Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/22/1997MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 22, 1997 r—� CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Ruzicka called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Fong. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman .Ruzicka, vice chairman Schad, Commissioners Fong, Goldenberg and McManus Also Present: Deputy City Manager James DeStefano, Senior Planner Catherine Johnson, and Associate Planner Ann Lungu. , MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of July 8, 1997. VC/Schad made a motion, seconded by C/McManus to approve the minutes of July 8, 1997 as submitted. The motion was approved 4-0-1 with C/Fong abstaining. OLD BUSINESS: 1. Parks Master Plan Update. DCM/DeStefano stated the Parks Master Plan is scheduled for review and possible approval at the July 24, 1997 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. If the Plan is approved, it will be reviewed by the City Council on August 5, 1997. If the City Council approves the Plan, the Planning Commission will be asked, on or about August 19, 1997, to find that the Plan conforms with the City's General Plan. The document will then be returned to the City Council for final approval in September, 1997. NEW BUSINESS - None PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Draft Development Code (Zoning Code Amendment ZCA 97-1) Article 1: Purpose and Applicability of Development Code Article VI: Development Code Administration Article VII: Definitions JULY 22, 1997 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION SP/Johnson presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review Articles I, VI and DIT of the Development Code and make an informal recommendation: A formal recommendation will be made at the conclusion of the review process. Ron Pflugrath, AICD, Urban Design Studio, presented an overview of the Development Code .process. Paul Crawford, AICP, Crawford Multari & Starr, presented Article I of the Development Code. VC/Schad asked if Section 22.01.030 applies to remodels and room additions. Mr. Crawford responded that Section 22.01.030, Page I-'4, is a general statement that describes what authority, under California law, the City is using to prepare and adopt this document. This section does not operate'on individual pieces of property or projects. Chair/Ruzicka asked if the title Community Development Director will remain in the document since the City has 411,undergone a reorganization. C/Goldenberg asked for a more detailed explanation of Section 22.01.040 E. 1., Page I-5 and I-6. Mr. Crawford responded that this section is intended,to address what happens to projects that are in the pipeline when this code is adopted and replaces the Los Angeles County Zoning Code under which the City currently operates, and what happens as amendments occur in future years. Subsection E. 1. deals -with applications that have been filed with the City before an amendment occurs and are determined to be complete. As worded, the subsection says that the application may be processed according to the requirements in effect when it was accepted- as complete by the City, unless the review authority (Planning Commission, Planning Department, etc.) determines it is necessary to apply new or amended development standards to the project approval, in order to ensure public health, safety, welfare, and orderly development.This gives the City an opportunity to take another look at the project in the event that it raises substantial issues regarding health, safety or welfare and apply appropriate standards on that basis. Mr. Crawford responded to VC/Schad that the Planning Commission will be reviewing sections and requirements regarding tree removal in Article III which will be presented to the Planning Commission at a future date. C/Fong asked if Article I is standard throughout other cities. JULY 22, 1997 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Crawford responded that the provisions which refer to State Law are standard. The suggested wording is a compilation of previous work and draft language proposed by staff as a result of the Diamond Bar General Plan. C/Goldenberg asked if the completed Development Code document will be electronically accessible by the general public. DCM/DeStefano responded that a specific component of The Planning and Zoning Alliance's employment by the City was that this document would be designed to be electronically accessible via the Web site. VC/Schad asked if any of the Building Code provisions will be included as part of the Development Code. DCM/DeStefano stated that the City's Building Code regulations are contained within a separate document. The City utilizes the latest version of -the State's model codes. DCM/DeStefano stated that as a result of the City's reorganization,, a Community Development Director title no longer exists. Staff is working with the City's Attorney to redirect responsibilities to the Deputy City Manager. C/Goldenberg suggested that Section 22.030.020 - Rules of -- Interpretation, Page I-13, include "or designee" so that A. reads: Authority. The Community Development Director or designee shall have the responsibility and authority - etc," VC/Schad asked about the time frame for Development Code amendments and divisions of responsibility for the City's construction approval process. DCM/DeStefano suggested the Planning Commission consider approval thresholds for various levels within the City. For instance, the Planning Commission may chose to remove certain items from Administrative Development Review process and assume those items for deliberation. Conversely, the Planning Commission may chose to abdicate some of its responsibilities to the Administrative Development Review Hearing Officer. An amendment to the Zoning ordinance generally requires extensive analysis by staff and at least one public hearing before the Planning Commission and one public hearing before the City Council. The process requires a minimum of 120 days to process with the entire procedure taking closer to nine -., months to complete. There was no one present who wished to speak on Article I. Bruce Jacobson, Jacobson & Wack, presented Article VI. JULY 22, 1997 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION DCM/DeStefano recommended the Planning Commission carefully consider the City's lines and levels of ' authority for projects. A permit type and related decision making authority matrix will be presented to the Commission for review at a future Development Code meeting. VC/Schad asked what happens if a project is approved, construction does not commence as scheduled, and amendments are made to the code which would require changes to the project. Mr. Jacobson responded that the Community Development Director would have the authority to grant reasonable changes. Major changes may be subject to a new permit and public hearing process. Mr. Jacobson explained to C/Fong that this document does not attempt to cover the responsibilities of the City's Building Official with respect to -the issuance of building permits. Chair/Ruzicka stated that the completion of the City's Development Code is compliance with Title 22 and not the City's entire Municipal Code. Mr. Jacobson concurred with Chair/Ruzicka. Title �2, when adopted, will be referred. to as the Diamond Bar Development Code. The document will contain Zoning and Subdivision provisions. C/McManus asked if non -conforming use would apply to historical sites in perpetuity. Mr. Jacobson responded that all sites are protected,in perpetuity so long as the owner does not voluntarily cause termination of its use. Mr. Jacobson responded to Chair/Ruzicka that the State has deemed that home care facilities are single family homes. Therefore, in the event of loss, the same structure could be rebuilt. C/Goldenberg asked that the document contain language specifying who is responsible for monitoring. deed restricted time limitations. DCM/DeStefano responded that -the City maintains a tickler system to monitor time sensitive permit provisions. Currently, information pertaining to properties within the City is maintained in various files within the City offices. At some future time, the information will be coordinated and accessible by parcel number.''° JULY 22, 1997 - PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Goldenberg asked DCM/DeStefano to propose a solution. ^ He asked if permit information should be compiled on a priority basis. DCM/DeStefano indicated the City is currently computerizing the records management portion of its operation. The cost to purchase or create a records management system is prohibitive and has not been the City's priority. DCM/DeStefano recommended the Commission give careful consideration to the public hearing notification process. C/Goldenberg asked if tenants will be included in the notification process. Mr. Jacobson responded that some communities include renters and tenants in the notification process even though it is not a State minimum requirement. Item D, Page VI -21 gives the Director an opportunity to enhance the notification process in any manner deemed appropriate by virtue of the application being processed. DCM/DeStefano cautioned that "additional notice" is subject to interpretation. The Commission may wish to set more specific parameters. C/Goldenberg asked the Commission to enter into'further k._ discussions regarding notification -to renters. C/McManus asked if cities have distinguished between public hearing items that effect structures and public hearing items that effect humans. DCM/DeStefano stated he is not aware of any such distinctions. Mr. Crawford stated he is not aware of any such distinctions. However, he encouraged the Commission to discuss the matter and determine whether to codify "additional notice" or continue to allow the Directorrto use his discretion. He cautioned the Commission that codification may override discretion by the Director. Chair/Ruzicka stated he favors keeping the Development Code as simple as possible while addressing concerns. Mr. Crawford suggested that if the process requires an Environmental Impact Report the Commission may wish to increase the notification provisions because there may be additional impacts. Chair/Ruzicka asked if Mr. Crawford can suggest how this concern is addressed by other municipalities. JULY 22, 19'9 7 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Crawford stated that several communities Ir`!; automatically notify tenants as well as property owners.�.�N He indicated he is not aware of communities imposing a �9 threshold other than a Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report as a reason for increased notification. VC/Schad suggested a matrix be included to address different types of projects and applicable notification. Mr. Crawford suggested the matrix be a department policy directive rather than a part of the Development Code. C/Goldenberg asked staff to prepare its recommendation for Item D. Additional notice on Page VI -21 to be presented at the July 29, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. C/Fong stated he believes the notification radius depends on the project. At a minimum, the abutting property owner should be notified. With respect to installation of antennas, people within sight of the project should be notified. A major development such as the SunCal ^. development should involve most of the City. Other variables such as noise impacts and visibility should be considered in the notification process. Chair/Ruzicka asked the Commissioners to consider this item for discussion at the next meeting. Clyde Hennessee asked how Article VI, Page 13, non- conformance due to parking, applies to home additions. RECESS: Mr. Jacobson responded that this requirement deals with the reuse of an existing building or a change to an existing building. If the building was legaly constructed and operated, and no longer meets parking requirements for a new use, if it is a residential use, no change is required as long as the number of dwelling units is not increased. Any changes to a non-residential use would require parking conformance. Thom Pruitt, Pop Warner Football and Cheerleading Association Executive Vice President, stated his organization is interested in the use of public lands within the City and the proposed Development Code. The youth involved in this organization are future Planning Commissioners and administrators of Diamond Bar who will be implementing the adopted Development Code. Chair/Ruzicka indicated the Planning Commission will continue its discussion of Articles I, VI and VII at the i 9 July 29, 1997 meeting. - Chair/Ruzicka recessed the meeting at 8:25 p.m. JULY 22, 1997 PAGE 7;.. PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENE: Chair/Ruzicka reconvened the meeting at 8:35 p.m. 2. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50314, Conditional Use Permit No. 96-1, Oak Tree Permit No. 96-1 and Zone Change 96-1 & deir 97-1 (pursuant to Code Sections Title 21, 22.56.215, 22.26 Part 16 and 22.16, Part 2) are requests to approve a 15 lot subdivision on approximately 44 acres. The average lot size will be 2.92 acres. six of the proposed lots are part of two approve tracts. Therefore, VTTM 50314's development will result in a net increase of 13 residential lots. The project site is within Los Angeles County Significant Ecological Area No. 15. The Zone Change will convert the current zoning of A-2-2 to R-1-20,000 to a zoning of R-1-40,000. Project Address: Southeast of the most southerly intersection of Steeplechase Lane and Wagon Train Lane. Project owner/Applicant: Kurt Nelson, Windmill Development, 3480 Torrance Boulevard, Suite 300, Torrance, CA 90503 AP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report and project entitlement, and continue the public hearing to August 12, 1997. Michael Houlihan, AICD, Michael Brandman Associates, presented the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50314 (VTTM 50314). Mr. Houlihan responded to C/McManus that riparian oaks are proposed to be replaced at a minimum 3:1 ratio and upland habitat associated oaks are proposed to be replaced at a minimum of 4:1 ratio. VC/Schad recommended that the Mexican Elderberry be retained during development because it is a prime food source for the mammal wildlife. He indicated that although it is not mentioned in the DEIR, Hairy Fringepod is found within the tract and because it is scarce and enjoys compatible growth with black walnuts he would like to have it retained within the tract. He said that although he has never seen a Mariposa Lilly in the area, it is a perfect growth setting for the plant. He asked about the developer's consideration of scrub oak. He said the report did not mention Crotalus Pacifica or the alligator lizard. He asked if any natcatchers are found in the area. C/Fong referring to the California Parks and Recreation Department letter contained in the DEIR and to Paragraph C7 on Page 9, asked when the survey was conducted and if -- - Y JULY 22, 1997 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION it was timed to adequately incorporate all species. He asked if the 9 hours spent by two biologists (see Page 9 C8) was sufficient to adequately conduct the survey.�'�i� With respect to Page 9, C9, the Parks and Recreation Department has, indicated this project will have a significant impact on the flora and fauna in the area. He asked how the Commission should determine whether the State or the consultant's assumptions are correct. He indicated he 'feels the consultant's comments are not adequate. C/Fong continued referencing the design plans. He asked about accessibility of the hiking trail to the general public and where is the trail head located. The plans indicate a realignment of the Schubarum Trail at the southerly portion of the site. The hiking trail crosses an intermittent stream at the southwest corner of the site and asked if a culvert will be constructed at that location. At the southeast portion of the site just west of the lift station, the earth structure retention basin appears to be linear and non -conforming to the natural contour of the land. He asked that the structure be altered in the final grading plan to incorporate the natural contour. He referred to Sheet 2 of the proposed Landscape Mitigation Plan indicating there does not appear to be any proposed landscaping or revegetation of the area. He asked that this area be reviewed to be certain that the area is properly revegetated. C/Fong stated it appears that only California black walnuts are proposed to be planted along the slope (Sheet T-2). He asked if scrub oak is proposed to be included with the California black walnut in the area so that the outer slope will be similar to the natural vegetation in the undisturbed areas. Referring to Sheet 2 for the Landscape Mitigation Plan, he suggested including a symbol or key on the legend to indicate Coast Live Oak and black walnut because it is difficult to determine on the drawings what species are included. Tom Leslie, Michael Brandman Associates, stated that the reconnaissance surveys were conducted during the period when the potential sensitive plant species that couldlbe found in the area would be flowering and identifiable. The sensitive species were listed in the flora compendium. The project proponent indicated that any species the Commission felt might be important to be included in a landscape plan would be considered. With respect to the survey hours, there are no standard number of hours per acre. The Fish and Wildlife service that a competent surveyor can look at 80 to 100 acres per day per surveying biologist. This project is less than 50 acres. He stated he believes that two biologists present on the survey days for nine hours is more than adequate to cover the site. He referred C/Fong to Page 13 of the DEIR, Appendix D Biological Reconnaissance Survey Report. JULY 22, 1997 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION He indicated the surveys were conducted in May and July ' during the time when the sensitive species could have been identified if they had been present. C/Fong was excused from the meeting at 9:30 p.m. VC/Schad commended the developer for the propagation programs he has established to replace vegetation on the site. He said he is not aware of any other developer who has given a project such consideration. Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing. Kurt Nelson, Windmill Development, presented an overview of the project and explained how the grading plan for the proposed project will render the area considerably more stable than what currently exists. He also explained how the Master Environmental Impact Report for the site and the tracts immediately adjacent to the proposed project were updated in the Spring of 1995. - VC/Schad asked how the proposed project will handle its runoff. Lex Williman, Hunsaker, & Associates, responded that pursuant to the mitigation monitoring, this project will incorporate pollution basins similar to those installed on the adjacent tracts: He explained how the basins will function indicating that as a result, nuisance water will not flow into Tanner Canyon. Mr. Williman and Mr. Nelson explained to Chair/Ruzicka how the significant amount of grading contemplated for this project will render the area significantly more stable than it currently exists and how the project will mitigate any possibility of future landslides in the area. CE/Wentz reiterated that the area is currently susceptible to landsliding. When the project 'is completed, it will eliminate those areas that are potential landslide areas. Chair/Ruzicka continued the public hearing to August 12, 1997. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS - None INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: DCM/DeStefano stated that the City Council approved, at its last meeting, Second Reading for the Redevelopment Project Area adoption. The Council approved a 12 month Conditional Use Permit for the Darrin Drive cell site. The Council approved the wireless telecommunications facilities moratorium with directions for staff to craft an ordinance. The Council approved a slurry seal project JULY 22, 1997 PAGE -10 PLANNING COMMISSION for Area 7 (generally the area on both sides of Sunset Crossing Road west of the SR 57. The Council denied the Ranch Festival's request for use of Peterson Park. Staff was directed to work with the Ranch Festival to locate a more suitable site. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As presented in the agenda with the addition of the August 5, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. ADJOURNMENT: There being no .further business to come before the Planning Commission, C/Goldenberg moved, C/McManus seconded, to adjourn the meeting. Chair/Ruzicka adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on July 29, 1997 in the South Coast Air Quality Management auditorium. Z pectfully Su itted, es DeStefano Deputy City Manager Attest: Ve Ru cka irmaa