Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/11/2000MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 11, 2000 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Zirbes called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.- in the South Coast Air Quality Management Headquarters Building Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Kuo. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Vice Chairman Bob Zirbes, and Commissioners George Kuo, Joe Ruzicka, and Steve Tye Chairman Steve Nelson was excused. Also Present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager, Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner, Sonya Joe, Development Services Assistant, Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant, and Stella Marquez, Administrative Secretary. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCEIPUBLIC COMMENTS: None offered. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the June 27, 2000, meeting. C/Ruzicka moved, C/Kuo seconded, to approve the minutes of the meeting of June 27, 2000, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMNIISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, VC/Zirbes NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Tye ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nelson 5. OLD BUSINESS: -None. 6. NEW BUSINESS: None. JULY 11, 2000 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: None. 8.. PUBLIC HEARING: 8.1 Development Review No. 2000-09 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020) is a request to construct a three story (two stories and a basement) single family residence with a three car garage and balconies totaling to approximately 11,560 square feet. The request also includes a swimming pool/spa, gazebo and retaining walls with a maximum six-foot height. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2718 Steeplechase Lane (Lot 54, Tract No. 30289) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Palazzo, Inc. P.O. Box 51.70 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: An -Chi Lee 3740 Campus Drive #B Newport Beach, CA 92660 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2000-09, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. An -Chi Lee, Architect, explained the elevation design features of the proposed project. - C/Tye asked how the Architect proposes to change his plans if easement access is denied. Mr. Lee explained that it is almost impossible to design a house on this lot. The buttress fill on Steeplechase Lane is about 20 feet higher than the street and access would require the removal of a very large amount of dirt which could compromise the neighbors properties. Access denial could render the project unfeasible. VC/Zirbes opened the public hearing. JULY 11, 2000 i .�i .r Jl.�n �ulri�A.61.�wIalVx.m�ri. -.-___L�-_Jr%.FL.:_. �-6.��_ 1.'i.•��L.l_.�.__ ��. . r PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION Hank Jong, ETO Associates, 11823 Slauson Unit 18, Sante Fe Springs, project soil engineer, explained that the actual number of truckloads of dirt that will be exported from the project site is 400 cubic yards for a total of 30 to 40 truckloads. DCNI/DeStefano stated that the estimate of 2300 cubic yards of export contained within staff's report is based upon the drawings that were provided by the applicant. Mr. Jong explained that when the buttress is cut down, some means of protection for the adjacent property such as installation of a structure member must be initiated. If this cut is required in lieu of the current access, it is feasible, but it will result in a substantial increase in cost to develop the lot. Mr. Jong explained to C/Tye that when the buttress is cut away, as long as sufficient safety measures are incorporated in the design of the lot adjacent lots should remain stable. The key is to provide sufficient support to replace the mass that is being removed. 4.. Jim Stroffe, Attorney at Law, Friedman, Peterson and Stroffe, representing the property owner, said he became aware of the access road situation very recently. The access road runs in front of approximately seven properties and accesses Steeplechase Lane at two points. The buttress fronts all of the lots and is approximately 20 feet high at the project site. Mr. And Mrs. Roberts, property owners of Lot 52, have indicated to staff that they are opposed to traffic going across their lot via the access road. Each property owner facing the access road owns their portion of the access road. The concern is use and not ownership. This road represents an access easement for the benefit as well as, to the detriment of each of the property owners because all of the other property owners are benefitted by the right to travel across that easement on property owned by adjacent owners. He stated that to his knowledge, this is an unrecorded "easement by implication." This "easement by implication" was litigated by the Roberts' when they tried to prevent access over their property by the Slokums who were the previous owners of Lot 53 property. That lawsuit resulted in a judgement in favor of the Slokums, a decision by the Trial Court that there was an easement by implication for the benefit of all of the parcels., The decision was appealed by the Roberts and the Appellate Court affirmed the Trail Court's decision that an easement by implication did in fact exist. That same logic would apply to all of the owners. In his view, there is no question that the access road is in fact, an easement and all of the property owners have a right to use that road in order to get access to Steeplechase Lane. Beatriz Roberts, 2690 Steeplechase Lane, said that an easement by implication requires continuous usage for more than five years. There is no maintenance agreement for the easement 4 with the property owners and they are concerned about the deterioration of her driveway area and JULY 11, 2000 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION t�s.. related liability issues. She stated that when they purchased their property they were not advised about this situation. She suggested that the easement be divided into two easements. Attorney Stroffe said he believes that a restriction of the easement would require the consent of all of the involved property owners. He address Mrs. Roberts' concerns. The Roberts' may incur liability if they knowingly fail to maintain their portion of the road. Any one of the owners can maintain the road and all of the property owners have an obligation to contribute to the maintenance of the 1road. He believes the best solution is to gate the roadway and make it a restricted roadway for the sole use of the property owners. C/Tye stated that it appears that Mr. and Mrs. Roberts have the least use of the roadway and will suffer the maximum burden of maintenance according to the direction of vehicular traffic. VC/Zirbes closed the public hearing. C/Ruzicka said he does not believe the Planning Commission has the authority to determine who has the legal right of access nor what percentage of use is attributable -to individual property -L owners. C/Ruzicka moved, C/Tye seconded, to continue Development Review No. 2000-09, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, to August 8, 2000 in order to allow time for the following issues to be resolved: 1) the accessability of the easement road and 2) determination of the specific amount of dirt export. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nelson 8.2 Preparation of a new General Plan Housing Element DCM/DeStefano presented staff's report. The City is in the process of preparing a Housing Element for planning period 2000-2005. The purpose of this presentation is to provide an overview of the Housing Element development process and to present to the Planning Commission the draft Housing Element prior to its submission to the State of California. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the Draft Housing Element and direct staff as appropriate. A formal draft Housing Element will be reviewed at a public hearing to be scheduled for September or October 2000. JULY 11, 2000 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION Karen Warner, Project Manager, CottonBeland/Associates (CBA), provided the Commission with a detailed overview of the Housing Element process and presentation of the Draft Housing Element for the Commission's review. VC/Zirbes asked where the city is deficient in its current Housing Element. Ms. Warren responded that the original Housing Element was not certified by the State. The main outstanding issue at the time were the sites. At that time the State was not supportive of inclusionary housing programs. The current State leadership supports inclusionary programs where the in lieu fees are not extraordinarily high. DCM/DeStefano stated that Diamond Bar was required to come up with almost 800 dwelling units in the five year planning period. As the Commission knows, there is very limited space in Diamond Bar. However, the City provided the State with graphics and textural support to show where the housing would likely occur. The State said that while Diamond Bar has shown it can comply, there still are not enough sites, particularly for high density units. Ms. Warren responded to C/Ruzicka that the climate within the State government has not changed dramatically - their perspective on inclusionary housing has changed dramatically. It will continue to be difficult to obtain certification because the City does not have a track record in terms of affordable housing so it needs to prove why it is going to be different now. There needs to be a committal. The City has a Redevelopment Agency now which will start generating some set aside funds for housing. In her opinion, the City needs to establish which programs make the most sense for Diamond Bar and have a clear commitment to those programs in the Housing Element. C/Ruzicka asked what the consequences would be if the Housing Element was also not certified this time. DCM/DeStefano responded that the City's goal is to obtain certification and to not have to worry about what the consequences might be which can be dire in the extreme case. Ms. Warren pointed out that HUD provides a "Teacher Next Door" and "Officer Next Door" programs which provide very low cost housing for those individuals who purchase homes within the community. Housing costs in Diamond Bar are quite high. This program tends to work in lower cost areas. JULY 11, 2000 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION 1 Ms. Warren responded to C/Tye that the City's numbers are very reasonable. If the City can come up with the right programs that make_ sense and commit the City to those programs, the Housing Element should be approved. VC/Zirbes asked if the 67 low and moderate income housing units be accomplished in a senior housing program to which Ms. Warren responded affirmatively as long as there were other programs that addressed non -senior needs as well. VC/Zirbes said he believes that first time home buyer programs will be difficult in Diamond Bar with its median price range for single family dwellings. The Teacher Next Door program and being able to provide housing for faaUlty members of Mount San Antonio, Cal Poly Pomona or other neighboring colleges would be a favorable option. C/Tye asked if the inclusionary housing in lieu fee places a burden on the developer who passes it along to the buyer which puts affordable housing out of reach. Ms. Warren responded that the State wants to review the fees to make certain that they are"t reasonable. An economist argues that if the market will only support a certain sales price and the developer has to pay the in lieu fee it will not allow, him to charge more for the unit because the price is market driven. The in lieu fee will cutinto.the developer's profitability as a cost of doing business. Ms. Warren suggested that the City might want to consider doing a senior housing. overlay on some of the multi -family sites and identify the types of incentives that are available on these sites which shows a more focused approach to encouraging senior housing on those sites and would provide a good supplement to the current density bonus ordinance. C/Ruzicka said that if the Commission favors emphasizing the senior population he would like to have more substantial and up to date figures on the substantial and dramatic increase in that population segment that has occurred since the 1990 census. VC/Zirbes moved, C/Ruzicka seconded, to direct staff to incorporate the Commissioner's comments into the Housing Element proposal. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nelson 4: 'JULY 11, 2000 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: None Offered. 9. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. As indicated in the agenda matrix. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in the agenda. ADJOURNMENT: C1Ruzicka moved, C/Tye seconded, to adjourn the meeting. There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Vice Chairman Zirbes adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. - Respectfully Submitted, James DeStefano Deputy City Manager Attest: Bob Zirbes Vice Chairman