Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/26/2011MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 26, 2011 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Shah 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: Vice Chairman Lee led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Jimmy Lin, Steve Nelson, Tony Torng, Vice Chairman Kwang Ho Lee and Chairman Jack Shah. Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Grace Lee, 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 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 22, 2011. C/Torng moved, VC/Lee seconded, to approve the March 22, 2011, Regular Meeting minutes as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lin, Nelson, Torng, VC/Lee, Chair/Shah NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 4.2 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 12, 2011. C/Nelson moved, C/Lin seconded, to approve the April 12, 2011, Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS Lin, Nelson, Torng, VC/Lee, Chair/Shah None None APRIL 26, 2011 5. 6. 7. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None PUBLIC HEARINGS: PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 7.1 Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2010-355 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.58, the applicant requested approval to remove an existing Edison street light pole located on Diamond Bar Boulevard's public right-of-way, north of Tin Drive, and replace it with a similar light pole equipped with cellular telecommunications antennas and associated ground -mounted equipment (Continued from April 12, 2011) PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER Public Rights of Way on Diamond Bar Boulevard and 760 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard City of Diamond Bar 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Sequoia Deployment Services On behalf of T -Mobile Monica Moretta One Venture, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92616 CDD/Gubman recommends that this matter be continued to May 10, 2011, to give the applicant the opportunity to provide samples of artificial foliage to screen the above -ground equipment. Additional time is needed in order for the applicant to get those samples together for the Commission. C/Lin moved, C/Nelson seconded, to continue Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2010-355 to May 10, 2011. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lin, Nelson, Torng, VC/Lee, Chair/Shah NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None APRIL 26, 2011 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 8.1 Development Review No. PL 2010-438 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, the applicant, Manolo M Manalo and property owners Ming Kuo and Li Hua Chen requested approval for a 1,643 square foot addition to an existing 2,768 square foot single-family residence and a 421 square foot pool house on a 0.69 gross acre (30,057 square foot) lot. The lot is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNERS APPLICANT: 2435 Alamo Heights Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Ming Kuo and Li Hua Chen 2435 Alamo Heights Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Manolo M. Manalo 23824 Audrey Avenue #C Torrance, CA 90505 AP/Alvarez presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. PL 2010-438, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/Shah opened the public hearing. Manolo Manalo, designer and applicant, said he represented the owners who are out of the country and stated that he and the property owners reviewed staffs report and intend to comply with the conditions called forth in the draft resolution contained in staff's report. Chair/Shah closed the public hearing. C/Torng moved, VC/Lee seconded, to approve Development Review No. PL2010-438, 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 Lin, Nelson, Torng, VC/Lee, Chair/Shah None None APRIL 26, 2011 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION 8.2 Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2011-058 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.58, the applicant Manikku Malraj and property owner Ronald E. Albrecht, requested approval to operate a 3,835 square foot tutoring center. The proposed hours of operation are from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The lot is zoned Light Industrial (1) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Light Industrial. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER 782-784 Pinefalls Avenue Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Ronald E. Albrecht Sterling Capital, Inc. 8502 E. Chapman #184 Orange, CA 92369 APPLICANT: Manikku Malraj Ranmal Educational Services 801 Brea Canyon Road Diamond bar, CA 91789 AP/Alvarez presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2011-058, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/Shah asked if the City was assured that the current or new owner of the auto storage facility would not start an auto repair business. AP/Alvarez referred VC/Lee to the applicant. VC/Lee asked if this was a safe area because during the winter the area would be dark and he would be concerned about young children staying in the area until 8:00 p.m. AP/Alvarez stated that the property owner offers six subjects per day and each class subject is 90 minutes in length. Students are dropped off for 90 minutes and then picked up. VC/Lee again asked if there were vacant warehouses in the surrounding area. AP/Alvarez said that one of the units on the site is vacant. VC/Lee said the report shows 11 buildings and again asked if 10 were full and only one building was vacant. He again asked the vacancy status. AP/Alvarez said he does not know the vacancy status for every building because staff focused only on the one parcel that is the subject of this report. VC/Lee said this was an industrial area and there are a lot of warehouses. He is concerned about the students remaining in this type of area until 8:00 p.m. even though staff says this is a compatible use. AP/Alvarez reiterated that the center closes at 6:00 p.m. APRIL 26, 2011 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION There is a dance studio and music school in the immediate area so there are similar types of businesses within this light industrial area. VC/Lee again asked if staff felt light industrial areas and tutoring centers are very compatible. AP/Alvarez reiterated that based on the City's Development Code, this is an allowed use with a conditional use permit and is compatible with businesses within the center. CDD/Gubman said that staff looked at the compatibility of uses in the center and it is called an industrial park but the nature of the businesses are primarily "business park" types of uses including office/warehouse types of uses. Over time other educational type uses have established their businesses in this industrial park including the dance center and the music instruction facility. So there is a mix of uses that have co -existed and so far it has been harmonious. Certainly, there is potential in the future for more intensive businesses to locate in the center so that is something that is more dependent on the property owners business decision whether they wish to rent to these other tenants. However, having said that, once they begin permitting and signing leases with these tutoring facilities, dance studios, etc., they are kind of obligating themselves to ensure that future tenants are appropriate to locate amongst these tutoring uses. The risk that the property owner faces by not adhering to that sensitivity is that the Commission has the opportunity to revoke these conditional use permits if the circumstances and context in the center changes in the future where it is not really appropriate to have these educational uses. The presumption that staff relies on to a certain extent in considering this use is that with the mix of uses right now it would be in the property owner's best interest to sustain that compatibility so he does not lose leases because also presumably if there is a sense that the environment is not conducive to the enrichment of the students because it is noisy or there are foul odors or whatever, the businesses will lose enrollment which will lead to vacancies that may otherwise be difficult for the owner to re -lease. One of the benefits to the industrial park landlords is that these educational type uses are stable and they stay in one location for long periods of time. So when they are able to attract those types of tenants, owners have certain assurance of stability and it is in the owner's best interest to continue to maintain that harmony within their property. C/Torng asked about the parking space ratio. AP/Alvarez reiterated that the site is required to provide 25 parking spaces based on the square footage of the unit (3835 x 200 plus one for each employee). C/Lin asked how he would access the entrance if he parked at the rear of the building and AP/Alvarez said C/Lin would have to walk around to the front entrance. C/Lin asked what would happen if someone applied for a similar APRIL 26, 2011 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION type of use if there were insufficient parking spaces available. AP/Alvarez responded that when staff receives an application one of the considerations is "parking" and if a new applicant were to come in with a similar use staff would relook at the parking requirements based on the proposed use. Staff feels comfortable with this application because there is an adequate parking supply and can accommodate the tutoring center. CDD/Gubman stated that there is a breaking point where no more conditional use permits would be appropriate to grant based on saturation of parking demand. C/Lin asked AP/Alvarez if the chances of 10 parents waiting in the parking lot at the same time for 10 minutes is high so that at any time during the peak hours of the day all 13 spaces could be occupied and AP/Alvarez responded that C/Lin was correct. Ronald Albrecht, property owner, said he was present to respond to questions. Manikku Malraj, applicant, said he too was present to respond to questions. C/Lin asked how the applicant came to have only 10 students at a time when they could easily have 15-20 students. Mr. Malraj said that he owns a Montessori school that accommodates pre-school students only. The reason for the proposed tutoring facility is to expand his business for students who need to improve their math and science skills. This is a second facility which he is renting for this purpose. C11 -in asked if the applicant had a problem with limiting classes to 10 individuals. Mr. Albrecht said there might be multiple classes in session at the same time. C/Lin again asked if the applicant would stipulate to not having more than 10 kids in a classroom at a time. Mr. Malraj responded correct, because there are six sessions and each session would have a maximum of only 10 students. C/Lin asked the applicant if he would agree to have only 10 students in the facility at one time and Mr. Malraj reiterated that there are six sessions for 90 minutes each session and sometimes it the sessions might go concurrently. VC/Lee questioned that at a given time in a worst-case scenario, the applicant could have up to 60 kids in his facility. Mr. Malraj responded no, that is wrong. The maximum might be three classrooms in three sections for a total of maybe 30 kids at the same time. C/Lin said he does not read the application that way. SP/Lee referred the Commissioners to Attachment 3 of their packets which provided a business description wherein the applicant explains that sessions are classes. The applicant is offering six classes. The application is for a maximum of 10 students per subject per class. She said she was confused APRIL 26, 2011 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION and asked the applicant what he means when he says there can be three classes going on concurrently. VC/Lee said he would support this concept but was concerned about the area and wanted to know if it was a safe area for the kids. Mr. Albrecht responded "yes" and what is interesting about this area is across the street it is residential. This is not buried in a big industrial park, it is surrounded by residential. Also across the street (approximately 175 feet away) in an identical structure/building is Delos Dance Studio which caterers to the exact same age group of children with parents dropping their children off. There may be 30-40-50 children at one time in Delos which has been in this location for many years. He believes Delos is about 4,000 square foot double unit. That is less than 200 feet from the door of his building. Approximately 170 square feet away — two or three doors down from Delos, is the music store which went in recently. The music store also caters to the identical demographic, children 6 to 12 or 14 years old who are taking music lessons. So there are two existing businesses, one providing dance instruction and one providing music instruction to children. So it is certainly safe for the kids. VC/Lee said the reason he is concerned is because the kids are very young and he needs to have a sense of protection because there are a lot of people who prey on kids and there must be a level of comfort. Mr. Albrecht said that his concerns about liabilities are deeper than those of the Commissioners. C/Nelson asked if the other uses were the same hours and Mr. Albrecht said "similar hours." Delos is actually open later than this facility and it is his understanding that the music store hours are very similar. Also, he has lighting around the building. Regardless of the lighting, these are not parents and grandparents that let children off at the corner and tell them to run to school. C/Torng asked the applicant if he read the resolution and Mr. Malraj responded that he read the resolution. C/Torng pointed out that 4.b of the resolution calls for 10 or fewer students and 3 instructors at any one time and what this means is that the applicant cannot have more than 13 people in the facility at any one time. Mr. Mairaj said that is not what the business proposal stated. The intention is that each instructor will have 10 students at one time for a maximum of 30 students at one time. And there may not be 30 at one time because there may not be that many students. C/Torng said that when he asked the applicant earlier if he read the conditions of approval, did he or did he not reflect to staff about the actual number. Mr. Malraj said he was out of the country and just came back two days ago. C/Torng asked for staff's opinion. APRIL 26, 2011 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Gubman said that in Attachment 3, the business description submitted by the applicant, they are stating in writing quite clearly that there are non - overlapping 90 minute sessions and 10 students per 90 minute session which leads staff to conclude that there is a maximum of 10 students plus the requisite number of instructors and that is the basis for the entire parking analysis. If there are 30 students at any one time, this facility cannot accommodate that parking demand. VC/Lee asked the maximum capacity based on the number of available parking spaces. CDD/Gubman responded that staff's report includes a parking utilization and count analysis on the second and last page. The highest parking demand of the current uses occurred on Mondays at 10:00 a.m. where there are 10 parking spaces utilized. There are 30 parking spaces so there are, at a minimum, 20 vacant spaces at any one time. VC/Lee asked how many classes could be taught at any one time. CDD/Gubman said that at the busiest time, there are 20 spaces available so that would be 17 students and three instructors. C/Torng suggested that since there seems to be a misunderstanding he would like to recommend that staff and the applicant withdraw this application because it should not be discussed at this moment. Chair/Shah said he too felt there was a real disconnect between the application, the applicant's understanding and staff's report. He highly recommended that this issue be studied further and staff may want to bring the matter back to the Commission at its next meeting with correct information. Chair/Shah opened the public hearing. C/Lin moved, C/Torng seconded to continue the public hearing for Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2011-058 to May 10, 2011. C/Lin said that the maximum number of parking spaces required for 10 students and 3 staff would be 23 spaces. So if there are 30 students, that kind of parking is not available at this facility. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lin, Nelson, Torng, VC/Lee, Chair/Shah NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None APRIL 26, 2011 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION 9. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None Offered. 9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearinq dates for future proiects. CDD/Gubman reported that with respect to the approval for the new house at the corner of Wagon Train and Windmill, the residents who live across the street from the subject property who spoke in opposition to the project and were concerned about their view has filed an appeal so this matter will be considered by the City Council most likely during their first meeting in June. CDD/Gubman said that for the next Planning Commission meeting, there are now five items including the continued hearing on the T -Mobile Cell site at Diamond Bar Boulevard south of Gold Rush; continued hearing on the tutoring center discussed this evening; a request for the Planning Commission to make a General Plan consistency finding for the Parks Master Plan; two development projects including an exterior remodel at 2160 Indian Creek and a second story room addition on Cougas Creek Road in the Dean Homes Swim Club neighborhood in the vicinity of Golden Springs and High Knob Road. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Shah adjourned the regular meeting at 7:57 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 10th day of May, 2011. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director �,J 1) �J, Jack Sbali, Chairman