Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/24/2001MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 24, 2001 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Zirbes called the meeting to order at 7:05 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 Commissioner Tye. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Bob Zirbes, Vice Chairman Joe Ruzicka, and Commissioners 2. 3. 4. Steve Nelson and Steve Tye. Commissioner Kuo arrived at 7:07 p.m. Also Present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner; Dave Meyer, Planning Consultant, and Stella Marquez, Administrative Secretary. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None offered. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 10, 2001. VC/Ruzicka moved, C/Tye seconded, to approve the minutes for the regular July 10, 2001 meeting as corrected. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONER: VC/Ruzicka, Tye, Kuo, Nelson, Chair/Zirbes NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None JULY 24, 2001 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: None 8. PUBLIC HEARING: 8.1 Variance No. 2001.06 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.54 is a request to construct a wrought iron perimeter fence and entry gates that will exceed the maximum allowable height within the front setback. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2859 Watercourse Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER Mr. Liu 2859 Watercourse Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Rodney Tapp 351 S. Thomas Street Pomona, CA 91766 PC/Meyer presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 2001-06, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. Jeff Chan, speaking on behalf of Rodney Tapp, Land Design, said he is familiar with the project and concurs with staff's recommendations for approval with the following clarifications: The actual gateway at the driveway would not be 10 feet high. The pilasters on either side extend to 10 feet in height. The gate varies from 9 feet to 9 1/2 feet in height. The ornate wrought iron fence was constructed in China and is being shipped to Diamond Bar. The gate is transparent and does not block the view and instead, enhances the view. The project site is a double lot. The house is 20,000 square feet and the wrought iron gate assembly is in proportion to the structure. Jeff Chan indicated to C/Nelson that the maximum height of gates for adjacent properties are about eight feet. Jeff Chan responded to Chair/Zirbes that the minimum front yard setback the applicant is seeking would be at about 15 feet where the gate curves parallel to the house. Chair/Zirbes opened the public hearing. M Bill Lew, President, Crystal Ridge Homeowners Association, 2855 Bently Way, said that this matter was never brought to the attention of the association's architectural committee. a This is a massive house in the Phase lI development. Other houses in the phase are about 10,000 to 12,000 square feet. He can understand that this homeowner would like a gate JULY 24, 2001 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION that is compatible with his house. However, he believes the gate should be compatible with the neighborhood. He has no problem with the five foot fence, the six foot pillars and the recommended eight foot gate. He believes that if this matter had been brought to the attention of the committee prior to construction of the gate, a compromise could have been reached. The fact that the applicant has paid money to have a gate constructed is not sufficient reason to allow him to proceed with the installation of the gate as proposed. Any installation should be compatible with the neighborhood. Therefore, the gate should be reconfigured to extend a maximum of eight feet in height. In addition, the 10 foot pillars are too high and should be reduced to eight feet. He said he has no problem with a 60 foot wide gate but he has a problem with a reduction in the front yard setback from 25 feet. To allow the gate and fence to be parallel to the entrance of the house may detract from the compatibility of the neighborhood because there is no other gate or fence in the neighborhood that is angled to the house. Every other fence and gate in the neighborhood is parallel to the street. Mr. Lew responded to C/Nelson that he is present at tonight's meeting as a representative of the Crystal Ridge Homeowners Association. He is not a member of the architectural committee. r Tom Wong, 2893 E. Crystal Court, stated that in his opinion, the house is huge. It was rI built by JCC and not approved by the homeowners' association architectural review committee. While the board cannot control the size of the houses, the landscape footprint should be approved by the board. Hopefully, the Commission will approve something that is compatible with the neighborhood. It is his hope that the applicant will reconsider his proposal based upon his and Mr. Lew's concerns and suggestions. Chair/Zirbes closed the public hearing. C/Tye asked if approval of the homeowners' association architectural review committee is required. CP/Meyer responded that the City does not enforce the CC&R's for private homeowners' associations. He assumes that as a matter of courtesy, proposals would be brought before the association. He said that in this situation, he did not know that the protocol was to direct the applicant to go to the review committee and bring those recommendations to the City. DCM/DeStefano stated that this project enjoys an experienced team of landscape architects and designers who know that.the property is within a homeowners association. As a matter of policy, the City encourages property owners/developers to seek the association's approval. It is not a requirement. The City does not enforce CC&R's and it is not the City's position to assure that the property has. been reviewed and/or approved by a homeowners association. JULY 24, 2001 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION l',^I ihir;� VC/Ruzicka asked Mr. Chan what it would take to change the site improvements to bring � it into compliance with the association's requirements and render it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Chan responded that the site improvements can be changed if it is the desire of the Commission to do so. As landscape architects for the project, he did not seek approval from the homeowners' association. His firm contacted the City to garner the proper procedures. VC/Ruzicka said that during his five or six years on the Commission he has not been aware of any other project that did not have prior approval from their homeowners association. C/Kuo asked if Mr. Chan is willing to work a compromise with the association's architectural review committee in order to seek approval from the City or is the applicant insisting that the original design be considered. Mr. Chan said that at this point he would prefer that the Commission review the design as proposed and act upon it. If it is the Commission's request that the applicant first review the project with the homeowners association, the applicant will comply with that request. The applicant would have initially gone to the review board had he known that it was the proper protocol. 0 VC/Ruzicka moved to continue Variance No. 2001-06 to August 28, 2001, in order to allow the applicant sufficient time to allow for review and approval of the proposed project by the Crystal Ridge Homeowners Association architectural review committee. The motion died for lack of a second. Chair/Zirbes moved, C/Tye seconded, to continue Variance No. 2001-06 to September 11, 2001, and direct the applicant to return with revised plans that more closely comply with the recommendations of the City's planning staff. In addition, the applicant is advised that he may seek advise or input regarding this proposal from the Crystal Ridge Homeowners Association. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Zirbes, Tye, Kuo, Nelson, V/C Ruzica NOES: COMM]SSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8.2 Tentative Parcel Map No. 26235 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.20), is a request to approve the subdivision of two parcels totaling 5.5 acres into three parcels for the future construction of three custom single-family homes. PROJECT ADDRESS: Oak Knoll Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 JULY 24, 2001 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION PROPERTY OWNER: C&A Developers 3480 Torrance boulevard, Suite 300 Torrance, CA 90503 APPLICANT: Diamond Bar East Partners 3480 Torrance Boulevard, Ste 300 Torrance, CA 90503 CP/Meyer presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 26235, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. Kurt Nelson, applicant, stated he concurs with staff's conditions of approval. He explained how lot line adjustments have reduced the density from what was originally contemplated. Chair/Zirbes opened the public hearing. Bill Lew, speaking as a homeowner, said he has no problem with the five lots. He expressed concern that there was a rumor afoot that the applicant intended to reduce the pad size of certain lots by further subdividing the parcels. He does not want smaller homes in the neighborhood because he feels it would adversely effect the values of the other homes. He has been assured by the applicant that this will not occur. Tom Hwang presented a letter from Tim Soong, M.D. to the Commission citing reasons for requesting denial of the proposed subdivision. Kurt Nelson said he does not recall building a home for Dr. Soong and does not recall hearing of any complaints about the construction of his home and does not understand the relevance of a letter of complaint about a specific home to the proposal before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hwang said that he moved into his residence six months ago and he is still waiting for certain items to be completed. C/Tye said he has a problem with one resident presenting an unsigned letter purportedly written by another resident. He does not see the relevance of the letter to this proposal and requested that it be disregarded. Chair/Zirbes closed the public hearing. C/Nelson suggested that Mr. Lew advise homeowners that it is a violation of the California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act punishable by fine and/or imprisonment, to knock down swallow nests. JULY 24, 2001 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Ruzicka moved, C/Nelson seconded, to approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 26235, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Ruzicka, Nelson, Kuo, Tye, Chair/Zirbes NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8.3 Conditional Use Permit No. 96-10(2) and Development Review No. 96-09(2) (pursuant to Code Sections 22.66.060) is a request to renew an existing Conditional use Permit and Development Review approved by the Planning Commission on August 25, 1998, for three years. The Planning Commission approval allowed the installation of the unmanned wireless telecommunications facility, which is currently operational. PROPERTY ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: 24401 Darrin Drive (Lot 51, Tract No. 425 84) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Eric and Robin Stone 24401 Damn Drive (Lot 51, Tract No. 425 84) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Cox PCS Assets LLC/Cingular Wireless 4683 Charbot Drive #100 Pleasanton, CA 94588 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 96-10(2), and Development Review No. 96-09 (2), Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. VC/Ruzicka said he has a concern with inclusion of the term "in perpetuity" in any resolution with regard to future ownership. � J Ryan Leaderman representing Spring PCS, asked for the Commission's approval. He pointed out the built-in assurances for the City's protection. VC/Ruzicka said that he would be more comfortable with a 10 year grant. Mr. Leaderman responded to C/Nelson that most installations in Los Angeles County are granted in perpetuity. Other jurisdictions may limit grants to 10 or 20 years. Chair/Zirbes opened the public hearing. Li JULY 24, 2001 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION ` There being no one who wished to address the Commission on this matter, Chair/Zirbes closed the public hearing. r�- C/Tye pointed out that it is to the credit of the Commission that their initial oversight of this project has led to its success. He agrees that the project should be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that the applicant remains a good neighbor. VC/Ruzicka moved to approve Conditional use Permit No. 96-10(2) and Development Review No. 96-09(2), Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed in the resolution, with the following modifications to Condition (e) on Page 2 and Condition (e) on Page 6 of the resolution: Strike "in perpetuity" and add in its place, "subject to a review by the Planning Commission in August, 2008." C/Tye asked that the motion be amended to state "subject to a review by the Planning Commission in August, 2006" to which VC/Ruzicka agreed. C/Tye seconded the amended motion. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Ruzicka, Tye, Kuo, Nelson, Chair/Zirbes NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8.4 Development Review No. 2001-09 (pursuant to Code Section 22.48.020.A.) is a request to construct a two-story single family residence with a four -car garage, porch, patio and balcony for a total of approximately 14,052 square feet. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: 2817 Crystal Ridge Road (Lot 26 of Tract No. 47850) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar West; LLC 3480 Torrance Boulevard, Suite 300 Torrance, CA 90503 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2001-09, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. Kurt Nelson, applicant, stated he read staff's report and concurs with the conditions of approval with Condition 5 (c) on Page 4 stating "within 60 days of final inspection." as indicated by AssocP/Lungu, Chair/Zirbes opened the public hearing. JULY 24, 2001 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION There being no one present who wished to comment on this item, Chair/Zirbes closed the Gyti: public hearing. � C/Nelson moved, C/Kuo seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2001-09, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution, subject to correction to Condition S(c) on Page 4. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Kuo, Tye, VC/Ruzicka, Chair/Zirbes NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: C/Nelson requested replacement of the street sign on Delta Drive at Summitridge Drive. C/Tye offered kudos to the code enforcement officer for removing temporary signs last weekend. DCM/DeStefano stated that recourse is to first have code enforcement remove the signs after which letters, citations, visits with the District Attorney, can occur. If there are violations to the use permit, further action may be taken. With respect to used cars in the Kmart parking lot, the City has a section in its code which allows for temporary uses such as carnivals, book sales, Christmas tree lots, movie productions, etc. Outdoor display of merchandise for sale is also a temporary use. A permit was issued for the event that took place last weekend. Whether Diamond Bar will directly benefit from point of sale tax is yet to be determined. DCM/DeStefano responded to C/Tye that DSA/Smith has been working with Pulte Homes regarding the equipment on Diamond Bar Boulevard. Pulte Homes indicated that they will be installing an instant dense hedgerow. Chair/Zirbes asked if the City's codes contain a requirement that a residential property provide front yard landscaping. DCM/DeStefano said he does not believe the City has a code requiring front yard landscaping. However, the code caps the percentage of driveway of the front yard. Chair/Zirbes requested that this matter be agendized for discussion by the Planning Commission. 10. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearing dates for fixture projects. As detailed in the agenda. ��r�oa-pK,.H<Ln. JULY 24, 2001 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in the Agenda. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Zirbes adjourned the meeting at 9:06 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, 4000 Ja DeStefanc Deputy City Mar ager Attest: Chairman Bob Zirbes...