Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/13/1995MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 13, 1995 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:13 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Chairman Meyer. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Chairman Meyer, Vice Chairman Flamenbaum, Schad, Fong, Huff Also Present: Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Associate Planner Robert Searcy; Community Services Director Bob Rose; Recording Secretary Carol Dennis MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of February 27, 1995. A motion was made by C/Schad and seconded by C/Huff to adopt the minutes as presented. The motion was approved 4-0 with the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Schad, C/Huff VC/Flamenbaum, Chair/Meyer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Fong C/Fong arrived at 7:17 p.m. Regarding the Draft Resolution for Pantera Park, Chair/Meyer offered the following corrections: On Page 3 (d) the first sentence should read: "The Application is for development of a 23.8 acre park located east of Pantera Drive and south of Bowcreek Drive. tee' C/Fong stated that he felt adequate deliberation was not made at thelast meeting for the Commission to delete the water element from the Draft Resolution Page 4, Condition #l. He asked that the Commission spend additional time deliberating on this item before deleting the element. Chair/Meyer responded March 13, 1995 Page 2 Planning Commission that it was debated as indicated in the minutes and it was the concurrence of the Commission to delete the water element because of the cost of maintenance, the liability factor and the potential safety hazards. C/Fong stated that other cities have water elements in their parks and they are a -very attractive asset. Chair/Meyer responded that it had been debated and asked for a motion. - A motion was made by C/Fong and seconded by'C/Schad to leave the water element in the master plan. C/Huff stated that most other cities' water elements are at very visible intersections or places where there is high exposure to large numbers of people. As much as this is one of Diamond Bar's larger parks, it is not located at a major intersection and the amount of money that would be spent to develop this element, forgetting the liability and the maintenance, would not be worth the park dollars that could be better utilized. For the lack of visibility he heartily agrees with the liability factor. He stated he believes it should be deleted from the park. C/Schad indicated he believes it is worth additional research. If it can be done within reasonable limits it is worthy of consideration. The motion was defeated with the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Schad NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Huff, VC/Flamenbaum, Chair/Meyer ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None i C/Schad referred to Page 9, last paragraph of the minutes ofil February 27, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. He indicated that the matter of the trails is not included in, the Draft Resolution. AP/Searcy recommended that it be added as Condition #13 on Page 6. AP/Searcy stated that since this is a Master Plan, staff can be' directed to develop the park in compliance with the ADA. requirements. CSD/Rose suggested the following wording: "Existing trails shall remain in the current state." C/Huff asked for language to include "with access to" existing trails. CSD/Rose responded that staff could add "access". He j indicated there will be a concrete walkway going around the park so staff can add language that refers to walkway access: 1.3 I -0 March 13, 1995 Page 3 Planning Commission i VC/Flamenbaum suggested adding "on the undeveloped portion". C/Schad suggested adding "minor improvements". A motion was made by C/Schad and seconded by VC/Flamenbaum to add Chair/Meyer suggested wording for Condition 13, Page 6 of the Draft Resolution to read as follows: "Access shall be provided to the existing trails in the undeveloped portion of the park in such a manner so as to comply with the ADA standards." Without objection, the Commission concurred. VC/Flamenbaum stated he did not understand the wording of Item (11) on Page 5. and moved that the sentence be changed to read: "All activities at the park shall comply with applicable City ordinances." The motion was seconded by C/Schad. Without objection, the Commission occurred. A motion was made by C/Huff and seconded by C/Fong to adopt the Resolution as amended and to include VC/Flamenbaum's suggestion that the motion be amended as follows: On Page 3, Item (d) delete "lighted" so that the second sentence reads: "The master plan for the park includes development of two ball fields, multi -use hard courts, tennis courts, picnic areas, tot lot, and a multipurpose community center approximately 7,500 square feet in size." The motion was approved with 'the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Huff, Fong, Schad, VC/Flamenbaum, Chair/Meyer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None OLD BUSINESS: 1. Draft Development Code AstP/Lungu reported that as discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting the Commissioners agreed to present their "top ten" list of topics to be included in the first phase of the Development Code. Staff has prepared an overview and outline, of a Development Code and recommends that the commissioner's lists be presented for consideration. Chair/M;eyer asked if it is the City's intent to hire a consultant to put the code together. AP/Searcy responded that at som6 point in the future that would be the intent once the budget is approved to provide for that service. The anticipated earliest start date ,for the code is after July, 1995. March 13, 1995 Page 4 Planning Commission Chair/Meyer -referred 'to Page 4, Item 19 of the proposed Development Code outline. He stated that his- understanding is that minor deviations have caused city attorneys a lot of grief and cities either have a variance or do not have a variance and there is no such animal as a minor deviation. AP/Lungu referred Chair/Meyer to the yard, modification. Chair/Meyer requested staff to discuss this item with the City Attorney for his interpretation. Chair/Meyer stated he did not find any reference to property maintenance. AP/Searcy responded that he would assume that the PMO would be incorporated into the Development Code or operate as an adjunct to it. Regarding Page 5 of the Project Specifics, Chaair/Meyer referred General' to an overlay zone for the Country Estates, but in the Plan recommendation to the City Council there were overlay zones for planned development. AP/Searcy respond that PD was one of the two overlay zones, the other being Specific n. Chair/Meyer stated that one of the issues he has in terms of' parking is that some communities allow in -lieu fees to be paid in the event that a developer is a small percentage short of the off-street parking. The city has be provided in compact; percent of the off-street parking can spaces. He indicated that there was Commission consensus that this percentage should be reduced and there should be consideration for adding in -lieu fees in the event a developer cannot meet all of the parking requirement. This could be. coordinated with some manner of parking authority where, if the, in -lieu fees would be paid, it would be the City's obligation to collect the moneysking u estedo that theok for City could blic rcreaeet teroff-' lots. AP/Searcy gg street parking lots. Regarding subdivisions, Chair/Meyer indicated that the procedure -for lot line adjustments are excluded from the State Subdivision Map Act and that there should be a process created for dealing with lot line adjustments. He stated his understanding is that the City's review is limited to compliance with, the Zoning ordinance and with the building standards. He further stated that there is a provision that sometimes a record of survey is required. When the record of survey would be required would be important in that provision of the code. Chair/Meyer referred to Page 2 of the Scope of Work and the CC&R's under Task 1.2 Review Land Use Regulation and Permitting Procedures. He asked staff the purpose of the Planning commission's review of CC&R's1not He party to the enforcement understanding that the City y of the 'beno and over the years, th rcycityresponded has cthat this there would 1 d#7 -at ,.M w� ->, �, PR �_ March 13, 1995 �_..- �-'�.�• ' �� - •. �- _. - - t2.rire ilutru-rpbl Y.rvanllnulu�•kl�Ar�m4.�Yr -. - Page 5 Planning commission is an outgrowth of the hillside development projects in the community where there is a concern for maintenance of the common area slopes and for maintenance of some of the replanted vegetation and habitat areas in dealing with term of limit for which the homeowner's association is responsible for replacement of any trees or vegetation that may not survive over a five year period, for example. The intent is that some of those issues may be germane for the Planning Commission as they may impact the enforcement of the mitigation monitoring program and there would be no assumption of enforcement of the other elements of the CC&R's. Chair/Meyer stated he would like to see the code include design guidelines to give the Planning Commission a policy guide in the form of definitions of quality development and as a guide to designers for uniformity in the review process. C/Huff stated he would like to see the Planning Commission review a Tree Ordinance. He would like to review a thematic guideline for development within the community. He indicated he is concerned with the parking issue and would like to see �,-- the compact spaces excluded. He further stated that the home occupation is an issue that should be investigated to determine what is permitted and what is not permitted. He indicated he would like to see the permit application process streamlined and the process for handling development in the City. C/Schad presented the following list of concerns: 1) Preservation of native vegetation (Tree Ordinance). 2) EIR to be inclusive of all vegetation and EIR research conducted on two week intervals during one year to fully document all forms of life due to seasonal cycling. 3) During development design, plan for the preservation of natural views sheds for citizens who pay premium prices for the view. To be preserved a set of CC&R's may accomplish this. 4) All bare areas caused by development must be planted with indigenous vegetation based upon the recommendations of the fire marshals. 5) Neighborhood development consisting of streets, sidewalks, driveways and curbs should have a guideline setting aside a plantable parking strip. The entrance to the driveway incline shall be the width of the parking strip making the sidewalks continuously flat and accessable for handicapped people. 6) Street lighting shall be non -intrusive to the neighborhood, both new and existing. March 13, 1995 Page 6 Planning Commission 7) Blue -line stream areas are to be preserved for all time as they are a significant portion of the City's ecology. 8) Develop a visibility code for the City's streets, especially at intersections where vegetation, walls or signs might hinder visibility. 9) Irrigation controls would, as well as save water directed, to the site to, be watered, prevent sprinklers or irrigating systems from causing erosion, mud flows across sidewalks, streets or into private property. 1Q) Prevent encroachment of any development impacting existingI established neighborhoods. 11) Residential designs should have more variables in structure prominence. rather than four or five plans turned this way or that or by the use of different paint colors; or chimney locations. Air conditioning should be soundproof from the neighbors. 12) In hillside development, no ridgelines may be built upon.i 13) Large lot development for homes will not be impacted by small unit or clustering thereby changing the overall' visual impact or in a downgrading manner.. 14) Any development causing noise levels to exceed the noise tables in the General Plan must be adhered to. Mitigation, measures must be compatible with the adjoining existing neighborhoods. 15) Strict grading practices must be adhered to produce the, following: A) Safety and solidification of hazardous areas B) Retention of the natural appearance. C) Preservation of ridgelines D) Preservation of native vegetation 16) No development should be permitted that creates isolated. pockets of wildlife areas with no migration corridors so all known wildlife is known with a suitable food chain.' 17) Street views that show satellite dishes and/or antennae must be controlled to the extent that they do not appearance of the neighborhoods. from the general 18) A team of consultants such as citizens, geologists, developers known for quality construction, botanists, March 13, 1995 Page 7 Planning Commission architects and the like should be established to review any and all projects, either residential or commercial, to be sure they are compatible with existing neighborhoods. 19) A system for scenic view corridors along the City's streets and highways should be established and expanded such as the SR 57 and SR 60 freeway within the City's SOI. 20) The Development Code should be consistent with the wishes of the existing residents as, citizens so as to prevent any undesirable impact to their neighborhoods. 21) Traffic 22) Damage to the natural resources, such as carving ones initials in the park trees, benches, resurfacing buildings, defacing buildings and fences, etc. 23) Notify citizens via newspaper and notices to participate a in the Development Code creation. 24) Tree Ordinance ,to go in effect as soon as approved. C/Fong stated that he would like to include the slope density formula and density reduction and the lot coverage ratio. He indicated he would like to have guidelines included for non- English characters in signs. In addition, he would like a hillside grading manual included in the grading code. Chair/Meyer asked if he thought a grading manual might be more appropriate in the design guidelines. C/Fong responded that it could possibly be included in the design guidelines. Other cities add the grading manual into their grading code. VC/Flamenbaum offered the following items for consideration: 1) Slope density formula and density reduction. 2) The size of structures that come before the Planning Commisison for review. (e.g. a commercial structure of 5000 feet is reviewed •by the Commission, but a 12, 000 foot house is not). 3) What is the scope of the Commission's (City's) design review? Does it include color? Choice of material? 4) Preservation of natural environment. 5) Hillside management. The present ordinance permits massive grading and subsequent reforming of the hills to look natural. Should the City not minimize grading? March 13, 1995 Page 8 Planning Commission 6) Trees. The local cities that we think of as beautiful have lots of trees. Claremont and Sierra Madre do not have more beautiful terrain than Diamond Bar, but they have ,a lot of trees on the street side .and on the homeowners property. What can we as a City do to encourage this? 7) Roads. is the City to design our roads for our residents only? Or is the City to design the roads to effectively move traffic into and out of the City? Chair/Meyer directed staff to condense the Commissioner's lists to one priority list and bring it back to the Planning Commission for a future meeting along with staff's recommendation for the next step in the preparation of a . Development Code. NEW BUSINESS - None INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: h 1) City Attorney. In response to ChairjMeyer, Astp%Lungu stated the newly', appointed attorney firm is Richards, Watson & Gershon, 333' South Hope Street, 38th Floor, Los Angeles 90071 and Mike' Estrada, Attorney at Law, will represent the firm at the designated City meetings. AP/Searcy stated that under the new contract between the City and Richards, Watson & Gershon participation at meetings will be on a more limited as -needed basis. 2) vesting Tentative Tract No. 47850. Staff presented the environmental documents for the J Planning Commissioner's review and AP/Searcy stated there " was a meeting on Saturday, March 11, 1995 from 9:30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. with approximately 40 people including staff and .interested parties. The joint session for public ission and City Council hearing between the Planning Comm is tentatively scheduled for April 4, 1995. The Planning Commission directed staff to provide a memorandum on official stationery which outlines the scope of service required of the Planning of with respect to the April joint session. 1 aaQ�.�.'�EAR� I March 13, 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Page 9 Planning Commission 1) Annual Reorganization of the Planning Commission. AP/Searcy declared the nominations open for the position of Chairman of the Planning Commission to serve for a period of one year. C/Huff nominated VC/Flamenbaum. The nomination was seconded by Chair/Meyer. The roll was called as follows: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Huff, Chair/Meyer, Schad, Fong None Flamenbaum None AP/Searcy declared Commissioner Flamenbaum the elected Chairman of the Planning Commission and passed the gavel to him. Chair/ Flamenbaum declared the nominations open for Vice Chairman. C/Meyer nominated Commissioner Huff. The nomination was seconded by chair/ Flamenbaum. Chair/ Flamenbaum called the roll as follows: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer, Chair/Flamenbaum, Huff NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Schad, Fong ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/Meyer stated that a significant number of Commissioners did not arrive in a timely manner for the meeting and he feels there is an obligation to staff and to the general public to arrive at the appropriate time. VC/Huff asked if it has been the policy of the City to have an attorney present at all meetings and if that is the case why are the current decisions of the Planning Commission not sufficient to merit the attendance of an attorney. AP/Searcy responded that a new contract has been entered into and that for reasons of budget constraints the City is reviewing its practices in order to be more streamlined `and effective. Anytime the Commission feels it is appropriate to have the City 77117771" T' March 13, 1995 Page 10 planning commission Attorney present the Commission shouldforward the request to staff and the attorney will be requested to be present. C/Meyer'stated he feels this is a good policy since all of the actions of the Planning commission can be appealed to the City Council. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the meeting adjourned at 8:12 p.m. iTb Respectfully S mItte Rob'Searcy Acting Secretary Attest: gruce Flamenbaum Chairman