Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/11/2010MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 113 2010 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Torng 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, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: C/Nelson led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Steve Nelson, Jack Shah, Vice Chairman Kathy Nolan, and Chairman Tony Torng. Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Brad Wohlenberg, Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Natalie Tobon, Planning Technician; David Alvarez, Assistant Planner; and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. Consultants: Mark Rogers, TRG Land; and Peter Lewandowski, Environmental Impact Sciences. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 27, 2010. C/Shah moved, VC/Nolan seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 13, 2010, as corrected. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Lee, Shah, VC/Nolan, Chair/Torng None Nelson None 7.1 Comprehensive Sign Program No. PL 2010-30 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.36.060, the applicant requested approval for a Comprehensive Sign Program for Firestone. The lot is zoned Regional MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION Commercial (C-3) zoned parcel with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of General Commercial (c). Comprehensive Sign Programs are requested when two or more signs are requested on the same frontage. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT: 1150 S. Grand Avenue Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Bridgestone Retail Operations 333 E. Lake Street Bloomingdale, IL 60108 Sharon Willison Williams Sign Company 111 S. Huntington Street Pomona, CA 91766 PT/Tobon presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Comprehensive Sign Program No. PL2010-30, base on the Findings of Fact, subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. There were no ex parte disclosures. Chair/Torng opened the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to speak on this item. Chair/Torng closed the public hearing. VC/Nolan moved, C/Shah seconded, to approve Comprehensive Sign Program No. PL2010-30, base 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: Lee, Nelson, Shah, VC/Nolan, Chair/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7.2 Conditional Use Permit No. PL2010-89 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.58, James Kim submitted a request to operate a music and art school under the business name Orchepia School of Music. The proposed music and art school will provide music lessons to school age children and young adults. The proposed hours of operation are from 2:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturday. The subject property is zoned C-2 (General Commercial) with an underlying General Plan designation of MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION General Commercial. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required to operate a music school. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2751 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard, Suite A Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Country Hills Holdings LLC 8115 Preston Road #400 Dallas, TX 75225 APPLICANT: James Kim 21700 Copley Drive, Suite 290 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 SP/Lee presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. PL2010-89, based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. C/Shah asked if the applicant intended to rent the hall for other uses or was it intended strictly for their own use and SP/Lee said she believed it was intended strictly for use by the music and art school but she would ask the applicant to clarify that point. C/Shah said if the hall was rented out he would be concerned about the time and the one door ingress/egress at the side of the hall. C/Nelson asked why the school was restricted to 65 students. SP/Lee responded that there are 29 individual classrooms and the number of students is related to the parking, traffic impacts and capacity. She confirmed to C/Nelson that there is surplus parking. C/Nelson asked why the City would restrict a business that is coming into an area that has been vacant for years. SP/Lee stated that part of the analysis includes a new office building at the north end of the shopping center which was submitted to the Planning Department today for consideration, all of which has to do with the parking and traffic impacts of the shopping center. CDD/Gubman further stated that the applicant proposed that a maximum of 60 students was anticipated at any one time. Staff normally places restrictions on the maximum enrollment, hours of operation, days of the week, etc. Staff also wanted to provide some flexibility should there be an increase in enrollment because staff did not feel it should limit enrollment so tightly that if there might be 61 students for example, they would have to come back and request an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. In this instance, staff's intent was to create a bit of a cushion for the business to exceed their 60 student peak enrollment at any one time without having to seek a modified approval. Certainly, if the Planning Commission feels the cushion is insufficient the parking analysis would allow for more of a cushion. However, he believes that there should be some sort of a cap set during this process. The 65 number was arrived at by adding a 10 percent MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION contingency. Any other number the Commission would like to discuss can certainly be brought forward for consideration. VC/Nolan asked forthe building occupancy limit and CDD/Gubman responded that would be determined by the Building Official. CDD/Gubman said VC/Nolan would have to ask the applicant how that number was reached but certainly they would have done a preliminary building code analysis to determine exits and what kind of improvements would have to be included in the tenant improvements to accommodate this occupancy. C/Nelson asked how many parking places the proposed north end office building would require and SP/Lee responded that staff had not yet analyzed that since the application was submitted only today. The building is proposed to be a three-story office building but she does not have the actual square footage figures. C/Nelson said he was concerned about restricting an existing use because of the potential for future uses and while he thinks it is good to plan ahead he would prefer to know what the future needs might because it might reveal that the Commission could increase the opportunity for the operations in -hand. SP/Lee confirmed to C/Nelson that if the applicant experiences problems they have a condition that allows them to come back for a possible increase. C/Nelson asked if the Commission were to increase the number of students and it became a problem, j the applicant could come back for reconsideration as a condition of this approval and SP/Lee confirmed that was accurate. C/Lee said he was not comfortable with children and young adults occupying the same space without supervision. He wanted to know what age and what kind of people. SP/Lee referred C/Lee to the applicant to answer the question. Chair/Torng said he recalled that the Commission approved a three-story office building for the south end and a two-story office building for the north end and wanted to know if the 158,922 square feet included the previous approval and CDD/Gubman responded that the square footage includes the most recent entitlement and accounts for the approved replacement for the theater building and cancellation of the medical building at the south end as well as the remodel of the Tai Kwando in-line shops building and the daycare building. SP/Lee responded to Chair/Torng that the north end office building square footage is included in the entitlement. Chair/Torng asked if there would be a large crowd for recitals and wanted to know the capacity for the recital hall. Staff suggested that the applicant respond to that question. There were no ex parte disclosures. Chair/Torng invited the applicant to speak. MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION Bob Poyner, Country Hills Holdings LLC, stated that the recital room is for the applicant's use only and not for rental. The recital facility has room for 150 seats. Recitals take place twice a year and take place on the weekend. The interior drawing showing the doors is their preliminary plan and obviously, the property owner must complete construction drawings and go through the City's Building Department with respect to proper ingress/egress and signage interior to the space. The drawing submitted to the Commission this evening is a concept drawing. The age of the children and young adults, this facility is for elementary, middle and high school children. The 65 number was based on the rooms — a guess by the client. The 65 is acceptable for this approval based on the assumption that if the applicant required more capacity they could come back to request an increase from the Commission subject to traffic and parking considerations. C/Shah asked if the applicant means a maximum 65 students at any one time and Mr. Poyner responded yes. VC/Nolan asked for confirmation that the overall enrollment was greater than 65 and Mr. Poyner responded "yes." C/Nelson said that if Mr. Poyner wants 65, he gets 65. What he was thinking about was cuts to the public school music programs and where students will go. Chair/Torng asked Mr. Poyner if he read staff's report and concurred with the Conditions of Approval and Mr. Poyner responded affirmatively. Chair/Torng opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Torng closed the public hearing. CDD/Gubman requested that the Commission amend Condition No. 6 (future reviews) as follows: "Once the music school is in operation and should traffic and/or parking problems arise in the sole judgment of the City, the applicant shall provide parking management services to ease traffic flow and congestion, etc." C/Lee moved, C/Shaw seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. PL2010-89 as amended by staff. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nelson, Shah, VC/Nolan, Chair/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION 7.3 Development Review and Variance No. PL2010-17 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, the applicant requested approval to construct a 6,352 square foot new single family residence on a 48,252 net square foot (1.11 net acres), Rural Residential (RR) zoned parcel with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Rural Residential (RR). Variances are requested to allow the building height to be increased from 35 feet to 40 feet 7 inches, and a driveway extension to provide for access to the front door and allow adequate turning radius for fire trucks as required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: 2718 Steeplechase Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Terry and Rachel Hao 60 Seasons Irvine, CA 92603 Jack Mitchell JWM Construction 2902 Calle Heraldo San Clemente, CA 92673 SP/Lee presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review and Variance No. PL2010-17, based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. VC/Nolan asked staff to elaborate on the design of the metal roof with a large pitch and whether it would present a nuisance to other neighbors. SP/Lee explained that the roof is sloped and if the applicant were to design the project to meet the building height it is possible that there would not be a sloped roof that is usually typical in very modern contemporary designs. In terms of impact to adjacent properties, again, the building is set back behind the two adjacent homes. VC/Nolan wanted to know what a metal roof would look like. SP/Lee said it was an actual metal roof instead of a clay the or shingles. C/Shah wanted to make sure that the fire department had approved the roadway system all the way to the building because he questioned the 15 percent grade. Also, he looked at the color rendering and the building is mostly a modern looking building. SP/Lee said she did not believe the color printer justified the actual colors that were submitted on the color board. The paint colors are beige tones. With respect to the LA County Fire Department, the applicant submitted plans to the LA County Fire Department which reviewed and approved the conceptual plan and the applicant is in building plan checked at their own risk prior to getting Commission approval. The applicant has further comment from the fire department MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION for which he can elaborate. CDD/Gubman said the driveway configuration has a switchback design to reduce the grade from what a straight line would create. In addition, the turnaround area was incorporated into the site plan at the front door after consultation with the fire department. So, the applicant has done some due diligence in that regard and still has to go through the formal plan check process. However, the applicant attempted to come up with a design that reduces the driveway grade given the steep slope front to back on this property. C/Shah said that the plan indicates a 15 percent grade which is clearly a difficult grade. As long as the fire department approves it he is okay with it. CDD/Gubman indicated that 15 percent is the maximum grade that they would accept and there needs to be a rounding off at the brow to keep the vehicle from bottoming out. The applicant is attempting to work with the property as best they can. C/Shah asked if there would be cut and fill and CDD/Gubman responded that about 600 cubic yards of export. C/Shah asked if there was any way the cut .and fill could be balanced within the site because 600 yards could easily be used on the graded south side. CDD/Gubman said that would be a good question for the applicant. C/Nelson asked why the City's development standards restricted height to 35 feet. CDD/Gubman said that it seems that if one looks into any zoning code 35 feet is the default height limit. C/Nelson felt that if the Commission did not understand the reason for the standard how can it meaningfully determine whether a five foot seven inch variance would be acceptable. How many variances has the City granted to building heights for residential structures in the past three years, for example, and how many more requests will the City get in the future. He does not think the City should grant a variance without a good and consistent reason moving forward. If the City cannot define why it has a standard of 35 feet why does the City have any standard? SP/Lee said in an attempt to respond to why the code is 35 feet the rural residential zone for the City is predominately permitted single family detached homes which is the maximum height for those types of homes. C/Nelson said, so why are we allowing five feet seven inches on this one if most houses are 35 feet? SP/Lee responded that because this property has unique characteristics such as a steep slope and unusual topography that justifies a variance. C/Nelson said "we've had steep slopes in the past without having to grant variances for height — am I right?" CDD/Gubman responded "that is true." C/Nelson said it was perhaps a question for the architect and he did not mean to put anyone on the spot but wanted to be very careful about the variances the City is granting going forward. CDD/Gubman said that the elevations for the property show compound slopes in terms of having an ascending slope from the street and then a lateral slope that warps the property in a unique way. All properties obviously have some unique topographic characteristics. The ones that characterize this property are the steep ascending slope and the side to side slope as well. And architecturally, what the applicant attempted to do was slope the roof to follow the side to side slope but in the design challenge to take into account the varying topographic elevations, there is a small wedge — portion that does hook up above the 35 foot envelope. MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Shah felt the floor heights were standard heights and that it was the architectural feature that raises the height beyond 35 feet. In viewing the section on drawing A 1.9 section (a) it clearly depicts why the height exceeded 35 feet. Chair/Torng asked if the retaining wall met the six foot height requirement and SP/Lee responded affirmatively. There were no ex parte disclosures. John Danielian, Danielian Associates, 60 Corporate Park, Irvine, and Jack Mitchell, JWM Construction responded to Commissioner's questions. Mr. Danielian responded to C/Shah that with respect to slope of the roof, the site slopes from north to south and the envelope of the home is within the 35 feet of the natural grade. When measuring the five additional feet, it is artificially taken from the new established finished grade. So when designing the home, they stayed within the natural grade. With regard to why the roof is sloping, the attempt is to mimic and follow the contours of the site i.e. responding to the site conditions. C/Shah asked the applicant to speak to the grade of the entrance ramp and the color of the building. Mr. Danielian responded that prior to commencing the project he met with the fire department to discuss critical issues. This is a very difficult site with a 29 % percent slope and they attempted to minimize the steepness of the driveway. The fire department required the project to be no more than 15 percent and 14 feet in width and that is what is pictured in the design of the driveway. Anything over 15 percent is unacceptable. The turnaround space was also required by the fire department and the architects/applicants have been working closely with the fire department since day one. And since that time the applicant has submitted plans at will and at the architect's own risk and have received comments back, one of which was to confirm that there was an appropriate turning radius at the top (of the driveway). The rest of the fire department comments addressed minor structural issues. In addition, the pool water will be used for emergency water as needed. C/Shah asked why the applicant was unable to balance the site without exporting dirt. Mr. Danielian said they did everything they could to balance the site. Unfortunately, because there is a basement it requires removing a lot of soil from the site but they are doing everything possible to distribute the dirt throughout the site and help with the driveway grade. CDD/Gubman responded to C/Nelson that the 35 foot requirement is from "finished" grade. As the architect stated, the natural grade was at a higher elevation than the finished grade so the visual impact of the overall building height is mitigated to a certain extent by the fact that the pad is being lowered so that the MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION effective height when viewed from Steeplechase which is at a fixed grade, would be mitigated by that feature of the development. C/Nelson said he would suggest the Commission keep that in mind for the future. VC/Nolan asked when the Hillside Management Ordinance was put in place and whether it was put in place because of the conditions where people are building more on the hillsides because of less area. And was the 35 foot limit in place prior to that ordinance. CDD/Gubman responded that the Hillside Ordinance was developed out of consideration for Diamond Bar and its topography and there is a need wherever a jurisdiction is in a hillside situation or with this type of topography to avoid some of the mass grading for steep roadway design that occurred in hillside developments in the 60s and 70s where development occurred directly on ridgelines and was destroying the natural features. The Hillside Development Standards are an effort to require homes and development overall to be designed to fit the overall topography rather than altering the topography to fit the development. SP/Lee stated the Hillside Management Development Standards were adopted in 1998. CDD/Gubman responded to VC/Nolan that the 35 foot height limitation is in all of the residential zones so the height limit for the hillside district is overlayed on this additional concept of the building height envelope that is determined by some diagrams in the Hillside Development Standards where one creates height envelopes from site property lines and from the grade from the front to the back of the property. SP/Lee said the 35 foot height limit requirement was also included in the Hillside Standards. C/Shah asked how many truckloads of dirt would be required to export the 600 cubic yards of export and Mr. Mitchell responded that due to the site he would have to bring in smaller trucks to accommodate the shared driveway for about 100 trips of six to seven yards per truck. The dirt will be hauled to the landfill just off the SR60. He plans to remove the dirt in a slow and methodical manner so as to present as little interruption as possible to the neighborhood. When he first looked at the site dirt export was his initial concern. As a result, he designed retaining walls for an earth retention system that uses modular blocks and uses the onsite materials that are reprocessed and re -compacted onsite. Mr. Danielian responded to Chair/Torng that he read staffs report and concurs with the conditions of approval. Chair/Torng opened the public hearing. Victor Natividad, 2730 Steeplechase Lane, said he was not present to object but was, in fact, pleased to welcome a new neighbor. He had concerns about the shared access road that is sitting on a steep slope and over 100 truckloads of dirt will be moved across the shared access road that proceeds through six lots. This access road is owned by the land owners and it is not maintained by "The Country Estates" which is unfortunate because the road is in very, very bad condition. With MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION the exception of Lot 52 which is partially paved with concrete and asphalt and Lot 55 which is paved with concrete, the rest of the roadway is in very poor condition. The concrete on his lot is only four inches thick and in 2005 during the paving the waterline broke because it was not buried deep and also because of the heavy load. Informally, he mentioned this fact to Jack Mitchell on May 6 and suggested that a metal plate be placed on top of the concrete to protect the water and sewer lines and Mr. Mitchell assured him there should be no issue. Second, he was not sure how the concrete would handle the truckloads and whether there would be damage to the access road. If large cracks result from hauling the dirt he would like to have the damage repaired as soon as possible before it developed into a bigger problem. The downside of living in the area is the hill erosion from the access road. He found the mitigation to be very expensive and the damage was not covered by insurance. Fortunately, he was able to secure access through other lots 56 and 57 to his house. He is requesting that any big cracks be repaired at once. It becomes worrisome when the construction coincides with the rainy season. He is sure there will be minor cracks which can be repaired later and he is willing to share that with his neighbor. Third, he accesses his property from the south end of Steeplechase from lot 57 through 56 and the up to his lot 55. It is in extremely poor condition and because there are no houses on lots 57 and 56 it continues to deteriorate because the absentee owners do not want to pave the road. If there are any potholes, he would implore the Commission to have them fixed before any hillside erosion occurs again. Chair/Torng closed the public hearing. SP/Lee asked for the applicant to comment on sharing the costs of improvements should there be damage to the concrete portion of the access road. Mr. Mitchell stated that it is implied that damage done by construction activities are the responsibility of the applicant. With respect to a steel plate, it is generally conditioned on any larger grading job that he is required to have a "shaker plate," a 3/ inch steel plate with ridges on it that shakes the dirt off the tires of the equipment as it leaves the site and comes onto the site. He said he would place the steel plate on top of Mr. Natividad's plumbing and he will take photographs and if any condition worsens of course he would rectify it. With regard to the asphalt road in front of his client's property, it might as well be a gravel road because it has pretty much deteriorated to the point that it is almost non-existent and obviously, that will have to be rectified and the project has budgeted for the inevitability. The only issues are that "The Country Estates Homeowners Association" is resistant on the use of asphalt; however, there is asphalt in place at this time so that is an issue that must be addressed with the HOA. All of the paving surfaces would have to be left in good condition when they are finished. With regard to Mr. Natividad's pipes being shallow, he would hope that the steel plate would mitigate that but if they are shallow and something happens they have to be fixed in the normal course of business. MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Gubman explained that the access from Steeplechase to these properties has to be traversable and for this project to get through the fire department plan check process the applicants will have to demonstrate that the roadway is going to be surfaced to accommodate emergency vehicles. With respect to damage to the private drive and potential damage to water lines, this is a private property and reciprocally used, owned and accessed between private property owners so the City would not impose any requirements in this regard. This is a civil matter that would need to be dealt with in that venue should there be any claims or damage caused by this construction project. VC/Nolan asked the length of the access road and Mr. Mitchell responded he believed it was 500 to 600 feet traversing five or six lots. There are sections that are in very poor repair. For his fire department requirements he has to maintain emergency access at all times during combustible construction. There are rules and responsibilities that other agencies have that are standards and if one causes damage it has to be repaired. C/Shah said he believed the architect could design the lot by balancing the dirt onsite rather than having dirt exported. C/Lee was confident that the applicant knew what he was doing and the City has full enforcement authority to take care of those concerns. C/Lee moved, VC/Nolan seconded, to approve Development Review and Variance No. PL2010-17, 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: NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS 8. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: Lee, Nelson, VC/Nolan, Chair/Torng Shah None 8.1 Site "D" Specific Plan — Pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act; Title 21 — City's Subdivision Ordinance; and Title 22 — Development Code Sections 22.60 and 22.70, the proposed project is to recommend approval of the following to the City Council. General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03 — A request to change the land use designations from Public Facility (PF) and General Commercial (C-1) to Specific Plan (SP). MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION Zone Change No. 2007-04 — A request to change the zoning districts from Low Density Residential (RL) and Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Specific Plan (SP). Specific Plan No. 2007-01 — a Request to adopt the Site D Specific Plan for approximately 30.36 -acre site for the construction of 202 residential dwelling units at a density of 20 units per acre; 153,985 gross square feet of commercial use at 0.35 floor area ratio; and approximately 10 acres of Open Space areas, easements and rights-of-way. Tentative Tract Map No. 70687 — A request to establish separate residential, commercial, and open space parcels; create an internal circulation system and common open space areas; and establish easements and other rights-of-way for utility and other purposes. Environmental Impact Report No. 2007-02 — A request to certify the final EIR which provides a detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the development of the Specific Plan area. The EIR includes mitigation measures for the project, addresses project alternatives, identifies the environmentally superior project alternative, and adopts a statement of overriding considerations. (Continued from April 27, 2010) Project Address: Site comprised of approximately 30.36 -acres located at the southeast corner of Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard (Los Angeles County Assessor's Parcel Numbers 8714-002-900, 8714-002-901, 8714-002-902, 8714-002,093, and 8714-015-001.) Applicant: Walnut Valley Unified School District and City of Diamond Bar Lead Agency: City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department C/Nelson recused himself and left the dais and the meeting. Chair/Torng explained the Commission's direction on this item and announced that in addition to the agenda packet the Commission also received a letter from Mary Rodriquez and an email from David Busse he requested be placed in the public record. CDD/Gubman stated that on April 27 there was intent to recommend certification of the MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Impact Report and adoption of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. There was general support for the Specific Plan, but there was a lack of consensus about how to craft the recommendation pertaining to the incorporation of a park element on this site. The three supporting Commissioners expressed a desire to have some requirement for a park or public space as part of this project but continued the matter to allow staff to conduct further research and to come back to the Commission with its recommendation. Staff is ready to present information to help the Commission make its decision this evening. CDD/Gubman further stated that what staff heard from the Commission were two different concepts discussed. One was a dedication of a traditional public park as a standalone feature on this site. The second concept staff heard was the integration of one or more public spaces into the future commercial development comprised of some minimum acreage that would incorporate amenities such as tot lot, shade structure, picnic table, features thatwould be found in a traditional park but more integrated into the commercial development. Tonight's presentation is in two parts, the first of which he will present to the Commission using a PowerPoint presentation that depicts an overview of parks in the City of different sizes to help the Commissioners visualize what one and two acres and different sizes and palettes of amenities that parks of different sizes could accommodate. This presentation will be followed by a discussion of the public space option for the commercial development by Mark Rogers who will present an interactive design exercise to help the Commission consider that option as well. CDD/Gubman first presented an overview of seven City parks that are within the size range discussed at the last meeting. These parks range in size from .3 acres (16,000 square feet) to about 3.4 acres. Staff will then show graphics of polygons that will give the Commissioners an idea of how those different sized parks would compare to the footprint of Site D. The staff report calls out acreages in the table and when staff went through the actual graphic verification of park sizes more exact acreages were determined. CDD/Gubman first presented the approved construction plan for the new Washington Street Park at the intersection of Washington and Lincoln Streets. This .3 acre site has a tot lot, open green space, gazebo, five picnic tables, three benches and a walkway. This park is a neighborhood park and does not accommodate off-street parking. This park is intended to serve the neighborhood and visitors would have to park on the street. The next larger park is Longview Park South which was about .83 developed acres and has planned for it a basketball court, turf volleyball court, tot lot, two picnic tables and a barbecue. Stardust Park is .98 acres and features a tot lot, open green space, two benches and a paved walking trail. Longview Park North is .99 acres with .8 acres improved. There is a grove/grouping of vegetation at the rear portion of the site that reduces the usable acreage. This park includes a tot lot, open green, two benches and a paved walking trail. Summitridge Mini Park (down slope from the Diamond Bar Center) is about 1.27 acres and is entirely passive green space. Starshine Park is 1.66 acres and includes tot lot, open green space, two picnic tables, two benches, a barbecue and a MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION concrete walkway. Heritage Park is about 3.4 acres and includes a 1.5 acre softball field, tot lot, open green space, a recreation building, five picnic tables, three barbecues and a concrete walkway. He showed a diagram of the overview of the parks to scale so that the Commissioners could get a better idea of what they would look like on Site D. He overlayed the polygons onto the diagram to give the Commissioners an idea of the relative size of that park within Site D. C/Lee asked if there was a general standard or formula for a park size with respect to population or households. He thought the inclusion of small sites was irrelevant to Site D without having a formula to guide them. Where is the formula or general understanding for the standard for park sizes and population ratio? CDD/Gubman said he did not have that information for C/Lee but there is a standard amount of recreation space per capita or per 1,000 persons. He does not have that information because that is not what was requested for this evening's meeting. The direction staff was given was to provide options for a park or open space area so that is the focus of this presentation. C/Lee said he understood but what he wants to know is there a standard size or shape that should have a certain foundation and why did staff bring in the small size parks and how was it appropriate for this project. Without a general understanding about size and population ratio and park size it is very difficult to understand. CDD/Gubman said the reason he is showing these parks is because there was a menu of amenities the Commission asked for, and needed a better understanding of the acreage needed to accommodate them. VC/Nolan said that staff brought back to the Planning Commission a good visual and it helps to see the possible locations for the park. C/Shah said that this park could be in one of those green areas shown on the drawing where the trees are shown and the roads can go around it. CDD/Gubman said he would say it that it can be adjacent to those green areas. A lot of those green areas are slopes so it will give some visual contiguity if the park is abutted against those green areas. C/Shah said it could be part and parcel of the overall development. CDD/Gubman agreed. C/Shah asked the area of the commercial portion of the project and CDD/Gubman responded 10.1 acres, about three times the size of Heritage Park. C/Lee asked if there were a certain number of people that could use a certain sized park. For example, Washington Park is 0.8 acre — how many people can it accommodate. CDD/Gubman said he did not have that information. C/Lee said that there should be a certain standard to build a park - a park based on the population of neighbors. CDD/Gubman reiterated that he did not have that information available. VC/Nolan asked at what point does a park need its own parking lot. There are pocket parks that are less than half an acre and to provide guesstimation of how large would a MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION park be before it needs its own dedicated parking or parking that would be inclusive of the commercial lot. CDD/Gubman said it would depend on context. A neighborhood park is going to use neighborhood streets for parking or it is going to be accessed by pedestrians in the immediate vicinity. This park given its adjacency to an arterial and potentially not being within a neighborhood, it is going to need to rely on the off street parking provided by the shopping center. Mark Rodgers took the podium and explained to the Commission that he would lead them through an interactive sketch exercise to illustrate concepts of how usable public spaces could be integrated into a commercial shopping center environment. He then proceeded, using the auditorium's overhead projection system, to sketch diagrams onto Site D base maps to show different ways buildings and public plazas could be configured on the commercial portion of the site. VC/Nolan said she appreciated all of the presentations. It really puts a name to the face. VC/Nolan said that she visited a number of parks in the area. She visited both Longview Parks, Stardust Park, Starshine Park, Washington Park and other parks outside of the area. The smaller parks in residential areas did not fit what she envisions. The parks that she visited today were basically used by residents within those few blocks. Of all of those parks she visited there wasn't one person at any of them and it was during after school hours. She envisions something that is for the community. Something that can be used by everyone. She said they talked about this being the gateway to Diamond Bar and she would like to see something that is visual. V/C Nolan said that she liked how it is incorporated with residential. She said that a park area less than an acre and a half would not be worth the effort to include in the project. She envisions more than a pocket park, although, pocket parks serve a great purpose — no discredit to them, however, they look like two lots that were planted with grass to make it look like a playground — they do serve a purpose for that immediate neighborhood, however, she does not see a pocket park being right for this kind of environment. Before the April meeting she visited a number of parks that she shared with Mr. Gubman and a number of them even had dog parks. When we talk about the social aspect of these park like areas, they were hugely populated, they were very nice environments that did bring those communities, e.g., elderly and young, together throughout the day. V/C Nolan said that she did not care for the park area being in the residential area. She wants to see this as something that can be used by the community at large. C/Shah said he thought it was a good presentation. If there is a park in one area it's a question of maintaining it and who is going to maintain it. If it becomes part of the public, then the property owner is going to say why am I paying for it. He always believes in rewarding designs. Frank Gehry is a famous architect known throughout the world. He has created these kind of spaces. He said that he has created at mass transit stations where it becomes a living and breathing space for the towns. He said that he sees that vision here that instead of identifying one area, the space should flow — there should be green, there should be areas where people can go and sit and in the commercial area that is best utilized for the people who are coming for shopping, who are visiting, going to MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 16 PLANNING COMMISSION the restaurant, etc. In the residential area where the other two areas are proposed maybe it can be combined with the water quality management areas and where the slopes are combined with it so it becomes a larger area where the local community—the people living there - can use it. Providing a park for the entire City is the City's responsibility, not this property owner's responsibility. He said that he would like to see that this property owner maintain a park for their own use and in the commercial let it split out throughout the commercial area. For residential, maybe we can identify a third of an acre in each lot and whatever way the designer designs it along with the other green spaces. In the commercial area maybe a third of an acre or whatever we decide which could be spread around and make it a nice architectural feature for the people who come to shop in that area. It could be a mixture where we do not dictate a location orwe dictate an area where the future designer designs and comes back to the Commission and at that time the Commission again reviews it and then see whether it fits into the environment in which it is designed because we don't know the current environment of the future design. We assume so many things. Why assume? Wait. Identify the need and wait for the design. C/Lee said he thinks the park is the main point of our discussion but mainly he'd like to give his comment regarding the Site D plan. First of all, we always encourage people to participate in the meeting and ask them to give us input but somehow after we finish extensive talking and discussions he does not see any reflection of the residents' ideas and input. Somehow that is not the recommended way to do the public meeting. Secondly, this site project is seeking a zone change from low density to the Specific Plan and the Specific Plan includes a density of 20 units per acre. When you see the surrounding area most houses are 6,000 to 12,000 square feet but compared to the numbers in this one that size asks us for about five times more high density zone change and he does not think that is appropriate. Also, there is an H -Mart shopping center across from Site D and a lot of business owners came to a higher rent rate before the renovation and now Site D project asks us to give approval for 150,000 square foot commercial area and there will be two major shopping centers that will compete with each other. He has visited the H -Mart shopping center and sees many small businesses that have closed and several ownerships have been changed. They are suffering from the economy and the higher rent and then we place another shopping center within distance and small business owners will suffer more and possibly we will see more empty spaces in the future. He said that this did not make sense at all. C/Lee said that if we must develop Site D then he believes that we need to develop single-family residences or combine the single-family and high density. The commercial site doesn't make sense at all to him. VC/Nolan said that adding a park to the commercial area does reflect the concerns of the community. They want to keep this space green. It doesn't look like to some extent that's not going to happen, but it does reflect that concern. She said that by reducing the commercial to a small extent does alleviate it being just this huge commercial lot. She does like the idea of the urban park -like setting for the use of the commercial, for the use of the residents in regard to restaurant and like outdoor seating. VC/Nolan exampled MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 17 PLANNING COMMISSION Downtown Brea Birch Street. But she does think this does serve the purpose for the neighborhood. Making the commercial area smaller, and incorporating a park into this area can tie in very well with the commercial use - building a path — making it a trail where it is marked off for size, for distance, for walking, for exercise, and incorporating that with the residential, with the commercial and with the park. Chair/Torng, in response to C/Lee's comments that we do not reflect the community's comments stated the Commission has gone through this process based on a legal process that staff explained during the last meeting with respect to working through the entire process overtime with public meetings, and public hearings. On April 27 staff responded to all of the questions from residents. After the Commissioners heard all of the input and staffs responses the Commission decided at the last meeting that itwanted more information regarding a park in the proposed project. All proper protocol has been followed and the Commission has considered the project on its merits in a legal manner. Chair/Torng thanked staff for their presentation that helped the Commission to better understand how a park of different sizes would impact the commercial and residential areas. He understands that parks are maintained by the City and that would mean additional costs to the City. He concurred with C/Shah that the "park" space be more integrated public space. He also liked Mr. Roger's suggestion of a trail from the residential area through the center of the commercial site to the corner of the Diamond Bar entrance and also at the corner of Cherrydale, if the Commission were decide to add one third of an acre, and take one third of an acre on to that corner. He said that he discussed with CDD/Gubman a third option. We may want o keep the options open for the B level plan by allowing that future developments must choose between the two options instead of force choosing one option at this time. At the plan level B the builder would have to come back to the Commission with a more detailed plan. At this time, the Planning Commission could consider the minimum acreage it would want to put into either a park or integrated space. That's something we might want to consider now. And if we cannot make a decision regarding a park or integrated space — option one and two, the Commission could consider the third option. He asked CDD/Gubman to confirm the third option. CDD/Gubman explained that staff provided two options in its report and the Commission could come up with a third option that is a synthesis of those two to be proposed at the B level. C/Shah said he felt Chair/Torng was on the right track. He wanted to make the point that the Commission may want to identify the commercial portion be designated as one third of an acre of a park and one-quarter of an acre for each residential lot based on level B so that in the future the builder can propose to develop the property in a certain way and come back for the Commission's final determination and approval. At least if we give them the guidelines, they can interpret how to incorporate the space depending on how the design develops for both the commercial and residential. Chair/Torng said he was concerned about the residential because in the commercial area the public can use the area but in a residential area that may be restricted to the MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 18 PLANNING COMMISSION residential within the project. He said that he would prefer to set the limits in the commercial site for public space. C/Shah said his intention was to have a park for the residents of the project because the City should not be in the business of maintaining any of the park area. VC/Nolan agreed with Chair/Torng that this should stay in the commercial area. She said that the 202 homes are going to generate tax revenue. The community pays for parks with taxes that comes back to the City for all the parks. The project needs a park, and a park of this type. The Commission is in a role to recommend to the City Council our thoughts. At some point the City Council is going to vote on this matter. VC/Nolan questioned CDD/Gubman that if the recommendation of C/Shah gets to the point where it is an off number as far as the vote, as far as this going forward in passing the resolution, is this an all -or -nothing package? CDD/Gubman said the Commission will'take three actions on three separate resolutions. Just to clarify, it is not an all or nothing issue. But the reason staff suggested the Commission reconsider the passage of the first two resolutions at that last meeting is that these are all actions related to one project and there could be potential timing issues with expiration dates and other statutes of limitation if the Commission were to split the dates apart. So the only all or nothing aspect is to make all of the decisions at one meeting. Chair/Torng questioned whether the Commission should make a determination on the amount of park coverage for the residential site, or should the Commission focus on the commercial site. CDD/Gubman said his understanding was that the Commission was looking at either a dedicated park or some alternative public space. For the residential component, he believed the intent or expectation in the Specific Plan is that there will be private amenities for that residential community whether it is a clubhouse, pool, and other such features that they would maintain through association dues but it will be privately used. This park feature that the Commission has been discussing is really something that is in addition to whatever private open space amenities that would be incorporated into the residential community that is part of the Specific Plan. VC/Nolan said that she believed this provides more reason why we don't need pocket parks in a residential area. They are going to have their own facilities or their own areas for those residents. She is not opposed to reducing the commercial area, it can be incorporated with the commercial, with the shopping, and with the restaurants. She visited the parks and anything short of an acre and a half doesn't make much sense. Chair/Torng said that at the last meeting he expressed his interested in a more integrated area (option 2). One of the comments from a resident is the desire to have an urban City center with a shopping center and some type of park space that all would be able to visit and at the same time enjoy shopping and dining. The space is important. We want to reserve a space for this use. He liked the trail path Mr. Rogers described in his presentation. MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 19 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Nolan asked if the Commission will re -vote on the resolutions voted on at the last meeting. ACA/Wohlenberg said that there are three resolutions, two of which have been approved by a vote of 3-1 and the Commission reconsidered those and tabled those until this time for a revote and the reconsideration essentially removed the previous vote and now they are up for a vote again. The third resolution the Commission never reached consensus and so that will be up for a vote at this meeting. CDD/Gubman recommended that the Commission complete the discussion on Item 3 and see what, if any consensus can be reached. C/Shah recommended that the Commission reconsider the previous approved resolutions and consider Option 2 for a maximum of one acre. C/Shah said that VC/Nolan convinced him that the residential should manage their own common space. CDD/Gubman said that in Option 1 the residential development as envisioned would still have its community, its HOA amenities. To do Option 1 in the residential area would be to reduce the size of the residential area to put a park in that area. The idea of the park is undetermined at this time where on the 30 acres it would finally reside but if the Commission is going to recommend the park option it will reduce the acreage of either the residential or commercial side of the project. VC/Nolan asked how they should proceed. ACA/Wohlenberg said that all three actions are essentially taking place simultaneously so if the Commission wants to discuss 3 and vote on that item first because he believes it will be most difficult, that would be fine and then the Commission can move to Items 1 and 2. VC/Nolan moved to recommend that the City Council approve Specific Plan No. 2007-01 to establish land use and development standards to facilitate and govern the development of up to 202 residential dwelling units, up to 153,985 gross square feet of commercial floor area; and approximately 10. 15 acres of open space areas, easements and right-of-way, and Tentative Tract Map No. 70687 to establish separate residential, commercial, and open space parcels; create an internal circulation system and common open space areas; and establish easements and other rights-of-way for utility and other purposes with the amendment to include 1.5 acres of dedicated park space within the commercial parcel. Mr. Rogers clarified that the water quality features are not a functioning part of a park. When he says "ambient" they may be adjacent and provide area for green space and planting, etc., but you do not recreate in them. We have calculated, for purposes of water quality, the area necessary to clean the water under the current standards and it is approximately about one third of an acre and two shallow basins less than three feet in depth. These areas collectively can be of benefit to, by virtue of their adjacency, creating a park environment and yet not have functioning uses within them. And it might result, if MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 20 PLANNING COMMISSION we so chose to modify the circulation, in a configuration that would allow those areas to be adjacent to a similar type of area the size of which would be at the Commission's discretion. C/Shah said that as long as the park is adjacent to the area it would be acceptable Chair/Torng asked VC/Nolan if the dedicated park area would be managed by the City or is that going to be managed by the commercial site. VC/Nolan responded that the park would have to be managed by the City. C/Shah said that the park has to be dedicated to the city for the community's use. CDD/Gubman explained that Option 1 as presented in staffs report would be dedicated City Park as part of the City Park system. C/Shah said he liked the idea of the park having to be dedicated to the City, because otherwise, if people are going to use it the private property owner can put up a fence not allowing entrance. If people want it to be used by the community and anybody can use it then it has to be dedicated to the City. CDD/Gubman said the way this would play out if it is to be a public park, is the developer would build it, dedicated it to the City and then the City takes the keys and ongoing maintenance. C/Shah said then it has to be built to the City's standards. Chair/Torng asked if the park would be in one place or broken up? VC/Nolan felt it should all be in one place because it was too small of an area to divide it up. ACA/Wohlenberg said he believed the motion was still being formulated so staff could make sure it knows exactly what is being proposed. C/Shah said he thought if they were going to develop a City Park of one and one half acre including an adjacent water quality management area, whatever it calculates to be, that amenity has to be taken from the commercial lot. He said one and one-half acres is a good size. CDD/Gubman said he heard the 1.5 acres and what he needs is clarification on how much usable park area is wanted. C/Lee said that if other fellow Commissioners want to put a size in now when eventually the adoption will be decided by the City Council members does not make sense. VC/Nolan disagreed. She suggested that one and one third acres of usable park space area be adjacent to the area off of Cherrydale, adjacent to the water use area. C/Lee asked VC/Nolan asked if there was any meaning or foundation for why she decided on 1.3 acre. VC/Nolan said yes. She said she walked a couple of parks and the ones that were under an acre were just a couple of small house lot sizes. The Starshine Park was a nice sized park of usable space. She walked off parks counting off how many paces it takes and gone from park to park and saw what it felt like, what it looks like including the dog park spaces and they were comfortable area. If the space is too small it did not make any sense to include a park of that small size. She added that she MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 21 PLANNING COMMISSION understands that the park should not take so much away from the commercial that it hurts that portion of it but she thinks 1.3 acres is an appropriate minimum. C/Shah said that within the last year and a half he had been involved with the design of about one and one-quarter acres and he agreed with VC/Nolan. He said that he could visualize it and could see it being used. CDD/Gubman said the more exact size of Starshine Park is one and two-thirds acres. VC/Nolan said it was a very comfortable setting, the design of it and the open space. She said she visualized an area where people can actually use it, not just open land for the sake of open land but park settings. An acre and two-thirds of space was doable for her. C/Shah said he was comfortable with moving forward with the motion for 1.3 acres and Option 2. But the word "usable" space for the park should be included. VC/Nolan asked C/Shah to confirm that it would be one space and not broken up. C/Shah concurred. ACA/Wohlenberg proposed the recommended resolution language for either option to be included within the staff report. He read the proposed language to the Commission, the original of which would be found on Page 4 of 15 in the staff report. This would be to add to the resolution Section B.5.a.4 to read: "At the time the development is formally submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration, the subsequent plan shall incorporate within its boundaries a neighborhood park of at least 1.3 acres usable area dedicated to the City within the commercial development adjacent to slope areas or waste water management areas and shall incorporate features such as but not limited to, a tot lot, picnic tables, seating areas, shade structures." And he would also include Section B.5.b.8 as originally stated on Page 5 of 15 of staff's report. C/Shah asked if the amended language could include that "the park be designed to the City's standards and when completed should be dedicated to the City if the City is willing to accept it." ACA/Wohlenberg responded that after where in his previous language he said "dedicated to the City" they could add "and designed and constructed to City standards." And, not waste water management areas but "water quality management areas." He was reminded those are two different things. Chair/Torng asked if there was any motion. C/Shah moved to General Plan amendment No. 2007-03, Zone Change No. 2007-04, Specific Plan No. 2007-01, Tentative Tract Map No. 70687 and Environmental Impact Report No. 2007-02, reconsider the previous passage of the two previous considerations and the third one to be added to that one with the language provided by the counsel. ACA/Wohlenberg clarified for the record that the CEQA action is taking place first and that staff's opinion and recommendation that this alteration is within the existing scope of the EIR. C/Shah concurred. VC/Nolan received confirmation that the acreage was 1.3. V/C Nolan Seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 22 PLANNING COMMISSION 91 10. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Shah, VC/Nolan, Chair/Torng Lee None Nelson Chair/Torng addressed the audience and asked that anyone with questions or concerns should contact the City staff and attend the City Council hearings on this matter. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Lee said he really appreciated his colleague's efforts and energy to make a better picture for Site D but to him the best scenario for the residents is that Site D should be developed for single residences and public parks. He believed that to be the best scenario. But WVUSD and the developer don't do that because they cannot generate income, he understood that. Hopefully, we made a better decision and then the result would be best for most people. C/Shah thanked staff and the consultant for doing an excellent job. Everyone stayed with the project and gave the Commission good insight and clarification. To the general public, our job and our intent is to see that we make a decision very seriously and to the benefit of the community, benefit of the City of Diamond Bar residents and to make sure that what the Commission does is legally applicable so the Commission is making a recommendation to the City Council and the City Council will make the final determination. VC/Nolan congratulated Chair/Torng for his dedication to Diamond Bar and for his Volunteer of the Year award at the Birthday Celebration. Chair/Torng thanked his colleagues. This is a difficult project and we did it and we did it together even when we have different opinions. That is why we have five Commissioners. All opinions count, and that is very important. He appreciated everyone's efforts and especially staff and the consultant. Thanks for the good job and keep up the good work. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Gubman reminded the Commission to adjourn tonight's meeting to the Special Meeting of May 13, 2010, at 6:30 p.m. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 23 PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Torng adjourned the regular meeting at 9:47 p.m. to the Special Meeting of May 13, 2010, at 6:30 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 25th day of May, 2010. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director y Torng, Chaifmn