Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/22/1992PUBLIC HEARING: PT/Lungu presented the staff report regarding a request, from applicant William A. Stiegler, for a Variance Variance to approve an existing six (6) foot high No. 92-1 wrought iron fence with pilasters within the twenty (20) foot front yard setback, over the allowable height of forty-two (42) inches. The proposed project is located within "The Country" at 2621 Indian Creek Road (Lot 8, Tract 23483). There are three issues that need to be addressed pertaining to this project. The first issue concerns the fact that the existing fence has been constructed within the twenty (20) foot front yard setback and exceeds a height of forty two (42) inches. The second issue is determining if it was necessary to construct the fencing as it exists or if it could have been placed behind the twenty (20) foot front yard setback. The third issue is determining whether the fencing is aesthetically compatible with the area. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 92-1 with the following conditions and Findings of Fact attached to the staff report. C/Meyer inquired why this particular project is before the Commission since there are other such similar fences located in "The Country". PT/Lungu explained that it began as a code enforcement issue. It is before the Commission as a request for a Variance to permit modification of the development standards because the topography of the site makes it difficult to enforce the Code setback and height requirements. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 22, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: the Community Development Director James DeStefano. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Meyer, Li, Grothe, and Chairman Flamenbaum. Vice Chairman MacBride was absent (excused). Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Deputy City Attorney Bill Curley, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. CONSENT CALENDAR: Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of Minutes of May May 26, 1992, the Minutes of May 28, 1992, and the 26, May 28, Minutes of June 8, 1992, as presented. & June 8, 1992 PUBLIC HEARING: PT/Lungu presented the staff report regarding a request, from applicant William A. Stiegler, for a Variance Variance to approve an existing six (6) foot high No. 92-1 wrought iron fence with pilasters within the twenty (20) foot front yard setback, over the allowable height of forty-two (42) inches. The proposed project is located within "The Country" at 2621 Indian Creek Road (Lot 8, Tract 23483). There are three issues that need to be addressed pertaining to this project. The first issue concerns the fact that the existing fence has been constructed within the twenty (20) foot front yard setback and exceeds a height of forty two (42) inches. The second issue is determining if it was necessary to construct the fencing as it exists or if it could have been placed behind the twenty (20) foot front yard setback. The third issue is determining whether the fencing is aesthetically compatible with the area. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 92-1 with the following conditions and Findings of Fact attached to the staff report. C/Meyer inquired why this particular project is before the Commission since there are other such similar fences located in "The Country". PT/Lungu explained that it began as a code enforcement issue. It is before the Commission as a request for a Variance to permit modification of the development standards because the topography of the site makes it difficult to enforce the Code setback and height requirements. June 22, 1992 Page 2 C/Meyer inquired if the City issues building permits for fences. PT/Lungu stated that building permits are not issued for fences six (6) feet or less, and it is not a retaining wall. William Stiegler, residing at 8724 E. Garvey Ave., Rosemead, the applicant, stated that this matter was brought up because of an inspector, who was in the area regarding an unrelated matter, noted the fence. Mr. Stiegler submitted an affidavit, from two neighbors across the street from the indicated property,stating that they are in favor of the fence. He explained that the fence has been installed for approximately one year. The Public Hearing was declared opened. The Public Hearing was declared closed. C/Grothe indicated that, though the fence is aesthetically suitable, he does not feel a variance should be granted for a fence that is too tall, too close to the street, and does not conform to the zoning code. He suggested that there needs to be modification to the development code. C/Meyer stated that this type of fencing occurs in that community, is consistent with the development standards of that community, is acceptable to the neighbors, and only violates a set of development standards that may no longer be applicable to that area. Instead of looking at it as an exception, perhaps the development standards should be reviewed. He recommended that the request be continued, and staff be directed to develop some sort of development standards, either through a conditional use permit, or a modification of the development standards for large lot subdivisions, which would allow' this development in certain circumstances. The variance is the wrong tool for this project. C/Li concurred that the variance is an improper tool. All fencing that violates the development standards should be before the Commission, not just one. He suggested that there should be a timeline to determine at what point our standards come into effect. CD/DeStefano explained that code enforcement in Diamond Bar is limited and works on a reactive basis. -If this case is a result of some sort of P-, June 22, 1992 Page 3 code enforcement activity, then we are obligated, by the code, to get the proper permits. Staff feels it is a righteous variance in terms of it being a hardship for the applicant, the topography of the site, and the safety issues. Staff recommended that the Commission approve the variance, eliminating the hardship for this particular applicant, and then direct staff to prepare a code amendment to bring back to the Commission for consideration at the earliest date. C/Meyer inquired how long it would take for staff to develop new standards. He further inquired if the present standards are antiquated as they're applied to this particular zoning character. CD/De5tefano responded that the standards are antiquated in terms of their application to hillside properties. It will probably take staff six to eight weeks to gather up information from other hillside communities with similar circumstances, see how they are addressing the problem, and then develop an ordinance, for the Commissions consideration, that meets the desires of our community. Staff recommends that the variance approach is the appropriate tool for this specific application. However, in terms of dealing with the more broadly based issue, a change in code is warranted. Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by Chair/ F lamenbaum and CARRIED to approve Variance 92-1. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: M e y e r, L i, a n d Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/MacBride. Chair/Flamenbaum, upon the concurrence of the Commission, directed staff to prepare a code amendment, to be brought back to the Commission for consideration within 60 days. CONTINUED Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Commission may first wish to begin discussion on the Zone Change issue. r-, TT Map No. 50519/ DA No. 91-3/ C/Meyer stated that since it is a comprehensive E DR No. 91-2/ project, perhaps the information submitted on the Zone Change 91-1 entire project should be discussed, and then the actions dealt with incrementally. The Commission concurred. June 22, 1992 Page 4 AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the request from the applicant, Diamond Development Company, to subdivide a 2.3 acre site, located at 23575 Golden Springs, into six (6) lots, to construct an 80 unit Senior citizen project, to change the zone classification from C-1 (Restricted Business) to Zone R-4 (Unlimited Residence), and to enter into a Development Agreement with the City. He thoroughly reviewed the Application Analysis, as indicated in the staff report. It is recommended that the Planning Commission discuss the project, and direct staff on issues and project specifics. Staff is supportive of multi -family residential development at this location as well as senior citizen housing as a specific land use. It is an appropriate transitional use for this land. Staff recommended that the development agreement, incorporating the appropriate density bonus, be drafted. However, staff can not support the massive reduction in parking and potential problems with the internal circulation within the parking structure as proposed by the applicant. Chair/Flamenbaum inquired if the traffic report has been reviewed by the Traffic and Transportation Commission (TTC). AP/Searcy stated that it is staff's understanding that the project went before the TTC nearly one year ago. Chair/Flamenbaum, noting that the project presented today has been revised from the one reviewed by the TTC a year ago, suggested that it would be appropriate to allow the TTG to review it again. AP/Searcy informed the Commission that a representative of Alfred Gobar and Associates is available to discuss the Impact Analysis, if the Commission so desires. Al Marshall, residing at 4400 MacAurther Blvd., Newport Beach, representing Dr. Crowley, discussed the need to provide for senior housing in Diamond Bar. He made the following comments: many seniors are looking for an alternative to their current lifestyles, and desire to continue to live within their community, on a fixed income; there is a hand by hand cooperation, of City and private enterprise, to keep housing affordable, usually in the form of density bonuses; this project is proposed in the $100,000 to the $160,000 range, which allow seniors to sell their current home, live on their fixed income, put additional fund June 22, 1992 Page 5 money in bank, and continue to own their homes; the parking ratio of this project is far greater than the other 800 units he has developed, none of which had a higher parking ratio of 1.08:1; there is a sufficient number of guest parking outside of the project; since the average age of the buyer is 72 years old, the ratio of cars actually owned is considerable below the 1.08:1 ratio; and the design of the project fits well in the surrounding area. Chair/Flamenbaum informed Mr. Marshall that two of the Commissioners present have never heard a presentation on this project. Al Marshall continued his presentation and made the following comments regarding the proposed project: it is 80 units consisting of 2 and 3 stories over the parking structure, and 2 and 3 stories on grade at the front; there will be 10 two bedroom units, and 6 one bedroom units per building; the parking and complex is secured; the homeowners association will participate in running the recreational A facility; the age restriction is geared specifically for adults; the majority of the purchasers are, in most cases, elderly single L_ women; the number of parking spaces need only be tied to the number of units, not bedrooms, because seniors don't usually expand their family unit; and it is 35 feet above grade. C/Meyer stated that the Planning Commission has already recommended, in the Land Use Element, that this land be used for multi -family residential zoning at 16DU/acre. Noting that the density bonus is based on the availability of the units to low and moderate income, he inquired if an individual with a low to moderate income of $26,000/year can afford to buy these units at $100,000 to $160,000. Al Marshall stated that the density bonus is not necessarily tied to just the income level, but the restrictions on the property are taken in to consideration as well. Al Marshall made the following responses to C/Meyer's inquiries: there is a lot of concrete, however, the deck above will be landscaped with a lot of planters; the biggest units are the best sellers whereas the den is used as a study, and the extra bedroom for visiting children; everything is fully accessible, with stairways and 4 elevators; the age is restricted through the CC&R's, the land covenant, conditioned by the Conditional Use Permit, and other trigger mechanisms that can be Tune 22, 1992 Page 6 put in place; proof of age will be required to purchase; one companion is allowed to occupy the units that is at least 45 years of age; children can only visit for a certain total number of overnight stays per year, controlled by the HOA; deciduous screening material will be used to visually obscure the southwesterly portion of the site from the existing single family residences; and a shadow analysis was not conducted on this site. C/Li advised the applicant to enter into this development carefully because the seniors must be considered and taken care of. C/Grothe indicated that he has various concerns on the project in general. However, at this point, he stated that he is very that he has not concerned h yet received the elevation view of that project, as to how the project fits into Diamond Bar Blvd. and Torito Lane, and to the surrounding resident, as he € has requested numerous times. �1 Chair/Flamenbaum, in regards to page 8, in the Summary and Conclusions of the Fiscal Impact report, inquired how it was concluded that retail development of the site will result in a negligible net increase in retail sales tax revenues received by the City. Olance Gadreen, with Alfred Gobar Associates, located at 721 Kimberly Ave., Placentia, stated that the specifics supporting that statement is located on page 17 and IS of the report. Following his summary of the Fiscal Impact Analysis, he explained that if Diamond Bar limits retail development to the 2.3 acres available on this site, the City will get another duplication of the convenience oriented type of retail operations, which is already in over supply. i Chair/Flamenbaum stated that he does not concur with the sudden transition that if the City develops 2.3 acres of retail, the City will see a negligible increase in retail sales tax. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:43 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:00 p.m. ,I The Public Hearing was declared opened. Red Calkins, residing at 240 Eaglenest Dr., stated that at the time that he moved to Diamond Bar, it was supposed to be a village type cluster of homes. June 22, 1992 Page 7 He inquired if a traffic study was conducted. He noted that Diamond Bar is over run by office vacancies as it is. Don Gravdahl, residing at 23988 Minnequa, made the following comments: much of the lack of audience may be due to the fact that the project has been continued so often; there is not adequate available parking spaces; a change of ownership could generate more cars than first anticipated; 55 year olds and 45 year olds often have more than one vehicle; the TTC often review problems in which residential areas are being impacted by the lack of parking spaces in office buildings; and the effects of these tall buildings on Diamond Bar should be considered. The Public Hearing was declared closed, to be continued to a meeting yet to be determined. C/Grothe stated that, though he is not opposed to a zone change, he does not see any reason to continue a project that is so far out of conformance. C/Li stated that, though he is not opposed to the project, he has a lot of doubts regarding the density of the project, and would concur to continue the matter. C/Meyer made the following comments: density bonuses does have a direct relationship to the provision of units to low and moderate income, and if the project does exceed the 37 dwelling units, then some provision should be made for low to moderate incomes; the TTC should review the site, and the issues relative to on -street parking; on site parking should be commensurate with the size of the units and the number of bedrooms; there needs to be a redesign of the project to provide easy access to these units; the elderly are not usually attracted to subterranean parking, and it should be redesigned; the plans should show above grade landscaping above the subterranean parking; there needs to be an analysis of the potential impacts on the surrounding land uses; on site circulation plan is difficult to maneuver; the visitor parking will probably be used by the residents; the lot coverage is contrary to a lot of the concepts, dealt with in the General Plan review, regarding design standards, softening glare of hardscape with landscaping efforts, reducing the amount of impervious materials, etc.; the recreational amenities are minimal and should be redesigned to be the focal point to encourage group June 22, 1992 page s type of activities; this development should comply with the rest of the standards we would apply to other condominium developments in the community; the trash areas are inadequate; a public transit facility should be made to provide use; an analysis should be made of the site, it's impact of each of the buildings internally, and external to the project, to include a shades analysis; and an Environmental Analysis should be done. Motion was made by C/Grothe and seconded by C/Meyer to deny the project, as submitted. C/Grothe concurred with the statements made by C/Meyer, and added that the number and size of the parking spaces need to be increased, and there should be recreational amenities for guests. He recommended denying the project, and advising the applicant to resubmit a redesign of the project, as a new application. Chair/Flamenbaum indicated that if the application is denied, the applicant should be given groundrules as to what he should expect if he chooses to resubmit. j C/Grothe indicated that this project is fundamentally the same project that has been proposed for a year now, with the exception of the senior citizen housing. He stated that his direction to the applicant would be to go back and design the project to meet the code, the design review, and the General Plan. Chair/Flamenbaum inquired of the applicant if they are in a position to work with staff to develop a project that the Commission feels would be more appropriate for Diamond Bar. Al Marshall requested the opportunity to study the project, and give it further consideration, given the concerns expressed by the Commission. The Planning Commission voted upon C/Grothe's motion to deny the project, as submitted. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: M e y e r, L i, a n d, Chair/Flamenbaum. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None._ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/MacBride. The Motion FAILED. June 22, 1992 Page 9 I C/Meyer asked if the applicant_ is willing to waive the time restrictions for the Tentative Tact Map. Al Marshall stated that the applicant is in concurrence to waive the time restrictions on the Tentative Tract Map. C/Grothe requested that the application first go before the TTC for review before coming to the Planning Commission. Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Li and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to the meeting of August 10, 1992. The Commission stated more concerns regarding the proposed project: the size of the parking stalls need to be increased; there needs to be additional guest recreation amenities, especially for children; there should be sprinklers in the garage of the community building; and there should be a further explanation as to why this site should not be retail space, as indicated in the Fiscal Impact report. i Chair/Flamenbaum noted that the letter received from the Pomona Unified School District, expressing a concern that the schools could not adequately handle more enrollment, was written before the project was proposed as a Senior Citizen complex. The Commission then discussed the need to renotice this project. The project has already been noticed four times. However, because there is going to be a 60 day lapse before the next hearing, the Commission concurred to renotice the project. C/Grothe suggested that noticing, in general, should come up as a Commission item to determine how to adequately notice all of the projects. ANNOUNCEMENTS: CD/DeStefano reported that the City has hired George Wentz, with the firm of Abbot & Associates, Staff as Interim City Engineer. He further reported that the City Council has tentatively approved the Plan for Public Health and Safety; as well as the Plan for Public Services and Facilities. Also, the video tapes on the Tres Hermanos presentation is available if anyone would like to view them. Commissioners C/Meyer requested staff to place, on the agenda, a discussion regarding the provisions of the zoning ordinance, with respect to set backs of swimming pools, with respect to main and accessory June 22, 1992 Page 10 buildings. He would like staff to confer with the�1'����I City Attorney to see if there is a way to clarify the definition, either by policy, or potential modification of that definition by whatever means necessary. The Commission concurred. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Respectively, n Jame eStefano Secretary I Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman