Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/27/1992r - CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 27, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:04 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: Vice Chairman MacBride. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Meyer, Grothe, Vice Chairman MacBride, and Chairman Flamenbaum. Commissioner Li was absent. In response to a series of Commission inquiries, AP/Lungu made the following comments: the panoramic view, in her opinion, will not be obstructed because the view from the Auh's property is toward the rear portion of the lot; she is not aware if "The Country's" architectural review committee takes into consideration view obstruction; and the proposed project does comply with the zoning requirements and the administrative development review ordinance. -- Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. CONSENT CALENDAR: Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept the Consent Min. of July 13 Calendar, which included the Minutes of July 13, 1992, as presented, and the Extension of Time for CUP No. 89-528 CUP No. 89-528 - Resolution of Approval. PUBLIC HEARING: AP/Lungu presented the staff report. The applicant of the Administrative Development Review (ADR), ADR No. 92-07 Wayne Simonian, is requesting to construct a 2,679 (Appeal) square foot addition to an existing two story single family residence located at 22215 Steeplechase Lane, in The Country. A public hearing for ADR No. 92-7 was conducted on June 22, 1992, and approved by the Community Development Director. Kilpyung and Insook Auh, who were unable to attend the public hearing, have requested an appeal because the proposed addition will block their view. This project is consistent with he planning and zoning code, is compatible with the characteristics of the area, complies with the findings required of the Development Review Ordinance, and has the approval from the architectural committee of "The Country". Staff recommended that the Commission affirm the decision of the Community Development Director, deny the appeal, and approve ADR No. 92-7. In response to a series of Commission inquiries, AP/Lungu made the following comments: the panoramic view, in her opinion, will not be obstructed because the view from the Auh's property is toward the rear portion of the lot; she is not aware if "The Country's" architectural review committee takes into consideration view obstruction; and the proposed project does comply with the zoning requirements and the administrative development review ordinance. -- Slily 27, 1992 Page 2 4 Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing " opened. Mrs. Insook Auh, residing at 22225 Steeplechase Lane, applicant for the appeal, explained that the reason they had bought their home in "The Country" was for the view and the nice homes. Through the years, Mr. Simonian's trees have grown and now blocks practically the entire view. They are now concerned that the proposed project will restrict that view even more. She stated that they are also concerned that one of the balconies, which is to be built at the same level as their living room, is too close to their property. Chair/Flamenbaum asked Mrs. Auh what view specifically she feels the proposed project will obstruct. Mrs. Auh explained that they are concerned that the proposed project will block their view permanently. Mr. Kilpyung Auh, residing at 22225 Steeplechase Lane, reiterated the concern that the proposed project will further obstruct their view of the City lights. Also, the balcony is too close to their living room. Wayne Simonian, residing at 2053 Rusty Spur Road, stated that Mrs. Auh had indicated to him that it was not the view she was concerned about, but rather that the project was being built too close to her side property line, and that she also intended a major remodeling to her home in a few years. He pointed out that the project is only being built out six feet from the existing residence towards the rear of the property, as well r as covering and extending the existing patio five feet from the home. In response to C/MeyerIs inquiries, he stated that the height of the balcony, is approximately the same height as the elevation of the Auh home. The balcony, associated with the bedroom, will be the same level as the Auh's driveway. Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed. C/Meyer inquired if the zoning ordinance includes any requirements regulating the view, or does it { just deal with setback requirements. CDD/DeStefano explained that the Administrative tl Development Review not only deals with setback .r ill- �hw"""�<,�h1�}�pEa—gam���'+'��ytm . July 27, 1992 Page 3 requirements, but also includes architectural compatibility, and project compatibility with the prevailing character of the neighborhood. However, there is nothing in the code that deals with "view", and there are no standards in place that would assist in guiding staff regarding view impairment. The Commission needs to determine whether of not view is an important factor in this project consideration. C/Meyer inquired if the Planning Commission or staff has ever been at odds with the findings of the architectural review committee of "The Country". CDD/DeStefano stated that all projects in "The Country" have met the City's code requirements. However, there have been disagreements, with the opinions of individual Planning Commissioners, regarding setback requirements size and bulk of the residential projects. C/Meyer stated that since neither view impairment, nor the issue of invasion of privacy, is within the r purview of the Commission, and since the project complies with the setback requirements and architectural theme, then there is no substantial reason to object to the project. The Commission has no authority to impose personal judgement on a development proposal. CDD/DeStefano explained that because there is a development review process, but no standards to judge the project by, then it is in the collective "eye" of the commission to decide if the project is an appropriate addition to the neighborhood. This does create a problem because opinions of what is appropriate may differ from year to year, depending on the composition of the Commission. Resolving the issue of privacy or view, without any clear standards, required the independent judgment and collective wisdom of the Commission. VC/MacBride inquired about the type of arrangement the City has with the Diamond Bar Improvement Association (DBIA) to simultaneously review a project on matters of architecture and proposed improvements. He inquired if staff has done any investigation into "The Country's" CC&R's to determine if there is any consideration made as to view obstruction. CDD/DeStefano explained that the City notifies the DBIA of projects that require discretionary July 27, 1992 Page 4 approval before the Planning Commission. They receive copies of the agenda and are provided an opportunity to respond. Though there is a close relationship with the DBIA, the City does not enforce private CC&R's. Therefore, staff -does not review the CC&R's, nor get involved in the process of examining or interpreting the CC&R's. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 7:55 p.m. to review the proposed plans to determine the extent that the view may be obstructed. The meeting was reconvened at 8:07 p.m. C/Grothe stated that since only a small portion of the Auh's view will be blocked, there is no real issue on blocking the view. He stated that the issue that he is most concerned with is the massing of the house coming towards the property line. However, it appears that the architectural design does have plenty of "breakups" on that side of the elevation, and the architectural style is carried around the building, therefore, he does not see this as an issue. VC/MacBride, noting that the City does not have any enforcement mechanism to preserve views, and though sympathetic with the importance of views, stated that he is in support with the findings of the Community Development Director because the proposed project complies with all of the requirements given to the Commission. Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/Meyer and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve staff's recommendation to affirm the decision of the Community Development Director, deny the appeal, and approve Administrative Development Review No. 92-7. NEW BUSINESS:. CDD/DeStefano stated that on October 16, 1990, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code ZCA No. 92-02 Section 65858, the City Council adopted ordinance No. 14 (1990) establishing interim zoning regulations pertaining to development of hillside areas which exceed a slope of 10%. The Hillside Ordinance contains a variety of landform grading techniques that seek to ensure protection of the hillside areas, while permitting development. The Ordinance adopted in 1990 has been utilized by only two projects: the Piermarini Development and the JCC project located in the "The Country". Since the City has had limited experience in implementing the Hillside Management Ordinance, the City has engaged Mr. Horst Schor as a City consultant to July 27, 1992 Page 5 assist in revising the Hillside Management Ordinance. The most ineffective aspect of the Ordinance, for staff, has been the slope density formula. Staff has concluded that the slope density formula is not the most critical factor in determining what is appropriate for a hillside area in Diamond Bar. Therefore, it is recommended that the slope density formula be rewritten or eliminated, with some additional provisions put into the ordinance. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission review the attached Hillside Management Ordinance, discuss the issues, make appropriate changes, and adopt an ordinance at the next regular meeting. It may be appropriate to create a subcommittee of the Planning Commission to discuss the issue further. C/Grothe inquired of the reason to eliminate the slope density formula, since it is working for other cities. CDD/DeStefano stated that, because the City has had little experience in implementing the Ordinance, it is difficult to determine the areas that need improvement. One area that needs refinement is the discussion on contour grading -because what the City really wants to utilize is land form grading. One of the reasons that staff has recommended eliminating the slope density formula is because it indicates that a hillside can't be develop simply because of it's extreme slope. It limits dwelling units but doesn't take into consideration clustering, or transferring of that density from one portion of the hill to another portion. Chair/Flamenbaum made the following comments: he didn't understand the definition of effective bulk; page 3, bullet 4., indicates that 25% and over can be developed, which is not consistent with the density reflected in the General Plan; he does not concur with the definition portion, page 4.C., which states "...or Be Developed Solely For Recreational Purposes"; he disagrees with the statement on page 4 which indicates that if land has a 0 to 14.9% slope, then 32.5% of it can't be developed; there should be some provision for sprinklers on slopes for fire protection, or as a fire suppressant; and page 19, item 3, should be ( reworded to indicate that proper drainage is required. C/Meyer suggested that staff focus on Ordinances from cities that have the visual quality that we July 27, 1992 Page 6 like. The provisions should make economic sense in it's practical application for development, and a site, such as Tres Hermans, can be used to see if it is applicable. Furthermore, if the Ordinance is too explicit, there will be a lot of variances following. CDD/DeStefano stated that the Commission could compare the originally proposed Peirmarini project to the final project that was ultimately approved. The Planning Commission will be able to make modifications, through the process of individual project review. VC/MacBride made the following comments: page 6, item 2. Exemptions, should be rewritten; page 9, item 3, needs further clarification; and delete the second "where feasible" on page 22.B.1. C/Meyer and C/Grothe volunteered to be on the subcommittee to discuss this matter in more detail with staff. ZCA No. 92-03 CDD/DeStefano stated that in October of 1990, the City Council adopted an Interim ordinance No. 15 (1990), amending the list of permitted and conditionally permitted uses within the CM zone. The City Council adopted the Interim Ordinance in order to provide the necessary study time to review the most advantageous and appropriate land uses for the CM zone and as a mechanism to grant additional land use controls for the period preceding the General Plan. The Interim Ordinance effectively removed many non -revenue producing land uses (with the exception of accessory uses) from the CM zone. Staff recommends that the Commission review the attached Interim Ordinance, discuss the issues, and suggest changes pertaining to Quasi Public Uses in the CM zone, at the next regular Planning Commission meeting. C/Grothe stated that he was under the impression that an Ordinance is now unnecessary, with the adoption of the General Plan. CDD/DeStefano explained that an amended ordinance needs to remain in effect until the Development Code is completed. He suggested that the Planning Commission form a subcommittee to further review the ordinance with staff. C/Meyer and C/Grothe volunteered to be on the subcommittee. u.,�`d P del �IO.'�RVaN�'�x"'�'F�7f71 July 27, 1992 Page 7 IL ANNOUNCEMENTS: CDD/DeStefano reminded the Commission of the Piermarini open house to be held July 30, 1992. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 9:22 p.m. Respectively, Jm s DeStefano Se retary Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum _ Chairman i