Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/2/1997MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Ruzicka called the meeting to order at 6:07 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 Senior Planner Catherine Johnson. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Ruzicka, Vice Chairman Schad, Commissioners Goldenberg and McManus Absent: Commissioner Fong Also Present: Acting Planning Commission Secretary Catherine Johnson and Associate Planner Ann Lungu. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of August 19, 1997. Chair/Ruzicka requested with be corrected to width in the last line on Page 4. C/Goldenberg moved, VC/Schad seconded, to approve the minutes of August 19, 1997 as corrected. The motion was carried 4-0. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS - None CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Draft Development Code (Zoning Code Amendment ZCA 97-1) Article II and Article V of the Development Code and make an informal recommendation. It is recommended that the Zoning Map be continued to a date to be determined by the Planning Commission. Ron Pflugrath, AICP, The Planning and Zoning Alliance, and the Commission discussed the Citywide Design Guidelines draft and view protection. Mr. Pflugrath stated there are three potential approaches to view "L protection: Impose quantified standards, define standards and identify enforcement, and determine how the standards are to be applied (new and/or current structures). SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION SP/Johnson stated the General Plan directs the City to develop standards. Basic standards will be included' within the Development Code and expanded guidelines will be included within the Citywide Design Guidelines. Basic privacy issues are included within the draft Citywide Design Guidelines presented for the Planning Commission's consideration in tonight's packet. The privacy issues will be expanded and view protection will be addressed'in the document. Chair/Ruzicka reiterated the Commission's desire to have City government encourage citizens to preserve views and to preserve privacy whenever possible. i Responding to C/Goldenberg, Chair/Ruzicka explained that he mediates view and privacy disputes by encouraging homeowners to consider compromise. He said he believes that "views" does not guarantee an unobstructed panorama of given features, but does include a reasonable approach to the situation. Bob Zirbes stated in response to C/Goldenberg that he likes Laguna Beach's approach to the matter of views. He indicated that the Laguna Beach City Council is discussing this matter this evening and he would like to know the outcome of the 'discussion. He said he would like to see the ordinance come back to the Planning Commission with the lined -out items put back into the document and have the document redone to delete and/or rewrite items as they pertain to Diamond Bar. �He explained his approach to mediation is to bring he parties together to resolve matters of dispute. He said he does not believe the City should legislate or enforce matters of view and privacy. However, he would like to have the City implement stringent requirements on new development with respect to placement -of a structure and its landscaping in relationship to existing structures. He referred the Commission to Page 8 of the Laguna Be ch Ordinance which discusses"having the complainant notify the tree owner" as an essential element of mediation'. Chair/Ruzicka agreed with Mr. Zirbes that he likes Laguna Beach's approach to the problem because it calls out important stages in the development of a dispute. C/Goldenberg stated he believes the balance of the Commission concurs with Mr. Zirbes and Chair/Ruzicka to have Laguna Beach's document edited for Diamond Bar. He encouraged staff not to include stringent municipal f, regulations that require constant surveillance. ,{ Chair/Ruzicka asked staff to determine the results of the Laguna Beach City Council discussion, rewrite the ordinance, delete all of the crossed out sections, delete i . r, � , , �P l,��ai ,1-�;tie�l� � p 'N.;•�'I,;� ,a' arA-r-Jf'o i .a,��:,�u'L"e SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 PAGE 3, PLANNING COMMISSION all references to items that do not pertain to Diamond Bar, and return a clean Citywide Design Guidelines document with a phased process to guide ,claimants to settlement to the Commission for discussion and recommendation for inclusion within the Development Code. Chuck Martin, 444 Red Cloud Drive, asked that the Planning Commission consider exceptions when discussing view preservation. He explained that the homeowner up the hill from him was permitted to build an add-on with a second story which allows his neighbor to have full view of his backyard and view into some of the rooms of his home. He said he was not notified by the City when his neighbor applied for and was granted a building permit. He indicated he would have objected to the structure if he had been aware of the project. He stated that as a result of his neighbors add-on which includes windows facing his property, he has lost his cherished privacy. He said he believes Diamond Bar's Ordinance should contain a grandfather clause to protect his right to privacy. Chair/Ruzicka stated that Mr. Martin's scenario occurs frequently in the City. He said he believes most of these types of projects that are approved without concern for neighbors privacy are approved without Planning Commission hearings. VC/Schad concurred with Chair/Ruzicka that many residents have experienced loss of privacy as a result of add-on approvals. He said he believes this problem needs to be addressed in the Citywide Design Guidelines and Development Code by the Planning Commission. Mr. Zirbes said he believes that if the Development Code currently being reviewed by the Planning Commission had been in place prior to the add-on in Mr. Martin's neighborhood, the add-on may not have been approved by the Planning Commission. Chair/Ruzicka indicated to Mr. Pflugrath that there is Commission consensus for a more detailed approach to view and privacy preservation with respect to all development discussed within the Development Code. He pointed out that SP/Johnson pointed out (referring to the August 5, 1997; Planning Commission minutes) that "the City's Planning Department and Planning Commission have discretionary authority and can exercise sensitivity in the negotiation of projects". C/Goldenberg stated he believes thesensitivityissue -` should be addressed at the beginning of the document. If staff approves a project that does not come before the Planning Commission, the existing neighborhood must be SEPTEMBER 21 1997 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION considered in the approval or denial of the application. SP/Johnson responded to Chair/Ruzicka that additions that exceeds 50 percent of the existing home area, the matter is considered through he Administrative Development Review process and homeowners within a 300 foot radius of the project are notified. These matters can be appealed to the City's Planning Department,. Mr. Martin'suggested that the Code specify that, in the case of add -ons -which may infringe on neighbor's privacy, no windows may be placed facing',the'neighbors property.. C/McManus suggested that staff acquire a copy of the City of Cerritos' ordinance, because it addresses views. Mr. Pflugrath pointed out that' Page' 36 of the Draft Citywide Design Guideline' provided to the Commission tonight suggests that portions of second story structures be set back from the first story. He indicated this portion of the draft can beexpanded to address the Commission's concerns. Paul Crawford, AICP, Zoning,Alliance, presented Article II. ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS (Pages II -3 through II -6) LJ There was no comment on this chapter. RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.(Pages II -7 through II -13 C/McManus asked for explanation of Private residential recreational facilities in the RECREATION, EDUCATION & PUBLIC ASSEMBLY USES portion of Table 2-2 on Page 11,9. Mr. Crawford explained that this article works with the definition of the code which contains an explanation of each of the land uses. Private residential recreational facilities are defined on Page VII -29 as "Privately owned, non-commercial outdoor recreation facilities provided for members or project and neighborhood residents. These include swim and tennis clubs,,park and sport court facilities." He explained that these are facilities that could be allowed in conjunction with a multi -family or single family residential project. The question marks are inserted in Table 2-2 on Page II -9 to discuss whether these facilities should be included. SP/Johnson explained that the question is not whether to include these facilities, but -instead, the process for reviewing them. - ... "�. r .. m� _ f--- ......... .,3.„ ...,. SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION Responding to C/Goldenberg, Mr. Crawford explained that numbers on lines 7 and 8 of the subsection "RESIDENTIAL USES" in Table 2-2 on Page II -9 should be changed to read: "Residential care homes, 6 or fewer clients" and "Residential. care homes, 1, or more clients." California State Law requires all cities allow, without permit, residential care homes with 6 or few clients in any residential zoning district. The City may not regulate such facilities. Whether or not to allow facilities of 7 or more clients is determined at a local level. Bob Zirbes asked for an explanation of "Manufactured housing units" listed in subsection entitled RESIDENTIAL USES in Table 2-2 on Page II -9. Mr. Crawford responded that California cities are required to allow manufactured housing units which meet construction standards on any residential lot and are limited to architectural requirements that require a roof overhang unless specific materials and designs are required for all residential units in the community. COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (Pages II -15 through II -27) - Responding to C/McManus, SP/Johnson recommended the Conditional -Use Permit process be imposed for consideration of Adult day care facilities (See SERVICE USES subsection in Table 2-4 on Page II -28). Mr. Crawford responded to Mr. Zirbes that the code intends to restrict Adult Entertainment Business to the heaviest commercial district and industrial zone. He reminded the Commission that CA/Nichols commented with respect to the City's ability to regulate those uses. The City must allow a reasonable number of sites and cannot limit the hours of operation. The Commission concurred to delete Grocery stores from subsection RETAIL TRADE USES in Table 274 on Page II -17. SP/Johnson corrected Shopping centers under subsection RETAIL TRADE USES in Table 2-5 on Page II -21 to require a CUP under C-., zone instead of C-3. Responding to VC/Schad, SP/Johnson stated that the City's General Plan defines Light Industrial as Industrial Land Use and indicates that no areas of the City are appropriate for Heavy Industrial. b„ In response to C/McManus regarding Item B. Glare and heat being applicable to second stories of the same building, certain industrial processes will generate these types of effects. The objective in this section is to simply i SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION restrict them to the same property. It would be up to the lessees and landlords to compromise on these issues. SPECIAL PURPOSE ZONING DISTRICTS (Pages II -29 through II -33) The Commission concurred that Item 2 (Mobile home/manufactured housing units) and Item 4 (Secondary residential units) should be deleted from subsection RESIDENTIAL USES in Table 2-7 on Page II -31, and th t Residential accessory uses and structures should �e included under OS and subject to the Permit process. The Commission concurred that Item 1 Heliports be deleted from subsection TRANSPORTATION & COMMUNICATIONS USES in Table 2-7 on Page II -31. Bob Zirbes asked if Equestrian facilities under RECREATION, EDUCATION, PUBLIC ASSEMBLY USES should be included in the AG category. Chair/Ruzicka asked staff to research this matter and provide direction. OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS (Pages II -35 through II -36) There was no comment on this chapter. SP/Johnson stated that this concludes the text .portion of the Development Code document, She reminded the Commission that a public meeting has been advertised for Saturday, September 6, 1997 in the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. SP/Johnson stated that staff proposes to hold public hearings on the Zoning Equivalency Matrix for the Zoning Map separate from the Development Code to run concurrently with the City Council's review of the Zoning Map. These public hearings will not impact the Development Code adoption. C/Goldenberg suggested the City consider direct mailing to effected businesses. Chair/Ruzicka stated he believes it would be a serious breach of public confidence if the necessary steps were not taken to notify people with regard to their rights. SP/Johnson responded to Chair/Ruzicka that she will discuss the Commission's concerns regarding public notification with DCM/DeStefano . i - -; icvimn¢av SEPTEMBER 2, 1997 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Chair/Ruzicka thanked the Commission, staff and the consultants for their work on drafting the Development Code. He said this is the best project he has been associated with in his time as a Commissioner in the City of Diamond Bar. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As presented in the agenda. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chair/Ruzicka adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m. to Saturday, September 6, 1997 at 9:00 a.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium. Respectfully Submitted, Catherine Johnson Acting secretary Attest: e- '-sqe Ru•z ick Chai - •.- -- -."�ryi.xr�.--w..11"ry""flTr--""r«... ._�__—_Tj-rr—.-....�_-_-.-��.-- �.....W�i ..-�-�L.r,�.-.,--: ;�_>..__ s-_'�-.�,.r,.� -_ �.._- _.�_�.