HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/9/1992CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1992
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Grothe called the meeting to order at 7:07
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:
Commissioner Flamenbaum.
ROLL CALL:
Commissioner Li, Commissioner Flamenbaum, Vice
Chairman MacBride, and Chairman Grothe.
Commissioner Meyer 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.
MATTERS FROM
Ken Anderson, residing at 2628 Rising Star Dr.,
THE AUDIENCE:
stated that he had misunderstood, at the February
10th public hearing, that the SpeeDee lube project
had been approved by the Planning Commission, and
that there was not to be further public comments
received in the following Planning Commission
meeting. He stated his concerns regarding the
project: the traffic pattern; the monument sign;
the increase in noise; the inadequate parking; and
pedestrian safety.
Chair/Grothe, reiterating the information relayed
to Mr. Anderson at the February 24th meeting,
explained that an appeal may be filed to the City
Council, at the City Clerk's Office, within 14 days
of the date of the Planning Commission's decision.
Chair/Grothe welcomed C/Li to the Commission, as
well as C/Meyer.
MINUTES:
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by
VC/MacBride and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of
Feb. 24, 1992
February 24, 1992. C/Li abstained. Meyer Absent.
CONTINUED
AP/Searcy reported that, at the last Planning
PUBLIC HEARING:
Commission public hearing meeting of February 24,
1992, the Commission stated the following concerns:
F Administrative
the maintenance and replacement of the oak trees;
f' Development
and the massive unobstructed design of the
Review 92-1/
residence side elevations. Staff has determined
k Oak Tree Permit
that the single trunk oak tree does fall into the
92-1
purview of the current oak tree ordinance
permitting procedure, however, the multi trunk tree
does not because the combined circumference of the
tree is 33 inches; and the required total
circumference is 38 inches. The applicant has
acquired a licensed arborist to assist in the
relocation of the single oak tree, and desires to
March 9, 1992 page 2
relocate the tree to his private residence within
the Country. The applicant has also submitted a
revised plan that identifies the use of bay window
and wrap around trim to break up the massiveness of
the wall. Staff has prepared a revised Resolution
for approval of the project.
VC/MacBride suggested section 8, paragraph 3, page
3, of the revised Resolution, indicate that the
architectural plans are "revised". The
architectural plans should also bear a later date
so that there would be no problem identifying it in
the future.
CD/DeStefano suggested that, if the Commission is
of the mind to approve the project, section 5.3,
page 3, can be amended to indicate, "...that the
revised plot plan and architectural elevations
identified as sheets #14 and #15, with the date of
March 9, 1992, presented at public hearing of March
9, 1992, and marked as Exhibit "A"...".
VC/MacBride concurred.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Paul Kaitz, residing at 23608 Falcon View, owner of
the property located at 2638 Blaze Trail, presented
photos of the proposed site to the Commission. He
stated that after reading the current code, he
would prefer to replace the tree, with the
appropriate sizes, at a 2:1 ratio, as opposed to
relocating the tree. All other approvals for this
job are in order and construction is ready to begin
upon approval of this Commission.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
AP/Searcy, in response to C/Flamenbaum, stated that
the revised Resolution indicates that the•oak tree
should be relocated.
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by
VC/MacBride to approve the Resolution, with the
modifications requested by VC/MacBride.
Chair/Grothe, believing that the matter should be
continued, stated that the applicant needs to
address the relief of the massing of the one solid
wall, which is 20 feet high and the full length of
the house, before the project is. approved. There
should be an ordinance that addresses this issue.
C/Flamenbaum, though in concurrence with the
concept of reducing massiveness, stated that, in
. n _.,A _A,�X41A, „ .'_ k, 177 X r °i �- <Ma � Wim„ A
d4.:b_..}uL��lU li y.4Wd4uli.AiulNld n.ar __I�m�,.-r�•-� _ U. """ _ ._ -. mii.ru i�.rn x�........a... ...... .,..,...
March 9, 1992 Page 3
this particular case, the project should be
approved because the applicant did not receive
adequate notice, regarding the Commission's
feelings on massiveness, prior to -his submittal of
the plans. In future projects, staff will notify
all applicants of the Commission's viewpoint.
DCA/Curlie advised C/Li that, unless he feels
adequately familiar with all the issues and prior
testimony, he should not participate in the vote.
C/Li stated that he will not participate in the
vote. However, he did comment that the important
key issue is that there are no clear guidelines for
the Commission to follow on this particular issue.
The Commission voted on C/Flamenbaum's Motion.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum and MacBride.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Grothe.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Li.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer.
The Motion CARRIED.
TT 51079 &
AP/Searcy reported that the Commission, atthe
Amendment to
February 24, 1992 meeting, directed the applicant
CUP 89551
to provide staff with information related to
landscape plans and a draft of the conditions,
covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's). The
applicant has provided the requested information.
Upon reviewing the landscape pallet, staff would
concur with the landscape plan as approved.
AP/Searcy then reviewed the information, as
indicated in the staff report. He further stated
that staff supports the addition of garages at the
project, or a security gate at the entrance of the
site, in accordance with the comments forwarded
from the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department.
However, constructing garages would require a lot
of architectural work so that it would not be
massive. The use of the proposed carports would
drastically reduce that massiveness. Staff could
make either issue, garages or a security gate, a
condition of approval upon the Commission's
recommendation. Staff has prepared Resolutions of
Approval and Conditions of Approval.
Chair/Grothe requested that the City Engineer
rewrite section 5.11 of the Resolution to include a
Reimbursement Agreement, instead of naming all the
entities for consideration by the commission.
C/Li suggested that the lot number be given instead
of naming the Diamond Bar Medical Plaza. He
March 9, 1992 Page 4
'aNFj�
inquired how the park contribution amount was
derived.
CD/DeStefano explained the Quimby Fee process,
within the subdivision Code of the Los Angeles
County, to C/Li. Subsequent to the adoption of the
County's code and ordinances in April of 1989, the
f' City Council adopted an ordinance, in mid 1990,
ry which changed the amount per acre in terms of
formulating the total Quimby Fee. The price
inserted in the County Code formula will change
depending upon where the property is located, and
what the value of the land is.
AP/Searcy, in response to C/Flamenbaum, stated that
the existing structure has been approved with
carports. Constructing garages would decrease the
availability of parking area, and reduce the
availability of landscaping. The gate can be
located where it does not directly impact the
availability of:open space.
CE/Mousavi, in response to C/Flamenbaum's inquiry
regarding the location of the
r g g gate, stated that the
gate should be located at least 60 feet from the
pavement in order to stack 3 cars from the curb.
There needs to be at least 3 parking spaces for
guests, as well. There is adequate space to
accommodate different alternative gate designs.
AP/Searcy confirmed that the gate could be located
at the end of the first building by the entrance.
C/Flamenbaum recommended that section 4.9 of the
CC&R's be amended to include a mediation
arbitration clause so that alternate dispute
resolutions are provided.
The Public Hearing was declared open
Ricky Chang, applicant, residing at 24250 Barker
Dr., made the following comments: they intend to
increase their recreation area, and request that
the area be deducted from the park contribution
formula; if the parking structure is increased,
then the parking area is decreased, therefore, only
54 parking spaces can be implemented; he requested
that they just pay their share of the signal, or
perhaps not use a signal until the others start
development; and he requested that the gate be
omitted if the 54 garages are implemented.
March 9, 1992 Page 5
Chair/Grothe pointed out that the existing
condition states that the signal be installed prior
to the completion of the project.
C/Flamenbaum, noting that garages are often used
for storage rather than parking, suggested that a
security gate be installed and that carports be
implemented.
CE/Mousavi, in response to C/Li, stated that, to
his understanding, a traffic signal was a condition
for the approval of the apartment building. Since
the number of units remain the same, and the
traffic generation for apartments and condominiums
are very similar, then the need for the signal
would remain.
C/Li asked the applicant which would be better for
the project, garages or carports.
Ricky Chang stated that they would be satisfied
with implementing the garages, if they are allowed
to construct only 54 garages.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
Chair/Grothe called a recess at 8:36 p.m. The
meeting was called back to order at 8:45 p.m.
Chair/Grothe stated that since most garages are
used for storage rather than parking, he would
recommend the use of carports with a security gate.
However, the project should also incorporate a
minimal size storage facility, and a lockable bike
rake. The Commission concurred.
CD/DeStefano, in response to the Commission's
inquiry regarding the appropriate location for the
gate, stated that, subject to review by the City
Engineer, it would appear that the gate would be 80
to 90 feet from the street right-of-way. If the
project is approved, it should be conditioned to
incorporate as many guest parking spaces on the
"public side" of the gate, as possible.
Chair/Grothe suggested that the Resolution be
amended to include the following: items 1-8 of
interior additions, and item 1 of exterior
additions from the staff report from the February
F` 24th meeting; carports; a security gate; and omit
garages.
CE/Mousavi read the revision to the second portion
F, of condition #20 of the traffic section: "When the
March 9, 1992 Page 6
lot, located at 887 Grand Ave., becomes approved, a
fair share cost will be developed for said signal
based upon confirmation of the generated traffic
data, in proportion to each projects traffic share
at such time the property owner of 800 S. Grand
would receive refunds in accordance with the City
approved reimbursement agreement.".
CD/DeStefano stated that, based upon the
Commission's discussion, it would appear the
following changes to the CUP Resolution would be
appropriate for consideration: page 2, subsection
B.2 should be reworded to indicate, "...that the
environmental analysis conducted previously,
specifically the Negative Declaration prepared for i
CUP 89-551, and previously certified, does not
require supplementation, amendment, or subsequent
analysis in compliance with the ..."; page 3,
subsection 5, be amended to indicate, "...subject
to the following restrictions as to use, subject to
the conditions set forth in section 6, hereafter;
page 4, subsection 5.11 should be reworded as
outlined by the City Engineer; condition 16 should
be restated to indicate, "...CUP 89-551, not:;;
superseded by this Resolution, shall be
incorporated herein by reference."; condition 17
should be amended to read, "...or the in -lieu fee
of $164,333 prior to the recordation of the final
map."; add condition 19 to state, "The applicant
shall prepare and provide a new site plan
reflecting a vehicular and pedestrian gate at the
front entrance to the site, and approximately 8
parking spaces located near said front gate.";
condition 20, "The applicant shall provide draft
CC&R's to the City for review and approval by the
City Attorney prior recordation of the map.";
condition 21, "The applicant shall incorporate the
interior and exterior improvements as listed in the
February 24, 1992 staff report." (those issues will
be specifically listed if the Commission concurs
with the additional conditions); subsection 6
should be renumbered subsection 7; the new
subsection 6 should read, "This Resolution shall be
null, void, and of no effect, if the Council of the
City of Diamond Bar fails to approve Tentative
Tract Map 51079, as described in the Resolution of
the City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission and
Resolution 89-551 shall remain in full force and
effect.".
C/Flamenbaum requested that the Planning Director
also review the CC&R's for a consistency with the
draft, as presented tonight. He would also like to
March 9, 1992 Page 7
see the inclusion of some alternative resolution
dispute in subsection 4.9 of the CC&R's.
Chair/Grothe requested that the Resolution also
include a condition requesting some planting of ivy
along the walls.
C/Flamenbaum requested that the Resolution be
drafted and returned to the Commission, at the next
meeting, without public comment.
Motion was made by Chair/Grothe, seconded by
VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff
to prepare a Resolution incorporating the changes,
as outlined, for the Commission's consideration,
for the next meeting.
CD/DeStefano indicated that Tentative Tract Map
51079 has similar changes needing to be made within
the Resolution: subsection 6 should be renumbered
to subsection 7; subsection 6 should read, "The
recommendation of this Commission is conditioned on
the approval and existence of Planning Commission
j Resolution No. XX, which amended CUP 89551,
converting an apartment complex to a condominium
subdivision."; and change condition # 11, of the
Planning staff condition, and condition #20, from
the Director of Public Works, to reflect the
_ language as previously outlined by the Director of
Public Works regarding said condition #11 and #20.
Motion was made by Chair/Grothe, seconded by
C/Flamenbaum and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to and direct
staff to redraft the resolution and recommendation
to the City Council for approval of Tract Map
51079, as directed and bring the matter to the
commission on March 23, 1992.
Tentative Parcel AP/Searcy reported that the applicant has requested
Map 22986/Devel. an additional continuance to the March 23, 1992
review 92-1 Planning Commission meeting in order that the
previously requested information can be provided to
staff in a timely fashion for review and comments
prior to the hearing.
DCA/Curley, in response to Chair/Grothe, stated
that the Commission may either consent to the
request of the applicant, or alternatively take an
action on the application
The Public Hearing was declared open.
I Fred Janz, residing at 2486 Shady Ridge, applicant,
stated that the proposed building is lower than the
March 9, 1992
Page a
neighboring house. If necessary, plants and shrubs
could be planted to hide the building, though there
are no windows on that side of the house. He
indicated that he has no objection to a
continuance.
Elizabeth Mejia, residing at 23513 Sunset Crossing,
requested that the applicant be required to provide
photos indicating how it would look in the proposed
slope area.
Roger Mejia, residing at 23513 Sunset Crossing,
stated that though there are no windows on that
side of the house, the proposed building will block
the view from the front of the house.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
Chair/Grothe called a recess at 9:25 p.m. The
meeting was called back to order at 9:31 p.m.
The Public hearing was declared open.
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by
Chair/Grothe and CARRIED to continue the matter to
the March 23, 1992 meeting, to allow the applicant
time to submit the requested renderings.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: F 1 a m e n b a u m, a n d
Chair/Grothe.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Li a n d
MacBride.
INFORMATIONAL CD/DeStefano informed the Commission that the
ITEMS: "White Paper" has been finalized and forwarded to
the City Council in preparation for the joint study
session scheduled for March 24, 1992.
CD/DeStefano distributed a copy of the plan for
Resource Management, a component of the General
Plan, which outlines the style that will be
utilized for the development of the final General
Plan. The document has been approved by the Parks
and Recreation Commission, but not, as yet, by
GPAC.
CD/DeStefano recommended that the meeting be
adjourned to March 23, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. for the
purpose of conducting a study session on the
General Plan.
— - 4Lt. k-i...wdlW - - x,n .11,11, n-—.�w.�o�sswwwueuG����.���...��,....�..�"�.' ---- ----.--_--_—_--.--.____
March 9, 1992 Page 9
VC/MacBride stated that he will be unable to attend
the March 23rd meeting due to a scheduling
conflict.
Chair/Grothe requested that staff place, on the
next agenda, a discussion on the procedure and
policy of the Planning Commission. The Commission
concurred.
Chair/Grothe further requested that there also be
discussion, on the next agenda, addressing the
issue of massing on the side of properties and
architectural style.
CD/DeStefano recommended that the item be
agendized, within the next two meetings, for
specific discussion in terms of direction, which
would then lead to staff amending the existing
Design Review Ordinance and/or the creation of a
Commission subcommittee to deal with the issue.
CD/DeStefano stated that the City Council will be
f reviewing the Tree Ordinance tomorrow. He further
stated that the dry cleaning project, approved by
the Commission, was appealed and will be reviewed
by the City Council to decide upon the merits of
that appeal.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by
C/Flamenbaum and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the
meeting at 9:48 p.m. to March 2.3, 1992, at 6:00
p.m., for a study session on the General Plan.
Respectively,
J"es DeStefano
Secretary/Plann_ng Commission
est:
ck Grothe
Chairman