HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/24/1992CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 24, 1992
I CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Grothe called the meeting to order at 7:00
{� p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management
District Board Meeting Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive,
Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chairman MacBride.
ROLL CALL: Commissioner Harmony, Commissioner Flamenbaum, Vice
Chairman MacBride, and Chairman Grothe.
Commissioner Schey was absent.
Also present were Community Director James
DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy,
Planning Technician Ann Lungu, City Engineer Sid
Mousavi, Deputy City Attorney Bill Curley, and
Contract Secretary Liz Myers.
MINUTES: C/Harmony requested the Minutes of February 10,
1992 be amended on page 4, third paragraph, to
Feb. 10, 1992 delete "there was"; page 5, seventh paragraph to
read, "...the DBIA expanded the scope of their
committee beyond CC&R issues...";page 6, third
paragraph to add, "...as a sample of a recognized
model or an ordinance."; and page 18, fifth
paragraph to read, "...or the Commission's
�i discussion about avoiding...", and replace the last
word with "development".
VC/MacBride requested that the Minutes reflect the
f correct spelling of the City of Ojai.
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by
VC/MacBride and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of
February 20, 1992, as amended. C/Flamenbaum
abstained.
OLD BUSINESS: AP/Searcy reported that, pursuant to the
Commission's request, staff has prepared a
Res. of Denial Resolution of Denial. Resolution 92-2 contains
for DR No. 91-3 those items staff felt the Commission enumerated
during the move to deny. The areas of change are
part 3, section b, items i -v, which are the
findings necessary for approval of denial of a
development review application.
C/Flamenbaum, concerned that the Commission may be
relaying a message discouraging developers to the
Center, requested the Commission to reconsider
their vote. The concerns of the Goodyear project
could be mitigated. The matter should be
continued, and brought before the new body of
Commissioners, in March, for their consideration.
Chair/Grothe explained that the specific issue of
denying the Goodyear project was the location of
February 24, 1992 Page 2
the project, not the project itself. The
Commission did approve the Speedee Lube project,
and is, therefore, not sending a message that
should discourage developers. The Commission
should also stay within the context of the original
vote.
C/Harmony stated that, after conversing with most
of the merchants at the Center, the general
sentiment was that an automotive use was not
particularly critical to the well being of the
Center.
Motion was made by C/Harmony, seconded by
Chair/Grothe and CARRIED to accept the Resolution
of Denial.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Harmony and Chair/Grothe.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: MacBride.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Schey.
CONTINUED
PT/Lungu reported that, pursuant to the
PUBLIC HEARING!
Commission's direction, staff has prepared two
Resolutions. Staff has also included information
CUP 91-12,
regarding the issues of the Fountain Springs
DR 91-5 &
Driveway, and the maximum total building square
SR 91-42
footage, as was requested. The City Engineer, upon
review, indicated support of the idea of using the
Fountain Springs driveway as an ingress only into
the shopping center, with proper modifications.
Furthermore, the proposed CUP is requesting a total
of 17,407 sq. ft. for pads 113, 114, and #15, which
exceeds the approved total square footage of the
original CUP. Pad #14 will need to be reduced by
607 square feet. Staff recommended that the
Commission approve the Resolution for CUP 91-12,
and the Resolution for Sign Review 91-42 and
Development Review 91-5, with the Findings of Fact,
the Negative Declaration No. 92-02, and listed
conditions.
CE/Mousavi, in response to C/Harmony, made the
following comments: the traffic volume will be
reduced on Fountain Springs, and on the
intersection of Fountain Springs and Diamond Bar
Blvd.; some modifications may be necessary to
direct traffic out through the only signalized
driveway; and, because there will be less traffic
on Fountain Springs, there should be less noise for t
the residents in that area.
DCA/Curley, in response to C/Harmony, stated that
since the driveway modification for an ingress only
is part of the CUP Resolution, it would stay as a
__ ..m a-. I'll, r _i n._. i ._, ,. I, d id 3�. M1rt.12r
February 24, 1992 Page 3
binding condition, but can be revisited upon the
applicant's request, or a police power
jurisdiction.
C/Harmony requested staff to modify the language,
in the Resolution, to allow flexibility for appeal,
so the issue can be resolved through the engineer's
office rather than having to come back before the
Commission.
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum to approve the
Resolution, with the modifications requested by
C/Harmony, and upon the acceptance of the Traffic
Commission after they review it.
DCA/Curley explained that the Traffic Commission is
an advisory body to the City Engineer, and the
Planning Commission is the ultimate body that has
the jurisdiction for planning actions. Therefore,
the motion could be phrased 'whereas the City
Engineer shall determine if, based on good
engineering standards, that the ingress only is an
appropriate design characteristic for that site.".
C/Flamenbaum modified his Motion' in accordance with
the language expressed by DCA/Curley. C/Harmony
seconded the Motion.
VC/MacBride pointed out that a recommendation has
already been made by the City Engineer's department
declaring the ingress only driveway to be proper
and operative following standard conditions. The
appendage made is not necessary to the Motion.
Following discussion, C/Flamenbaum withdrew his
Motion.
VC/MacBride stated that, for the reason expressed
at the last meeting, he will not participate in the
voting.
Motion was -made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by
VC/MacBride and CARRIED to approve the Resolution
as amended by staff. VC/MacBride abstained.
An audience member requested to speak before the
Commission. DCA/Curley noted that the Minutes of
the February 10th meeting indicates that the Public
Hearing was declared closed. The person was
permitted to address the Commission.
Ken Anderson, residing at 2628 Rising Star, stated
that he thought this item was to be discussed at
the next Commission meeting.
February 24, 1992
Page 4
DCA/Curley, in response to C/Flamenbaum's inquiry
regarding 5.4 of the Resolution, concurred that the
actual authority or application of the local
private CC&R's is out of the Commission's
jurisdiction, and should be stricken. However, the
remainder of the section, as far as compliance with
the State and City laws, is within the Commission's
jurisdiction.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Paul Kaitz, residing at 23608 Falcon View, the
applicant, stated that he has followed all the
recommendations, regulations, and design standards
to get the house approved. He has agreed to move
one of the trees, that is within house boundaries,
and replace it at a 6:1 ratio.
Larry MacMillan, residing at 2626 Blaze Trail, made
the following comments objecting to the project:
there has already been 2 other Oak Trees removed;
the tree should be left and the house built around
the tree; the replacement trees take a long time to
K!
Chair/Grothe explained that the Commission's
decision, at the last meeting, was to close the
public hearing and direct staff to draw the
Resolution of Approval for this meeting. The item
can be appealed by Council within 10 days.
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by
VC/MacBride and CARRIED to approve the Resolution
of the Planning Commission in the City of Diamond
Bar, approving DR 91-5 and SR, 91-42. VC/MacBride
abstained.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AP/Searcy addressed the Commission regarding the
request from the applicant, Paul Kaitz, to remove
Admin. DR 92-1/
one oak tree in conjunction with the construction
Oak Tree
of a single family residence of approximately 9,101
Permit 92-1
square feet, and to obtain Administrative
Development Review Approval on the residence. The
Administrative Development Review project was
forwarded by the Director of Planning to the
Planning Commission to be reviewed in conjunction
with Oak Tree Permit No. 92-1. AP/Searcy reviewed
the features of the single family residence
proposed, as indicated in the staff report. He
further reviewed the Conditions of Approval listed
in the Resolution, which entails the findings for
the Administrative Development Review and the Oak
Tree Permit. Staff suggested the conditions, of
the oak Tree Permit, include the relocation and
maintenance of the tree, as well.
DCA/Curley, in response to C/Flamenbaum's inquiry
regarding 5.4 of the Resolution, concurred that the
actual authority or application of the local
private CC&R's is out of the Commission's
jurisdiction, and should be stricken. However, the
remainder of the section, as far as compliance with
the State and City laws, is within the Commission's
jurisdiction.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Paul Kaitz, residing at 23608 Falcon View, the
applicant, stated that he has followed all the
recommendations, regulations, and design standards
to get the house approved. He has agreed to move
one of the trees, that is within house boundaries,
and replace it at a 6:1 ratio.
Larry MacMillan, residing at 2626 Blaze Trail, made
the following comments objecting to the project:
there has already been 2 other Oak Trees removed;
the tree should be left and the house built around
the tree; the replacement trees take a long time to
K!
February 24, 1992 Page 5
- I
be as big as the original tree; and the project
proposes placing a 9,000 sqi. ft. house between
3,000 and 5,000 sq. ft. homes'.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
Chair/Grothe, noting the massiveness of the sheer
walls on each property line, suggested that side
yard set back standard be increased as the size of
the house increases, or, at least, require that
there be a break up of the side elevations.
AP/Searcy, in response to a series of Commission
inquiries, stated the following: the proposed
setbacks are 10 feet and 10 feet; the Development
Standards call for alternating 5 and 10 foot
setbacks; and the MacMillan property is about 7 to
10 feet from the project's property line.
Chair/Grothe called a recess at 8:00 p.m. to allow
the Commission time to review the site plans. The
meeting was called back to order at 8:11 p.m.
Chair/Grothe suggested that all projects should be
` required to have the architectural designs carry
around the house completely. The Development Code,
or the Design Code, should be modified to include a
provision requiring relief from the solid sheer
massing at the side of the house.
C/Harmony inquired what method is being proposed to
ensure the Oak Tree's survival upon moving it to
the applicant's other property. He further
inquired why the multiple trunk tree is exempt.
AP/Searcy explained that the tree ordinance,
recommended by the Commission, has not yet been
enacted. The code being used is the one adopted
from the County of Los Angeles.
Paul Kaitz indicated that he has not looked into
methods of moving the Oak Tree. His project should
be considered under the current guidelines, not
those yet to be in effect.
DCA/Curley stated that the currently adopted design
review ordinance provides the Commission the
= authority to condition, or amend, project
submittals. When reviewing the Oak Tree standards,
w the Commission should rely on the current code.
CD/DeStefano stated that, in his opinion, the
multi -trunk oak tree does fall under the confine of
the existing tree ordinance, and the proposed
February 24, 1992
Page 6
ordinance. The Commission has full discretion to
approve, disapprove, and condition in any means
deemed appropriate in allowing for the removal of
an oak tree.
Chair/Grothe recommended that the item be continued
with the following direction: the project be
brought back with a design that breaks up the
massing of the side elevations; the design carries
the architectural features around the house; it
should be determined, in the design review, if the
house can be built around the oak tree that is on
the edge of the project; and the oak tree in the
center of the lot will have to be removed, if
feasible, and relocated in the community.
C/Flamenbaum, noting that the project would not
have come before the Commission had it not been for
the removal of the oak tree, stated that the
purview of the design in single family homes should
be left with the architectural review committee of
the Country.
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, and seconded by
VC/MacBride to approve the Resolution, under
Administrative Development Review 92-1/Oak Tree
Permit 92-1 as modified in section 5-4, and to
include that the multi trunk tree be relocated.
Chair/Grothe restated the importance of developing
minimum standards requiring architectural features
to be carried around the house, and requiring
relief to the massing. For this specific project,
the architect should be requested to address those
issues.
AP/Searcy, in response to C/Harmony, confirmed that
the project has been reviewed, and approved by the
Country's architectural review committee.
VC/MacBride noted that the Motion before the
Commission is dealing with the two oak trees, and
not additional architectural features.
CD/DeStefano stated that the Commission could
condition the approval of the home on the condition
that the refinements to the architectural treatment
be brought back to the Commission for review and
final consideration.
The Commission voted on C/Flamenbaum's Motion.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum and MacBride.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Harmony and Chair/Grothe.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Schey.
__ - 11- 11 1 __.I m. J..,._1- _1n.T. -1114 _[,A,. �.,.,, 1-- —. 7,T qWl,,T, 6"', lba_J Al% -,6,
February 24, 1992 Page 7
DCA/Curley advised that, upon review of the
California law, it has been determined that a tie
is a "no action", and the issue is open for
reconsideration.
Motion was made by Chair/Grothe, seconded by
VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the
matter to the next meeting, inserting
C/Flamenbaum's two previous recommendations into
the Resolution. Architectural treatments and
relief from massing on the side elevations should
also be addressed.
TT No. 51079/ AP/Searcy reported that the application before the
Amendment to Commission is for a Tentative Tract Map No. 51079
CUP 89-551 and an amendment for CUP 89551. The tentative
tract map is for the subdivision of an apartment
complex, currently under development, and located
at 800 S. Grand Avenue, for conversion to
condominiums. The amendment to the CUP would
address a change in some of the architectural
features and amenities needed to convert to
condominiums, as is indicated in the staff report.
The Sheriff Department remains concerned about the
i frequency of auto theft at multi -family residential
projects. Therefore, it is suggested that the
Commission look into including the incorporation of
garages into this subdivision,- for aesthetic
reasons, and for the reduction for potential theft.
AP/Searcy then reviewed the components of the
project, which include landscaping, traffic, and
park fees, as indicated in the staff report. Based
on the nature of this proposed project, the
Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the CUP
89-551 has been determined to be adequate for this
project, in that no additional negative impacts
will be created by this proposal. Staff
recommended that the Commission continue the public
hearing to the March 9, 1992 meeting pending
receipt of comments from the City Engineer.
CE/Mousavi explained that the City has 30 days to
respond to an applicant's submitted application and
to request additional information, if deemed
necessary. Upon receipt of the required
information, the Map Act requires the City to
respond within 50 calendar days. At this time, the
�.e engineering department is still waiting for
additional information from the traffic impact
report. It is unfair to the Planning Commission,
and the applicant, to have a public hearing with
lack of conditions from the engineering department.
He was not made aware of the scheduled public
hearing until last Wednesday. Upon discussion with
TT-----__ __ ____ - ________..
February 24, 1992
Page 8
the Planning Director, there will be a coordinated
effort to assure that all conditions are available
to the Commission for a public hearing.
C/Flamenbaum suggested that the public hearing be
continued to allow staff adequate time to review,
and present all the information to the Commission.
DCA/Curley, responding to C/Harmony's concern,
stated that upon a change in the law, the 50 days
commences from an environmental determination.
Because of this, we reference the CEQA timelines
indicating a 180 day period to respond. It appears
that the environmental position relies on a
mitigated negative declaration. Identifying the
environmental issues, at this time, are unclear.
Because the Commission will not be making any
determinations on it, the 50 day timeline wouldn't
be running. Using the 180 day timeline, the
project is about half way through from the time of
the initial application.' It is advised, however;
that the Commission receives the applicant's
consent to the extension.
Ricky Chang, residing at 2425 Laurel Parker,
+.
explained that, after hearing from staff that the
community didn't like the apartment building and
it's proximity to the street, the partners decided
to subdivide and change to condominiums, landscape
the frontage more extensively, and stucco all of
the retaining walls. He gave his concurrence to
extend the project to the March 9th meeting.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
C/Harmony questioned the impacts of condominiums
versus apartments, as it relates to low cost
housing requirements for the City.
CD/DeStefano stated that the information regarding
the rental structure, and the unit price, or how
those numbers relate to the Diamond Bar market, is
unavailable. There will be a better opportunity to
review, and make decisions on that issue when the
Housing Element is adopted. The City will not gain
"credit" for achieving the goals of the housing
element until the elements are adopted.
CE/Mousavi, in response to C/Harmony, confirmed
43,
that one of the two driveways proposed, of the
potential hospital across the street, will align
with the cut in the center median and the driveway
of this project.
1 „,,a , 4
February 24, 1992 Page 9
C/Harmony requested that a well developed
landscaping plan, and the CC&R's, come back with
the project.
VC/MacBride concurred that a sophisticated planting
system along the entire length of the project,
adjacent to the roadway, would be helpful.
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by
C/Harmony and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the
matter to the meeting of March 9, 1992.
Chair/Grothe called a recess at 9:16 p.m. The
meeting was called back to order at 9:30 p.m.
Tentative Parcel AP/Searcy addressed the Commission regarding the
Map 22986/ request made by the applicant, Ed and Shirley
DR 92-1 Jaworsky, to subdivide an existing two lot parcel,
located at 23475 Sunset Crossing, to reconfigure
the lot lines for a new two lot subdivision, and to
construct a two floor office building approximately
6,000 square feet in size, with parking on the
lower level and office space on the upper level.
Upon the Commission's direction, at the March 11,
1991 public hearing, a traffic report has been
prepared by the applicant, and the findings were
submitted, and reviewed by the Traffic Commission.
AP/Searcy reviewed the poject analysis, as
indicated in the staff report.
Following discussion, AP/Searcy explained that the
structure will have 18 parking spaces, which
calculates at 1 parking space for every 330 square
feet. This project exceeds the threshold for the
general commercial office, which is 1 per 400.
CE/Mousavi, responding to C/Flamenbaum concern if
the structure is particularly sensitive to
earthquakes, confirmed that there has been
preliminary soils and engineering studies. Staff
will be making recommendations for conditions of
the project.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
David Yeoul, designer of the proposed building,
residing at 140 Yolinda Place, Brea, summarized the
changes made to the project: the 18 parking spaces
will be leased to the LA Fitness Center for
employee parking during the evening; the traffic
analysis, approved September of 1991, indicates
that the right turn only out of the development
mitigates the previous traffic concerns; and to
reduce massing, the heighth off average finished
111111—r-1
February 24, 1992 Page 10
grade has been reduced by 5 feet, and more trees
are planted behind the building. In response to
C/Flamenbaum, he explained that the project
provides ground level parking with openings in the
wall for ventilation.
Fred Janz, residing at 2683 Shady Ridge, confirmed
that LA Fitness has leased the parking spaces.
DCA/Curley explained that the applicant has
submitted a Tentative Map and a Design Review in
response to the Commission's concern with the
original CUP 90-1025. It isn't necessarily
appropriate to apply the earlier CUP comments to
this application because it is a different
application. He further stated that, for the
record, VC/MacBride is, again, excusing himself
from participating in this board's deliberation
because he resides within the noticing radius.
Elizabeth Mejia, residing at 23513 Sunset Crossing
Road stated the following concerns: the increase
in traffic; the proximity of the project to her
property; the effects toward the value of the 1k;
property; the heighth of the building; the noise "`r
level; and the effects of the construction.
Joe Becker, residing at 428 Willowpaw, stated the
following concerns: the aesthetics of the building
looking down upon it; 18 additional parking spaces.
will not mitigate the parking problem; he
questioned the method used in calculating the site
distance in the engineers report; he has witnessed
two accidents in the area; and he suggested red
lining the entire curb.
Joe LaRutta, residing at 2546 Sunbright Dr.,
pointed out that most of the concerns stated is
directed at the traffic congestion caused by LA
Fitness. If the owner of this project is allowing
LA Fitness to use the parking spaces to accommodate
18 vehicles, at least that's 18 vehicles less off
of the street.
Roger Mejia, residing at 23513 Sunset Crossing,
stated his concern for the increase in noise from
the use of the parking structure at night.
Hoi Li, the project traffic engineer, confirmed the g
accuracy of the traffic report, and explained how
the site distance was measured. No accidents were
indicated in the Sheriff's traffic report from July
1, 1989 to July 25, 1991.
February 24, 1992
INFORMATIONAL
ITEMS:
White Paper
Page 11
Heidi Janz, residing at 2683 Shady Ridge, stated
structure will lessen the
LA Fitness. The traffic
from, the residents, not the
that the new parking
congestion caused by
coming down the hill is
new building.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
C/Flamenbaum requested an architectural rendering
of what the building will look like into the hill,
both from Sunset Crossing and above.
Chair/Grothe, after the Commission reviewed the
pictures presented by the applicant, requested
pictures that show an elevation from the street,
how this building will look next to the residences,
and an elevation from the back.
CD/DeStefano, in response to C/Harmony's concern
regarding the structure's mass on the downward side
of the slope, explained that the development
standards, contained within the Hillside Ordinance,
are generally set aside for larger projects. 'While
the intent of the Ordinance would not be to design
this type of building, the specific hillside
guidelines don't actually come into play on this
specific application. There is an exemption that
deals with smaller, existing parcels of properties.
C/Harmony stated the following concerns: the
zoning density is an issue; the structure is
massive; the structure is mostly retaining walls;
commercial and residential uses are being mixed;
the parking lot is now full; and there may be, a
line of site, however, the street remains
dangerous.
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by
C/Harmony and CARRIED to continue the matter for
two weeks, and to request that an architectural
rendering, of how the building appears on the site,
be provided. VC/MacBride abstained.
C/Flamenbaum indicated that the draft "White Paper"
is a consolidation of the input received by the
Commission.
C/Harmony submitted a copy of his memorandum
responding to the items drafted in the "White
Paper". The Commission discussed some of the items
stated in C/Harmony's memorandum, and some of the
items of concern stated in the draft "White Paper".
February 24, 1992 Page 12
The Commission concurred to review the draft "White
Paper" item by item, and made the following
changes: 1. Traffic - the wording is suitable; 2.
City Ordinances should be enforced and, "who is
responsible for the gorilla" should be included; 3.
the Use of Consultants - use VC/MacBride's original
language; 4. Redevelopment Agency - the wording is
suitable; 5. CC&R's - add "a policy of cooperation
with Diamond Bar associations and the like"; and
take the last sentence and move`, it to architectural
review; 5. the wording is suitable; 7. the wording
is suitable; 8. add an item encouraging an
improvement in communication between citizens of
Diamond Bar and City Government; 8a. strike the
word "city", and reword to enumerate school and
private facilities as well; 8b.'C/Harmony opposed
"take responsibility and ownership" in this item;
8c. through Be. the wording is suitable; 8f. add
idea that "user fee's are fairly and evenly
assessed"; strike the last sentence; and delete the
conclusion.
ANNOUNCEMENT: C/Harmony updated the Commission regarding the
Hills Club's party incident.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded
VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the
meeting at 11:10 p.m.
Respectively,
,�
Jes DeStefanc
Secretary
Attest:
.-Jadk Grothe
(--chairman
