Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/25/2009MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 2009 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Torng called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chairman Nelson led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners, Kathy Nolan, Jack Shah, Vice Chairman Steve Nelson and Chairman Tony Torng. Absent: Commissioner Kwang Ho Lee was excused Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Katherine Laufenburger, Senior Planner; David Alvarez, Assistant Planner; and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4 CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1.1 Planning Commission Workshop Minutes of July 28, 2009 C/Nolan moved, C/Shah seconded, to approve the Workshop Minutes of July 28, 2009, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Shah, Chair/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Nelson ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Lee 4.1.2 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of July 28, 2009. C/Shah moved, C/Nolan seconded, to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of July 28, 2009, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AUGUST 25, 2009 5 6. 7 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Shah, Chair/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Nelson ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Lee OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: 6.1 General Plan Status Update Report for 2008 AP/Alvarez presented staff's report and recommended that the Planning Commission approve the report and direct staff to submit the report to the City Council to receive and file. VC/Nelson moved, and C/Nolan seconded, to approve the 2008 General Plan Status Report and direct staff to submit the report to the City Council to receive and file. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Shah, VC/Nelson, Chair/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Lee PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05 - Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.58, T.F. Max, Inc_, has submitted a request to operate a foot massage establishment under the business name Relax Station. The proposed establishment will provide foot care services provided by professionally trained technicians. The services proposed include acupressure reflexology and massage. The proposed floor plan includes three (3) treatment areas that have two (2) tables and chairs in each area. The tables would be located inside an area that would be screened with three (3) five foot high partition walls; one side of the area would be open to the hallway. The proposed hours of operation are 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. seven (7) days a week. PROJECT ADDRESS: 1395 Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond bar, CA 91765 AUGUST 25, 2009 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION PROPERTY OWNER: Diamond Gate Properties, LLC Attn: Charley Boo 1411 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: T.F. Max, Inc. 2236 S. San Gabriel Boulevard Rosemead, CA 91770 AP/Laufenburger presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. There were no ex parte disclosures. Chair/Torng opened the public hearing. Calvin, speaking on behalf of the owner, stated that the target clients are office workers and older adults recovering from minor illnesses or injuries. The primary functions of the business are stress relief, improved blood circulation, fine-tuning the body's metabolism and sickness prevention. The service is performed by having the customer sit on a chair and expose the feet only to the technicians who will apply focused pressure using knuckles on certain known reflex points located in the foot. The service will be performed in an open area and folding screens will be used for customer privacy. This business is pollution free, noise free and there are no chemicals used. Foot reflexology is a common practice in various countries of Asia and is a common practice with a long history behind it. C/Nolan asked if the majority of business would be walk-in, insurance and doctor recommendation. Calvin said it would be walk-in business. VC/Nelson asked if the technicians would be licensed. Calvin responded that all technicians hold a license from a reflexology school. C/Shah asked if the owner was required to obtain a state license for this business. Calvin responded yes. The owner has a state license for his business. The individual technicians must also obtain the license individually by applying to the school. Calvin responded to C/Nolan that the school is a AUGUST 25, 2009 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION government school and whoever graduates receives a license approved by the state of California. CDD/Gubman stated that his understanding is that there are accredited massage technician schools and when the City does background checks and issue business licenses staff looks for certificates from accredited schools as well as sufficient hours of practice. There has been legislation within the past year to help the massage therapy industry because massage therapy as a category has a fringe element that tarnishes the reputation of the reputable practitioners. Unless the current budget problems delay it, there will be a state organization that issues certificates for massage therapy. If certified, massage businesses and technicians would no longer be required to go through City's background checks and/or the Conditional Use process. C/Nolan asked for clarification that the City actually performs the background checks for specific employees but the business is responsible for qualifications of individual technicians and not just the business. CDD/Gubman said C/Nolan was correct. The City contracts with the Sheriff's Department to conduct criminal background checks on the technicians and the business owners. Even though the Conditional Use permit runs with the land and the business can be sold to successors, new owners and technicians must go through individual background checks. Chair/Torng closed the public hearing. C/Nolan moved, VC/Nelson seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Shah, VC/Nelson, Chair/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Lee 7.2 Development Review No. 2006-39 and Tree Permit No. 2006-09 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, 22.54, and 22.38, the applicant requested approval to demolish an existing 3,950 square foot residence and construct a new 13,627 square -foot single-family residence on a one acre, Rural Residential (RR) zoned parcel of land with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation. In addition, a Tree AUGUST 25, 2009 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION Permit is requested to remove a total of nine (9) protected trees and replace them at a 3:1 ratio. The trees to be removed include eight (8) black walnuts and one (1) willow tree. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: 2461 Indian Creek Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Pajnit and Jagat Walia 2461 Indian Creek Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Pete Volbeda 180 Benson Avenue, Suite D Upland, CA 91786 AP/Alvarez presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2006-39 and Tree Permit No. 2006-09, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Nolan asked for clarification of VC/Nelson's concern about replacement trees. PT/Alvarez responded that nine protected trees will be removed and 27 trees to be planted, six of which will be in a 24 -inch box, six of which will be black walnut and the rest will be the same protected species as those removed. C/Shah commented that the old footprint was much smaller and the new footprint is 13,000. Is there any discretion on how the applicant will maintain the storm water within the site? PT/Alvarez responded that the existing residence is 3,959 square feet and the new residence will be 13,000. The new footprint is 9,298 square feet which will include a detached garage, patio, patio cover, gazebo, etc. CDD/Gubman responded to C/Shah that there are stringent NPDES requirements for storm water retention on the site and for storm water practices. Through the plan check process the Public Works Department will verify compliance prior to the issuance of permits. Prior to issuance of a CO (Certificate of Occupancy), the temporary storm water retention improvements would need to be removed and the permanent improvements would need to be in place and demonstrated to be operational. With residential development, staff looks to direct the storm water runoff from the roof toward landscape areas to a certain percentage. There is a certain amount of storm water that needs to be retained on site AUGUST 25, 2009 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION and infiltrated into the ground. There are limits as to how much storm water/runoff can actually be released into the public storm drain system. Pete Volbeda, architect, said he was pleased to present this project to the Planning Commission. He had an early review from an arborist who recommended a 2:1 replacement because "the 3:1 replacement planting plan is more than the property needs and I recommend a 2:1 replacement for proper growth and to avoid overcrowding of tree canopies as trees mature." Walnut trees can grow quite large and if all 27 walnut trees are planted the arborist says they will not grow to full mature trees because they will crowd each other. Mr. Volbeda said he did not mind planting 27 trees but it might be better to plant some other species such as oak if 27 are required. Perhaps this can be worked out with staff. VC/Nelson said he was not inclined to let the applicant away from the 3:1 ratio. He heard the concerns about overcrowding on site and would like to see that demonstrated. However, he is not sure staff has the ability to determine whether an overcrowding of walnuts would occur. If the site would not permit the 3:1 replacement on site, there are off-site replacement ratios as well, which are essentially costs that go into a fund to plant street trees and that would be the direction if 3:1 is impracticable on site. Of course, the City would not want to create an unsuccessful replacement program and would rather have the extra trees in a park or on the street. He said the Commission would defer further discussion about how to resolve this matter and entertain not necessarily putting all of the trees on site but not consider reducing the 3:1 ratio requirement to 2:1. Mr. Volbeda said that he agreed with VC/Nelson. CDD/Gubman confirmed that if the site is too constrained to accommodate full replacement ratio the City would accept in -lieu dedication of the trees either through contribution to the Community Services Park Development fund or to the Street Tree fund to satisfy the code requirement. ChairfTorng opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Torng closed the public hearing. C/Shah moved, C/Nolan seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2006-39 and Tree Permit No. 2006-09 subject to amendment of Condition No. 6 as recommended by VC/Nelson to wit: Trees will be AUGUST 25, 2009 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION 8. 9. replaced at a 3:1 on-site or off-site or in the form of in lieu fees and that at least six 24 -inch box trees and at least six 15 -gal black walnut trees shall be planted on-site, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Shah, VC/Nelson, Chair/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Lee PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Gubman advised the Commission that the 45 -day public comment period for the Site D Draft EIR concluded on August 10, On August 3 staff held a neighborhood forum to give residents an opportunity to ask questions and submit their comments orally. Staff collected about 24 comments. Overwhelmingly, the comments were opposed to a commercial component, to the Site Specific Plan, preference for other alternatives, etc. Before staff prepares the final EIR the City will meet with the Executive Staff of the Walnut Valley Unified School District to debrief on the comments received, and discuss whether to move the project forward as is or modified to some degree. He would not anticipate bringing a final EIR and public hearings to the Commission prior to the start of the next year. C/Nolan asked if the Commission would have another workshop to consider the public feedback. CDD/Gubman felt it was a good idea but that staff needed to meet with the school district to determine their objectives. Chair/Torng said he agreed with the Specific Plan for Site D and he believed the City needed to plan for a very enticing anchor market. Otherwise, it could be a bad project. CDD/Gubman said he believed the context in which Diamond Bar finds itself today is quite a bit different from the time that the MOU was crafted with the school district and the initial land use plan was conceptualized. He had a feeling that the City needed to look at how the times have changed rather AUGUST 25, 2009 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION drastically with the NFL stadium and other issues as to the wisest stewardship of this property. CDD/Gubman responded to Chair/Torng that there is little news regarding the stadium. Staff is aware that the developer is involved in two lawsuits with the City of Walnut and with a private group led by Walnut residents. He said he understood that Majestic would have a public meeting in the near future and he will advise the Commission whether that information is accurate and would provide a time and place. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Torng adjourned the regular meeting at 7:40 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 22nd day of September, 2009. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director y Torng, Chair