HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/9/2000— — --- I_ --, die,nilM.du, 1. 111 , i �_ 1 wm.. .......... _. — — —
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
I MAY 9, 2000
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management
Headquarters Building Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Commissioner Ruzicka led the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Steve Nelson; Vice Chairman Bob Zirbes; and Commissioners
-George Kuo, Joe Ruzicka, and Steve Tye.
Also Present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner;
Sonya Joe, Development Services Assistant; Linda Smith, Development Services
Assistant, and Stella Marquez, Administrative Secretary.
>. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None offered. -
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The Commission concurred to move Item 8.1 forward on the
Agenda to follow Item 6.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.1 Minutes of the April 25, 2000, meeting.
C/Ruzicka moved, VC/Zirbes seconded, to approve the minutes of the meeting of April 11, 2000,
subject to the following correction: Page 4, correct the second to the last sentence to indicate
"six or more bedrooms" instead of "three or more bedrooms." Motion carried by the following
Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes, Chair/Nelson
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
5. OLD BUSINESS: None
-6. NEW BUSINESS: None
I
May 9, 2000 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION � i� '
i,, ra
8. Development Review No. 2000-03, and Variance No. 2000-03 (pursuant to Code Section 22.48.020
and 22.54.010) is a request to construct -a two-story single family residence with a basement and five -car
garage for a total of approximately 23,000 square feet. The request also includes a tennis court and
retaining walls. The Variance request is related to retaining walls of varying height, with a maximum
height of 10 feet and decreased setbacks for the tennis court.
7.
Project Address: 2819 Water Cowl Drive
(Lots 33/46 of Tract No. 47850)
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Property Owner/ Diamond Bar West, LLC
Applicant: 3480 Torrance Boulevard, Suite 300
Torrance, CA 90503
The applicant has requested and Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue this project's
public hearing to May 23, 2000.
Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this matter.
C/Ruzicka moved, C/Tye seconded, to continue Development Review No. 2000-03, and Variance
No. 2000-03, to May 23, 2000. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
COMMISSIONERS: AYES: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes, Chair/Nelson
COMMISSIONERS: NOES: None
COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: None
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
7.1 Development Review No. 2000-02 (pursuant to Code Section 22.020) is a request for
architectural design review and vesting of 127 single family homes within the approved
subdivision identified as Tract No. 52267. The proposed request consists of six, two story plans,
ranging from approximately 3,366 square feet to 7,135 square feet, with two and three car
garages and additional floor plan -options. Each plan will have three architectural styles. This
request also includes architectural approvals of the project's main entry designs, perimeter
fencing, landscaping and walls. (Continued from April 25, 2000)
J
Project Address: 700 Block of Diamond Bar Boulevard
East side of Diamond Bar Boulevard at Tin Drive)
Diamond Bar, CA 91765 ','
May 9, 2000 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
Property Owner: Pulte Home Corporation
18401 Von Karman Avenue
Irvin, CA 92612
Applicant: Scott Wright
Pulte Home Corporation
18401 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92612
DCM/DeStefano presented a follow up overview of the proposed project and responded to questions and
concerns expressed by Commissioners during the April 25, 2000, meeting. Staff recommends that the
_ - - Planning Commission- approve Development Review_ No. 2000-02, Findings of Fact, and conditions of
approval as listed within the resolution:
1) That the houses be designed to reflect three -car garages and to show each garage with a
minimum dimension of 10 x 20 feet.
DCM/DeStefano explained that the developer has revised each of the house plans to reflect the
concerns of the Planning Commission. Each of the product types now have a three car garage
design with each garage bay measuring 10 feet x 20 feet. In two floor plans, this is demonstrated
in a tandem space design. In all of the other floor space designs, it is either a three -car garage or
a split 2/1 depending on the product type. There are 13 lots within the project that as a result of
the grade of the street and the difference in pad elevations on the street, creates constraints to the
development of a product with three -car garage amenities. These 13 lots have been specifically
listed within staff's report. Basically, these lots occur along Canyon Vista Court, the main spine
of the project. Approximately 11 of the 13 lots are on Canyon Vista Court. This street has the
steepest grade (somewhat similar to Gold Rush Drive, a long parallel street just to the north of
this project) wherein the street from Highcrest Drive down to Tin Drive is about 12 percent. This
is further complicated by the pads on this street which are separately elevated one above the other
similar to Gold Rush Drive. The other streets within the project tend to fan off from the main
spine and are at a relatively flat grade. Staff and the developer have concluded that as a result of
the topography, these lots should be developed with a maximum of five bedrooms and be
permitted to be constructed with two -car garages. As it turns out, each of these problem lots are
the HOVE Type II plan. There are two lots off of the main spine where this problem occurs at
the very top of the project where Skyline Drive intersects Highcrest Drive. The area is flat and
begins to drop with a significant grade. These are also HOVE Type II plans. Finally, there is a
lot off of Ridgeview Court which, due to the flag -lot nature, does not provide an opportunity for
—_ a third bay to be created that would be accessible to the street. This house could be re -oriented.
However, staff believes that re -orientation would impact the overall quality of life for its future
residents and that the original design should be maintained. If the Planning Commission chooses
May 9, 2000 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
.A �r
to accept the proposed two -car garage alternatives for the 13 lots, those lots would be specifically
identified by parcel number within CC&R's and the Buyers' Awareness Package subject to a
five -bedroom maximum.
2) That the developer submit landscape plans to describe in greater detail the proposed front
yard landscaping for each of the homes.
DCM/DeStefano stated that with respect to the front yard landscaping of the proposed homes, the
Planning Commission has been forwarded a copy of the proposed plans. Staff has reviewed the
plans and find them to be acceptable. These plans meet the guidelines that have been created by
the City's Planning Commission and City Council and provide a significant amount of turf,
ground cover, shrubs and trees. In addition, the developer will be installing irrigation for each of
the buyers, the sum total of which will provide an instant landscaped street scape. Staff is
concerned with the issue of front yard areas becoming concrete which the City's Development
Code prohibits. To further insure compliance, staff has suggested that this issue be raised within
the CC&R's to avoid similar issues that the City has had with new home purchasers.
3) That an estimate be provided of the number of on -street parking spaces available within
this project.
DCM/DeStefano stated that the developer has reported that there are approximately 266 twenty-
five foot on -street parking spaces available throughout this project. Staff has confirmed that this
number is appropriate and appears to take into account fire hydrants, corners, etc. and does not
include the spine of street from Tin Drive up to the first cul-de-sac.
4) That the site plan be revised to further reflect some of the concerns over the, specific
citing of each dwelling unit on its lot as well as, a further delineation of the architectural
style proposed and model proposed for each lot.
DCM/DeStefano stated that the developer has concurred with staff that on the lots that exceed a
30 to 35 foot rear yard setback, a staggering of some of these units will be considered. This
would create a more inviting street scape than a long row of houses that have the exact same
front yard setback. The Planning Commission has been provided a more detailed description of
each of the different elevation styles which_ delineates each of the architect's styles, each of the
model units, and each of the product type. Staff is satisfied as to the variation of product type.
5) More information and detail regarding the entry gate off of Tin Drive and the entry gate
off of Highcrest Drive in terms of insuring sufficient queuing/stacking capacity for
vehicles to get in and out of this site and to review potential design changes to be
explored by the applicant to further insure sufficient capacity at the Tin Drive gate.
3�
�4
May 9, 2000 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION
DCM/DeStefano explained that the Highcrest Drive gate at the upper elevation of the site is
proposed to be an emergency ingress/egress only design. That concept has been reviewed with
and requires final concurrence with both captains of both fire department stations that would be
reporting to this site. Tin Drive will terminate at Diamond Bar Boulevard and will turn into the
new Pulte project name "Crestview Drive" upon entrance to the site. With the signalization that
Pulte will be constructing, a sign will indicate that one of the streets is public and one of the
streets is private. The developer has considered the Commission's concern about the stacking of
vehicles entering the project site. This is the only ingress/egress and the matter has been
discussed with the City's Engineer who has indicated that there must be one foot of stacking for
every dwelling unit within the project. This project has 127 dwelling units. The Traffic Engineer
is suggesting that there should be at least 127 feet of stacking room. The prior proposal indicated
120 feet and the proposal has been revised to illustrate 130 feet of stacking area. The developer
has illustrated further ways to enhance the capacity of vehicles to get into this site by working
with staff to consider the possibility of lengthening the left turn pocket from its present design of
185 feet to at least 220 feet. The developer has also added a right turn/deceleration lane of
approximately 180 feet in length to allow a safer access to the project site. Upon entering the
site, a split driveway separates visitors and residents. This additional pocket supplies an
additional 110 feet of queuing within the gate entry. Staff is recommending approval of this
alternative which doubles the capacity.
amu..
DCM/DeStefano stated that the Planning Commission discussed the possibility of pushing the
entry gate further into the project. There is a point at which that scenario becomes difficult for
the motorists due to the rise of about 65 feet from the entry to the first cul-de-sac. The run from
where the houses begin down to the gate area about 500 feet is at about a 14 percent grade
leading-down-to a lesser grade. Pushing the gate further into the slope increases the grade on Tin
Drive. Staff would recommend that the grade not be increased beyond 14 percent.
DCM/DeStefano further stated that with- these responses, staff believes that the developer has
addressed the issues of concern expressed by the Commission. Staff is satisfied with the
developer's proposal and therefore recommends approval based upon the current conditions and
proposed changes contained within the resolution.
C/Tye asked for clarification of on -street parking statistics.
DOWDeStefano responded that the 266 spaces incorporates the areas for driveways, fire
hydrants and so forth meaning that those spaces have been discounted.
DCM/DeStefano indicated to C/Tye that staff is recommending that the matter of disallowing
garage conversions be handled through the CC&R's which are recorded, and through the Buyers'
Awareness Package. The Planning Commission may wish to handle this in a different manner.
May 9, 2000 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSIONS
C/Tye said he wants the tightest restriction possible with respect to Condition 5. u) 3. on page 11
"There shall be no garage conversions permitted at a future date for all lots." He said he believes
that CC&R's are inadequate.
VC/Zirbes asked who would have access to the Highcrest Drive emergency gate.
DCM/DeStefano responded that this is an unanswered question at this point. Clearly, emergency
services personnel would have access. Beyond that, the details have not been established.
VC/Zirbes said that if the gate is available to be opened by any type of remote device at the
disposal of residents what is to prevent them from using the device in a non -emergency situation.
DCM/DeStefano indicated that VC/Zirbes concern is an implementation detail that staff and the
developer need to agree upon.
C/Ruzicka asked how many possible automobiles this project will generate, how will they be
parked when not in use and how will they get in and out of this development. How many cars
does 310 feet accommodate? Over and above these potential 15 cars, how much backup is
anticipated at rush hour, or is the capacity for these two streets larger than he believes it to be.
Referring to paragraph 3 on Page 4 of staff's report, he said he is not sure how this scenario will
work. Although the development review on Page 4 lists options to convert garages for increased
square footage, he understands that in accordance with the proposed CC&R's that this cannot
happen. Will the Planning Commission see and review the details and precise location of the
primary and secondary gates to be installed. He stated that the project appears to be a good work
and he would like to vote its approval if these items can be satisfactorily answered.
DCM/DeStefano said that according to C/Ruzicka's figures it is possible that about 1000
vehicles can reside within this project. Staff believes that significantly fewer vehicles will be
present in the site at any given time as is seen within all of the neighborhoods within the
community. One thousand vehicles would presume wall to wall parking which is not the case in
any other area of Diamond Bar and from staff's perspective is not anticipated. When this project
was proposed the project was assessed with an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) within which
there was a traffic study conducted resulting in an anticipated volume of about 1300 vehicles per
day as a result of this project. This is a generally accepted mathematical formula of about 10
trips per unit. This anticipated number contemplates occupants, guests, service vehicles, postal
vehicles, sheriff's department vehicles, etc. The streets that are designed within this project can
accommodate well in excess of that number of vehicles. Diamond Bar Boulevard can
accommodate 40,000 vehicles based upon its design characteristics. The signal installation
results from peak hour traffic considerations which anticipated 15 percent of the total trips
generated. Not all of these vehicles will be parked on the site at any one time. The 1300 trips
that have been assessed for this project would be entering and leaving this site throughout the ',."'
f —
May 9, 2000
PAGE 7
PLANNING COMMISSION
day. The design detail issues of the gate will be considered upon approval of the conceptual
product. If the Planning Commission would like to see the design details of the gate if it so
wishes. Historically, the Planning Commission has directed the City's staff to implement those
details. The developer will tell you that it would be advantageous to at least get the conceptual
details so that they can move forward with the drawings, work with the City staff, law
enforcement, fire department and bring those results to the Planning Commission if it so desires..
Scott Wright, Forward Planner, Pulte Home Corporation, stated that his firm is amenable to
having parking restrictions added to the Grant Deed. With respect to the emergency access gate
at Higherest Drive, there would typically be no remote access for residents. Fire and police
generally require that a knock box be installed with a key or combination access to a separate key
that would open the gate. If there is an emergency and residents need to evacuate the area
promptly, there are breakaway gates available. Dual access has been provided at the main entry
gate which accommodates the stacking of about 14 vehicles without going into Diamond Bar
Boulevard. The right and left turn dedicated lanes would provide for an additional eight or nine
vehicles. The applicant has reviewed the conditions of approval and Pulte Home Corporation is
in agreement with all of the conditions as stated.
VC/Zirbes thanked Mr. Wright and staff for their consideration in responding to the
Commission's concerns. He asked if b4r. Wright would have a problem with making condition
aa) on page 11 to "The applicant shall submit to the Planning Commission for review and
approval, etc." with respect to approval of the gate design.
Mr. Wright responded to VC/Zirbes that the applicant has decided to make that an emergency
gate at the request of the Highcrest residents. If that condition were to delay the approval of the
project his initial reaction would be not to make it an emergency access. In an effort to be a good
neighbor he would be open to having that discussion but he would not like for it to hold up the
project or the ability to move forward with the initial design. He asked that the Commission
provide clear direction on how to proceed so that when the project proceeds into construction
level detail that portion would not need to be redone.
VC/Zirbes asked if the front gate could be designed with three gates, one for the residents exiting
the development and two gates for ingress with one for residents and one for visitors.
Mr. Wright responded that this configuration was considered. During the past two weeks, this
has been discussed with staff. If a separation is provided there tends to be more of a cueing
problem because there is no way to leave the area without backing up. This type of design did
not work from a functional standpoint. The landscape architect found no project with the three
r gate concept that actually works. Therefore, Pulte determined that such a system was not
technically feasible and staff concurred with the analysis.
.. ,_,„,rte --,._ ... �....,, ��.,«,«�-�....,= ..:�.., w—w>-�---�-a_... �-......y.....n•Mrr�m,,.�y,.p�„�..�ry.gn��r�-.,:-.;. ��.,..� .
May 9, 2000 PAGE 8
VC/Zirbes asked if the tandem garage concept works.
PLANNING COMMISSION
Mr. Wright said that virtually every project that has been done in the California market has had
some sort of tandem garage on one or more of the plans and they work. Any vehicle can fit
within that area. Pulte has never received a complaint that they do not work as garages.
Tandems were included in the Rowland Heights project. However, a suite option was offered in
the third car garage.
VC/Zirbes said that it would appear that on the three plan option a standard three -car garage
could be incorporated instead of a tandem garage.
Mr. Wright responded that an option of eliminating the tandem garage and moving the three car
garage over has been indicated for the MGA and HOVE products.
VC/Zirbes said that he is concerned about the design of the tandem garage and how easy it would
be to conceal a bootleg room in that area. He said he would be more inclined to view the design
favorably with the removal of the tandem design and the incorporation of the three car standard
design on Plan III.
Mr. Wright responded that anyone can convert a garage into a room. He has never had to put
such a restriction into a Grant Deed. It is difficult to detect such a conversion. If the property
owner sold the house they would have to convert the space back to a garage area. Pulte likes the
fact that the tandem garage provides greater variation on the front elevation which does not
appear to be all garage. In addition, such a change would require a major design of the product.
At this point, the developer would prefer not to go in that direction. He said he feels that the
issue is adequately addressed through the Buyers' Awareness Package, the CC&R.'s and the
Grant Deed. He pointed out that the code requires a two -car garage and he believes that the
tandem garage provides a viable alternative.
Chair/Nelson re -opened the public hearing.
Mayor Debby O'Connor stated that she is concerned about consideration of on-site parking for
recreational vehicles.
Mr. Wright stated that the CC&R's prohibit the exterior storage of recreational vehicles, boats,
airplanes, etc. throughout the project.
Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing.
VC/Zirbes said that he is still concerned about the tandem garage. He would look favorably
upon the project with a couple of modifications to the resolution, i.e., a standard three -car garage
May 9, 2000 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION
on the HOVE product; and adding the supplement conditions provided by staff, i.e., a condition
that the Grant Deed be recorded with the restriction that there will be no garage conversions and
that floor plans identified in Condition 5 (u) (2) will remain as 5 bedroom homes, and that
Condition -aa) is changed to read that "The applicant shall submit to the Planning Commission for
review and approval the details for the installation, location and operation of the gates, both
primary and emergency secondary access."
C/Ruzicka reiterated his concerns about the possible number of automobiles that this project will
generate, how will they be stored, and how will they get in and out of the project. He stated that
by no means does he wish to make anything onerous for the applicant, but he would like to do
everything possible to insure that the project is as good as it can be for the entire city. He
wonders that if the main entry gate is moved an additional 50 feet into the slope will it be helpful
in the years to come.
DCM/DeStefano stated that pushing the gate further into the site reduces the amount of room
between that gate and the beginnings of the first cul-de-sac which is 65 feet above and increases
the slope of the street to get from the high point down to Tin Drive. That area is already at about
r., 14 percent. When the area is reduced, the slope of the street is increased above 14 percent and
staff would not recommend this concept.
C/Tye said he believes that a three gates main entry is a good idea and would increase capacity.
This prevents traffic backup on Diamond Bar Boulevard and it accommodates the street grade
consideration.
Chair/Nelson thanked staff and the applicant for providing statistics for on -street parking which
he finds to be reasonable. In general, there is a lack of consideration and disregard for CC&R's
with respect to RV parking.
DCM/DeStefano responded to Chair/Nelson that most of the driveways are between 20 and
25 feet in length and are generally flat with the exception of the main spine lots which are as
steep as 15 percent.
C/Ruzicka moved that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2000-02,
Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution subject to the
following: Include that the gate detail come back to the Planning Commission for review and
approval; that the main entry gate provide a three gate system at Tin Drive/Crestview Drive with
two ingress gates and one egress gate, and that deed restrictions be included for restricting garage
spaces to their intended use.
VC/Zirbes moved that C/Ruzicka's motion be amended to include the following:. That the
Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2000-02, Findings of Fact, and
May 9, 2000 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION
conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution subject to the following amendments:
Modify conditions (y) and (bb) as recommended by staff; that a condition be added recording to
the Grant Deed that there shall be no garage conversions permitted; modify Condition (aa) that
the applicant shall submit to the Planning Commission for review and approval the gate details;
and that the HOVE and MGA Product 111's are revised to show a standard three car garage
removing the tandem garage parking.
C/Ruzicka accepted VC/Zirbes' amended motion. VC/Zirbes seconded the amended motion.
Mr. Wright concurred with the amended motion. He stated that with respect to converting Plan
III's to a traditional three -car garage, in an effort to provide diversity for the street scape and not
have three car garages on all of the houses throughout the project Pulte would respectfully
request that the Commission consider that portion of the motion. He asked for some flexibility
with respect to the main entry gate because in reviewing the possibility of three gates it appears
to present complications. He again reviewed the main gate problems encountered by a three -gate
plan. He reiterated that he does not believe that the three gate system is feasible from a design
standpoint.
Mr. Wright indicated to C/Tye that there are approximately 24 HOVE Plan IIi's and about 20
MGA Plan III's.
Mark Gross, Architect, 1551 North Tustin Avenue, said that the tandem concept is driven by
several factors such as de-emphasizing the garages and gaining a better street scene which
concerns cities and architects. Tandem areas are generally used for storage or hobby centers, or
parking of small recreational vehicles such as jet skis. A tandem space allows parking room for
at least two vehicles. He designed a tandem for the house as a marketing tool giving the option
of a suite which is a real desired amenity. The Rowland Heights project provided the same
option and 70 percent of the buyers chose the suite option. This option adds 200 square feet.
Chair/Nelson called for the question. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes, Chair/Nelson
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: C/Tye asked what is being done about signs and
banners. He pointed out the Cathay Bank banner that was bracketed to the top of the monument sign at
Grand Avenue and Diamond Bar Boulevard. He asked if the Planning Commission will consider the
matter of a Farmer's Boy Restaurant or is the project already approved.
F .,- I , «..:xuWw.J xxU. „ d. -. _� r;_ tiEk'l• moi_ luf i � .t - - - -
May 9, 2000 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION
DCM/DeStefano stated that the information conveyed to the City's marketing staff was regarding
upcoming projects. What was ultimately printed gave the impression that this project was already
approved which is regrettable. This matter will come to the Planning Commission next month. Should
the Planning Commission approve the project, the restaurant would expect to be operational about the
end of the year. In terms of the code enforcement issue, it is, his understanding that Cathay Bank held its
Grand Opening celebration two weeks ago and that they have been told to remove the sign that -they put
up. If the sign is not removed, the formal written process will commence.
10. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects - as listed.
11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
As listed in the agenda.
ADJOURNMENT:
C/Ruzicka moved, VCIZirbes seconded, to adjourn the meeting. There being no further business to come before
the Planning Commission, Chair/Nelson adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
i
7 es DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
Attest:
�-
OeveNelson
Chairman