Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/24/2015 MinutesMINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 24, 2015 CALL TO ORDER: 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: Commissioner Nishimura led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Frank Farago, Bob Nishimura, Raymond Wolfe, . Vice Chair Jennifer "Fred" Mahlke, Chair Ruth Low Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; James Eggart, Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Natalie T. Espinoza, Assistant Planner; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: Council Member Jack Tanaka thanked the Planning Commission and staff for their work on behalf of the community. He thanked C/Farago for his four years of service as C/Tanaka's appointee. He wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving holiday. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 27, 2015. C/Wolfe moved, VC/Mahlke seconded, to approve the Minutes of the October 27, 2015, Meeting as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nishimura, Wolfe, VC/Mahlke, Chair/Low None Farago None NOVEMBER 24, 2015 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 5. A Irl OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-395 - Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Section 22.58, the property owner and applicant requested a Conditional Use Permit to operate a 1,980 square foot dance studio within a 36,398 square foot multi -tenant shopping center. The subject property is zoned Regional Commercial (C-3) with an underlying General Plan land use designation of General Commercial (C). PROJECT ADDRESS: 303 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard #H Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Phoenix Gluck LP 3191-D Airport Loop Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 APPLICANT: Yulia Kushnirenko and Denis Podolsky 13115 Le Parc #27 Chino Hills, CA 91709 Staff advised the Planning Commission that this matter has been rescheduled to December 8, 2015, to allow the applicant time to post the site with a public hearing notice board at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. CDD/Gubman stated that staff re -advertised and re -noticed to advise surrounding property owners of the rescheduled hearing date. 7.2 Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-282 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.58, the property owner and applicant requested a Conditional Use Permit to operate a children's indoor playground in conjunction with an existing restaurant within an existing 121,788 square foot multi -tenant shopping center. The subject property is zoned Community Commercial (C-2) with an underlying General Plan land use designation of General Commercial (C). PROJECT ADDRESS: 21050 Golden Springs Drive #107 & #108 Diamond Bar, CA 91789 NOVEMBER 24, 2015 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION PROPERTY OWNER: Lakeview Village Corporation 12879 Harbor Boulevard Garden Grove, CA 92626 APPLICANT: Tiffany Wong The Attic Restaurant 21050 Golden Springs Drive #107 & #108 Diamond Bar, CA 91789 AP/Espinoza presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-282, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. She further noted that the applicant was not present. Chair/Low asked how staff viewed the indemnification (Resolution — Page 6, Standard Condition #1, General Requirements) working for the city and ACA/Eggart responded that the purpose of this provision is that if a third party were to challenge the Planning Commission/City's approval of this application in court, the applicant would be required to pay for the city having to defend that action. Chair/Low asked if there Would be any liability on the City's part in approving such an entertainment space in the event a child is injured and ACA/Eggart responded no, the city would be immune from liability for approving a project. Statutes in the Government Code immunize public agencies for such things. Chair/Low asked if the parking ratio requirements were standard parking ratios and AP/Espinoza responded yes, that they are the parking ratios within the City's Development Code used for businesses. Chair/Low asked the date of the most recent revision of the parking ratio and CDD/Gubman responded "1998." There has been no update since 1998. Chair/Low asked if the ratio of one space per 300 square feet was based on the gross area of the shopping center or combination of existing restaurants and other retail. CDD/Gubman responded that it is the gross floor area for the shopping center. The general parking ratio for the gross square footage applies. This was broken out based on the presumption that this was a standalone business to provide the most conservative parking generation that this use would create in order to compare it to the number of spaces NOVEMBER 24, 2015 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION provided. Part of the reason for doing so is that this use is unconventional, and somewhat similar to a "Chuck E. Cheese's" for example, which was established prior to city incorporation. There is no land use code for I estaurant/playgrounds and while it is intuitive that the parking demand for such use will be ancillary to the demand for the restaurant area staff wanted to take a conservative approach and used an arcade as a proxy for the playground area attempting to get at the worst-case scenario/the highest possible number of parking spaces in demand for this use at any given time. Staff did so to gain a higher level of confidence that using the underlying gross floor area ratio would hold and staff found there would be a surplus even if it went beyond the less restrictive parking requirement in the code. Chair/Low asked if the restaurant was a self-service or full sit-down restaurant and AP/Espinoza responded that it. is a full service sit-down restaurant. Chair/Low asked if it would take 10-12 people to operate the restaurant. AP/Espinoza stated that the occupancy load for the dining area is 38 so it is a very small restaurant. C/Nishimura asked if there was an escape bar on the locked side door and AP/Espinoza responded yes, it is locked from the outside in only and can be used as an emergency only access. There is no provision for access from inside of the mall. CDD/Gubman further stated that the code likely requires panic hardware to allow emergency egress. C/Farago referred to Page 8 of the Resolution which speaks to the Occupancy Load being limited to 49 for each room and asked if the restaurant, play area and retail space each counted as a "room," which would bring the count to 150, and does the kitchen count? Also, it appears the fire department has yet to approve the occupancy load. AP/Espinoza referred to the occupancy load on the cover page of the plans which were the plans that were approved by the Building and Safety, Department and Fire Department. CDD/Gubman said that the occupancy load is a calculation based on the square footage'and dimensions of the room which does not necessarily correspond to the parking requirement. It is the amount of square footage per person that needs to be available for occupancy of the space. These conditions were drafted by the Building Official based on a review of the plans.. The architect calculated the maximum occupancy to be 78. The language in the condition is too ambiguous for him to be able to readily interpret the difference and the NOVEMBER 24, 2015 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION Commission may want to revise the condition to state "final occupancy calculation shall be determined by the Building Official prior to final inspection." ACA/Eggart stated that regardless of what the conditions say occupancy is a Building and Fire Code issue and the Fire Marshall and Building Official at any time would have the ability to require that occupancy be limited to' whatever is required under those codes despite what a set of conditions of approval might otherwise imply. C/Wolfe said he found it interesting that to access the retail area customers would have to come in through the double set of doors to the right in the restaurant space, pass all of the way through by the kitchen into the play area and then back up into the retail area because the single door to the left of the store front is locked from the outside. AP/Espinoza stated that according to the applicant the retail .area has toys, etc., for the children which can be used in the play area and it is targeted toward the kids and parents that dine at the restaurant. CDD/Gubman explained that it is within the Commission's authority to continue this matter if there are questions that the applicant needs to be present to answer. Chair/Low opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Low closed the public hearing. C/Farago moved, C/Nishimura seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-282 based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution with the amendment to the condition regarding occupancy load as follows: "final occupancy calculation shall be determined by the Building Official prior to final inspection." Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Nishimura, Wolfe, VC/Mahlke, Chair/Low NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None NOVEMBER 24, 2015 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION 0 91 PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Nishimura asked why the proposed T -Mobile cell site at Sycamore Canyon Park is no longer on Planning Division project list. SP/Lee responded that after the outcome of the Maple Hill Conditional Use Permit application, the applicant withdrew the application. C/Farago wished his fellow Commissioners and staff a Happy Thanksgiving and safe holiday. VC/Mahlke hoped that everyone has a wonderful blessed holiday time with everyone they love which is most important. C/Wolfe echoed his colleagues' comments. Chair/Low wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. It is at this time that we think about those who are less fortunate and hoped it would be a great season for sharing and recognizing abundance. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Gubman advised the Commission that staff has items ready to go on the December 8 agenda. However, the meeting may have to be canceled due to lack of quorum after the December 1 election returns are certified., CDD/Gubman reported that Smart and Final Extra will be taking over the Haggen space. Staff hopes to see them open by March 2016 after tenant improvements are completed. CDD/Gubman stated that due to vandalism, weeds and debris and unlawful stockpiling of construction/demolition debris at the former Honda site, staff met with the property owners to discuss the matter. The outcome of the meeting was that there is a plan is to demolish the buildings on the site. Accordingly, contractors have been approached and bids have been requested. The initial step will be to fence the site to discourage further trespassing prior to demolition. This has been an ongoing issue for staff and has become a serious nuisance. NOVEMBER 24, 2015 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Low adjourned the regular meeting at 7:33 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 8th day of December, 2015. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director 1 e nifer ale, Vice Chairperson