HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/8/2000MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 8, 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:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Kuo.
1. ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Nelson, Vice Chairman Bob Zirbes, and Commissioners
George Kuo, Joe Ruzicka, and Steve Tye.
Also Present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Sonya Joe, Development Services
Assistant; Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant, and
Stella Marquez, Administrative Secretary.
2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None offered.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.1 Minutes of the July 25, 2000, meeting.
C/Ruzicka moved, C1Kuo seconded, to approve the minutes of the meeting of July 25,
2000, as presented. 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:
5.1 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
_. exposed height. (Public Hearing closed and continued from July 11, 2000.)
August 8, 2000 Page 2 Planning Commission
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2718 Steeplechase Lane
(Lot 54, Tract No. 30289)
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
PROPERTY OWNER: Palazzo, Inc.
P.O. Box 5170
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
APPLICANT: An -Chi Lee
3740 Campus Drive #B
Newport Beach, CA 92660
DCM/DeStefano reported that this matter was continued in order for staff to look into concerns
expressed by the Commission: 1) The accessibility of the easement road and driveway situation,
and 2) verify the amount of earth work proposed for the project. The Commission closed the
public hearing on July 11, 2000. The Commission has the opportunity to deliberate on the matter
and to question the applicant and receive answers from the applicant regarding questions or
concerns. With respect to access rights over the shared driveway, staff has received documentation
from the applicant and has requested the City Attorney to look at the situation. The City Attorney
has concluded in a letter dated August 1, 2000, that the applicant does have rights over the access
drive and that the objection presented by the adjacent property owner should not serve as a basis
for denial of the application by the Planning Commission. With respect to the quantity of earth
work necessary for the project, the quantities have been verified as being 2700 cubic yards of earth
work for the project - 25 cubic yards of cut and 200 cubic yards of fill with about 2300 cubic yards
of earth work requiring exportation from the site. Assuming a truckload of about 12 cubic yards,
it would equate to 192 full truckloads leaving the site. The precise quantities of earth work will
likely vary as a result of final engineering, grading and held conditions found once the project is
underway. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review
No. 2000-09, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution.
C/Tye asked what recourse is available to the Roberts in the event that Condition 5 (i) is not
completed to their satisfaction.
DCM/DeStefano stated that staff would recommend that Condition 5 (i) be modified to include
such things as determination of an access route by the Applicant, an assessment of the roadway
condition for that route to be provide by the Applicant to the City's Engineer, a reassessment of the
roadway by the City prior to the.approval of final occupancy, and that the Applicant be responsible
for repairing any damage that has been caused by the construction activities. It is staff's
understanding that the roadway section is minimal and that it is about 35-40 years old. This
Applicant has access rights over the roadway but has absolutely no control over the condition of
that roadway, has no ability to repair it -has no obligation to repair it, and unless and until the six
August 8, 2000 Page 3 Planning Commission
or seven involved property owners get together and determine the method and responsibility of
maintenance and upkeep the roadway will likely remain in its current condition. The property
owners at either end of the driveway have tended to take care of their portions. It is the property
owners in the middle that have not maintained their portion.
VC/Zirbes said that he drove to the site yesterday. He came in on the access road to the south and
he noted that all of the roadway leading to the site as well as, the frontage on the Applicant's
property was in dire need of repair. The property owners to the north of the project site have
improved their portion and the Roberts' have improved their portion with a concrete material
instead of a blacktop material.
Jim Stroffe, Attorney at Law, Friedman, Peterson and Stroffe, representing the Applicant, stated
that the Applicant does not have a problem with the concept of a baseline assessment of the
roadway and a determination as to what damage, if any, has been caused by the construction
activity and an obligation on his part to repair that damage.
C/Tye asked if the repair included re -paving in spite of its current condition would they do so.
Jim Stroffe responded that what he is saying is that if there is damage caused to the roadway by the
construction activity that does not pre-exist the construction activity, the Applicant will repair that
damage to the pre-existing state.
C/Tye questioned how asphalt could be restored to its pre-existing condition.
Jim Stroffe admitted that this is a dilemma. Staff's suggestion to reconstruct the roadway in front
of the Applicant's property is most likely where most of the construction activity will take place.
It is likely the trucks will come empty across the Roberts' property causing the least amount of
damage and exit the property at the other end where the lots are unimproved. The loading activity
will take place on the Applicant's property. If there is damage occurring from the construction
activity in other areas it will be repaired to the satisfaction of the City's Engineer. He indicated he
was referring to Condition (h), which requires that the Applicant reconstruct which is different
from repair.
DCWDeStefano explained that staff's intent was twofold: 1) to cause the eventual reconstruction
of the entire roadway starting with this Applicant who will be responsible for their portion directly
in front of their property. Any subsequent projects will have the identical condition unless and
until the property owners get together and resolve the issue, and 2) to cause the Applicant to repair
any damage that the construction causes to the balance of the roadway but only to bring it to the
level existing prior to the construction activity taking place. Staff is not asking that the Applicant
reconstruct the roadway fronting neighboring lots.
Chair/Nelson re -opened the public hearing.
August 8, 2000 Page 4 Planning Commission
Victor Natividad, Lot 5.5 (adjacent to the proposed project) said he is concerned about 192
truckloads traveling over the access road. Construction will continue for about one year and with
heavy loads the asphalt will give way. If the Applicant is going to 6x the roadway they cannot wait
until the rain stops because it wi Il be extremely muddy. He does not want to pass the cost over to
the builder but at the same time it has to be passable because he has witnessed even pickups
moving in and out of the area causing severe problems. He asked that the roadway be repaired as
soon as possible, especially during the heavy rains:,
Mr. Natividad explained to C/Ruzicka that repair would not be an issue at this time. When the
rains come, potholes will be created by heavy loads passing over the roadway. Left unattended,
the damage wi I I be extreme and it may render his access impassable.
Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing.
C/Ruzicka said he understands the conditions of approval as written. However, Mr. Natividad may
have a point that there ought to be some kind of condition that the builder maintain the road in
passable condition during the time of the project.
VC/Zirbes suggested that Condition (i) be modified to read: "The Applicant shall repair damage
that may occur to the shared access driveway during construction, on an ongoing/as needed basis,
pursuant to the satisfaction of the City Engineer." C/Ruzicka concurred.
Chair/Nelson said he shares the same concerns about the roadway. If the roadway is in very poor
condition and portions are repaired back to its existing condition, he doesn't understand how this
will take care of the situation.
DCM/DeStefano responded that staff has discussed this matter at length. The issue is that there
is no Homeowners Association and no shared ownership of this long access driveway. Requiring
this Applicant to repair or improve the entire access drive puts this Applicant at the mercy of the
other property owners. While staff agrees that repairing a bad road with a "new coat of paint"
which will still have a bad structural condition, may not be the best way to deal with this matter.
Staff is not sure that there is necessarily a nexus between this Applicant's project and a
responsibility to repair the entire roadway. While it is not the ideal situation, it is staff's opinion
that it is the appropriate solution at this point. It is staff's hope that some of the property owners
will capture the opportunity to rebuild their portion of the driveway. There may be an opportunity
for a volume discount with the pavement contractor and hopefully, as a result of this project, some
of the other homeowners will pitch in their share and more of the driveway will be properly
repaired. Construction activities will be monitored on a regular basis.
DCM/DeStefano responded to C/Ruzicka that the proposed wording change to Condition (i) would
be redundant but it would not be onerous.
August 8, 2000
Page 5
Planning Commission
VC/Zirbes asked if the cut under the roadway is strong enough to support the types of weight loads
proposed for exporting earth and does Condition (i) cover the understructure.
DCM/DeStefano responded that the Applicant is required to provide soils reports (Condition (g))
that will prove that the property can withstand the additional loads for the house and for the use of
the roadway for construction activity.
VC/Zirbes moved, C/Tye seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2000-09, Findings of
Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution subject to the following
modification to Condition 5. (i): Add "on an ongoing/as needed basis" so that the condition reads:
"The Applicant shall repair damage that may occur to the shared access driveway during
construction, on an ongoinglas needed basis, pursuant to the satisfaction of the City Engineer." as
well as, the inclusion of wording in Condition 5. (i) an assessment prior to construction regarding
the selection of a route, a reassessment of the route and appropriate repair to any damage caused.
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMNIISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
6. NEW BUSINESS:
Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes, Chair/Nelson
None
None
6.1 Discussion on Joint Study Session of City Council and Planning Commission on August
15, 2000, - Review of proposed topics for discussion.
Commissioners requested inclusion of the following topics for discussion:
C/Ruzicka:
1) Status of Shopping Malls/redevelopment
2) Redevelopment Agency
3) Kmart Shopping Center plans
4) Top Value (Brea Canyon Road and Golden Springs Drive
5) Ralphs Market (Country Hills Towne Center)
VC/Zirbes:
1) Status of approved CUP's
2) Redcvclopment Agency
3) Industry East Projcct and its effect on D.B. business
C/Tye:
1) (In Force) Conditional Use Permit Review Process
August 8, 2000
Page 6
Planning Commission
2) Use of Code Enforcement Officers to clean up the city
3) Update re: Larkstone Park '
C/Kuo
1) Approval of Variances
2) D.B. Traffic and status of the Four Corners Freeway Study
3) Industry East Project
4) State Approval of the City's Housing Element
Chair/Nelson: (Unable to attend the joint meeting)
1) Better Undcrstanding of the Council's Vision for Open Space within the
City as well as, at its borders.
2) Update on Council's Discussion Regarding Annexation of Lands to the
Southwest.
3) Status of,,Tonner Canyon'
4) Parks/Trails Master Plan
7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: None
8. PUBLIC HEARING:
8.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-03 (pursuant to Code Section 22.42.040 and 22.58) is
a request to operate a Child Day Care Center in conjunction with a Montessori School.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 23555 Palomino Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
PROPERTY OWNER:
APPLICANT:
Abbey Company
12383 Lewis Street, Suite 200
Garden Grove, CA 92840
Diamond Bar Montessori Academy
1861 Paseo La Paz
Pomona, CA 91768
DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
approve Development Review No. 2000-03, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval
as listed within the resolution.
DSA/Smith responded to C/Ruzicka that children may range in age from 2 to 11 years. The
applicant is not concerned about the close proximity of the school to a bar.
August 8, 2000 Page 7 Planning Commission
DSA/Smith indicated to Chair/Nelson that KinderCare operated at this location from 1979
to September, 1999. Parking is available on both sides of Derringer Lane in front of the
school.
Tige Licato reiterated the project plan. No structural changes are proposed. The Applicant
intends to provide the same type of care previously offered by KinderCare. Speaking on
behalf of himself and his partners, Mr. Licato stated he does not foresee any problem with
conditions set forth by the City's Planning Department. However, the Applicant has a
timeliness issue since school commences at the end of August. There is a great deal of
interest in the school. Thirty-five parents have indicated that they wish to enroll their
children in the school and fully understand that there is not a specific date of opening due
to the fact that Los Angeles County has not yet process their business license application
which was submitted two months ago. The City's Planning Department has conditioned
the project that the business license must be in hand prior to issuance of the CUP. The
Applicant has requested permission from the Planning Department to open prior to receipt
of the business license. He reported that he spoke with Ms. Everett (L.A. County Business
F°— License Department) who indicated they cannot do a site inspection until the CUP is
completed and the business is up and running. The business license is the only outstanding
�- matter.
Attorney Gene Shield stated that this project is within the economic revitalization of the
City of Diamond Bar. Due to the fact that there was a 20 year existing school in that
location the Applicant is merely implementing the same program with a variance in terms
of the education quality being at a higher level as well as, providing a day care facility for
the residents of Diamond Bar within that economic revitalization plan. The CUP issue
arose because the previous business had been closed longer than the required 180 days.
DCMIDeStefano indicated to C/Ruzicka that business licenses are required in Diamond Bar
for certain activities, of which this is one. Diamond Bar contracts with the County of Los
Angeles to provide the service. A business license is required. The applicant is asking you
to waive or extend that requirement such that they can open their business without the
County business license which is a major policy issue that may be outside of the Planning
Commission's scope of authority. The issue is how do you effectively do so and how do
you receive assurances that the Applicant is going to process the business license. What
if there are issues that the County discovers in the Applicant's background that cause them
to not issue the license and you have a school that is now open. When and how would you
seek revocation of the recently granted CUP. It creates a number of issues. For as many
times as the City hears the County permits the processing of a the operation of a business
without a license, they come back and say that they do not allow anything to open up
without the license first being in hand. It is a difficult situation. As a City, the Planning
Commission has no control over the County's process.
August 8, 2000Page 8 Planning Commission
C/Tye asked if it would be unprecedented to permit this Applicant to open his school
without physically having a business license?
DCM/DeStefano said ">\o" because he can think of one other example in that immediate
area where a business operated without a County business license which is still a point of
contention almost one year to the day later. If the 180 days had not expired, a business
license would still be required, a CUP would not be required because they would not have
lost their previous status.
Mr. Licato responded to VC/Zirbes.that the purchase of the property was consummated the
end of June.
VC/Zirbes said as a parent he is concerned about the proximity of the school to the bar.
What types of requirements or conditions does the State Licensing Bureau impose with
respect to the school's proximity to an establishment that sells alcohol.
Mr. Licato responded that it was not an issue as far as the State is concerned. Children will
not be waiting outside of the school for their parents. There is a strict state requirement that
all children be signed in and out of the school with the time noted.
VC/Zirbes asked if Mr. Licato has considered the peak hour traffic at that intersection and
how it will effect his student population. How many children will be picked up between
the hours of 4:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m.
W. Licato said he anticipates that because of the school's scheduling about one-third of the
students will be dropped off and picked up at any given time. During those specific hours,
about 25 to 30 students will be picked up. The school does not anticipate a traffic problem.
C/Ruzicka asked if the Planning Commission can do what the Applicant is asking it to do
DCM/DeStefano responded that he does not believe it can. The Commission has a
Municipal Code Provision that requires a business license prior to the operation of a
business and he believes that the Planning Commission cannot waive that requirement.
The license is presumed to be 90 days after the application has been filed which will not
help this applicant.
Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing.
August 8, 2000 Page 9 Planning Commission
There being no one who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Nelson closed the public
hearing.
DCM/DeStefano suggested that the Planning Commission could approve the project with
the provision that evidence of the filing for a business license to be provided to staff within
15 days of approval or the approval does not become effective. The second provision could
be that this Conditional Use Permit expires at a certain time unless they have their business
license in hand. The only remedy to that would be to seek an extension to the CUP from
the Planning Commission. Assuming Planning Commission approval, staff would work
with the Los Angeles County Business License Division in order to try to assure the timely
conclusion of this application and other applications.
C/Ruzicka emphasized his concern about the City's potential liability where small children
are involved in the event that this school opens and problems ensue.
VC/Zirbes concurred. There are children involved and he believes that all of the
appropriate licensing should be in place before the facility opens.
Mr. Licato indicated to Chair/Nelson that the business license matter is being disclosed to
all applicants that they had intended to open at the end of August but because of the
situation with the business license the opening may be pushed back. Parents are awaiting
the Planning Commissions' decision.
Attorney Shield stated that the proposed business is the same type of business that
previously occupied the site. These Applicants have completed the rigorous background
search with the Department of Social Services, Department of Education, etc.
Chair/Nelson stated that there is no problem with the type of use. No one on this
Commission is questioning the validity of the operation or its benefits to the community
- we are discussing a major change in policy about which this body must be very cognizant.
C/Tye moved, VC/Zirbes seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-03,
Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes, Chair/Nelson
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
August 8, 2000
Page 10
Planning Commission
8.2 Variance 2000-05, Administrative Development Review No. 2000-07 (pursuant to Code
Section 22.52 and 22.48) is a request to construct a two story single family residence of
approximately 9,692 square feet, which includes two (2) two -car garages and second story
decks. The request also includes a lap pool with spa, pond' with waterfall, and pavilion.
The Variance is requested for proposed crib walls that reach a maximum height of
approximately 25 feet.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2001 Derringer Lane
(Lot 73, Tract 30091)
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
PROPERTY OWNER: Gene Pascual
14326 Spring Crest Drive
Chino Hills, CA 91709
APPLICANT: Ron Wilson
2658 Del Mar Heights Road #149
Del Mar, CA 92014 fl,
DSA/Joe presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
approve Variance No. 2000-05 and Administrative Development Review No. 2000-07,
Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution.
DSA/Joe explained the proposed project and the crib wall requirement and variance request
in relationship to the topography of the site. Staff believes that the installation of the crib
wall is preferable to excessive grading of the site in order to create a flat buildable pad.
Ron Wilson explained the project using photographs of the lot. He was very concerned
about the mass of the house as seen from the street and screening the house from view to
offer the property owner some privacy. Most of the rooms of the house are oriented to the
canyon view. The civil engineer determined that a crib wall would be the most prudent way
to create a building pad and not have a series of walls on this site.
Mr. Wilson responded to VC/Zirbes that the entire crib wall will be covered with
landscaping.
Ron Tashima, Landscape Architect, indicated to VC/Zirbes that a lot of the vines that will
be used for landscaping currently exist in that location. A drip irrigation will be installed
using fertilizer injection. He presented examples of .commercial structures that are
supported by crib walls which are about one year old. In about three years of three good
growing seasons the walls will be completely covered.
August 8, 2000
Page 11
Planning Commission
Mr. Wilson explained to C/Ruzicka that the house will be built behind the house in order
to preserve the natural terrain.
Dan Pierce, GVW Engineering, explained to C/Ruzicka that when the pad is graded down
the second story floor would be near street level. With respect to the rear crib wall along
the pool, if the Applicant went with a series of six foot walls in that area there would be
about 3 -six foot walls with 3:1 slopes in between them. It is likely that there would be a
series of four to five walls in the front area where the 25 foot crib wall is proposed and
those walls would come out to the street right of way and step down to the house.
Mr. Wilson indicated to C/Kuo that he does not know specifically how many crib walls in
"The Country Estates" exceed 25 feet. He referred to the picture of the home on Derringer
Lane that has a series of walls that are 15 to 16 feet. Although the proposed crib wall
extends to 24 feet at one point and decreases in height dramatically because the grade falls
very rapidly. He believes that this is the best design solution for this particular lot which
offers unique design options.
Mr. Tahema explained to Chair/Nelson that the landscape plan includes plantings of
varying height at the base of the back wall to soften the impact.
-Chair/Nelson cautioned the landscape architect to avoid invasive species.
Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing.
There being no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Nelson closed the
public hearing.
C/Ruzicka moved to approve Administrative Development Review No. 200-07, Variance
No. 2000-05, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution.
VC/Zirbes seconded the motion and ask for consideration of the following: That Ron
Wilson be removed as an applicant from Page 1 of the Recitals and that Condition 5. (d)
on Page 8 include the following language at the end of the sentence: ", including all crib
wall landscaping and irrigation prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy."
C/Ruzicka concurred with the amendments. Motion carried by the following Roll Call
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes, Chair/Nelson
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
August 8, 2000 Page 12 Planning Commission
9. COMMISSION COMMENTS: C/Tye asked if the matter of reciprocal parking for Togo's
has been addressed and how is it that they will be opening shortly.
DSA/Joe responded that yesterday Togo's submitted an application to amend their existing CUP
application due to the increased occupancy to change from a takeout Deli to an indoor dining
facility. They also submitted a Minor Conditional Use application to request outdoor dining which
would consist of possible two to three tables with three chairs to each table. This will require
increased parking. Part of the application will be to again review the purpose of the Conditional
Use Permit that was triggered, due to the increase in seating.
C/Ruzicka thanked DCM/DeStefano for his heroic attempt to accommodate the Planning
Commission with regard to the Montessori Academy. He read in today's paper that the Utilities
Commission is conducting open hearings entitled "help write the rules." He asked if the City has
any input into something along these lines. -
VC/Zirbes commented that colorized architectural drawings provided a much clearer picture of
proposed projects.
10. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:�;�;
10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects.
As indicated in the agenda matrix.
DCM/DeStefano pointed out that the Planning Commission presently has no items
scheduled for its August 22, 2000 meeting. No items are scheduled or anticipated. Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission go dark on that evening and meet again on the
regular meeting date of September 12, 2000. The Commission concurred to go dark on
August 22, 2000.
DCM/DeStefano explained that a notice will be posted re: anticipated lack of quorum for
August 22, 2000.
DCM/DeStefano reported that AssocP/Lungu is doing well following surgery on her left
wrist last week.
11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
As listed in the agenda.
August S, 2000 Page 13 N Planning Commission
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Nelson adjourned
the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully Submitt d,
J DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
Attest:
�Chairman Steve Nelson
I��