Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/13/2012MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 13, 2012 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Shah called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Windmill Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: C/Lin led, the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE FOPLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ADMINISTERED BY TOMMYE CRIBBINSR, CITY CLERK. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Frank Farago, Jimmy Lin, Steve Nelson, Jack Shah and Tony Torng. Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Brad Wohlenberg, Assistant City Attorney; Katherine Laufenburger, Senior. Planner; Natalie Tobon, Planning Technician-, and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. 3. REORGANIZATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION: Selection of Chairman and Vice Chairman. Commissioner Torng nominated Commissioner Nelson to serve as Chairman. C/Shah nominated C/Lin to serve as Chairman. C/Nelson nominated C/Shah to serve as Chairman. C/Farago seconded the nomination of C/Shah. C/Shah declined nomination to serve as Chairman. C/Lin was selected to serve as Chairman of the Planning commission by the following voice vote: C/Farago C/Lin C/Lin C/Lin C/Nelson Abstained stating he felt C/Lin would better serve as Vice Chair C/Shah C/Lin C/Torng C/Lin C/Shah nominated C/Nelson to serve as Vice Chairman. C/T (orng seconded the nomination. C/Nelson was selected to serve as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission by the following vote: MARCH 13, 2012 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Farago C/Nelson C/Lin C/Nelson C/Nelson C/Nelson C/Shah C/Nelson C/Torng C/Nelson 4. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None offered. 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: C/Shah. requested that Item 7.1 be moved to immediately following Agenda Item 10.2. C/Nelson said he would recuse himself from Agenda Item 10.2. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: 6.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February .28, 2012 C/Torng moved, VC/Nelson seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 28, 2012, as amended by Chair/Lina Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Farago, Torng,. VC/Nelson, Chair/Lin NOES: Commissioners: None ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Shah ABSENT: Commissioners: None 8. NEW BUSINESS: None 9. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9.1 Development Code Amendment No. PL2011-454 — Under the, authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.70) this was a request to amend the following sections of Title 22 of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code 22.43; 22`.10.040; 22.10.030 Table 2-5 and Table 2=6; 22.42.100; 22.38.030; 22.36.130 Table 3-14; 22.34.030; 22..42.130(g)(3)(d); 22.56.020; 22.47.020; 22.68.030(b); 22.66.050(c) and (d); . 22.80.020; 22.22.080(b)(6) 22.16.060; 22.22.120; 22.20.040; 22.22.080(b)(7); 22.42.110(c); .22.42060(2)0); 22.22.100(a). PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide MARCH 13, 2012 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANT: City of Diamond Bar CDD/Gubman presented staff's report explaining that the Development Code has been updated and refined as needed to reflect any new adopted ordinances or to reflect any requirements of state law. From time to time issuescome up as a result of the routine use of the Development Code where language may be unclear or where there may be internal conflicts within various sections of the Code. As those items are encountered, staff compiles the corrections for periodic code cleanup. At this point staff has compiled a number. of . minor changes that are being brought to the Commission this evening to make the document more user-friendly and in certain cases, reduce the bureaucratic hurdles that no longer provide a benefit to the community. He cited examples and discussed each of 14 minor .changes of the total 16 changes (2 of which were typographical errors) that are considered under the general classification within the California Environmental Act as being exempt, and responded to Commissioner's questions and concerns: The Commission requested that Code 22.22.100(a) be tabled for a future meeting, and directed staff to provide more information. Chair/Lin reopened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Lin closed the public hearing. C/Shah moved, C/Torng seconded, to approve Development Code Amendment No. PL2011-454, based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution, with the exception of Code 22.22.100(a) Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Farago, Shah, Torng, VC/Nelson, Chair/Lin NOES: Commissioners: None MARCH 13, 2012 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 10.1 Development Review No. PL2010-191 - Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal" Code Section 22.48, applicant Fares Ennabe, requested approval to demolish an existing single family residence and construct a new 12,890 square foot single family residence on a.,2.36 gross; acre (103,672.8 square feet) lot.. The lot is zoned Rural` Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential, PROJECT ADDRESS: 1524 Derringer Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Fares Ennabe 1524 Derringer Lane Diamond bar, CA 91765 SP/Laufenburger presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review PIL2010-191, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. :Christine Lee stated that this lot is 1 '/2 acres and the house is 21 percent of the total lot coverage so there is still a lot of landscape area allowed, most. of which will be retained as natural landscape along the street edge.. Some of the improvements will be on the .existing pad for the enjoyment of the client in the area of the pool and cabana located toward the rear'of the lot so therewouldbe no adverse public impact. She asked that the Planning Commission approve the project. C/Shah asked if the demolished materials would be hauled away from the site or reused for filling the area. Ms. Lee said she believed the impact to the ground would be minimal except for the excavation of the pool and the soil excavated from the pool will be used for the landscape area. C/Shah said he was concerned about the demolished material and in particular, the concrete as to whether it would be reused or removed from the site. Mr. Ennabe said he felt the project would be a very good improvement for ".The Country Estates" which was approved by the architectural committee. MARCH 13, 2012 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION I Chair/Lin opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on the matter, Chair/Lin closed the public hearing. C/Farago asked if the City had a construction and demolition waste requirement for recycling and CDD/Gubman responded yes, and the demolition permit will be processed with. the City's Solid Waste Coordinator.: In addition to the SCAQMD permits, the City is required to divert as much demolition material from the landfills as possible. C/Farago moved, C/Torng seconded, to approve Development Review No. PL2010-191, 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: Farago, Shah, Torng, VC/Nelson, Chair/Lin ,i NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None ABSTAINED:Commissioners: None VC/Nelson stated that the reason for recusal on. the next item is that he works for i a company that has a contract with Lewis Companies: VC/Nelson recused himself from participation in Item 10.2 and left the meeting room. I. - 10.2 Development Agreement Amendment No. PI-2011-57- Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.62, the applicant and .` property owner, JCCL South Pointe West, LLC requested approval to extend the expiration date of the ` existing development agreement between the City of Diamond Bar and JCCL-South Pointe West, LLC. South Pointe West is a 99 unit, single family residential condominium project comprised of approximately 34.52 acres generally located south of Larkstone Drive, east of Morning Sun Avenue, and West of Brea Canyon Road. The original development agreement was approved by the City Council on March 20, 2007, and went into effect on April 19, 2007, and is set to expire on April 19, 2012.. The proposed amendment extends the l Development Agreement by another five (5) years to April 19, 2017. I I PROJECT ADDRESS: The project site is located south of - - Larkstone Drive, east of Morning Sun Avenue, West of Brea Canyon Road and northwest of Peaceful Hills Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ JCCL-South Pointe West; LLC APPLICANT: 1156 N. Mountain Avenue Upland, CA 91785 CDD/Gubman gave a brief presentation on the history of the Tract Map and Development Agreement which remain unchanged..SP/Laufenburger presented staff's report, responded to Commissioner's questions and recommended Planning Commission approval for the time extension of Development Agreement Amendment No. PL2011-57, and in addition, the removal of Section 4.4.1.2 from the Agreement, which requires the developer place $500,000 into an escrow account after the 49th dwelling is occupied, which is unlikely to result in any benefit to the City, and based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution,. Omar Dandashi, .Vice, President, Lewis Operating Corporation, speaking on behalf of JCCL-South Pointe West, LLC,said he was present to answer Commissioner's questions and concerns. C/Torng asked when Mr. Dandashi felt this project could be completed. Mr. Dandashi said it was somewhat unpredictable. The market is stabilizing in 2012 and is tough to predict but feels` that within the timeframe requested, there will be definite development. Chair/Lin opened the public hearing. Kingdon Chew, 20447 Tam Oshanter Drive, Rowland Heights, representing Walnut and Rowland Heights residents and. the Royal Vista Golf Course community, opposes the project. but understands the project. is in Diamond Bar's` jurisdiction. In the likelihood that this. extension is approved; the community members ask that this agreement made in 2007 be fully honored. between Rowland Heights, Walnut, Diamond Bar and the developer, and in particular, the agreement involving the emergency MARCH 13, 2012 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION egress onto .Morning Star because the immediate area has no sidewalks with some exception and the area sees much more foot traffic including joggers, seniors, caregivers, retirees, children and boomerang kids and their respective families as well as, those walking their dogs. In addition, the community would like to have another EIR and geological survey j analysis done to reflect current circumstances and to include the impact ,I variable of the future eastbound SR60 ingress/egress on Lemon Avenue. Beth Hojnacke, President, Rowland Heights Community Coordinating Council, asked if the Commission could notify the City of Rowland Heights when anticipating discussion on projects that abut Rowland Heights. I�. Chair/Lin closed the public hearing. C/Shah asked staff to comment on the speakers concerns regarding a i secondary access for the South Pointe West project that connects to Morning Sun Avenue. Although this hearing process occurred before he name on board, CDD/Gubman said that when this project was first brought to the City there were concerns about this becoming a full access point into the project and the potential impacts to the existing neighborhood of having the traffic coming through that point. To ensure that emergency:, access is still provided into the project the agreement was that that access would be gated and it would be accessible for emergency ingress/egress only. As a result, the residents of this community would be required to enter and exit the project at Larkstone Drive and not through the existing neighborhood of Rowland Heights which is an adopted plan condition. Chair/Lin said that 'ordinarily thereis a time.: limit on the EIR. ACA/Wohlenberg responded that there is no strict time limitonthe EIR. it I depends on whether the analysis in the EIR' applies to the project as proposed. Sometimes people talk about the "five year rule" which is actually the five-year rule of thumb. Staff is not recommending a review of i the environmental document. This is the development agreement. The project is the same and staff expects that. the . impacts have not significantly changed and this time extension should not make a material impact in the environmental review. CDD/Gubman stated that staff looked at the EIR that was certified for this project and looked to see if there was any change. in circumstances or information that would lead to a re- evaluation of the EIR in further detail. Staff found there were no changes h a conclusion. in circumstances or new information that would lead to suc L_ i MARCH 13, 2012 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION There is new CEQA legislation that applies to greenhouse gas emissions and when an EIR is done it must consider global warming impacts. This project, because it is only 99 units and they are essentially detached townhomes, the number of units will not reach the threshold for conducting a greenhouse gas emissions analysis. Therefore, staff concluded that the . EIR remains adequate to allow this project to go forward. C/Shah asked if the City was required to place a memo to the file to that effect and .CDD/Gubman responded that staff memorialized this in the resolution and the ordinance that will adopt the extension of the Development Agreement. C/Shah moved, C/Torng seconded, to approve Development Agreement Amendment No. PL2011-57, 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: Farago,.Shah, Torng, Chair/Lin NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: VC/Nelson ABSTAINED: Commissioners: None VC/Nelson returned to the dais. C/Shah welcomed C/Farago and congratulated Chair/Lin and VC/Nelson on their appointments. C/Shah recused himself from Agenda Item 7.1 and left the meeting stating his recusal was because he knows the applicant quite well and is his friend. 7. OLD BUSINESS: 7.1 Revision to Development Review No. 2006-38 and Minor Variance No. 2007-06 (Planning Case No. PL201.1-387) — Resolution denying the requested revisions as directed by the Planning Commission at its February 28; 2012, regular meeting. MARCH 13, 2012 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT ADDRESS: 22909 Ridge Line Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Paul Ghotra 1241 S. Grand Avenue Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANTS: Pete Volbeda 180 N. Benson Avenue, Suite D I Upland, CA 91786 and Sam Bhogal 23415 Pleasant Meadow . Diamond Bar, CA 91765 i CDD/Gubman reported that the public hearing on this item was closed on February 28 with direction to staff to prepare a Resolution for. Denial for consideration this evening—, Of the six mandated findings to render a decision on the development review proposal, the consensus Was that all but the second and fifth findings would hold with the proposed changes. However, the second and fifth finding'would'no longer be affirmative, but be negative findings, and because all six findings must be made in the affirmative to.approve;a Development Review request, the project must be denied. Based on the deliberations and direction of the. Commission, staff prepared the Resolution which is attached to tonight's agenda item and crafted the second and fifth finding to reflect what staff believes were the Commission's conclusions about how these findings cannot be made. As a result, he focused his discussion on Finding B and Eand recited the new findings and support of those findings. ACA/Wohlenberg reiterated the reasons there would be no further opportunity for public testimony on this item. ACA/Wohlenberg further stated that although Commissioner Farago was not yet officially a member of the Planning' Commission he was present for the entirety of the hearing on this matter and has read the materials that are on the record. The City. Attorney has stated that based upon this information, Commissioner Fara o can and may participate and vote on this matter. C/Farago g Y p p affirmed that he was in. attendance at the February. 28, 2012, Planning Commission hearing on this, matter and read all materials associated with i MARCH 13; 2012 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION the project. In addition, he visited the. site on March 11, 2012. ACA/Wohlenberg advised the Commission on its voting procedure and confirmed to Chair/Lin that any decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed to the City Council. VC/Nelson. moved,. C/Torng seconded, to deny Planning Case No. PL2011-387 and adopted the Resolution of Denial. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:. AYES: Commissioners:. Farago, Torng, VC/Nelson, Chair/Lin NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Shah ABSTAINED: Commissioners None 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMM ENTS/INFORMATIO.NAL ITEMS: C/Farago thanked his colleagues and staff for their warm welcome upon the occasion of his joining this Commission. C/Torng welcomed C/Farago and congratulated Chair/Lin and VC/Nelson on their. appointments: He said he looked forward` to a good year for the Planning Commission and thanked staff for their efforts this evening. Chair/Lin welcomed C/Farago. 12. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: CDD/Gubman stated there will not. be a. Planning Commission meeting on March 27. The next meeting will be April 10, 2012. 12.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. 1.3. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As Listed .in tonight's agenda.