Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/27/1999MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 27, 1999 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Tye called the meeting to order at 7:14 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21,865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner McManus. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Steve Tye, and Commissioners George Kuo, Joe McManus and Joe Ruzicka. Vice Chairman Steve Nelson was excused. Also Present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager, Linda Kay Smith, Development Services Assistant, Sonya Joe, Development Services Assistant, and Stella Marquez, Administrative Secretary. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None „ APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. p..-- CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of July 13, 1999. C/Ruzicka moved, C/Kuo seconded, to approve the minutes of July 13, 1999, as presented. Motion carried 3-0-1 with C/McManus abstaining and VC/Nelson being absent. I OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: I. Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-1, and Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2 is a request for a one year extension of time for the referenced permits and a reduction of lots from four to i three. (Continued from July 13, 1999.) PROJECT ADDRESS: 3000 Block of Steeplechase Lane between Hawkwood Road and Wagon Train Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ Warren Dolezal APPLICANT: 4251 S. Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 i JULY 27, 1999 PAGE 2 DCM/DeStefano presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission re -open the public hearing, and upon its conclusion, adopt a resolution recommending City Council approval of the application requests. Warren Dolezal stated he received the Draft Resolution late Friday afternoon. He reviewed the document with DCM/DeStefano and discussed possible changes. He indicated that there are conditions contained within the Resolution that will not necessarily work for this project. In his opinion, many of the conditions have already been stated in the project's 1995 conditions of approval. Mr. Dolezal offered the following comments with respect to the Resolution: Page 3, paragraph 5.(d): He stated that this was a duplication of Item 5.b.5. in the 1995 Resolutions. He requested the following change: Add "on his property" after "all required improvements". Chair/Tye stated that he is looking at a copy that has margin notations and it says to delete Item 5. (d). DCM/DeStefano stated that staff has provided the Commission with Mr. Dolezal's "Revised Draft" which was prepared by Mr. Dolezal and outlines the changes that he is now discussing. DCM/DeStefano stated that staff does not necessarily concur with Mr. Dolezal's requested changes. 0t�C/Ruzicka asked Mr. Dolezal for his rationale with respect to the proposed change to Item 5 (d). Mr. Dolezal stated that in 1995 conditions, Item 5.(b), it states for "all public improvements". Mr. Dolezal requested the condition state that improvements be made on his property only. Mr. Dolezal referred to Page 4, Item (f). He requested that the word "quarterly" be removed because within the paragraph it is stated that staff has suggested a number of inspections take place over the next five years. He requested this paragraph be deleted because on Page 3, Item (e), it states that Applicant shall protect and preserve the existing oak tree pursuant to the City's Oak Tree Permit process as follows: A chain link fence, with a minimum height of 4 -feet, shall be installed 10 -feet outside the tree's drip line, and fencing shall be installed and shall remain during the construction of the homes on Lots 2 and 3. It also states that fencing shall not be removed until each home has received final Planning Division inspection or Certificate of Occupancy. He stated that the oak tree is approximately 100 years old, and he sees no reason to accept financial burden along with the additional expense of having a quarterly inspection the first year and subsequent inspections over the next five years. C/McManus asked staff to explain the difference between the quarterly inspections and preserving the existing oak tree pursuant to the City's Oak Tree Permit process. DCM/DeStefano stated that Condition (e) is referring to the City's Oak Tree Ordinance that discusses the protection of the oak tree during construction. Condition (f) is specific to this particular project: One of the foundations of the project denial in September 1998 was the loss of the oak tree. The applicant has indicated; that he will now save and protect the oak tree. The City needs assurance that that will in fact, be done. The ,w " City does not have an appropriately certified arborist or biologist on staff. Therefore, staff has prepared a condition that says that the applicant shall pay for and provide that certified professional in order to assure JULY 27, 1999 PAGE that the tree is properly maintained over this five year period of time. One of the corrections that staff is t' prepared to offer is the removal of the word "quarterly" from the first sentence. The intent is to have this tree inspected and a report filed quarterly in the first year, semi-annually in the second year, and annually in the third, fourth and fifth year. Mr. Dolezal indicated to Chair/Tye that he wants the entire condition removed. He does not think it is necessary for him to be burdened by this condition. Mr. Dolezal continued: Page 4, Item (h): He requested the word "replacement" be deleted. With regards to Item (k), he stated that two street lights at the terminus of Hawkwood Road exist, therefore, he requested that this item be deleted. He also requested that Item p), be deleted. He stated that Tract 47850 owners are required by their subdivision of the 15 lots to install an emergency access gate and it is their obligation under their existing construction. He also requested that Item (m) be deleted. He stated that all utilities are in place and previous conditions cover all specifics. He stated that the condition relates to any modifications on any facilities including, but it also states being within the easement of Steeplechase Lane due to the addition of j this project. He stated that he does not own that property:. Mr. Dolezal referred to Page 5, he stated that Item (o) is a duplicate of Item (n). He stated that Item (p) is a duplicate of Items (e), (g) and (h) and he would like it deleted. With regard to Item (q), he said he cannot provide a life policy for the oak tree. He stated he will include the Oak Tree Ordinance and provide the instructions and the preservations in the Buyers Awareness Package. He requested the condition be deleted. He said he believes it is also covered by Items (e), (g), (h) and (n). Chair/Tye re -opened the Public Hearing. There being no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Tye closed the Public Hearing. C/McManus said that in reading the Resolution he did not reach the same conclusions that Mr. Dolezal reached and he would like staff to respond to each issue. DCM/DeStefano responded as follows: 1. Item 5. (d) essentially duplicates the condition of a previous resolution. There is one difference. The previous resolution (1995) discussed all "public" improvements. This condition, as written by the City's Engineer, strikes the word "public" in two places. He said he indicated to Mr. Dolezal earlier today that he would not recommend removal of Condition 5. (d) but he has no quarrel with adding the words "on his property" to the end of the first sentence and to the second sentence. 2. Item 5. (f): Staff has stated its desire to retain the condition to monitor the progress of the tree and to remove the word "quarterly" from the second sentence. _ C/Ruzicka verified that Item 5. (e) relates to 5. (f) in that 5. (e) takes care of the oak tree during a different fperiod of time than does 5. (f) and therefore, 5. (f) is every bit as important as 5. (e). Item S. (h): Staff concurs with Mr. Dolezal's request to strike "replacement" from the last sentence. JULY 27, 1999 PAGE 4 4. Item 5. (k): Staff recommends that the Planning Commission remove Condition 5. (k) to provide th ", assurance to Mr. Dolezal that the street light presently exists at the terminus of the cul-de-sac and would not J require additional street lights to be placed in the future. 5. Item 5. (1): Staff recommends that this condition remain intact. The condition has to do with any roadway modifications on Hawkwood Road as a result of the emergency gate access. The emergency gate is the responsibility of an adjacent developer. This is a condition prepared by the City's Engineering staff regarding the immediate terminus of Hawkwood Road. The existing condition within the 1995 resolution talks about curbs and gutters at the end of that street which would need to be modified. 6. - Item 5. (m): DCM/DeStefano stated that this is a condition from the City's Engineer. It is duplicative of the referenced conditions that discuss in various ways drainage, water, etc. He said he believes that the condition can be deleted. 7. Item 5. (o): Staff does not believe Condition (o) is a duplicate of Condition (n). Condition (n) was written for the grading plan. Condition (o) is written for the Parcel Map. Staff recommends that both conditions remain. 8. Item 5. (p): This condition is the preparation of a maintenance program in order to insure that the tree is properly maintained. Staff recommends that this condition remain a part of the Resolution. 9. Item 5. (q): This condition is designed to provide additional security that the tree will remain. Thi° y measure is somewhat unique and will require work on the part of the City Attorney in order to come to X� permanent conclusion. The idea is to find a permanent protection with some type of security to insure the performance and success of the tree. Otherwise, there is no penalty for the loss of the tree. The dollar amount would be determined by an appropriate appraisal firm in a form approved by the City, Attorney. Following discussion, C/McManus moved, C/Ruzicka seconded, to adopt a resolution recommending City Council approval of the application as amended in accordance with staffs recommendations. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, McManus, Ruzicka, Chair/Tye NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Nelson PLANNING COMNIISSION COMMENTS: None INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: DCM/DeStefano stated that the McDonald/Chevron project is scheduled to commence construction in about two weeks and complete construction for opening by January 2000. He stated that staff has a number of technical amendments to propose to the City's one year old Development Code. Projects that will be brought before the Commission at future meetings include a request for extension ofthe First Evangelical Frees Church parking lot and the Tice Project. The office projects within the Gateway Corporate Center are movinE: forward and will make their construction deadlines by the end of the year. The ICSC Conference resulted in a loi— of interest in locating to Diamond Bar on the part of fast food chains due to office building construction as well as, a desire to locate next to existing businesses such as Starbucks/Hollywood Video. As a result of a merger between - r., ❑—°.V ny'^ ., �7Lid r rci[': 'bi4'9 ro17''��:.tr1 JULY 27, 1999 PAGE'5a Lucky and Albertson's Markets, the Lucky store at Grand and Diamond Bar Boulevard will be retained and the Albertson's store at Golden Springs Road and Brea Canyon Road will become a Top Valu. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in the agenda. ` ADJOURNMENT: C/McManus moved, C/Ruzicka seconded, to adjourn the meeting. There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chair/Tye adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, h,91' James DeStefano Deputy City Manager Attest: Steve Tye J Chairman