HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/26/1997MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 26, 1997
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Ruzicka called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m. in the
South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley
Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Don Gravdahl.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Ruzicka, Vice Chairman Schad,
Commissioners Goldenberg, McManus and Fong
Also Present: Acting Planning Commission Secretary Catherine
Johnson, Associate Planner Ann Lungu and
CA/Jenkins.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes of August 12, 1997.
1,�w1
VC/Schad moved, C/Goldenberg seconded, to approve the
minutes of August 12, 1997 as presented.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS - None
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Draft Development Code (Zoning Code Amendment ZCA 97-1)
Article III - Site Planning and General Development
Regulations: Review of Article II - Zoning Districts and
Allowable Land Uses, and Article V - Subdivisions and the
Zoning Map.
Mr. Pflugrath continued with Article III presentation for
the Chapter entitled Tree Preservation and Protection
(Page III -129 thru III -136.
VC/Schad requested the second line of I. DBH (diameter at
breast height) on Page III -130 be changed to read:
"...feet at the lowest point of the natural grade etc."
Following discussion, the Commission concurred to change
the second line as follows: Omit "highest point of the
natural grade or" so that the second line reads:
"...feet at the existing grade adjacent to the trunk."
AUGUST 26, 1997 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
VC/Schad requested that the first line of R. Protection
zone. on Page III -130 be changed to read as follows:
"The area within the drip line of a tree and extending to
a point at least 15 feet" instead of five feet.
Following discussion, the Commission did not concur to
accept VC/Schad's request.
C/McManus read the following and asked that it be entered
into the minutes verbatim:
Trees are a Danger in Diamond Bar
Expressing every goal, need, wish, or itch as a "right" -
either fundamental or inalienable - is almost mandatory
these days.. Here is a newly discovered right: The
fundamental rights of trees and rocks. "Trees and rocks
have rights to their own freedom," said Michael
McCloskey, Chairman of the Sierra Club.
In Schiller's "William Tell", the rural Swiss realize
their ancient liberties are in danger when the new
bailiff rides up to accost one of them for the offense of
erecting a dwelling on his own land. "I am the Regent in
the Emperor's stead and will not have the peasants
building houses of their own will and living lives as
freely as if they were the masters in this country." The
Villagers fear before long, the new overlords will turn
their very forests and meadows into game preserves for
the amusement of courtiers from the city. She governs
best who governs least!
Today it is routine to read of a landowner denied
permission to build a house, lay down a gravel path' or
plant or trim a tree. Much of rural America is in open
revolt against the laws that require such permissions.
To thi day, neither special interest groups nor
governmental officials seem to understand the anger of
the landowners.
The laws and regulations pub in place to "save and
protect" fit a pattern. An item or some amenity is
identified that an affluent society might wish to buy
more of. The next step is to draft laws simply
commanding owners to preserve and protect it, often
barbed with criminal penalties. Once a person has shown
that swamps or trees are ecologically valuable, they have
proved the case for ordering the owners to maintain them
forever at whatever sacrifice. "The equivalent would, be
for an admiral to say that because the U.S. needs a navy,
the government can take your land for dockyard without
paying you."
---
AUGUST 26, 1997 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
It used to be that Uncle Sam would buy land when he
expanded a national park or set aside a wildlife refuge.
Wr° That is the method contemplated in the Bill of Rights,
whose Fifth Amendment reads in part, "nor shall private
property be taken for public use without just
compensation." Now officials have learned the trick:
Leave title with the owner and freeze use.
Absent physical invasion, there has been no'taking, so
not a dime is owed. Or that is what officials keep
arguing with a straight face.
The laws banning the trimming of trees, etc., are now
absurdly written and very loosely defined. Drafters of
regulations actually prefer vague prohibitions that force
landowners into negotiations in which the agency bargains
from strength. One result has been the transfer of power
and wealth to lawyers on both sides.
Having to pay for takings imposes both a pragmatic and a
moral discipline on those who wield power: "If you must
pay, then it forces thought about what is really valuable
and what is not. If the property is free, the outcome is
obvious: take everything you can get your hands on." As
,r- for the moral side of things, well, trading is ethically
superior to stealing. "The pro -property forces should
stand firmly where they belong, on the moral high
ground . "
VC/Schad requested that the first line of B. under Tree
Replacement/Relocation Standards on Page III -133 be
changed as follows: "Replacement trees shall be planted
at a minimum 4:1 ratio for residential properties
...etc." instead of a 2:1 ratio. Fallowing discussion,
the Commission did not concur to accept VC/Schad's
request. Mr. Pflugrath pointed out that the last
sentence of paragraph B. gives the Director or Commission
the ability to grant exceptions and to require a greater
replacement ratio based upon considerations 1., 2. and 3
listed on Page III -134.
Mr. Pflugrath pointed out that E. Enforcement. 1. is
corrected to read as follows: "Any person who cuts,
damages, or moves a protected tree in violation of this
Chapter shall be deemed guilty of an infraction or a
misdemeanor in compliance with Section 22.XXX legal
.remedies."
Mr. Pflugrath responded to C/McManus that information
F` regarding legal remedies should be requested from the
City Attorney.
Chair/Ruzicka asked for public comment.
AUGUST 26, 1997
PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISpION
Bob Zirbes said his first thought upon reading the
proposed Tree Preservation and Protection chapter was
that this item should be a ballot initiative. He said he
believes it would be difficult to impose these
overbearing and burdensome restrictions upon current
homeowners. He suggested that the Ordinance be applied
to new development/ construction and recommended the
following exception be added as G. under Exemptions on
Page III -132: "Trees, except those designated by the
City Council as historical or cultural trees, 'located on
all developed properties prior to the'adoption of this
ordinance."
John Forbing said that based upon the fact that he has
lived in Diamond Bar for 23 years and that he is
President of the Historical Society, he is fairly
familiar with the trees in the community. The City is
currently maintaining 10,000 trees. He pointed out that
the Eucalyptus trees at the Evangelical Free Church that
were planted by the Diamond Bar Ranch founder in 1927
were deemed historical through the permit process. He
indicated that he believes there are no additional
existing trees on the Diamond Bar Ranch that have any
significance with the exception of oak trees living in
undeveloped canyons. He stated that 1940's and 1950's
photographs of the Ranch do not show trees except forlthe
oak trees located on the north slope. The majority of
this Ranch was all open grassland used for grazing,and
was not a tree lined area. The trees this community
enjoys today have been planted since 1960 when the first
homes were built. Every homeowner has planted trees of
their choice and maintained them as they choose. He
explained that he planted a weeping willow which overtook
his backyard and infringed upon his neighbors pool. As
a result, it was necessary to remove the tree. He said
he believes removal would not have been allowed as the
proposed code is written and does not know what recourse,
if any, his neighbor may have had. He stated that the
difficulty with a 4:1 ratio is that depending upon the
type of tree to be replaced, a residential back yard can
become a jungle. He concurred that Mr. Zirbes' exemption
recommendation should be considered by the Commission.
Don Gravdahl concurred with Mr. Zirbes and Mr. Forbing.
The homeowners have planted and cared for trees in
residential neighborhoods and will continue to do, so
without imposing the proposed conditions. He said'he
believes this portion of the proposed Development Code
will invite noncompliance and discourage future planting
of trees.
Todd Kurtin, developer, strongly supports tree
replacement and preservation of oaks and walnuts that are
on their property. He indicated that there is not
AUGUST 26, 1997 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION
sufficient room on his property for a 4:1 replacement and
such a ratio would insure failure. He said he believes
it is more important to preserve the replacement trees
than increase the number.
SP/Johnson reminded the Commission that the City
currently requires oak tree permits for the removal of
oak trees located on private property and asked if it is
the Commission desire to create regulations that are less
restrictive than the regulations that are currently in
place.
Chair/Ruzicka responded affirmatively.
C/McManus stated he would like for the City to
proactively distribute literature concerning the care of
trees to new homeowners.
The Commission concurred to request that staff add
language to the ordinance in accordance with C/McManus'
suggestion.
AP/Lungu reminded that Commission that properties under
development requiting a mitigation monitoring program as
part of the approval should be eliminated from the
proposed exemption.
Following discussion, the Commission concurred to add Mr.
Zirbes' recommended exemption as Item A. under Exemptions
on Page III -131 and revised the language as follows:
"Trees, except those designated by the City Council as a
historical or cultural tree, and trees required to be
preserved, relocated or planted as a condition of
approval of a discretionary permit, located on all
developed properties prior to adoption of this
Development Code."
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (Page III -137 thru III -141)
Bob Zirbes asked for clarification of 4. Commuter
matching service. under B. Projects 50,000 square feet
and above. on Page III -140.
C/Goldenberg suggested that "capable of" be added to C.
Buspool. on Page III -137 so that it reads: "A vehicle
capable of carrying 16 or more passengers... etc."
C/Goldenberg recommended that the language of Item D.
,- Carpool and N. Vanpool be less stringent.
STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES ( Page III -142 thru III -166)
Chair/Ruzicka asked if the code can address view blockage
(See H. Workshops or studios on Page III -162) with
AUGUST 26, 1997 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION
respect to second story units without complicating the
issue.
Mr. Pflugrath suggested the matter be included in' the
Design Guidelines for Single Family Residential.
VC/Schad suggested that Table 3-xx on Page III -164 be
changed to reflect 5 feet instead of 3 feet for Required
setback under single -Family Detached Homes Item 2 -
Swimming pool, spa, fish pond, outdoor play equipment.
Bob Zirbes asked if 111,000 feet" could be increased to
2,000 feet in the third line of s. separation/measurement
on Page III -145.
CA/Jenkins responded that the number of feet is based
upon allowing a reasonable number of sites within the
City.
Mr. Pflugrath indicated he will review the matter with
staff to determine if 2,000 feet is a reasonable number.
CA/Jenkins responded to Mr. Zirbes that if an applicant
satisfies the distance requirements, adult businesses
must be allowed.
Mr. Zirbes stated he believes the distances requirements
should be as stringent as possible.
Mr. Pflugrath stated that CA/Jenkins indicated citiesimay
not limit adult businesses hours of operation and,
therefore, 2. Hours of operation on Page III -144 will be
deleted from the Development Code.
CA/Jenkins responded to C/Goldenberg that the City would
have no recourse in assisting residents whose property
borders a neighboring city which may allow an adult
business to be located within a shorter distance of the
property line because the use would be outside of the
City's jurisdiction. The property owner could attempt to
persuade the neighboring city to take steps to eliminate
such a facility or bring a nuisance abatement action
against the neighboring city, etc.
Mr. Zirbes asked that 3. Signs be referenced as ng -t
allowed if in a residential zone with respect to Child
Day -Care Facilities on Page III -147.
Mr. Zirbes pointed out that ";and" should be deleted from
the end of 10. Parcel coverage and replaced by a period
��..._ _. 11 - 1. , - .— 1.... ,.� .
11
AUGUST 26, 1997 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION
Responding to Mr. Zirbes, Mr. Pflugrath suggested that 5.
Family members only on Page III -152 be changed to
Residents only.
Martha Bruske said she is concerned about permitted
changes to single family residential homes (such as
relocation of air conditioners) that may distress the
neighbors. She reiterated her concerns about lack of
maintenance and attraction of rodents and insects in the
commercial recycling areas. She indicated she is
concerned about home based businesses. She has no
problem with people who work on computers in their homes
- she has a great deal of concern about business parking
on residential streets. She said she is concerned about
the aesthetics of second story additions.
John Forbing asked if the code addresses Day -Care
Facility parking and dropoff/pickup.
Mr. Pflugrath responded to Mr. Forbing that Chapter
addresses off-street parking and loading for residential
properties (See PROPERTY MAINTENANCE STANDARDS - Single-
family Standards on Page III -95 and III -96.
Mr. Forbing asked if Item 11. Sale and storage of
merchandise on Page III -152 will limit home businesses
such as Amway, Princess House, Mary Kay which require
distributor meeting and product pickup.
Mr. Pflugrath stated that the code allows for garage
storage of products and equipment as long as vehicle
parking is not prohibited. He indicated he will add
language to clarify this item.
Tom Van Winkle expressed his concerns about how the code
will address home based businesses.
RECESS: Chair/Ruzicka recessed the meeting at 8:25 p.m.
RECONVENE: Chair/Ruzicka reconvened the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued)
2. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50314, Conditional Use
Permit No. 96-1, Oak Tree Permit No. 96-1 and Zone Change
96-1 (pursuant to Code Sections Title 21, and Title
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 approved 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
-_I-- -- - - ___1___.
AUGUST 26, 1997 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION
R-1,200 and A-2-2 to R-1-40,000. (Continued from August
12, 1997.
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 explained that staff received a letter from Kurt
Nelson, Windmill Development Company, Inc. dated August
19, 1997, requesting that the public hearing for VTM
50314 be continued to September 23, 1997.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the
public hearing, receive comments, and continue the public
hearing to September 23, 1997.
r;.
Chair/Ruzicka reopened the public hearing.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this
item.
VC/Schad moved, C/McManus seconded, to continue Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 50314, Conditional Use Permit No.
96-1, Oak Tree Permit No. 96-1 and Zone Change 96-1 to
September 23, 1997. The motion was carried -5-0. 1
3. Development Review No. 97-4 is a request (pursuant, to
Section 22.72.020.A) to construct a 35,461 square foot,
two story industrial building to be utilized ,for
warehousing,- assembly and associated office uses on a
78,442 square foot (1.8 acre) vacant site. (Continued
from August 12, 1997)
Property Location: Northeast corner of Lemon
Avenue and Lycoming Street
Property Owner: Lan Plus, Andy Teng, 17088 E,
Green Drive, City of Industry,
CA 91745
Applicant: Kent Wu Architects, 1274 E.
Center Court Drive, Suite 211,
Covina, CA 91724
�ryJYtiIWJ
SP/Johnson presented staff's report. She requested that
Condition Q. on Page 5 of the Resolution be deleted. ,She
further requested that Condition I. on Page 6 be modified LJ
to read: "Prior to final inspection, the applicant/owner
shall install a decorative masonry wall not less than, 30
AUGUST 26, 1997 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION
inches and not greater than 42 inches in height parallel
and adjacent to the parking lot not closer than five feet
from the property line".
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
Development Review No. 97-4, Findings of Fact and
conditions of approval as listed within the resolution.
Chair/Ruzicka reopened the public hearing.
Chang Lee, applicant's representative, said that Mr. Teng
is a resident of Diamond Bar and is a long-term developer
who will use the facility for his own business. He
indicated the applicant is concerned about the City's
imposition of a 10 foot dedication at this time and asked
that Conditions 4. F. and 5. X., Y., Z. be deleted at
this time. He said the applicant would like Condition
aa. documentation to be presented to the applicant for
consideration as soon as possible. He stated he believes
the applicant should be requested to participate in the
dedication along with other commercial residents when the
entire street is widened to 80 feet in accordance with
the City's General Plan. He said he believes that by
requiring a 10 foot dedication at this time,,the property
owner should be compensated for the"taking". Mr. Lee
asked for clarification of "proportionate share" as
stated in Condition V.
Kent Wu, Architect, explained the proposed project using
plan drawings.
Mr. Wu responded to VC/Schad that the applicant will not
utilize rail shipments. All ingress/egress will be at
the Lycoming side of the structure. The business
transports equipment by UPS or Federal Express.
Mr. Wu asked for consideration of a greater number of
smaller than 48 inch box trees. He suggested 15 gallon
pepper trees at a 4:1 ratio.
Chair/Ruzicka asked if it is possible to widen Lycoming
Avenue to 80 feet east of the proposed project to Brea
Canyon Road.
I�
SP/Johnson responded to Chair/Ruzicka that the dedication
is part of the development process and a condition of
approval. The City's General Plan calls for Lycoming
Avenue to be widened from 60 to 80 feet between Lemon
Avenue and Brea Canyon Road. She indicated that
CA/Jenkins advises that if the applicant objects to the
10 foot dedication, staff should require that this item
_-o- be continued to allow for further analysis.
AUGUST 26, 1997
PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION
Jeff Asay, Union Pacific Railroad staff attorney, stated
the railroad would like to sell the property. The
railroad is concerned that the applicant has newly
imposed conditions that may prevent the sale from
progressing in a timely manner. He indicated he is
hopeful that an agreement can be reached between the
applicant and the City within the next 30 days or so.
Mr. Asay responded to VC/Schad that he is not aware of a
storm drain on the property.
C/Fong stated he believes that the future developer of
the school property on the southwest corner of Lycoming
Avenue should carry the burden of a street easement
dedication.
C/Goldenberg moved, C/McManus seconded, to continue
Development Review No. 97-4 to September 9, 1997. The
motion was carried 5-0.
4. Draft Development Code (Continued):
Paul Crawford, AICD, The Planning and Zoning Alliance,
presented Article V Subdivisions.
Bob Zirbes asked for the City's minimum residential lot
size. `=G
SP/Johnson responded that the minimum residential lot
size is proposed to be 8,000 square feet.
Mr. Zirbes recommended a 10,000 square foot minimum
residential lot size.
Mr. Crawford indicated lot sizes will be discussed in
Article II.
Mr. Crawford responded to C/Goldenberg that Townhomes are
common interest developments and the Tentative Map and
Parcel Map process is employed for approval. Article
III's Multiple Family Design Guidelines and Standards
deal with multi -family housing such as Townhomes and
condominium projects.
C/Fong asked that "and Civil Engineer" be included at the
end of the first paragraph under Survey Procedure and
Practice on Page V-71.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS - None
Ei,
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None
t�
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
AUGUST 26, 1997 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION
As presented in the agenda.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the Planning
Commission, Chair/Ruzicka adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. to
6:00 p.m., September 2, 1997, in the South Coast Air Quality
Management Board Hearing Room.
Respectfully Submitted,
Ca herinie(Johnson
Acting Secretary
Attest:
zr a Ru c a
Chairman