HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/28/1994. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEBRUARY 28, 1994
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:08 p -.m. in the AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Chairman Meyer.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Meyer, Vice Chairman Plunk,
Commissioners Grothe and Li.
Commissioner Flamenbaum arrived at 7:11 p.m.
Also Present: Community Development Director James
DeStefano, Planning Technician Ann Lungu,
Interim City Attorney Michael Montgomery, and
Recording Secretary Liz Myers
Absent: None
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Al Perez, residing at 703 Pantera Drive, questioned why he received
a notice of a public hearing regarding the heliport issue if it is
not on the agenda for tonight's meeting.
Chair/Meyer apologized to Mr. Perez for the apparent error. He
explained that the public hearing for the heliport issue is to be
held next month. However, he invited Mr. Perez to address the
Planning Commission on issues of concern if he is unable to attend
the March meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes of February 14, 1994
Moved by C/Grothe, seconded by C/Li and carried unanimously to
approve the minutes of February 14, 1994, as presented.
OLD BUSINESS:
2. Planned Sign Program No. 94-1
CDD/DeStefano reported that, upon notification of the
Commission's direction, the applicant, Emilio Estrada,
i indicated a desire to redesign the freestanding sign. However,
staff has not yet received a proposal for a redesign of the
sign. It is recommended that the Commission review and
consider adoption of the Draft Resolution of Denial.
VC/Plunk, noting that the phone number indicated on the
February 28, 1994 Page 2
proposed sign is not a Diamond Bar number, inquired if the
sign is actually for an off-site business.
Chair/Meyer explained that the business on site sells
wholesale nursery items. The location of the primary, business
is in the City of La Puente.
Moved by C/Grothe and seconded by C/Flamenbaum to adopt the
Resolution of Denial.
The Motion CARRIED 5-0 as follows:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Li, Flamenbaum, VC/Plunk and
. Chair/Meyer
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
NEW BUSINESS - None
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
i
3. Zoning Code Amendment No. 93-3 - Property Maintenance
Ordinance
CDD/DeStefano} reported that staff has revised the draft)
Property Maintenance Ordinance by incorporating the changes
specified at the February 14, 1994. However, staff has noted
that there are still some areas in the document that need
further refinement. Furthermore, staff has also received'
communication from two members of the public with some very,
specific changes to the document. It is recommended that the'
Planning Commission review the draft document, make
appropriate changes and forward the Property Maintenance
Ordinance to the City Council for their consideration.
Chair/Meyer requested the Commission to provide their input'
j prior, to opening the public hearing.
Chair/Meyer requested the following amendments: delete the
word "between" from the definition of Driveway on page 6; item
(B), which was omitted from Section 22.54.120 Motor Vehicle)
Parking, should be put back into the document as written on,
page 12; the phrase "within the front yard or side yard
abutting a street, or within the side yard or rear yard" in
Section 22.54.120, page 8, needs further work, or the section
should be written as on page 12; replace the words "deemed
substandard", in Section 22.54.130 Building Maintenance, with
"deemed to be in violation of this section"; add the word "so"' M
j after the words "watered" and "manner" in Section 22.54.140
Landscape Maintenance on page 9; add "or a nuisance per se"
following "constitute a public nuisance" in Section 22.54.150
Fence and Wall Maintenance (A) on page 9, as well as
throughout the document for consistency; replace "as permitted
February 28, 1994 Page 3
( I
�pl by the Building Code" in the last sentence in Section
22.54.150 Fence and Wall Maintenance (B), on page 10, with "as
permitted by applicable law", and do so throughout the
document for consistency; eliminate the word "except" from
Section 22.54.190 Motor Vehicle Parking (B) on page 12, and
readdress if "two" or "three" such vehicles are permitted;
amend Section 22.54.210 Landscape Maintenance, on page 13, the
same way as on page 9; indicate "applicable laws" in Section
22.54.250 Storage in Yards, on page 15; add "or nuisance per
se" to "nuisance" on page 23, Section 22.54.400 Abatement
Procedures; change the word "party" to "affected party" in
Section 22.54.400 (A) Hearing Notice, item 3, and add
"certified and regular mail" to this section as well in item
(C) Order of Abatement; amend the word "hearing" to
"hearing(s)" as indicated in item 2, section 22.54.400 (B),
page 24; the "Code Enforcement Official" found in the seventh
line in Section 22.54.400 (D) Extension of time To Perform
Work, on page 25, should be amended to read the "Hearing
Officer", and include a provision that the hearing officer may
take into account economic hardship as well as "physical
ability"; and perhaps a flow chart would be beneficial, at
some point, .in terms of the abatement process.
r^' Chair/Meyer, in regards to the second paragraph of Description
of Actions Necessary (To Abate Unlawful Conditions), on page
26, question if the public right-of-way is the responsibility
of the property owner to maintain or the City's.
ICA/Montgomery explained that the right-of-way to the curb,
typically, is the property owner's duty to keep neat and tidy;
however, since it is in a public right-of-way, the City can
remove or trim trees, etc. The City has an easement over it
for public street purposes.
Chair/Meyer, continuing with suggested amendments, stated the
following: include "or City Council if applicable" to
"...after the date of such decision of the Planning
Commission", on page 27, Section 22.54.410 Limitation of
Filing Judicial Action; insert "or City Council" to the
statement, "...extended by the Planning Commission," in
section 22.54.420 (A) Abatement of Public Nuisances by the
City, on page 27, and change "Code Enforcement Official" to
read "City Manager or his designee"; change "Code enforcement
Official" throughout Section 22.54.430 to indicate "City
Manager or his designee"; delete "Planning Commission
Secretary" and replace with "City Clerk" on page 28, Section
22.54.450, and revisit if it is appropriate that the
determination of "assessments" should be a responsibility of
the Planning Commission; replace "Planning Commission
Secretary" in Section 22.54.450 (B), on page 29, with "City
Clerk" and included "and the City Council" following
"...protest to the Planning Commission"; replace "Code
Enforcement official" with "City Manager" as indicated in the
first line of Exhibit B, Example of Notice, on page 30;
February 28, 1994 Page 4
replace the word "order a refund" with "recommend a refund" in
the first line of Section 22.54.490 (C), on page- 31; and
Section 22.54.510 should be drafted in accordance with the
District Attorney's letter dated June 28, 1993.
CDD/DeStefano, correcting a statement he made earlier that
Section 22.54.120 (A) Motor Vehicle Parking, on page 8, should
correspond with the same section on page 12, stated that,
after reviewing his notes, Section 22.54.120 (A) is written as
directed by the Planning Commission; therefore, further
direction will be needed. He noted that Section 22.54.120
will also need to incorporated' subsection (B) as referenced on
page 12.
C/Flamenbaum, referring to Section 22.54.120, stated that he
prefers the verbiage as written on page 12; however, if it is
the desire of the Planning Commission to amend the section, he
suggested that Section 22.54.120 (A) be amended to read, "All,
parking of motor vehicles ... in compliance with all applicable
codes," deleting the remainder of the paragraph, and inserting,
subsection (B) from page 12. He stated that the sentence, "If
parked on a side yard, pedestrian walkway of a width of not,
less than 36" shall be maintained for public safety access
purposes." could be retained. However, the statement "within
the front yard or side yard abutting a street, or within the
side yard or rear yard" is confusing, and should be omitted.,
C/Grothe concurred that the last sentence, "If parked on a'
side yard ... access purposes," is acceptable. He pointed out
that omitting "on one side yard" now permits the parking of an'
8 foot motor home on the side yard, but with a 36" walkway,'
which was, not the intent of the Commission. Therefore, the
statement "on one side yard" should be retained. He concurred
that the verbiage on page 12 is preferable.
ICA/Montgomery expressed concern that Public Safety Officials,
may require access on both sides of the property. Upon the
concurrence of the Planning Commission, staff will reinsert
the statement if deemed necessary.
The Planning Commission concurred.
C/Flamenbaum made the following suggestions' to amend the
document: delete the word "maybe" in Section 22.54.050 on
page 5, and include those specific items believed to be a
nuisance per se, such as the parking of 18 wheelers on private
residential property, tires used as planters in front yards;
and automobiles parked on unpaved portions of the front yard
for periods in excess of 72 hours; and reword the first
sentence in Section 22.54.140 Landscape Maintenance, on page
9, to read, "All landscaped areas within the front yard within
any developed lot..."
CDD/DeStefano pointed out that some properties back up to the
- - , _.�..��i. �..__-,�ri��•iia���..Huuw,�liw�w..�s,M�ul�edwu— _—._— __ _ ___— — __- __ — __
February 28, 1994 Page 5
boulevard and their back yards can be seen off of Diamond Bar
Boulevard.
C/Flamenbaum stated that it was the consensus of the
Commission that any area behind the house was a private
concern of the property owner.
C/Grothe stated that he recalled it was the consensus of the
Planning Commission that the landscaping in all yards shall be
maintained with the intent of getting the weeds pulled on
those hillsides.
C/Flamenbaum pointed out that the problem of weeds on slopes
are better addressed with hillside abatement or weed abatement
provisions, not landscape maintenance. The back yard of
someone's property should not be the concern of the City.
Following discussion, the Planning Commission concurred to
reword the first sentence in Section 22.54.140 to specifically
indicate front yards, and developed property.
C/Flamenbaum suggested that the second paragraph, first
sentence of Section 22.54.140 be amended to add the word
^' "substantially" before the words "free of debris". He
reiterated his desire to specify examples of "public nuisance
or nuisance per se" in the Abatement section.
ICA/Montgomery explained that a "nuisance per se" is defined
as something that exists that is hazardous to health or
safety, and a "nuisance" in general is a question of fact if
it is a nuisance or not. He stated that it would be
acceptable if the Planning Commission desired to insert
examples of a "nuisance per se."
VC/Plunk suggested that Section 22.54.110 Storage --Front
Yard/Side Yard Abutting a Street (A) , on page 7, be amended to
permit boats. She also suggested that Section 22.54.140
Landscape Maintenance, on page 9, include a provision
addressing property owners that are maintaining a portion of
the property specifically for wildlife habitat.
Chair/Meyer noted that one of the suggestions is to specify
that landscape maintenance provisions apply only to front
yards. Therefore, if the suggestion is accepted, then
maintaining back yards in a natural condition would be
acceptable.
Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing opened and invited
those wishing to speak to come forward..
1
Al Rumpella, residing at 23958 Golden Springs, pointed out the
Vehicle Code does not permit commercial vehicles over 10,000
pound gross weight to be off a truck route, thus addressing
any problems regarding 18 wheelers in residential areas. He
February 28, 1994 Page 6
then made the following recommended changes to the document:
delete "of the community or the comfort or convenience" from
the second sentence in Section 22.54.040 Public Nuisance, on
page 5, and delete the words "comfort and convenience" at the
end of the sentence; delete "boats" and "camper shells" from
Section 22.54.110 (A) Storage, on page 7; and define the word
"fence" in Section 22.54.110 (C) because wrought iron and
chain link fences provide no screening from public view as
required.
C/Grothe suggested the word "from public view" be stricken so
it would read, "a street shall be screened by an approved wall'
or fence."
Al Rumpella continued with the following suggested changes:
amend Section 22.54.120 Motor Vehicle Parking, on page 8, to
indicate "on one side yard"; define "fence" as indicated on
page 10, Section 22.54.150 (B) Fence and Wall Maintenance, and
on page 17, Section 22.54.290; include language addressing the
need for a reply to written notices as indicated on page 24,
Section 22.54.400 (A), item 3; replace the word "Code
Enforcement Official" on page 25, Section 22.54.400 (D) and
throughout the document, with "City Manager or his designee";
correct the spelling of "follow" as indicated on page 27;
amend Section 22.54.520 Continuing Violations to indicate one
offense until the problem is taken care of; and includes
language -pertaining to a "grandfather clause".
Don Gravdahl, residing on Minnequa, suggested the following,
amendments: the statement "maintained for the transportation
of persons for hire, compensation, or profit...", as indicated;
in Section 22.54.060 Commercial Vehicles (a), needs further
work because it includes a vehicle used by a business person
to carry a briefcase; Section 22.54.120 Motor Vehicle Parking,
as written, effectively takes all RV's off the side yard and
on to the street, and should be amended to indicate "on one,
side yard"; there should be a provision addressing the
maintenance of public facilities by public agencies; the
provisions should address the maintenance of landscaping in
drought conditions; and Commercial Parking should define;
"paved" because the RV storage area parking lot on the corner
of Brea Canyon and the 60 freeway is gravel.
Bob Zirbes made the following suggested changes: define
"indecent" as indicated on page 5, Section 22.54.030 Nuisance
in General; omit "boats" from Section 22.54.110 Storage, on
page 1, and address "camper shells" -in the Parking section;
add "economic hardship, and/or physical handicap" to the last
sentence of Section 22.54'.400 (D) Extension of Time to Perform
Work; and delete Section 22.54.520 Continuing Violations, on
page 31.
Oscar Law suggested that the Draft PMO include a "grandfather"
clause to permit existing nonconforming uses.
February 28, 1994 . Page 7
CDD/DeStefano pointed out that allowing a "grandfather" clause.
may require an inventory of the entire community in order to
determine the amount of time the situation has been existing,
and to verify that it did not occur just shortly before the
enactment of the ordinance.
Rick Imperial, residing at 1318 Crestmont Drive, expressed his
support of the draft PMO.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chair/Meyer declared
the public hearing closed and returned the matter back to the
Planning Commission for consideration.
C/Flamenbaum questioned if including a grandfather clause
would make it difficult to enforce the ordinance on such
problems as spare tires in front yards, parking on grass, etc.
ICA/Montgomery stated that a zoning ordinance can't operate to
compel immediate discontinuance of an otherwise lawfully
established use, unless that use constitutes a public
nuisance. A provision could be included in the PMO allowing
a reasonable amount of time to abate that nuisance; however,
the City cannot categorically permit certain nuisances to
continue if declaring more recently arriving nuisances to be
illegal. ICA/Montgomery then defined a "nuisance per se" as
a nuisance which is a nuisance by virtue of it's very
existence and requires no burden of proof on the public agency
to establish it as a nuisance, such as an open hole in a
school yard, a car on fire in a parking lot, etc.
Chair/Meyer pointed out that the discretionary review
procedure allows these unusual cases to be determined on an
individual basis, allowing discretion to the hearing officer
relative to abatement proceedings based on economic hardship,
physical disability, and other such items in the relevant
staff report. He concurred with C/Flamenbaum that
grandfathering in existing situations thwarts the entire
process of the PMO.
Following discussion, the Planning Commission concurred to
direct staff to include verbiage in Section 22.54.400 (D)
Extension of Time to Perform Work, on page 25, adding a
provision similar to a variance finding of fact giving the
hearing officer greater latitude to determine extending the
period of time for abatement.
RECESS: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 8:50 p.m
RECONVENE: Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting at 9:03 p.m.
CDD/DeStefano suggested that Section 22.54.400 (D), page 25,
could be amended to indicate "there are special circumstances
or exceptional characteristics applicable to the property
involved, such as size, shape, topography, location, or
February 28, 1994 Page 8
surroundings that are not generally applicable to other
properties in the same vicinity and under identical zoning
classification", and indicate "an extension of time is
necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right
of the applicant, such as that possess by owners of other
property or in the same vicinity and zone", and make a finding
that "the extension of time would .not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to other
property or improvements in the same vicinity and zone."
The Planning Commission concurred with the suggested language.
The Planning Commission then discussed all the issues brought
forward, and concurred with the following:
o Section 22.54.110 Storage --Front yard/side yard abutting,
a street (page 7)
Reword item C. to read, "...side yard abutting a street
shall be screened by an approved wall or fence." Side'.
yard is defined as ,that which is behind the approved
fence or wall.
Reword item A. to delete "boats", and change "camper!
shells" to "dismounted camper shells".
o Section 22.54.120 Motor Vehicle Parking (page 8y
Reword item A., last sentence, to read, "If parked on a
side yard, an open pedestrian walkway or a width of not
-less tan 36" shall be maintained on one side yard for,
public safety access purposes," Include the verbiage on
page 12 for item B.
o Section 22.54.140 Landscape maintenance (page 9)
Reword the first sentence to read, "All landscaped areas'
within the front yard of any developed lot or parcel'
designated as single-family..."', and throughout the,
document for consistency. Reword the first sentence in
the second paragraph to read, "Landscaped areas shall be
kept in a neat and clean condition, substantially free ofi
debris and dead..."
o Section 22.54.150 Fence and wall maintenance (page 10)
Reword item B. to read, "All fences and walls
utilized... such materials, as permitted by applicable
law.". All references to the Building Code should be
changed to "applicable law."
o Section 22.54,190 Motor vehicle parking (page 12)
Change item B. to indicate that "no more than two such
e...,...__ ....
1-1
February 28, 1994 Page 9
permitted vehicles may be parked on any such lot or
parcel at any one time." The intent of the provision is
to restrict the number of vehicles used for business
purposes.
o Section 22.54.280 Landscape maintenance (page 16)
Include the word "substantially" prior to the words "free
of debris..." in the second paragraph, first sentence.
The entire document should be amended to repeat the
changes adding the word "substantially", replacing
"Building Code" with "applicable laws", and adding
"nuisance per se", etc., throughout the document for
consistency purposes.
o Section 22.54.400 Procedure for abatement of public
nuisances (page 23)
Reword the first sentence in item 3. to read, "The
written notice and order of abatement shall be served to
the affected party by certified and regular mail..."
The PMO need not include a provision that notices should
be in multiple languages because it may not be required,
I i and, if it were, a different statute would apply to that
situation.
Change "Code Enforcement Official" to "Hearing Officer",
on page 25, Item (D) Extension Of Time To Perform Work,
and include "economic hardship, and/or physical
disability" to the last sentence, and include the
provision mention earlier by CDD/DeStefano granting the
Hearing Officer discretionary approval to extend the
length of time for the abatement proceeding based upon
findings of fact.
o Diagram A Illustration Of Lot Line And'Yard Designation
(page 22)
Change the "Street" designation to "Curb Face".
o Exhibit "A" -(page 26)
Include a flow chart in an administrative manual, to
reference Exhibit "A".
o Section 22.54.420 Abatement of public nuisances by the
city (page -27)
ii
Insert "City Council" where applicable, and indicate the
"City Manager or his/her designee", where appropriate
throughout the document.
o Section 22.54.430 Abatement of imminently dangerous
--
-
..........
February 28, 1994 Page 10
public nuisances (page 28)
Change "Code Enforcement Official" to "City Manager,"
where appropriate throughout the document. It may be
appropriate to redefine that the Code Enforcement
Official is the City Manager or his/her designee.
o Section 22.54.450 Procedure for special assessment (page
28)
Change "Planning Commission Secretary" to "City Clerk,"
where appropriate throughout the document.
o Section 22.54.510 Right of entry (page 31)
Retain subsection (A) as drafted per the opinion of the
Deputy City Attorney's letter dated June 28, 1993 which
indicated that the right to enter private property will's
be governed by all applicable State and Federal law.
Retain subsection (B) as drafted, per the opinion of the
Deputy City Attorney's letter dated June 28, 1993, since
it is a matter of case law.
o Section 22.54.520 Continuing violations (page 31)
The Planning Commission concurred to retain the language,
as written.
The Planning Commission concurred that the desire is to
reference that the intent is to correct the situation;
through the abatement procedure, not through fines.
ICA/Montogmery suggested that the violation be viewed as
one violation that continues till abated.
The PlanningCommission then discussed those issues brought'
forward but not yet addressed, and concurred on the following:'
o Responsibility of Maintaining Public Facilities
The Planning Commission noted that a public agency can't
impose it's ordinance on other governmental agencies, nor
can a public agency impose it's ordinance upon itself
because it would not prosecute itself.
o Watering Property during Drought Conditions
The Planning Commission noted that "adequate" watering
does not preclude over watering or cutting back as
appropriate. Weather conditions need not be mentioned
because other codes would automatically vacate the
provision in the code.
February 28, 1994 Page 11
o Commercially Paved Areas
The Planning Commission noted that gravel is acceptable
in the definition of paved.
o Sunset Clause
The Planning Commission concurred that a sunset clause
need not be recommended because it is already the
responsibility of the Planning Commission to review the
General Plan every two years, and since implementing
ordinances must be consistent with the General Plan, a
forum is already provided to review such ordinances.
o Nuisances per se
There was discussion to insert specific definitions that
were cited by the applicable civil code, or case law in
the State of California.
ICA/Montgomery reviewed the various examples cited. He
noted that aesthetic tastes would probably not come under
a nuisance per se. A nuisance per se mustbea genuine
health and safety hazard.
r
Following discussion, the Planning Commission concurred
to retain the language as written.
Moved by C/Grothe and seconded by C/Li to recommended that the
City Council adopt draft Property Maintenance Ordinance, as
amended.
The Motion CARRIED 5-0 as follows:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Li, Flamenbaum, VC/Plunk and
Chair/Meyer
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
C/Li and C/Grothe expressed their appreciation for having been able
to serve on the Planning Commission.
PRESENTATION OF PLAQUES TO OUTGOING COMMISSIONERS
Chair/Meyer presented plaques to C/Li and C/Grothe extending the
�
Planning Commission and staff's appreciation for their input and
i service the past years).
Chair/Meyer informed the Commission that the City Council has
requested the appearance of the Commissioners, both incoming and
outgoing, of all Commissions to attend the City Council meeting of
February 28, 1994 Page 12
March 1, 1994 for the swearing in and the presentation of City�
Tiles.
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by C/Grothe, seconded by C/.Li and carried unanimously to
adjourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m.
Respectively,
JI,
James DeSte
Atte Secretary
i
bMeyer;
'vi y
chairman