment and said he looked forward to supporting Chair/Nelson in his new role. C/Lee congratulated Chair/Nelson and VC/Torng on their appointments. Chair/Nelson thanked VC/Torng for his support. 10. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS. 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. OCTOBER 24, 2006 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Nelson adjourned the regular meeting at 7:28 p.m. back to the Workshop. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, iia FM Na y Fong Community D lop ent Director eve Nelson, Chairman