Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/23/2020MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 23, 2020 CONSISTENT WITH THE GOVERNOR'S LATEST EXECUTIVE ORDER TO STAY AT HOME, AVOID GATHERINGS AND MAINTAIN SOCIAL DISTANCING, THIS MEETING WAS CONDUCTED TELEPHONICALLY AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, CITY STAFF AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATED VIA TELECONFERENCE. CALL TO ORDER: Chair/Mok called the meeting to order at fi:45 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Garg led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Commissioriers: Naila Barlas, Mahendra Garg, Raymond Wolfe, Vice Chairperson William Rawlings, and Chairperson Kevin Mok. Staff Members Participating: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; James Eggart, Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; May Nakajima, Associate Planner; Natalie T. Espinoza, Associate Planner; and, Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes —Regular Meeting —May 26, 2020. C/Wolfe moved, C/Barlas seconded, to approve the May 26, 2020, Meeting Minutes as corrected. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Barlas, Garg, Wolfe, VC/Rawlings, Chair/Mok NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6, NEW BUSINESS: None JUNE 23, 2020 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 7. (CONTINUED) PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7A ZONE CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. PL2015-253 — Under the authority of DBMC Sections 22.48 and 22.70, the property owners and applicant requested a Zone Change to modify the existing zoning district from Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Low Density Residential (RL) to be consistent with the General Plan land use designation, and approval of Development Review application to construct a new 4,333 square -foot, two-story single family residence measuring 28'-8" high on an 11,225 square -foot (0.26 acre) undeveloped vacant lot. (Continued from March 24, 2020) PROJECT ADDRESS: 1111 Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNERS: James Chin Chou 1359 Bentley Court West Covina, CA 91791 APPLICANT: Creative Design Associates 17528 Rowland Street, 2"d Floor City of Industry, CA 91748 SP/Lee presented staffs, report and requested that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve Zone Change and Development Review No. PL2015-253. C/Garg asked if it was true that the proposed residence would be the only residence to have access from Diamond Bar Boulevard. He also wanted to know what kind of facility is suitable for this site since both residential and commercial projects were denied and/or withdrawn. He also commented that f the project was approved, there is no entry from Diamond Bar Boulevard proceeding north and if true, that would be a restriction on the proposal. When he visited the site, he was unable to find parking for his vehicle and parked along the side of Diamond Bar Boulevard and turned on his hazard light. In about five minutes, a Sheriff's car approached with red lights flashing and stopped behind his car to tell him that stopping along the street at that location was not allowed. SP/Lee responded to C/Garg that at the northern end of Diamond Bar Boulevard this would be the only single family home with direct access from Diamond Bar Boulevard. There is a condominium project just north of the project site that takes access from Diamond Bar Boulevard. With respect to the question about the best use for this parcel, staff is recommending the JUNE 23, 2020 1PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION single family residential use because it is the least intense in terms of parking and traffic impacts. Parking is not allowed on Diamond Bar Boulevard and residents and guests would have to park on the private property. A three -car garage and a circular driveway are proposed and there are no proposals for on -street parking. The site is accessible to westbound traffic only, because the landscaped median prevents access for eastbound traffic. Chair/Mok commented regarding access that traffic proceeding northbound toward Temple Avenue seeking access to the project site would have to make a U-turn at the condominium development on Soltaire Street, where U-turns are permissible. . However, there is no U-turn allowed at Temple Avenue. Chair/Mok opened the public hearing. Ken Lee, owner's representative and land use consultant; Kenneth Pang, Project Architect, Creative Design Associates; Eric Freeman, ML Design; Jack Lee, Cal Land Engineering; and Tom Huang, Senior Traffic Engineer, Ganddini Group, the firm that conducted the original traffic study and January update. The project team provided a PowerPoint presentation and discussed the project and its history. Mr. Lee stated that Mr. Chou purchased the property about 10 years ago and the project has evolved from a three-story office building —which, while consistent with the current C-1 zoning, but determined to not be an appropriate use for this location and from a traffic generation standpoint —to a three-story single family proposal. The current proposal is for a two-story project which is appropriate to the configuration and location of the site with a contemporary modern style of architecture, which is more consistent with the surrounding uses, as well as with the General Plan Update land use designation of Low Density Residential. Mr. Lee thanked SP/Lee for her commitment and time over the past 10 years in walking everyone through the evolution and process of this project. C/Barlas asked for clarification on the number of vehicles the horseshoe - shaped driveway would accommodate and how many cars can be parked at the side of the house. Mr. Pang responded to C/Barlas that the driveway will accommodate up to eight cars plus an additional three cars on the inside of the garage for a total of 11 vehicles on the site at any one time. Chair/Mok said he understood the driveway was not wide enough to accommodate a full-sized waste hauler. Mr. Pang responded that the driveway is 36 feet wide, the width of a three -car garage. In addition, they coordinated with Waste Management, which is able to service the area using a "valet' service which is a smaller dump truck that will come up into the horseshoe driveway and pick up the trash cans from the property. Trash receptacles will not be put on the street. DUNE 23, 2020 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION Douglas Barcon, in reference to the viewshed line -of -sight diagrams prepared by the applicant, felt the angle could have gone much lower and encompass the structure instead of being cut off above the line and wanted to know if a line of sight was from one property and one area. Based on the information that possibly eight cars could be parked on the driveway, unless each of those cars were to enter and exit sequentially, he does not see how they could switch places in line. And, it appears to him that the three cars in front of the garage would have to back out onto Diamond Bar Boulevard unless the driveway is large enough for cars to pass each other. With cars traveling down Diamond Bar Boulevard from Temple Avenue at potentially 45 mph, if someone decided to make a U-turn at Soltaire, it might be difficult to accelerate sufficiently for the short distance to the driveway of the property. Also, in terms of safety, there is a bike lane along the west side of Diamond Bar Boulevard that was not mentioned in the plans, but instead shows bicycles using the sidewalk excluding use of the bike lane. As he previously commented, he looks at this as a project that jumps out and into one's face to people entering Diamond Bar from Temple Avenue and he would prefer to see the property used for a cell phone tower camouflaged as a windmill that could provide income. Robin Smith said her comments were related to health and her concerns about the risks that have been proven by evaluating the sensitive receptors region, which is any housing located within 500 to 1,000 feet of a heavily trafficked roadway and wonders why this project is categorically exempt from environmental evaluation. Also, she is under the impression that this parcel is still zoned Office Professional. Felino Bautista wanted to know if the project, as presented this evening, speaks to the possibility of afternoon glare onto the freeway and whether the site line was representative of the new proposed design. He questioned vehicle parking. Chair/Mok closed the public hearing. C/Wolfe said he was on the Planning Commission in 2017 and asked for the analysis looking at driver expectations/site distance compared to stopping distance and that question was answered in the traffic report that is attached to staff's report. They have also redesigned the house to make access easier and, as staff stated, this is the best use for this particular property. There really is not another use unless the property was rezoned to force it into something JUNE 235 2020 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION that was proposed 'during public comments. And, a light industrial or commercial use is more intrusive to the driving patterns on the southbound lanes of Diamond Bar Boulevard. C/Wolfe moved to recommend City Council approval of Zone Change and Development Review No. PL2015-253 as proposed by staff. Motion died for lack of a second. C/Barlas said she served on the Planning Commission when the design was completely different and the applicant was asked to redo the traffic study because of concerns about possible afternoon sun glare and because the trash truck could not stop on Diamond Bar Bouleyard and these issues have been satisfactorily resolved through the redesign. VC/Rawlings said he does -not have the advantage of having been on the Commission when this item was first presented. He has reviewed records and can definitely appreciate the work that has gone into the current project for the space provided. He has concerns about the future of providing overflow parking because it would be across Soltaire or on Flintlock. He has a lot of respect and admiration for staff, but one area he disagrees with is the impact this project would have on the character of surrounding neighborhoods and he for that reason, is not sure he can support this project at this time. C/Garg said he believes that the Planning staff should look at this project again because there has not been sufficient time for review of the comments the Commission received today. Chair/Mok asked for staffs response. CDD/Gubman responded to Mr. Barcon's comments regarding representation of views and how the project would affect certain vantage points that it would depend on whether the Commission wished to have those line of site view angles revisited from different vantage points. In terms of concerns about the left turn pocket at Soltaire and potential conflicts with U-turns and vehicles coming down Temple Avenue, one thing to keep in mind is that this proposal is for a single-family residence and traffic engineering studies for decades have compiled trip generation statistics on different types of land uses. A single family residence typically generates 10 trip ends per day and while there might be some valid concern about speeds on Diamond Bar Boulevard, it is an unrestricted U-turn pocket and he would put potential concerns in that perspective and context. Bike lanes are common features on all of the City 's roadways and motorists must drive defensively and be aware of their surroundings before executing a turning movement. With respect to comments about whether a cell tower might be a better use for this site, staff DUNE 235 2020 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION cannot prescribe what a property owner can do. If a proposal was received for such a use, it would be something that would be considered; however, staffs recommendation is ultimately based on finding the lowest intensity of use that can be accommodated on this property before the issue of a taking of a property is considered. The City cannot prevent someone who owns property from using it within the restrictions that are established, and zoning for a single-family residence is basically the lowest intensity zoning designation the City has in its menu of land uses. There was a concern raised by Ms. Smith about particulate matter and air quality in that particular area. That may be the case, but to answer the question about CEQA, it is a tool that is used to identify and disclose the mpacts of the development proposal on the environment, it is not something that is to be used to assess the impacts of the environment on a use. So the applicability of CEQA is really not to consider whether that surrounding environment is going to be deleterious to the users of that land. It is certainly appropriate if the Commission would like to recommend a condition and it might even be incumbent upon the property owner to include a disclosure on the property title so that future occupants are aware of potential air quality issues that may be associated with its proximity to the freeway and to Diamond Bar Boulevard. The question about whether staff looked into 'the potential glare onto the freeway, this was a question that was originally raised with the office project and it had to do with larger panes of curtain glass and whether, at certain times of the day, they would reflect sunlight and cause glare onto the freeway. As far as he knows, that issue was not looked at with respect to the current plan, and in looking at the rear elevation of the proposed residence and the fenestration of it, there are relatively small bedroom windows facing that area rather than large panes of storefront sized glass that might warrant further analysis. In this case, he would suggest that the Commission look at the rear elevation and determine whether Commissioners feel that is a concern that warrants additional study. CDD/Gubman further stated that whether this motion to recommend City Council approval should be delayed because of emails and comments received today, that too is at the pleasure of the Commission, but since this tem has to go to the City Council anyway for final determination, these correspondences will be entered into the record and additional information will be provided on these comments if called for. If the Commission would prefer to receive more information on these comments before passing on the recommendation, that can be done. However, the alternative is to make the JLINE 233 2020 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION recommendation based on tonight's Public Hearing and when staff prepares the record for the City Council meeting all letters, emails and related comments will be made a part of the City Council's packet. C/Barlas said she wa_s satisfied with CDD/Gubman's responses and comments and believes his comment for the applicant to record the potential environmental impacts is a good idea and should be included in the motion. She said she is not so concerned about the parking issue because the City has been very proactive regarding potential parking violations. C/Barlas stated that with the addition of a condition that the applicant record the potential environmental. impacts due to the proximity of the project to the freeway for future potential buyers, she would recommend City Council approval of Zone Change and Development Review No. PL2015-253 as proposed by staff. Chair/Mok seconded the motion. Chair/Mok said he believes staff has worked hard on this project for the past. seven years. Kudos to SP/Lee and Planning staff as well as the efforts of the applicant and project team to address public concerns. The new plans address the front elevation with an additional six feet of softening landscape. The horseshoe driveway addresses ingress/egress concerns and driver's exiting the property will be able to see southbound traffic on Diamond Bar Boulevard. C/Garg said that he would be in favor of the motion as long as he could be assured that staff would include comments on all correspondence in the City Council presentation. C/Wolfe said that there is a motion that hasbeen seconded and what he just heard from C/Garg was additional add -ins and the vote needs to proceed before another motion is presented. ACA/Eggart responded to C/Wolfe that C/Garg's comment did not constitute another motion and posed the question to CDD/Gubman. CDD/Gubman reiterated that staff would address all comments received in the City Council report. Chair/Mok called for the vote on C/Wolfe's motion. As a point of order, C/Wolfe stated that C/Barlas made a substitute motion by adding the condition and Chair/Mok seconded motion, which would therefore be the motion the Commission would vote on instead of his motion because he was not asked if he would agree to insert the condition in his motion. JUNE 23, 2020 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION ACA/Eggart said that C/Wolfe was correct and Chair/Mok called for the vote on C/Barlas' motion. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Barlas, Garg, Wolfe, and Chair/Mok NOES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Rawlings ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: VC/Rawlings said that in spite of his opposition to tonight's public hearing project, he wanted to thank everyone who has worked on this for these many years. These types of projects are difficult, especially after attempts that have seemed very circuitous, and he thanked the property owner for being so flexible and to the project team that this is and will be a beautiful project. Chair/Mok said he noticed a lot of work being. done on the- Big Lots building and wondered if there was full occupancy at that site. CDD/Gubman said he has heard through the owner's representation that they have full occupancy but he does not have a roster of potential tenants. The project was stalled for a time and considering the rate of buildout, it appears they are motivated to get tenants moved in soon. ClGarg asked if the Big Lots building would have multiple tenants or one only and CDD/Gubman responded that there are five tenant spaces in the remodeled building. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: CDD/Gubman said it appears there. will be no business for the July 14th Planning Commission agenda and tentatively, that meeting will be cancelled. In addition, there is nothing pending for the July 28th meeting and staff will keep Commissioners apprised of any changes. CDD/Gubman said that the City received CARES Act money and the City Council supplemented that money with some of the City's CDBG funds in order to execute a Business Recovery Grant Program to give out $5,000 small grants to 64 businesses n Diamond Bar. At this time he is going through the screening process and the window for applications closes at noon tomorrow. To date, 160 applications have been received and after the application window closes, there will be a lottery. For those businesses that were not selected for the initial round of funding, their lottery numbers will be kept on file for potential future rounds of CARES Act money. JUNE 233 2020 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in the agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Mok adjourned the regular meeting at 8:31 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this August 25, 2020. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director n KehKeth Mok, Chairperson