Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/22/2014 MinutesMINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MEETING OF ' I.•. APRIL 1 t W1NMf*X97a11* i Chairman Frank Farago 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: Chairman Farago led the Pledge of Allegiance. Ri]iAIw J_1gRi Present: Commissioners Jimmy Lin, Ruth Low, Peter Pirritano, Chairman Frank Farago Absent: Vice Chairman Jack Shah was excused. Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; James Eggart, Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Josue Espino, Assistant Planner; Natalie Tobon, Assistant Planner; Raymond Tao, Building Official; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the April 8, 2014, Regular Meeting. None Offered. C/Pirritano moved, C/Low seconded, to approve the April 8, 2014, regular meeting minutes as -presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lin, Low, Pirritano, Chair/Farago NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Shah 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: 6.1 Review of Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Capital Improvement Program (CiP) — Conformity with the General Plan. CDD/Gubman stated that state law requires the Planning Commission to make a finding of General Plan consistency prior to the City Council's adoption of the City's annual budget for its Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The Planning APRIL 22, 2014 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION Commission's role in this process is to advise the City Council that should it elect to adopt the CIP as presented to them in the budget, that doing so would not be at odds with the Goals & Objectives and overall vision of the City's adopted General Plan. If the Planning Commission determines that there is insufficient information to find that the CIP is in conformance with the General Plan, it may continue the matter. SP/Lee presented staff's report and recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution finding the proposed Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Capital Improvement Program in conformance with the General Plan. C/Low commented that she hoped part of the City's goal included water resource management within the City's beautification project by including native plantings. She also hoped that one of the City's goals was to encourage more pedestrian traffic in the future for health and business reasons. C/Lin asked why two parking lot improvement items at Peterson and Ronald Reagan Parks were highlighted and SP/Lee responded that they were placeholders for staff to make sure that the estimated costs were appropriate and are included in the budget. C/Lin disclosed that his company is involved in several of the projects and asked counsel if he should abstain from voting on this matter. ACA/Eggart responded "yes" and recommended that C/Lin leave the room until the item was completed. C/Lin left the room. Chair/Farrago asked if anyone in the public wishes to speak on this matter and with no one responding, he closed public comments. C/Pirritano moved, C/Low seconded, to adopt a Resolution finding the proposed Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Capital Improvement Program in conformance with the General Plan. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): Low, Pirritano, Chair/Farago None None VC/Shah, Lin 7.1 Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2013-136 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Sections 22.48 and 22.56, the applicant, Rupert Mok and property owners, Vincent and Terry Yang, requested Development Review approval to construct a 1,799 square foot two-story addition to an existing 2,933 square foot single family residence on a 0.43 gross acre (18,750 gross square foot) lot. _ A Minor Conditional Use Permit was requested for the expansion of a non -conforming structure where an existing patio cover has an existing non -conforming side setback of zero feet where five feet is required. The subject property is zoned Low Density Residential (RL) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT: 24209 Bryn Athyn Way Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Vincent and Terry Yang 24209 Bryn Athyn Way Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Rupert Mok 829 S. Lemon Avenue, Suite All -B Walnut, CA 91789 AP/Tobon presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2013-136, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Low asked if any trees would be impacted by this addition and AP/Tobon responded that there would be no trees impacted. Chair/Farago opened the public hearing. Hector Armas said he lives across the street from the proposed project and he and his neighbors have questions about the project. He asked if this structure was going to be turned into a church which would produce additional traffic on a daily basis as well as, additional traffic during construction. Chair/Farago closed the public hearing. AP/Tobon explained that the proposal is to add bedrooms on the first and second floor along with a private theater and loft area. There has not been any mention of a "church" at the location and she is not aware of that being a potential use. With respect to traffic during construction, it would be for normal construction vehicles during working hours which are Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. C/Low asked staff to address whether this structure would be turned into a business and whether the City has the authority to tell individuals how they may use their private residence. CDD/Gubman responded that the property is APRIL 22, 2014 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION zoned for a single family residence (RL) and a church is not being proposed. Further, a church would not be permitted to be developed or used on this property. The use remains the same. This project involves enlargement of an existing residence within the City's Development Standards, to accommodate the family's need for additional space. During review of this project, staff reviewed the development envelope to ensure that construction stays within the setbacks, maximum height restrictions, lot coverage requirements and staff reviewed the floor plan to verify that the underlying use of the building remained as a single family residence. There are no changes proposed that would suggest that the use is being altered from that of a single family residence to some other use. C/Low asked what recourse the neighbors would have in the case of a non- traditional church without signage that people were frequenting during the day. CDD/Gubman said he was not able to speculate on different scenarios. This project is a single family residence and there would be a certain amount of traffic generated from a single family residential use. Typically, the daily trips in and out of a residence is about 10 per day which would include visitors, deliveries, gardeners and other type of service personnel as well as, guests and visitors. C/Low asked if based upon the information available to staff and what has been proposed as the addition there is no suggestion that any increase in traffic and noise will be over and above what would be expected for a residence of that size and CDD/Gubman responded that C/Low's assumption was correct. C/Lin said there is a case of a house in the midwest that holds bible study on a daily basis and the ruling was that people had a right to congregate in such a manner if they wished to do so. From the drawing, the improvements are proposed for bedrooms and there was no large space proposed for a large gathering. Based on the proposal, he does not believe the addition was proposed to be used for a large congregation on a constant basis. CDD/Gubman said that C/Lip's observation was correct unless it became a nuisance at a certain hour. C/Lin said he visited the site yesterday and agrees that the addition conforms to the City's development standards. C/Lin moved, C/Pirritano seconded, to approve Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2013-136, 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: Lin, Low, Pirritano, Chair/Farago NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Shah APRIL 22, 2014 PAGE • COMMISSION 7.2 Development Review No. PL2013-493— Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, applicant Syed Raza & Associates, Inc. and property owner Vipin Vadecha requested Development Review approval to construct a 269 square foot addition and fagade remodel to an existing 4,370 square foot, two-level single family residence on a 65,776 gross square foot (1.51 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: 22925 Ridge Line Road Diamond Bar. CA 91765 Vipin Vadecha 22925 Ridge Line Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Syed Raza & Associates, Inc. 12600 Central Avenue - Chino, CA 91710 AP/Espino presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. PL2013-493, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Low commented that she liked the project, that it updates the fagade of the house nicely, and that she was pleased that the condition of approval in the resolution was revised to require the consulting arborist to verify the health of the Black Walnut tree after final inspection. C/Lin said the proposed second floor addition appears to cantilever out about 10 feet or so without any support and asked if the applicant did any structural analysis to determine whether it could hold the additional weight. AP/Espino responded that Building and Safety looked at the project and will be looking at the structural components of the project during the plan check process. At this time there were no concerns with the addition. Chair/Farago opened the public hearing. Syed Raza, project architect, explained that the overhang is secure and calculations have been submitted in the construction documents. Chair/Farago closed the public hearing. APRIL 22, 2014 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Low moved, C/Lin seconded, to approve Development Review No. PL2013-493, 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, Low, Pirritano, Chair/Farago None VC/Shah 7.3 Conditional Use Permit No. PL2013-433 — The applicant requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate an 871 square foot math tutoring school located within Peppertree Plaza. The property is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Professional Office. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: 3203 S. Brea Canyon Road, Suite A Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Raphael Amon 11616 Ventura Boulevard Studio City, CA 91604 APPLICANT: Carolyn An 3209 S. Brea Canyon Road, Suite E Diamond Bar, CA 91765 SP/Lee presented staff's report and BO/Tao presented a detailed overview of the phased approach for the ADA improvements at the property site. SP/Lee recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. PL2013-433, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Low asked BO/Tao to clarify why the proposed phased method is reasonable for this project as opposed to not being reasonable to every other project that is similarly situated. BO/Tao responded that every project is somewhat unique and in this case, the challenging site with the slopes created difficulty in making the access occur at this point. All access improvements are required for any tenant improvements so the requirement is the same across the board with the applicant providing 20 percent of construction costs for access improvements. In this case, there is not a great amount of work so in order to prevent any other kind of liability issue such as a trip and fall issue for not having full compliance in another methodology, this seemed to be the most logical approach for this particular project. Staff looked at several options for fixing the issue and met with the contractor to discuss options even though the overriding circumstances are the same for any tenant improvement. APRIL 22, 2014 PAGE 7 PLANNING O` i C/Lin said this center has existed for many years and if this project remains vacant the rest of the tenants would not have access under the grandfather clause. BO/Tao said that if there are no further improvements, the obligation that currently exists has been fulfilled. Technically speaking, there is no grandfather clause for this circumstance. The California Building Code is enforced by the Building Department and the Department is reactive to any improvements that occur so whenever an improvement occurs, the City is obligated to require the access upgrade. If there are no improvements, sites are subject to the federal guidelines and civil rights requirements for ADA access on a continuing basis. C/Lin asked if these requirements fell on the property owner rather than the tenant and BO/Tao responded that it is debatable. Typically, most of the time it is an improvement to the property outside of a tenant improvement space and is more likely a landlord issue; however, it is more of a legal question. C/Pirritano said that BO/Tao is correct that it can involve both the landlord and tenant. He has been involved in several lawsuits and that is typically what happens. He asked if there was processing at the cleaner's premises next door to this site. SP/Lee said she was not sure whether there was processing on site. Chair/Farrago opened the public hearing. C/Lin asked the maximum number of students that would be on site and Alvin Chi, speaking for Carolyn An, said there would typically be only four or five kids in the classroom at one time. Chair/Farrago closed the public hearing. C/Lin moved, C/Pirritano seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. PL2013-433, 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: Lin, Low, Pirritano, Chair/Farago NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Shah 8. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Low thanked staff for concise and easy to understand reports and PowerPoint presentations. . APRIL 22, 2014 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION 9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Gubman reminded Commissioners that they would need to participate in the mandatory AB1234 Ethics Training which is scheduled for Wednesday, May 7 at the Diamond Bar Center from 5:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and includes dinner. Any Commissioners who are unable to attend the scheduled training session with the City Attorney can go to the Fair Political Practices Commission website and take the online course for which there is no fee but requires that the Commissioner print the Completion Certificate and turn it in to the City Clerk to verify compliance. The next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for May 13 has been canceled due to a lack of business and tonight's meeting will be adjourned to the next regularly scheduled meeting of May 27. CDD/Gubman reported that the vacant Ralphs space experienced a delay in the tenant improvements due to an issue between the landlord and tenant. However, staff has received word that the project is back on track and moving forward. Plans should be resubmitted to the Building and Safety Division soon with the hope that permits will be issued and construction will commence shortly thereafter. C/Low thanked CDD/Gubman for his email update on the Honda site construction plans and asked if she understood correctly that the City of Industry planned to move forward with construction of the stadium even though there is no team currently slated to move to the site. CDD/Gubman said there are two separate entitlements that are valid on the same 590 acres — one is the Industry Business Center (IBC) which is office/industrial/retail space and the other entitlement granted on the site is the NFL Stadium. According to the City of Industry staff, the grading that is occurring would accommodate either of those two scenarios. The construction schedule is synched with the date that Majestic has indicated to the NFL that it needs to know whether the NFL wishes to pursue the stadium project on this site. If not, the City of Industry will proceed with removing the second hill which would have provided the "bowl" in which stadium seating would be constructed. Currently, there is no settlement agreement relative to the IBC project; however, there is a settlement agreement related to the NFL project and if the City of Industry is grading for the stadium they will need to start making payments toward the $20 million initial lump sum to Diamond Bar. APRIL 22, 2014 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Farago adjourned the regular meeting at 8:13 p.m. to May 27, 2014. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 10th day of June, 2014. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director