HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/22/1990if
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THS PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 22, 1990
�- CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Schey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
in the Walnut Valley.School District Board Meeting Room,
880 South Lemon Street, Walnut, California.
PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chairman Harmony.
ROLL CALL: CommissionerGrothe, Commissioner Lin, Commissioner
MacBride, Vice Chairman Harmony, and Chairman Schey.
Also present were Planning Director James. DeStefano,
Associate Planning Director Robert'; Searcy, City Attorney
Bill Curley,, Interim City Planner Irwin Kaplan, Assistant
City Engineer Jack Istik, and Secretary (contract) Liz
Myers.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Motion made by VC/Harmony, and seconded by C/Grothe and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Consent Calendar and
the minutes of October 8, 1990.
OLD BUSINESS:
Consideration
Staff reported the Resolution for Denial, before the
Resolution of
Commission, had''been prepared, by staff and the City
Denial for
Attorneys office, in compliance with the conclusion of
47722 & CUP/OT
the October 8,'1990 Public Hearing. The Resolution' -
39 -338.
had been faxed to the developer, and. the developers'
environmental consultant, and is presented for adoption
. y
tonight.
Motion made by VC/Harmony, seconded by to
_C/MacBride
adopt the Resolution for Denial. Motion CARRIED with
C/Grothe abstaining.
NEW BUSINESSz
Request for
Staff reported the property is located along the north
Extension of
side of Clear Creek Canyon Drive generally between
Tentative Tract
Cleghorn Drive and Monument Drive. The project consists
45678 & CUP/OT
of ten (10) lots, located on two (2) acres, nine (9)
87-373
lots proposed for single family residential development,
and lot ten (10) proposed as open space. The project
received a conditional approval from Los Angeles County
on; March 22, 1988. The tentative tract map, conditional
use permit and Oak tree `permits expired on March 22,
1990. The final tract map was presented for approval by
the City Council on February 20, 1990, in which the
applicant had responded to a variety of project
conditions, but failed to clear the CC&Rs with the City
Attorney. As a result, the map was denied by the City
Council. Subsequently, the applicant had requested an
extension of time on February 26,. 1990, but, as of this
date, the map has not gone before the City Council for a
final review
October 22, 1990
Page 2
because the CC&Rs fdt in an issue. Staff recommended the
Planning Commission deny the request for an extension.
Chair/Schey asked staff to clarify if the primary issue
before the Commission is the failure of the applicant to
comply with the CC&Rs over the years.
Bill Curley, City Attorney, stated the CC&Rs have been
received by the office but not reviewed because of the
assumption the map had terminated on its own accord. He
stated if the Commission should decide to extend the map,
then the documents will be given a full review.
Chair/Schey inquired how the subdivision conforms with
the present criteria.
James DeStefano, Planning Director, stated a lot
averaging process was used to obtain the 8,000 sq. ft.
minimum requirement of the County, which the City no
longer advocates. He stated, other than this major
issue, the map would probably meet all current standards
within the zone.
C/MacBride asked if -there are unique features to the
CC&Rs in the area.
Bill Curley responded the primary issue is the slope
maintenance of the undevelopable areas of each of the
lots, and the maintenance of the common areas.
VC/Harmony asked if there is access to the open space.
Jack Istik, Assistant City Engineer, responded there is
an easement, showing, across a portion of lot nine (9).
Chair/Schey asked the applicant to respond.
Mr. Prescott, clerk to Dr. Omars attorney, stated, in
July of 1990, staff requested the applicant change three
(3) words -on the map and draw one line representing the
slope crest. The applicant complied and received verbal
approval from staff. He stated the CC&R were prepared
and submitted mid March, but the dates for the City
Council review were never honored due to various
circumstances. The CC&Rs do provide care of the slopes
by the homeowners. He stated the applicant will do
modifications, at the Commissions request, but believed
the documents, as presented, should satisfy the City
requirements. He asserted the delays were not due to the
applicants failure, but the organizational process of the
City.
'IT'71777 T
s
October 22, 1990 Page 3
Chair/Schey inquired as to why the tentative tract map
had never been recorded since the subdivision had con-
ditions of approval since 1987.
Mr. Prescott noted his inability to speak for that period
of time, but stated it was his understanding the map was
recorded since the grant of title to the homeowners asso-
ciation was submitted March 15, 1990 and the tract re-
ference was accepted.
Bill Curley explained, when the CC&Rs were submitted
March 15, 1990, staff made a full inquiry into the status
of the map because the tentative map had not been
approved nor recorded. Staff researched dates and timing.
There was no indication by the City Clerks office, the
Council had granted an extension but showed the request
was denied for final approval because of non-compliance.
In referencing back to the records of the Council, it
indicated the map, for all intent and purposes, expired
on its own accord. However, staffs' follow up inquiry
identified there had an, assertion and a request for
extension submitted by the applicant.
Mrs. Omar stated the project was approved by the County
except for the CC&Rs. They have tried to comply, and had
provided staff with the CC&Rs in March of 1990. She
stated they have put in a lot of time, money, and effort
and requested an extension.
VC/Harmony asked if the changes in the CC&Rs have met
with Councils criteria.
Bill Curley replied staff has not scrutinized the map
because it appeared to have expired. He stated it
wouldn't take long to review the status of the CC&Rs, if
the Commission decides to grant an extension of the map.
James Destefano stated, generally speaking, it meets all
of the requirements because the requirements are prin-
cipally the same as they were with the County. The
philosophy is different concerning Oak trees and lot
averaging. The Oak tree setback has not been determined
because homes are not placed on the site.
Jack Istik stated, even though the map meets the Countys
conditions of approval, he is concerned with the build-
ability of lots 7,8, and 9 because of the small pad area
by a large downhill slope.
Chair/Schey asked if grading plans had been submitted by
the applicant.
-, � - 777-7177-17-7-
**7—,.m•l1777— .7,1�, 111•,77'71*aT�I r" , ...-----
r
October 22, 1990
Page 4
Staff responded that only the tract map had been
submitted.
Chair/Schey asked if the applicant is permitted to modify
the canyon.
Mr. Prescott stated, in the CC&Rs, the applicant agreed
it will maintain the slope in the low land, in the
original condition. He stated contemplation of grading
will be minimal and the applicant will build on the flat
land.
Jack Istik asked the applicant if the developer would be
willing to place a note on the final map indicating a
restrictive use area, not permitting grading.
Mr. Prescott indicated he is reasonably sure the
applicant would be agreeable to such an action.
VC/Harmony asked what the CC&Rs requirements are, for the
changing of their own CC&Rs.
Mr. Prescott stated with two thirds (2/3) vote, the CC&Rs
can be modified but the applicant has covenanted not to
and would have to obtain the Commissions' approval.
C/MacBride stated he would remain uncomfortable until the
CC&Rs are carefully reviewed. The matter of open space,
and covenants, is very important in view of future
maintenance, proposed transfers and other transfers that
may occur. He is uncomfortable with the lot averaging
and would prefer further information to be presented.
Bill Curley reiterated the reason the final map had been
denied was because of nonconformance. Should an
extension be granted, the map would not come back to the
Commission. He expressed, if the intent is to receive
more information to assure the map conforms with the
current design standards, an extension would not give the
Commission an opportunity to place new conditions upon
it, but rather allow the applicant more time to gather
incomplete items to present to the Council. He stated
the matter is out of the Commissions hands to put any new
conditions or requirements on this issue.
C/Lin inquired if the frontage of the homes would be
narrow because the pads are small.
Staff, without viewing the area, speculated the frontage
would be consistent to the rest of the neighborhood.
Ernie Delray, manager of the property across the street
from the site, stated the neighborhood consists of
condominiums with homes above the site.
-- ,.,m,. -- - ...o--�. ��.�r ' -- ' 17"'T' 17--- -- -,
October 22, 1990 Page 5
C/Grothe inquired if the Commissions action would go
before the Council.
Bill Curley stated if the Commission does not grant an
extension, the applicant could appeal before the Council.
If the Commission approves the extension, the applicant
could make the appropriate changes before going before
the Council. The merits of the project are as described
in the resolutions originally issued by the County. The
question before the Commission is whether or not to grant
an extension of time.
Chair/Schey stated the project is a simple subdivision
that should have been recorded before Diamond Bar became
a City. Since it was not recorded, and is now subjected
to expiration, the Commission has the obligation to re-
view the map. He does not believe the'map meets the cur-
rent City standards, and would make a motion to deny the
request for extension.
C/MacBride had concerns with three (3) items:
1. Street Improvements
T Project: Modification of western terminus of
Sunset Crossing Road including possible extension
into City of Industry.
1_177-7777-717_ - - ---
,
VC/Harmony stated he is not convinced the lots are build-
able. He contended there is an element of do diligence,
on staff and the applicant, to assure the process is
administered appropriately.
Motion was made by Chair/Schey and seconded by VC/Harmony
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to deny the request for exten-
c
sion.
Review and
Staff reported the City Council has scheduled a joint
Comment on
study session for Tuesday, November 13, 1990, at 6:00
Draft CIP
p.m. to review the initial draft of the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) and explain the roles and
responsibilities of each Commission. The Planning
Commissions comments, relative to specific projects, will
be forwarded, to the City Council, for their considera-
tion and prioritizing of the projects. Staff explained
the CIP is a master plan, for the next five (5) years, to
plan the allocation of the CitysI financial and land
resources. The CIP would deal with plans for
constructing, repairing and maintaining the, Citys parks,
buildings, streets, and other assets, and is funded
through a variety of mechanisms. Staff requested
comments from the Commissioners, relative to the CIP.
C/MacBride had concerns with three (3) items:
1. Street Improvements
T Project: Modification of western terminus of
Sunset Crossing Road including possible extension
into City of Industry.
1_177-7777-717_ - - ---
,
October 22, 1990 Page 6
He was concerned the language, "possible extension
into City of Industry", extends verbal leverage to
outside bodies, and would like to have the wording
eliminated. He would rather have the language
inserted, "... we make plans to develop a connector
link between the two (2) recreational parcels so
they can be more advantageously used for the
benefit of the community."
2. Municipal Buildings and Facilities
Project: City Hall/Community Center
He encouraged describing the center to indicate the
possibility of a multi -faceted Civic_ Center.
3. Traffic Control
A new project to be included: Diamond Bar Blvd.
Sunset Crossing North to Freeway 57 on ramp
(distance approximately 750 feet), to include
medians for traffic control and aesthetics.
- -,
He explained this section of Diamond Bar Blvd. is a
part of the- state, freeway 57 system, and is
temporarily signed to connect the 57 and 60. He
stated the on-ramp has (5) traffic movements. The'
painted median safeguards (8) commercial driveways,
(3) fast food centers, (3) street exits and
entrances, (3) fire plugs and (2) bus stops. He
requested the project be included in the CIP and
\�
requested research as to the occurrence, of the
situation.
C/Grothe was concerned with items:
1. He advocated' separating the project City
Hall/Community Center and recommended expending
towards
money Cit improvements first
Y P � and continue
leas'
�.n -office space for Cit
g P Hall.
Y
2. Landscaping and Irrigation
Project: Correct rrect widesp read deficiencies of
de
s� wal ks, curbs, and gutters.
He recommended adding street lighting to the
project. He stressed avoiding capital improvements
that would leave "holes" of unimproved areas within
the City.
3. He stated additional areas in need of capital
improvement are p on Golden g SP rin s Diamond Bar
Blvd. at L orbeer and Diamond Bar Blvd. in front of
the triplexes. He explained there have been
center -median improvements, but the smaller asphalt
medians, separating Diamond Bar Blvd. from frontage
streets, have been neglected.
- -,
- ���-,m = �r - ..�rA��r —..n
October 22, 1990
Page 7
Chair/Schey referred to the items:
1.
street Improvements
Project: Resurface Golden Springs Road from Grand
_
Avenue to Brea Canyon Road.
He requested adding the installation of proper
curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the north side of
Golden Springs.
2.
Traffic Control
Project: Construction of bus turnouts along
regularly traveled bus routes.
He questioned the necessity of the project. He
stated the County recently did substantial
concreting of pads at bus stops, and, in most
cases, there is no room to widen roads, nor a need
to:
3.
Traffic Control
Project: Construction of circulation barrier to
deter traffic using Quail Summit Drive and Rolling
Knoll Drive as an alternate access between Diamond
Bar Blvd. and Grand Avenue.
He realized the area is of concern to the residents
but questioned the action as an appropriate method
of controlling an undetermined problem.
4.
Electrical Systems
Project: underground installation of electrical
components along Diamond Bar Boulevard, removing
unsightly overhead wires.
He urged the inclusion of underground wires beyond
Sunset Crossing to extend toward the City limits.
5.
Parks and Recreation
Project: Replacement of obsolete and/or damaged
playground equipment at Heritage and Sycamore
Canyon Parks.
He requested the project be expanded to all City
parks. He noted (4) small parks he felt should be
recognized, located at Softwind and Stardust,
Longview east of Brookwood, Longview near Summit
Ridge, and Longview near Cold Springs Court.
6.
He concurred with C/Grothe on the necessity of
including street lighting when correcting sidewalk,
curbs, and gutters.
- ���-,m = �r - ..�rA��r —..n
October 22, 1990
Page 8
C/Harmony discussed the items:
1. He concurred with C/MacBride extending Sunset
Crossing into the City of Industry would be
undesirable. He emphasized the City of Industry is
a light industrial center to be wedged between two
(2) major residential cities, creating undesirable
environmental impacts, too close to Diamond Bars'
recreational facilities.
2. He cautioned the improvement of public facilities,
as they relate to our boundaries, can facilitate or
complicate development outside the City of Diamond
Bar, within our well-defined sphere of influence.
He advised waiting on improvements until future
developers offer assurance of annexing with the
City, allowing the capability to regulate the kind
of developments to occur in the area.
3. He stated, in reference to a Community Center, it
should be encouraged to obtain centralized land to
house all community needs. He stated rent for the
Commission and the consultants, at City Hall,
totals $120,000 a year, and he would prefer to
upgrade the old Post Office site, on a temporary
lease basis for five (5) to ten (10) years, before
buying another parcel of land strictly for City
governmental use.
4. He requested from staff a report on the sources
available to obtain additional grants and funding,
other than taxes, and staffs' opinion as to the
best possibilities of capturing these dollars.
C/Lin was concerned with the item:
1. Sewer and Storm Drain Systems
Project: Upgrading of existing sewer pump stations
throughout the City.
She inquired as to the amount of stations currently
servicing the City, and the urgency of the project.
Jack Istik responded there are five (5) sewer pump
stations the County is in the process of
redesigning because of breaking mains. There is a
chance, due to the Health Department requirements,
the City is bound to repair them. However, the Los
Angeles County Office of Public Works has not yet
approached the City with costs.
October 22, 1990 Page 9
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
7ariance 90-101. Staff reported the environmental assessment and
variance is an application for the construction of
an approximately 6,300 sq. ft., three story, single
family residence, in excess of 35' above average
finished grade, on a .9 acre lot, and located at
1741 Derringer Road, in a zone R-1-40,000, of the
Country Estates.
Robert Searcy, Associate Planning Director,
reported the rectangular site is one (1) acre in
size, but the buildable area is limited due to the
topography of the lot. The design of the residence
is a typical pad type design, being proposed for a
parcel with slopes in excess of 50 percent. The
lot possesses 151 feet of frontage and the average
lot depth is 468 feet. The lot slopes from south
to north and a ravine traverses the rear portion of
the property sloping to the east. The property is
covered by natural grasses and a stand of trees is
located to the rear of the site. A retaining wall
and stilts must be constructed in order for the pad
and structure to be completed as designed. The
structure will reach in excess of 40 feet above the
average finished grade, and an additional 15 feet
of the structure will be visible from the western
elevation. From the eastern elevation,, the
residence will have the appearance of a one floor
structure. The initial application was submitted to
the Los Angeles County Regional Planning, at which
time it was denied. The applicant waited, until
the City took over the planning functions, to file
a plot plan. The application was denied by staff
because the design did not conform to the height
limits. The applicant is now appealing the denial
in the form of this variance application. Staff
recommended denial of the environmental assessment
and variance.
Chair/Schey declared the Public Hearing open.
Pete Volbeda, architect for the project, residing
at 630 Brea Canyon Road, Walnut, stated the lot is
one of few, along Derringer, that has no pad, and
in which the site drops straight down from the
asphalt pavement. The home cannot be designed like
the adjacent residents. To design the house more
closely_to the natural terrain, in which a road is
taken down at 15%, would be anlexpensive alterna-
tive to the applicant. The applicant is asking for
a six (6) foot, two (2) inch 'ivariance above the
allowable height, and stated there are other homes
-77'i i i ��m o:n tui �w,,, , -- -
October 22, 1990 Page 10
in the Country meeting the exact height the appli-
cant is now proposing. He maintained the Country
is running out of flat lots and the Commission will
be seeing more requests for variances in the
future. He urged the Commission to view the
variance as a hardship claim.
VC/Harmony acknowledged the Country is running out
of developable lots, many at the edge of cliffs
requiring inventiveness in development. He does
not perceive this to be enough reason to justify a
hardship claim.
Pete Volbeda stressed, at the time the applicant
submitted the plan, the County standards allowed
measuring from the average finished grade to the
mid point of the highest gable, and now the City
determines the height to the top of the ridge.
VC/Harmony pointed out the City adopted County
standards after the County had made the modifi-
cations.
Chair/Schey noted the applicants' design had not
conformed to County standards, and was thereby
denied.
Vigal Vakeel, owner of the house, stated several
homes are being built in the Country the same size
or higher. He stated the plan is the only
affordable design he can build, and asked for
relief, from the Commission, to allow the height
difference.
Chair/Schey declared the Public Hearing closed.
C/Grothe suggested adopting standards, specifically
for the Country, to fit desired ridge home develop-
ments, as opposed to encouraging more grading, to
achieve flat lands, to meet present City standards.
He would like to allow for some imagination, and
asserted if 900 of homes would not comply to the
standards, then the Commission should reevaluate
those standards.
Chair/Schey commented it was typical of the County
to grant very lenient interpretations of the codes,
as is evident in the Country. He asserted the
standards are not wrong, but rather there has been
a lack of consistency, giving the idea any design
will be approved. He stated there must be a mini-
mum standard, at some point, and he did not feel
the standards pose any undue restrictions.
October 22, 1990 Page 11
VC/Harmony asked what would result, if the appli-
cation was made to comply to City standards.
Staff believed it possible to redesign the house to
utilize more of the slope by changing the elevation
of the floors. Another alternative would be to
redesign the roof, to lower the height.
C/Grothe concurred there should be a minimum stan-
dard. However, he felt the standard was written
for flat land development, and did not make rea-
sonable provisions for hilltop development. He
directed staff to survey the amount of homes not
complying with the current standards.
VC/Harmony believed more than 700 of homes, in the
Country, comply with the current standard. The
lots remaining are the most difficult to develop,
and the homes are becoming more massive. To pro-
tect the specialized zoning of the Country, the
standard must be maintained.
Chair/Schey stated surveying homes, would only de-
monstrate the amount of variances permitted. It
would not demonstrate if complying to the standards
was achievable. He asserted, in some cases, a
variance would be appropriate, but he was not -con-
vinced there are extenuating circumstances in this
particular variance. He is not, convinced the cur-
rent standard is unreasonable.
C/Lin concurred with the necessity of maintaining a
minimum standard, but agreed with C/Grothe to allow
changes to height requirement to accommodate some
of the more difficult to develop lots remaining in
the Country. She would consider a variance in the
present case, since the house was designed years
ago, but in the future, she proposed revising the
current standards to allow for the unique circum-
stances of the remaining lots.
VC/Harmony asserted the revised standards the
County effected, were developed with the Country in
mind, to prevent the massive structures being
developed.
Motion was made by C/Grothe, and seconded by
C/MacBride, to deny the application for an
environmental assessment and variance. MOTION
CARRIED.
4 AYES - C/Grothe, C/MacBride, VC/Harmony, and
Chair/Schey.
1 NAY - C/Lin
Chair/Schey stated surveying homes, to determine
the need of creating a new ordinance to accommodate
the development in the Country, would require a lot
- - ��T 7 „ , - —
October 22, 1990 Page 12
of work for a small remaining portion of undeve-
loped lots.
C/MacBride concurred the existing regulation is
reasonable, and regardless of the requirements
determined, there will always be applications for
variances to the rule.
C/Grothe mentioned, besides the issue of heighth,
he is concerned with sideyard setbacks in relation
to the size of homes.
Chair/Schey stated crafting an ordinance to meet
all contingencies and potential issues would be
impossible. The only way to mediate these issues
would be through a design review.
James DeStefano suggested an alternative, to
looking at a large variety of houses, to determine
average height, would be for the Commissioners to
pin point homes appealing in bulk and. mass. Staff
can do a comparative research on the homes to help
establish standards.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: VC/Harmony announced that on Saturday, he has an
appointment with the Fire Chief of Los Angeles
County to determine if fire trucks can climb a 15%
grade, after turning around on a,cul de sac, at the
Gold Rush development. He stated if the meeting
becomes something of interest, perhaps it could be
arranged for the Commission to ride on the fire
truck.
C/Grothe declared Gold Rush is impossible to exit
since the new home development.
C/MacBride stated he will be unable to attend the
November 13, 1990 study session.
Staff explained the study session of November 13,
1990 will commence at 3:00 p.m. to review the
Interim Ordinance for Hillside Regulations and the
Interim Ordinance for Commercial Manufacturing Land
Uses. The Council has arranged to meet with the
other Commissions, at 6:00 p.m., to discuss,
specifically, the CIP.
Staff, in response to the inquiry from C/MacBride,
stated the Sign Ordinance will be presented for the
Commissions review on the meeting of November 26,
1990 and will be delivered in the Commissioners
packet on November 16, 1990.
I I'
October 22, 1990
ADJOURNMENT:
i
Page 13
Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by
C/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the
meeting at 9:42 p.m,.
Attest:
4IL(P
jamJ DeStefano
Secretary/P1an6ing commission
r
\:�04G�
David Schey
Chairman