HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/5/1997MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 5, 1997
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Ruzicka called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. in the
South Coast Air Quality Management Board Room, 21865 East Copley
Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Recording Secretary Dennis.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Ruzicka, Vice Chairman Schad,
Commissioners Fong, Goldenberg and McManus
Also Present: Deputy City Manager James DeStefano, Senior
Planner Catherine Johnson, Associate Planner
Ann Lungu and City Attorney Jenkins.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Debbie O'Connor stated that with respect to the Parks Master Plan,
misstatements have been made to the public during Redevelopment
petition signature gathering. She referred the Commissioners to
Exhibit 5.1 Capital Improvement Plan of the Parks Master Plan which
states one of the funding sources for improvements, including
recreational trail improvements, community center, sports parks,
comes from the Redevelopment Agency.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes of July 29, 1997.
C/Goldenberg made a motion, seconded by C/McManus to approve
the minutes of July 29, 1997 as submitted. The motion was
approved 5-0.
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, and Article IV - Land Use and Development
j Permit Procedures.
I
Bruce Jacobson, Jacobson & Wack, presented an overview of
Article IV - Land Use and Development Permit Procedures.
AUGUST 5, 1997 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
DCM/DeStefano left the meeting at 6:25 p.m. to attend the City
Council meeting.
C/Goldenberg was excused from the meeting at 6:30 p.m.to
participate in City Council ceremonies.
C/Goldenberg returned to the Planning Commission dais at 6:50
p.m.
C/Fong asked if the Development Code spells out the
maximum retaining wall height.
Mr. Pflugrath responded that retaining wall information
is discussed in Article III - Hillside Management.
C/Fong requested that the Planning Commission discuss
retaining walls during the Article III presentation.
Chair/Ruzicka asked if an enclosure on top of a room
addition at the rear of a residential structure would
fall under Minor Conditional Use Permits. He asked if
residential property room additions are considered under
! minor Conditional Use Permits.
i
Mr. Jacobson responded that if the room additions are b
proposed to be within the allowable building envelope and
Y not intruding into the allowable setback or exceeding the
allowable height, no discretionary permits would be
required.
Ir
SP/Johnson responded to VC/Schad that the Development
Code is interpreted to balance the rights of neighbors
and the rights of the property owner. It is difficult to
disapprove a project when the property owner is
constructing within the setbacks and height requirements.
Chair/Ruzicka said he believes staff should caution
property owners to act prudently.
SP/Johnson responded to C/McManus that surrounding
property owners would be notified about projects that are
subject to Administrative Development Review.
Mr. Jacobson stated that if the project is allowable and
does not describe the need for discretionary review, no
notice will be given and the neighbors may not be aware
of the project until construction begins. During review
o Article III it is incumbent upon the commission to
f , P
look at the standards and decide which, if any, may need
y
to be revised.
u4-
Chair/Ruzicka reiterated his concern for staff to include
or statements to the property owner
questions _ P P Y
contemplating room additions such as, whether the
A
AUGUST 5, 1997 PAGE 3,i#&;,; PLANNING COMMISSION
i
property owner has asked his neighbors if the proposed
room addition might adversely effect them.
Mr. Jacobson suggested that building envelope numbers
could be tightened to more frequently trigger a
discretionary permit for certain types of activities such
as rear yard accessory structures. If the property owner
builds within what is proposed in the document before the
Commission, the addition is non -discretionary. The
standards could be changed through this public hearing
review process to limit the amount of building on a
residential or commercial site. There are many ways to
regulate building coverage and minimize view and privacy
intrusion.
Bob Zirbes complimented the consultants on their proposed
Development Code.
Mr. Jacobson responded to Mr. Zirbes that the City does
not enforce CC&R's. Mr. Jacobson stated definitions for
both "Neighborhood or Area Plans" and CC&R's will be
provided in Chapter VII.
Mr. Zirbes asked for an expanded definition of
"materially injurious" such as "due to its design,
appearance or use" found on Page IV -13, Item E.
Mr. Zirbes asked for inclusion of a definition of "view"
called out in Item 7. on Page IV -10.
Following discussion, the Commission concurred that due
to the City's unique topography, "view" is an important
issue and should be more thoroughly discussed in the
Development Code document.
Mr. Jacobson indicated that in order to protect "views",
an element would need to be added to Article III. The
question would be whether the City would have the comfort
level in regulating and saying "no" to a project that
would impact a single person's view versus the ability
for the landowner to use the land in the way the City's
General Plan allows them to use the land.
SP/Johnson pointed out that the City's Planning
Department and Planning Commission have discretionary
authority and can exercise sensitivity in the negotiation
of projects.
Mr. Pflugrath indicated the consultants will work with
staff to provide the Commission with documentation and
copies of other city's ordinances for perusal.
C/Fong asked if staff has read the document and has any
suggestions to offer.
AUGUST 5, 1997
PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
SP/Johnson again explained that the version of the
Development Code now before the Commission is a result of
cooperative effort between the consultants and the
Building and Safety, Engineering and Planning staff.
Staff has had ample opportunity to include
recommendations and offer corrections to the document.
The existing review thresholds -are codified in the
current document. She asked the Commission to consider
the current thresholds for the review process and whether
it wishes 'to make changes.
Chair/Ruzicka stated he is comfortable with the
thresholds contained in the document.
SP/Johnson responded to C/Fong that the Development Code
is meant to be a fluid document.
The Commission concurred to accept Article IV with
recommended changes and additions.
Mr. Pflugrath requested the Commissioners forward their
recommendations with respect to punctuation, spelling,
grammar and syntax of the document to staff.
Ron Plugrath, AICP, Urban Design Studio, present an
overview of Section I of Article III - General Property,
Development and Use Standards.
C/Goldenberg asked that "whenever possible" be added to
A. 5. on Page III -6 so that it reads: "on-site roads.
on-site roads shall be paved as soon as feasible, watered
periodically with reclaimed water whenever possible,'or
stabilized in an environmentally safe manner;".
Mr. Pflugrath responded to Chair/Ruzicka that with
respect to Exterior Lighting C. on Page III -7, the code
does not apply to single-family residential uses.
Chair/Ruzicka asked that E. 1. on Page III -7 be corrected
to read: "Light fixtures shall not be located closer
than 10 feet to the nearest property line.".
Chair/Ruzicka stated he believes the code should address
security lighting for single-family residential use.
C/Goldenberg asked that the last sentence under Exterior
Lighting A. on Page III -7 be changed to read: "Generally,
pole -mounted fixtures shall be low in height or equipped
with light shields (See D. Shielding.) to reduce 'or
eliminate light spillage beyond the project's boundaries. }.
C/Goldenberg asked that Item E. 3. on Page III -8 be
corrected to read: "Light fixtures shall not be located
more than 18 feet from the court surface.".
AUGUST 5, 1997 PAGE 5=:€_ PLANNING COMMISSION
C/Goldenberg ask if commercial lighting, such as golf
_.j course lighting, should be included in Item E. 6. on Page
III -8.
C/Goldenberg asked if the hours of operation should be
expanded to include weekends and/or holidays under Item
E. 7. on Page III -8.
C/Goldenberg asked for inclusion of a graphic explanation
of the "Height Measurement and Height Limit Exceptions"
Chapter on Pages III -8 and III -9.
Mr. Pflugrath indicated that a graphic will be provided
within the Hillside Ordinance in addition to this
chapter.
C/Goldenberg asked that "community" be added in place of
"public in line 4 of the opening statement of the Open
Space for Commercial Projects chapter on Page III -9 so
that the last sentence reads: "The intent is to make the
pedestrian environment more pleasant through the
provision of community open spaces, plazas, courtyards,
etc.".
C/Goldenberg asked that a space be inserted near the end
of the second sentence of C. Open space bonuses. under
�L open space for Commercial Projects on Page III -10 to
separate available and at.
Chair/Ruzicka pointed out that with respect to the
Screening and Buffering section, the Gateway Corporate
Center is in full view of several homes along the
ridgeline. He stated he is concerned about neon signs on
buildings. The Commission denied a request for a second
sign for the University of Phoenix which was overturned
by the City Council. He asked how this section will
protect the homeowners from blight due to rooftop signs
and apparatus such as air conditioning units, antennas,
etc. when the center is built out.
Mr. Pflugrath stated this section can provide that
rooftop mounted equipment must blend architecturally with
the structure. He indicated language would be added to
Screening and Buffering B. Mechanical equipment. on Page
III -10, to require consideration of views from above the
structure. The Sign Ordinance addresses glare, and light
emission from signs.
C/McManus.stated he believes parapet roofing would be the
best solution for screening equipment. He further stated
that in his opinion, there should be no rooftop signage
in the Gateway Corporate Center.
-.»n M'I "IL�'"'a-- —.--. ._ ...n -.N_". -ria`--. — 1 ni—rrmrrrvr—+%�,�i.���.�_,.
AUGUST 5, 1997 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION
Mr. Pflugrath responded to C/McManus that this section of
the Code deals mainly with new construction.
C/Goldenberg asked that the Commission give further
consideration to camouflage with respect to Page III -11,
Item E. 2. Fences.
VC/Schad said he is concerned about sidewalk safety with
retail store doors opening directly into the parking lot.
Mr. Pflugrath suggested inclusion of a requirement to
provide a separation of a designated number of feet
between vehicular' travel lanes and front building
entries.
C/McManus suggested that commercial buildings build the
front entrance out and provide entry through the side
rather than from the front.
Mr. Pflugrath responded to C/Fong that the requirement
for commercial parking lot landscaping is contained
within the Parking section.
Chair/Ruzicka asked for inclusion of a setback chart or
graphic.
C/Goldenberg asked if Section B. 1. a. refers to the roof
overhang or the structure as the nearest point.
Mr. Pflugrath responded that the measurement is from tlhe
face of the wall.
C/Goldenberg requested the first sentence, line 2 of B.
4. b. on Page III -12 be correct to read "...parallel to
and at a maximum distance from the front lot
line .... etc."
C/Goldenberg requested that Item B. 5. Nonparallel lot
lines be stated more clearly or eliminated entirely.)
Chair/Ruzicka asked Mr. Pflugrath to reconsider
paragraphs B. 4. b. and 5. on Page III -12 for further
clarification (chart or graphic) or rewrite.
Mr. Pflugrath concurred with C/McManus that "and" should
be changed to "or" near the end of the third line of
Paragraph B. S. on Page III -12.
Mr. Pflugrath explained to C/Fong that the side yard and
rear yard setback requirements are contained in Article
II - Property Development Standards.
M
AUGUST 5, 1997 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION
Following discussion, Chair/Ruzicka recommended "as
_ defined in Article II" be added at the end of B. 5. on
Page III -12.
C/Goldenberg suggested minimums of three feet be included
in Section D. 2. c. and 3, b. 3) on Page III -13.
The Commission and the consultants concurred that the
Code should address "solar devices" as a separate
category. See Item D. 2. on Page III -13 continued from
page III -12.
C/Goldenberg asked for reconsideration of Item D. 4. d.
2) on Page III -13.
Mr. Pflugrath suggested that the sentence be rewritten as
follows: "The height of guard rails shall be as required
by the Uniform Building Code (UBC)".
Mr. Pflugrath responded to C/Fong that satellite dishes
and antennae is covered under the Telecommunications
Chapter. Usually, such devices are not allowed within a
setback area.
RECESS: Chair/Ruzicka recessed the meeting at 8:30'p.m.
` RECONVENE: Chair/Ruzicka reconvened the meeting at 8:40 p.m.
C/Goldenberg pointed out that D. 4. g. 2. on Page III -14
should be corrected by eliminating "and" at the end of
the paragraph and ending the paragraph with a period
following "parcel".
Craig Clute asked if the code section referring to
Exterior Lighting applies to school sites.
Chair/Ruzicka responded that school districts are not
governed by City statutes.
Mr. Clute recommended that the Code state that no duct
work can be mounted on residential rooftops.
Mr. Pflugrath stated the Code currently allows duct work
to be mounted on rooftops as long as it is compatible
with the building aesthetics.
Following discussion of D. 4. g. Retaining walls, the
Commission concurred that the Code should refer to the
UBC Code where applicable throughout the document.
Ron Pflugrath presented an overview of Section II of
Article III - Affordable Housing Incentives/ Density
Bonus Provisions discussion.
AUGUST 5, 1997 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION
C/Goldenberg asked how the City will enforce and monitor
the provisions contained in Eligibility for Bonus and+!'
Incentives B. 1. 2. and 3.
CA/Jenkins responded that typically, a property owner is
obliged to enter into an agreement with the City which
compels them to make the percentage of units affordable
(rental or for -sale units) and an annual report to the
City that would evidence price and eligibility based on
income requirements' for rental units. In the case of
for -sale units, a deed restriction would be required to
be placed against the title of the property so that it
could not be sold for more than the original price plus
a certain inflation factor so that.the qualifying buyer
could not make a huge profit• by selling it at a market
rate so as to insure the affordability of the unit fora
specified number of years (20 or 30 years). City staff
will monitor the development,to insure that the units are
being used for their proper purposes.
C/Goldenberg asked if additional language should be
included in the code to explain the procedure.
CA/Jenkins indicated that some additional language may be
appropriate with regard to entering agreements and,
periodic
periodic report provisions. He indicated he will provide.
sample language to the consultants_
C/McManus suggested that the chapter include language to
the effect that this section "conforms to current State
regulations".
CA/Jenkins indicated specific language is not contained
within the State regulations. Cities may define and
enforce the regulation differently.
C/Goldenberg said that in his,opinion, A. Density bonus.
under Types of Bonuses and Incentives Allowed on Page
III -18, is a variance without findings and he has a
problem with the concept.
CA/Jenkins stated the reason the bonus is allowed without
variance findings is that in the absence of a bonus,it
could be argued that the developer is being forced to
give up a right (being forced to use his property for
public purpose) which would constitute a taking of his
property. The 25 percent figure is mandated by State
law.
C/Goldenberg stated that in his opinion, Section B.i1.
could lead to "junk development" and how does the City
protect property values in the surrounding neighborhoods.
He further stated he believes that in addition to the
City Council, the Planning Commission should have input
�� . I 1-i'111.1111,. ,,`u "[I�: �`;�� a M 6�wlea--
AUGUST 5, 1997 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION
F _
with respect to the approval of one or more of the
incentives (see the last paragraph under B. Other
incentives on Page III -18).
CA/Jenkins responded that there is discretion in terms of
what incentives may be required. Therefore, the
Commission can have input with respect to what incentives
would be most appropriate and what incentives would not
be appropriate. A discretionary approval would be
required by the Planning Commission.
C/Goldenberg asked that specific language be included
within the last paragraph under B. other incentives on
Page III -18 that property values of surrounding
neighborhoods are to be protected in the event that
incentives are granted.
SP/Johnson stated that new development is subject to
Development Review. The Development Review Ordinance
requires high quality of development and compatibility
with the surrounding neighborhood.
Chair/Ruzicka reiterated the Commission's concern to have
-_, language incorporated which specifies that property
values will not be negatively effected.
C/McManus stated he believes that no matter how cautious
a City is in administering affordable housing, it may
have some adverse effect on property values.
CA/Jenkins explained that the discussion is not about
exclusive "affordable housing". The discussion is about
developments that contain a percentage of affordable
units which are disbursed throughout the_ project and
which must have the same.appearance in all respects to
the market rate housing.
CA/Jgnkins, addressing C/Goldenberg's concerns, stated
that incentives are no longer available for developers
building exclusively affordable housing projects. This
program is completely separate and is designed to deal
with the developer who wants to provide affordable units
which are disbursed within an otherwise market -rate
housing development or is compelled to, by virtue of an
inclusionary housing program that the City has that
compels the developer to provide a percentage of
affordable units in order for the City to meet its
Housing Element goals called out in the City's General
4 Plan.
I I
j C/Goldenberg asked that C. 5. under Processing of Bonus
Requests on Page III -19 be defined.
AUGUST 5, 1997
PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION
�Imo_
d' Ruz'cka
C'airman
I
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS:'i^;�I;
C/Goldenberg commended the staff, consultants and his fellow
Commissioners for their attention to the Development Code document.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
As presented in the agenda.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the Planning
Commission, C/McManus moved, C/Goldenberg seconded, to adjourn the
meeting. Chair/Ruzicka adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. to 6:00
p.m. August 12, 1997 in the South Coast Air.Quality Management
Auditorium.
Su itted,
*ppectfully
.GStl.Lc'�i10
%putt' City MAager
Attest:
�Imo_
d' Ruz'cka
C'airman
I