Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/27/2007MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 27, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 917,65. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chairman Torng led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Kathleen Nolan, Osman Wei, Vice Chairman Tony Torng and Chairman Steve Nelson Also present: Nancy Fong, Community Development Director; Gregg Kovacevich, Assistant City Attorney; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; David Alvarez, Planning Technician, and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. REORGANIZATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION — Selection of Chairman and Vice Chairman. Commissioner Lee nominated Commissioner Nelson to serve as Chairman of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Nolan seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations offered. Commissioner 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/Wei Aye C/To rng Aye C/Nelson Aye Commissioner Nolan nominated Commissioner Torng to serve as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Lee seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations offered. Commissioner Torng was unanimously elected to serve as the Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission by the following Roll Call vote: C/Nolan Aye C/Lee Aye C/W ei Aye C/Torng Aye Chair/Nelson Aye MARCH 27, 2007 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 3. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Submitted 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 Development Review No. 2006-40 — In accordance with Development Code Section 22.48, the applicant requested approval to remodel and construct a first and second story addition, patio cover and deck totaling approximately 2,200 square feet to an existing 2,252 square foot two-story single family residence with a two -car garage. The project site is zoned R-1 (8,000). PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: 23253 Forest Canyon Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Carl and Martha Collison 23253 Forest Canyon Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Leobardo Nanez 755 N. Peach Clovis, CA 93611 AssocP/Lungu presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2006-40, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Nolan and VC/Torng disclosed they each drove by the site and spoke to no one. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Carl Collision, property owner, said he would agree to replace the regular door with French doors as recommended by staff. VC/Torng asked if the owner intended to follow City Codes during the rebuild to which Mr. Collision responded affirmatively. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. MARCH 27, 2007 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lee moved, C/Wei seconded to approve Development Review No. 2006-40, 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 Lee, Wei, Nolan, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson None None 7.2 Development Review No. 2007-07 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-04 - In accordance with Development Code Section 22.48, the applicant requested approval to construct a 1,128 square feet addition to an existing 1,783 square foot single-family residence. The project site is zoned R-1 (20,000). PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: 24408 Nan Court Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Ismail Vaid 24408 Nan Court Diamond Bar, CA 91765 M&M Construction 10414 Hamilton Street Alta Loma, CA 91701 CDD/Fong presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2007-07 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-04, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Nolan and VC/Torng revealed that today they each drove by the project site and did not speak with anyone. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Anthony, M&M Construction, stated he was extending the rooms out to make them larger and the look of the house would remain virtually unchanged Evelyn who lives next door to the project site was concerned about how far the addition would extend to the rear of the property. CDD/Fong responded that all building would be done within the building perimeter. The second MARCH 27, 2007 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION story would extend out on the side and front. There is no building proposed for the rear yard area and slope area. Anthony explained the proposed project as it related to her property and Evelyn indicated that she was satisfied with the explanation. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Nolan moved, VC/Torng seconded to approve Development Review No. 2007-07 and Minor Conditional Use Permit 2007-04, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Wei, VC/Torng Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None 7.3 Development Review No 2007-01, Minor Variance 2007-01 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-06 — In accordance with Development Code Sections 22.48, 22.52 and 22.56, the applicant requested approval to construct a 1,512 square foot addition to an existing 2,036 square foot single family residence; reduce the required side yard setback by 20 percent and maintain the existing legal non -conforming front yard setback for the garage and the setback between structures. The project site is zoned Low Density Residential District (RPD 20,000-2U). PROJECT ADDRESS: 24449 Nan Court Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ Raymond and Laura Wolfe APPLICANT: 24449 Nan Court Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PT/Alvarez presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2007-01, MinorVariance 2007-01, and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-06, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. PT/Alvarez responded to C/Lee that the proposed porch pops out seven feet from the main structure and is permitted under the Minor Variance since the porch does not intrude into the neighbor's rear yard privacy. MARCH 27, 2007 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nolan and VC/Torng disclosed that today they each drove by the project site and did not speak with anyone. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Raymond Wolfe, owner/applicant, said he spent two plus years figuring out how to accomplish this project because he does not generally like the appearance of additions. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Wei moved, C/Lee seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2007-01, Minor Variance 2007-01, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-06, 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: Wei, Lee, Nolan, VC/Torng Chair/Nelson None None 7.4 Development Review No. 2005-32 and Negative Declaration No. 2007-01 — In accordance with Development Code Section 22.48, the applicant requested construction of a one-story, 32000 square foot medical office building for medical services including a clinic and labs. The project site is zoned Office/Business Park (OB). PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: 1336 Bridge Gate Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. 393 W. Walnut Street Pasadena, CA 91003 APPLICANT: Wood Burghard Swain Architects 4850 Barranca Parkway, Suite 203 Irvine, CA 92604 AssocP/Lungu presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2005-32 and Negative Declaration No. 2007-01, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. MARCH 27, 2007 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Fong explained to VC/Torng that the Gateway Corporate parking standards exceed the City's standards. V/C Torng stated that the number of parking spaces falls short by two spaces and requested that the applicant be required to furnish more parking spaces in the next phase. VC/Torng said he disagreed with the traffic impact report and wondered why the project did not consider Golden Springs Drive, the SR 60 eastbound and Pathfinder Road traffic. Rock Miller, the City's traffic consultant, explained that when he was presented with the study he determined the locations that the study might have missed and as a result, he added the Grand Avenue eastbound off ramp -to the study. In his experience the project is of a sufficiently small size that there would be no impact as a result of the project. There might be a few trips through those intersections and there very likely could be some deficiencies determined that could slightly affect the fair - share calculations. However, he identified a set of near term improvements for this project that were believed to produce adequate levels of service at the intersections. In view of the uncertainty of future freeway projects it was felt that the study should be confined to the locations that were known to have the largest numerical impact and he developed a traffic impact fair - share analysis for those locations. Accordingly, the applicant is required to participate in the fair -share program. VC/Torng asked why the study would considerthe SR60 westbound and not the SR60 eastbound on Golden Springs Drive. Mr. Miller said that one of the possible reasons was the direction that the traffic would be turning, especially if a proportionate amount of traffic is making a right turn or turning through two lanes to turn left it would generally not have as much impact as if it were going through a single left turn lane. The number of trips that would have been forecast through the more remote locations would have been just below the cutoff and the intersections studied would have been just above the cutoff. VC/Torng disagreed with the impact study. As the project's proportion of traffic gets smaller its proportion of share of the value of improvement goes down. Mr. Miller explained that the so-called trip minimum indicates that if the project has less than the minimum number of trips it would not be considered to be participating in the cumulative impact. And, it would be within the City's and the Commissions prerogative to lower the threshold, particular if there is a list of locations where there are concerns about future levels of service. He reiterated that in his opinion, this project would not result in a significant impact because it takes more than 10 to 20 trips for a project to have a significant impact on its own merits. VC/Torng argued that peak hour traffic of 168 cars divided by two is nearly 85 cars each time. VC/Torng strongly recommended that the data show real numbers. MARCH 27, 2007 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Nelson asked how many parking spaces were required and CDD/Fong responded that based on the City's ratios, 128 parking spaces was required. The project proposes 176 parking spaces. The peak hour parking could likely require 168 parking spaces for this building. Chair/Nelson concluded that the applicant exceeded the parking requirement. AssocP/Lungu responded to Chair/Nelson that staff received no public comments or input regarding this project. C/Wei said he shared VC/Torng's concerns and asked for the applicant's traffic consultant to respond. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Maggie Pierce, Executive Director, Kaiser Permanente Foundation Hospital and Health Plans, 1011 Baldwin Park Blvd, Baldwin Park, CA 91706, stated that the program forthis site provides for 8400 members who live in Diamond Bar and will serve approximately 43,000 members by providing a phase I medical office building that will have 12 physicians, offices and exam rooms serving adult primary care (family medicine and OBGYN as well as, pediatrics). The facility will also include ancillary services such as pharmacy, radiology including mammography, lab and blood draw stations and administrative offices. Staffing will reflect the local aspects of the community and membership in the area. Jim Harrington, Manager, Design and Construction Services, 12200 Bellflower Blvd, Downey, thanked staff for their diligence in preparing tonight's presentation. The owner is anxious to commence construction and intends to pull a permit as soon as possible and begin construction in April 2007 and complete construction by April 2008. Kevin Jaeger, Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers, 234 East Colorado Blvd, Suite 400, Pasadena, CA 91101, explained that his firm's traffic study that was completed last year is an update to a 2003 study that was completed by the City's traffic consultant, Warren Siecke. Mr. Jaeger explained the traffic study process and explained that the trip threshold developed was 20 trips. When the study was updated last year the same scoping process was used and the study was reviewed with Steve Sawsaki, the City's Engineer. At that point key intersections were reviewed for the highest potential impacts based on the City's criteria. VC/Torng asked why the SR60 eastbound was not on the list and Mr. Jaeger MARCH 27, 2007 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION explained that during the a.m. peak hour there were 13 project related trips traversing the intersection and during the afternoon peak hour there were 29 project related trips. The SR60 westbound exit would most likely be Grand Avenue versus traveling down to the Brea Canyon off -ramp and backtracking to the project site. When looking at the distribution from the west to the project site the study anticipated that vehicles would use the Grand Avenue interchange versus the Brea Canyon interchange and backtrack to the site. Mr. Jaeger explained that the study was based on standard traffic engineering trip generation rates provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation that contains a wide variety of land uses for which there is empirical data that develops trip rates for each specific land use. In this case, the study used ITE Land Use 720, which is "medical and dental office buildings" and is for the highest peak hour of adjacent street traffic during one hour in the morning and one hour in the afternoon peak periods. C/Lee wanted to know how many patients/visitors will visit this site. Maggie Pierce responded that the study considered only the number of vehicles. There would be no expectation regarding patient numbers. C/Lee felt the projection should be based on the number of patients and visitors ratherthan the number of vehicles. Mr. Jaeger explained that the data reflects a typical medical office building based on a certain square footage that would have a fairly high rate. The study considers vehicular traffic. On a daily basis the forecast is about 818 trips inbound and 818 outbound. The exact number of patients and visitors would be impossible to determine. Maggie Pierce said that the trip generation forecast was based on standard rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Handbook that provides statistics from thousands of site visits throughout the country that are similar to the proposed use. These trip generation rates include employees, doctors, physicians, visitors, patients, deliveries, etc. C/Wei asked for clarification that this project was the first of two phases planned and whether the traffic survey and mitigation program considered two projects or only the current Phase 1. Mr. Jaeger responded that the overall project was considered in terms of developing both Kaiser owned parcels for the total 45,000 square feet. The study was done considering the overall project, and Phase I and Phase II on their own merits. Mr. Jaeger explained to VC/Torng that the applicant agreed to work with staff and the Gateway Group to enhance the corner of Copley and Bridge Gate with landscape. Nancy Burke, Land Use Manager, Kaiser, said that the facility sees about 230 patients per day. MARCH( 27, 2007 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Lee felt that all residents were eager to have the hospital and medical facility in the City. According to him the project will be beneficial especially to children, women and the elderly. C/Nolan did not share VC/Torng's concern about parking because the project met the City's standards and exceeded the standards of the Gateway Corporation. She felt it was interesting that 8000 members reside in the City of Diamond Bar and those members will not be getting on the freeway to go elsewhere and the project would therefore be primarily concerned about traffic entering the City, not leaving it. CDD/Fong reiterated to VC/Torng that staff concurred with the traffic study results. VC/Torng felt it was a good project. VC/Torng moved, C/Wei seconded to approve Development Review No. 2005-32 and Negative Declaration No. 2007-01, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Torng, Wei, Lee, Nolan, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None B. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C[Wei stated that he, C/Nolan, VC/Torng and CDD/Fong attended the League of California Cities Conference. It was a good experience and a lot of good information was discerned. He appreciated the opportunity. C/Lee felt the medical offices would be very beneficial to people — especially to women. He asked staff to expedite the project to every extent possible. VC/Torng said he attended the Planning Commissioner's Institute and thanked staff for providing a good environment for him to learn. The art committee has been inactive and the City needs to have a regulation for that. He felt Kaiser was a good company and they would want to do something to make their area look good. C/Nolan felt the Conference was very, very helpful. She wanted to be more involved in the California League of Cities. MARCH 27, 2007 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION 9. 10. Chair/Nelson said that every Commission needs a "picky" Commissioner who asks questions. He reminded his colleagues that it was not necessary to complete all discussion prior to the motion. Often times a motion can stimulate additional discussion and result in a different outcome. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS. 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Nelson adjourned the regular meeting at 8:25 p.m. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, J w � Na cy Fonf ommVAy Development Director Steve Nelson, Chairman