Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/28/2015 Minutes - AdjournedMINUTES OF THE CITY OF i, :. • BAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 28, 2015 Chair/Low called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m, in the City Hall Windmill Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. C/Nishimura led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Frank Farrago, Jennifer "Fred" " - Mahlke, Bob Nishimura, Chairperson Ruth Low Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; James Eggart, Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Jose Espino, Assistant Planner; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. 2. RECOGNITION OF OUTGOING COMMISSIONER PETER PIRRITANO: Chair/Low, Planning Commissioners and staff presented Peter Pir.ritano with a Certificate Plaque in honor of his service to the City of Diamond Bar. On behalf of the City Council, Council Member Tanaka thanked Peter Pirritano for his service to the City of Diamond Bar. 3. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: 5.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 14, 2015. C/Farago moved, C/Mahlke seconded, to approve the Minutes of the July 14, 2015, Meeting as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS 6. OLD BUSINESS: None Farago, Mahlke, Chair/Low None Nishimura None JULY 28, 2015 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 7 0 NEW BUSINESS: None PUBLIC HEARING(S): 8.1 Development Review No. PL2015-49 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Sections 22.48, the applicant and property owner requested Development Review approval to construct a new 12,003 square foot, multi-level, single-family residence with an attached 1,234 square foot, five -car garage on a 52,272 gross square foot (1.20 gross acre) lot. The subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Rural Residential (RR). PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER 2218 Indian Creek Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 New Ridge Development, LLC 482 Le Roy Avenue Arcadia, CA 91007 APPLICANT: Creative Design Associates 17528 Rowland Street 2nd Floor City of Industry, CA 91789 AP/Espino presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. PL2015-49, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. CIMahlke asked how the setback on the side nearest a vacant lot is determined to meet the requirements. AP/Espino responded that whoever purchases the vacant lot is subject to the same development standards as the current vacant lot that is proposed for development. In this case, the east side of the project has a 28' 4" setback and there will not be an issue with respect to proximity to an adjacent home and a home to home minimum distance will not be an issue for development on the adjacent lot. If the adjacent lot is developed it will have to comply with standards of the Code and in the RR zone one side has to be 10 feet minimum (setback) and the other side has to be 15 feet minimum (setback). The buffer is built into the Development Code. The Planning Department analyzes projects to make certain the project complies with those standards. C/Nishimura asked if the 30 percent coverage included the total buildable area on the lot or included restricted areas as well. APIEspino responded that coverage is based on the entire gross area of the lot. C/Nishimura said he noticed restricted areas on the parcel, as well as on the vacant lot and asked JULY 28, 2015 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION if AP/Espino knew what the restriction was and why it was there. APIEspino responded that generally, restricted use areas have to do with soil stability which is reviewed by the City Engineer. The applicant submits a soils report to the Public Works Engineering Division which is reviewed by consultants to make sure that there is sufficient stability for foundation and construction activity. Chair/Low asked what the "safe" room is and APIEspino referred Chair/Low's question to the applicant. Chair/Low opened the public hearing. Kenneth Pang, applicant, responded to Chair/Low's question about the "safe" room which Mr. Pang stated that the "safe" room is for storing valuables. It is not a "panic" room. Chair/Low closed the public hearing. C/Nishimura moved, C/Farago seconded, to approve Development Review No. PL2015-49, 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, Mahlke, Nishimura, Chair/Low NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8.2 Development Review and Tree Permit No. PL2015-145 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, the applicant/property owner requested development Review approval to demolish an existing single family home and construct a new 9,215 square foot, three-level, single family residence with an attached 1,350 square foot, six -car garage on a 62,726 gross square foot (1.44 gross acre) lot, and Tree Permit to protect an existing multi -trunk Black Walnut tree from construction activity. The subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Rural Residential (RR). PROJECT ADDRESS: 2868 Shadow Canyon Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ Grandway USDEV I -B, LLC APPLICANT: 55 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 700 Pasadena, CA 91101 JULY 28, 2015 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION AP/Espino presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review and Tree Permit No. PL2015-145, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval listed within the resolution. Chair/Low asked APIEspino to again display the renderings of the pools and asked if the Water Conservation Coordinates cover the swimming pools as well as the front and side water features. AP/Espino responded yes and said that the City's Landscape Architect consultant would be looking at that as part of its review to ensure that this project complies with recent state legislation. Chair/Low referred to the June 30, 2015, letter from Arborist Jim Bora and said that the copy of the letter in her packet was the same page 'I on the front and back and felt there may be a page 2 missing and asked staff to provide a copy of the complete letter. Upon discovering that C/Nishimura had a complete copy of the letter, Commissioners completed their review. . CDDIGubman said that staff would provide copies of the Arborist's report to members of the Commission and the audience. Chair/Low opened the public hearing. A speaker who stated his address was 2929 Wagon Train Lane wanted to know if this project would include major excavation because he lived through six months of the dust from reconstituting of a lot. When he asked the property owners to water it down to prevent dust he was told they did not want to use water because mud would stick to the shovel and take a long time to complete the project. So he wanted to know if this project involved 'major excavation. Chair/Low acknowledged receipt of the complete June 30 letter from Arborist Jim Bora. APIEspino responded to the speaker that the project will require significant grading. Generally, staff's review considers "significant grading" anything more than 50 cubic yards. At that point a grading permit is required and soils reports and grading plans are reviewed. This project will require approximately 1800 cubic yards of soil to be cut, 580 cubic yards of soil to create a wider buildable pad toward the rear and 1220 cubic yards will need to be exported from the site. In short, there will be about 164 to 244 total truck trips for the site. With respect to dust and grading activities, the site is required to comply with the City's best management practices such as BMP's and NPDES standards which will be monitored by the City's Building and Safety staff during the construction process. The project site is nestled toward the top of the JULY 28, 2015 PAGE PLANNING hillside and the primary residences that will be impacted will be off of Shadow Canyon Drive. He read Condition of Approval Item 2 on Page 10 of the Resolution: "Grading and construction activities and transportation of equipment and materials and operation of heavy grading equipment shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Dust generated by grading and construction activities shall be reduced by watering the soil prior to and during the activities, in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 402 and Rule 403 and reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. In addition, all construction equipment shall be properly muffled to reduce noise levels." APIEspino explained that if there are any issues they will be addressed by Public Works staff and Planning staff and if there are public concerns individuals should contact the City's Planning Division for follow up. Chair/Low asked what remedies would be considered if residents reported that these conditions were not being followed and the applicant was ignoring the condition. APIEspino responded that the Building Official has the power and authority to halt construction and if conditions of the permit are not being met Building and Safety, Public Works and Planning have the power to ensure that these conditions are met. This, is a binding contract to develop the property and conditions are vigorously enforced and property owners are expected to pass along the information to the contractors. Chair/Low closed the public hearing. C/Farago moved, C/Nishimura seconded, to approve Development Review and Tree Permit No. PL2015-145, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Mahlke, Nishimura, Chair/Low NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8.3 Development Review No. PL2015-48 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, the applicant and property owner requested Development Review approval to remodel the fagade of an existing 8,500 square foot, two-story commercial building with onsite improvements on a 27,440 gross square foot (0.63 gross acre) lot. The subject property is zoned Commercial Office (CO) with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Commercial Office (CO). JULY 28, 2015 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT: 21450 Golden Springs Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 21450 Golden Springs, LLC 774 Pinefalls Avenue Walnut, CA 91789 Drafting & Design, LTD 158 W. Orange Street Covina, CA 91723 APIEspino presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. PL2015-48, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/Low asked if there was a range in the size of what staff -considers for a parking space and APIEspino responded that there are standard dimensions for parking stalls. Some of the issues that this parking site was allowed to take advantage of was the overlap in some of the landscape areas which allowed for an 18 foot depth while maintaining a nine foot width. There is not a lot of wiggle room in the parking stall dimensions. Currently, this site is non- conforming so the proposed fagade remodel along with the site improvements renders the project in conformance with the Development Standards. C/Nishimura asked if the parking issues cause the project to be non- conforming and APIEspino responded that various issues in relation to parking and maneuverability and landscape in parking areas was deficient as well. C/Nishimura said that with 12 offices there will be 24 parking spaces which meets the code for Office use only. APIEspino responded yes and if the applicant tried to get a retail permit it would not happen. One of the current deficiencies that exists is a mix of uses that the parking lot cannot support. Chair/Low opened the public hearing. Steve Eide, project designer, asked about the statement on Page 8, Item 5 that says "no occupancy permit can be granted until all improvements required by this approval have been properly constructed" and the statement on Page 13, Item 15 where it talks about "occupancy of the previously permitted tenant improvement may not occur until a staging plan has been shown." He stated that the owners of the building got tenant improvement approval to begin rehabbing part of the building and realized they needed to clean it up and started Phase II which was the exterior. The applicant would like to occupy the space they have already started rehabbing but the way he reads the documents it sounds to him like there are two conflicting things happening. JULY 28, 2015 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSIOL AP/Espino stated that the second comment on Page 13, Item 15 states that only a staging plan showing how the occupants will be protected during construction needs to be submitted so upon submittal of the staging plan staff will look at what tenant improvements will result. The other condition on Page 8 states that "no occupancy permit can be granted until all improvements required by this approval have been properly constructed, inspected and approved" which is a standard condition that a final occupancy permit will not be granted until the entire project is completed. These are distinct but can see how there would be confusion. C/Nishimura asked if there were currently tenants in the building and Mr. Eide responded "no" but there are tenants who want to get into the building and the way he read the condition was that no one could occupy the premises until everything is done. AP/Espino offered to"work through the condition with the Building Official who included the condition as part of the resolution to resolve the issue of whether a temporary occupancy is allowed prior to a final occupancy if this solution is amenable to the applicant. Chair/Low asked the applicant if he would be amenable to staff working through the condition by amending the Condition on Page 8 to read: "no final occupancy permit..." and Mr. Eide asked if that would allow the tenant to occupy the unit if it met the requirements but the entire site would not have to be finished for them to occupy the unit. APIEspino stated that any occupancy permit whether temporary or final would have to be dictated by the Building Official and recommended that the condition be "subject to approval of the Building Official." Chair/Low asked Mr. Eide if he would be okay if it included "of the initial Tenant Improvement Plan. The point is that the tenant wants to get into the unit while they are working on the rest of the building. ACA/Eggart responded to Chair/Low that he believes that staff is trying to say that whether to allow occupancy or a temporary occupancy permit is the Building Official's determination under the Building Code and the Planning Commission cannot override the Building Official's determination about whether to grant an occupancy permit through modifying the condition. He suggested that the Commission modify Condition 5 on Page 8 to say "except as otherwise permitted by the Building Official, no occupancy permit can be granted....." which leaves it to the discretion of the Building Official. It may not be what the applicant wants; however, the Planning Commission is not in a position to say that it is appropriate for the ownerltenant to occupy unless the Building Official says it is safe for them to do so. Mr. Eide concurred with ACA/Eggart's recommendation. JULY 28, 2015 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nishimura commented that he believed this project would make that part of the City look 10,000 times better. Right now it is a brick fortress and this project will surely enhance this highly visible commercial property which is viewed by tons of individuals who drive by the site on a daily basis. This is a welcome addition and improvement to existing property in the City. Chair/Low said she completely agreed with C/Nishimura and asked Mr. Eide to pass along the Commission's thanks to the people who are putting the money up for this improvement and thank them for investing in Diamond Bar. Chair/Low closed the public hearing. C/Nishimura moved, C/Mahlke seconded, to approve Development Review No. PL2015-48, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution with the amendment to Condition 5 on Page 8 as recommended by ACA/Eggart. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Mahlke, Nishimura, Chair/Low NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 9. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTSIINFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Nishimura said he hoped everyone was having a great summer. He congratulated the Diamond Bar Girls 12UGold Team that qualified for state in Lancaster. Unfortunately, they did not qualify for nationals and were only one game away. They ended their season with a record of 23 wins/7 losses over a few months. They represented the City of Diamond Bar well in Lancaster and for the first time, the 6U team consisting of girls as young as 4'/ years old played all stars,and placed in three tournaments. The league is growing. Chair/Low said she is very proud of the City and its athletes that represent everyone on a big scale including soccer player Alex Morgan and golfer Kevin Na. She thanked staff for their great work and said the photos were excellent. She again thanked Peter Pirritano for his wonderful and faithful service to the Commission. JULY 28, 2015 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION 10.1 Public Hearing dates for'future protects. CDDIGubman stated that the next scheduled meeting is August 11 with two residential projects.on the agenda, one for a proposed addition to a house on Afamado in the Pantera Park neighborhood and one for a new residence in The Country on Diamond Knoll. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, VCIPirritano adjourned the regular meeting at 7:54 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 25th day of August, 2015. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director RA Low, Chairperson