Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/11/2002i 1 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. JUNE 11, 2002 Chairman Ruzicka called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. in the South Coast Air Management/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, C 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Nolan led in the pledge of allegiance. 1. 2. 3. 4. A 6. VA ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Ruzicka, Vice Chairman Steve Tye and Commissi Steve Nelson, Dan Nolan and Jack Tanaka. Also Present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner, and Stella Marquez, Administrative Assistant. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 28, 2002. C/Tanaka moved, VC/Tye seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 28, 2002, as presented. Without objection, the motion was so ordered with C/Nelson and C/Nolan abstaining. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Development Review No. 2002-11 and Minor Variance No. 2002-05 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020(a)(1) and 22.52) is a request to remodel and add approximately 1,882 square feet to an existing two-story, single-family residence of 1,965 square feet including porch and three car garage. The Minor Variance is a request for a 10 percent decrease in the required side yard setback. JUNE 11, 2002 PAGE 2 PLANNING CONMUSSION PROJECT ADDRESS: 511 Topside Place Diamond Bar, CA 91762 PROPERTY OWNER: Steven Ling 511 Topside Place Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Hung Chou 511 S. 1s` Street #161 Arcadia, CA 91006 DCM/DeStefano presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2002-11 and Minor Variance No. 2002-05, Findings of Facts, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Hung Chou, architect, said he was commissioned by the property owners to complete this project. He explained that he worked with staff to coordinate the plans. He stated that he concurred with staff's report and the conditions of approval. He asked for Commission approval. C/Tanaka asked Mr. Chou why the plans were not drawn to place the structure 10 feet from the property line. Mr. Chou responded that the current structure is 15 feet from the side wall. Initially, the project was miscalculated and when they attempted to scale back the owner wanted the living space larger and he is seeking a one -foot encroachment. Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing. There being no one who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Ruzicka closed the public hearing. VC/Tye asked at what point staff determines a project must remain within the guidelines. DCM/DeStefano explained that in this case, the total separation between the two houses is approximately 15 feet. Normally, a minor variance such as this one would be handled at a staff level. It is a judgement call by staff as to what is compatible. Typically, staff works with property owners with respect to topography, size and 1 JUNE 11, 2002 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION shape of the property and other features that might affect livability. Staff did not ff it was necessary to take away one foot of the project. However, this is a discretionz matter to be decided by the Commission. In addition, other components of the size the project require Commission approval. The Code requires that everything bundled together and put the matter before the Commission in a public heart: format. C/Nelson asked if the applicant notified his neighbor that the proposed structure would be a foot closer to his property upon approval and completion to which DCM/DeStefano explained that to his knowledge, staff is not aware of such notification. C/Nelson asked Mr. Chou if he spoke with the neighbors and presented them with the proposed plan. Mr. Chou said he spoke with the neighbors residing on the westerly side of the project. The neighbor to the easterly side was not available. Notice was posted at the job site and notices were mailed to the neighbors on the easterly side of the project. He felt that if they objected to the variance they would have come forward and stated their concern. C/Nelson moved, C/Nolan seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2002-11 and Minor Variance No. 2002-05, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Nolan, VC/Tye, Chair/Ruzicka NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Tanaka ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7.2 ZONE CHANGE NO. 2002-01 (pursuant to Code Section 22.44.010-070) is a request to change the zoning of an existing commercial area generally located south of the Pomona (SR60) Freeway on the west side of Diamond Bar Boulevard, and including the commercial area on Gentle Springs Lane and the north side of Golden Springs Drive between Diamond Bar Boulevard and Prospectors Road. The current zoning of the two areas described is a Commercial Planned Development (CPD). The contemplated zoning for the two areas is Regional Commercial (C-3) and/or Community Commercial (G-2) respectively. The General Plan land use designation for the two areas is General Commercial (C). The contemplated zone change, if JUNE 11, 2002 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION approved, will be in compliance with the General Plan. The Planning Commission is charged with conducting a public hearing and making a recommendation to the City Council for the contemplated zone change. PROPERTY APPLICANT: City of Diamond Bar 21825 E. Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commission adoption of a resolution recommending City Council approval of Zone Change No. 2002-01. VC/Tye asked for clarification about whether or not the gaming center would be permitted under the proposed zone change. AssocP/Lungu explained that the gaming center is currently not permitted. If the zone change is adopted, the gaming center would be permitted through procurement of a Conditional Use Permit. C/Tanaka asked how a business gets established illegally. DCM/DeStefano responded that a business gets established illegally simply by starting operation without receiving the proper permits from the City or County, whichever is applicable. It requires the cooperation of the property owner and the tenants to insure that illegal operations do not occur thereby forcing the City into a reactive mode. C/Nolan stated that in his opinion, this zone change would allow easier access by viable businesses to currently vacant properties. AssocP/Lungu agreed. The zone change broadens the palate of uses and gives various businesses the opportunity to rent vacant spaces. C/Nolan and Chair/Ruzicka opined that whether or not a permit is approved, the zone change -would allow the Commission to address the illegal business. VC/Tye presented an example of an ordinance that lead to the demise of certain community events such as car washes and rummage sales. He feared that by approving this zone change certain types of businesses that might otherwise be prevented from opening in Diamond Bar would be allowed to open. JUNE 11, 2002 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION DCM/DeStefano explained that a speaker who recently appeared before the C: Council was misinformed about the types of activities that were allowed a disallowed. DCM/DeStefano agreed that the City should carefully look at the list permitted uses, attempt to determine the worst case scenario and decide whether not that particular type of business would be acceptable. If the Commission( believe there are uses that would be harmful to adjacent properties, it may not wish endorse changing the property to that particular zone. Alternatively, the Commissi+ could approve the zone change and then immediately seek further control elimination of land uses that create the most concern. If there is general concern regarding the palate of uses and because this is a City originated matter, this propos zone change is not urgent and there is sufficient time to consider the broader us proposed through the zone change request. Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing. There being no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Ruzicka ' the public hearing. C/Nolan wondered if the City should review other shopping centers within the City to determine whether their zoning was correct. He contemplate if by approving this particular zone change if the City was placating the issue of an inappropriate cyber cafe business locating in close proximity to a school. DCM/DeStefano cautioned the Commission that this is not a matter that involves the cyber cafe. This is a broader issue about correct zoning. The matter of the cyber cafe should not be a reason to approve or not approve the zone change. The consideration should be a matter of the broader palate of uses within the zoning category. He explained how most shopping centers in Diamond Bar suffer from poor land planning implemented by Los Angeles County. DCM/DeStefano responded to VC/Tye that he would not recommend that the Commission approve the C-2 Zone change and then commence to strike certain uses. Rather, a different specific plan or zone should be considered. DCM/DeStefano confirmed Chair/Ruzicka's assumption that adult uses would not be allowed in the proposed zone. C/Nolan moved, C/Tanaka seconded, to recommend City Council approval of Zone Change 2002-01. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: JUNE 11, 2002 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Nolan, Tanaka, VC/Tye Chair/Ruzicka None None S. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: C/Nelson suggested that staff may wish to inform applicants that the Commission would ask them whether or not they have spoken with their neighbors about their plans. In the future, he would not allow applicants to indicate that neighbors were not available. DCM/DeStefano suggested the requirement to post notice of the project could be modified by posting a copy of the drawings or making a specific statement on the sign as to where plans for the proposal can be found. With respect to notifying neighbors, there is a legal requirement to notify property owners. Generally, staff does not receive comments unless neighbors have concerns about the project. Simple notification does not necessarily require a neighbor's support. C/Nolan concurred with C/Nelson's comments. He is generally in favor of people improving their properties except if those improvements alienate the neighborhood. C/Tanaka said that absent certain exceptions in the type of property such as topography he sees no reason to approve a variance. Chair/Ruzicka said that his neighbor's addition met the City's Codes. however, he added a walkout terrace on top of the addition that now overlooks his back yard and takes away his privacy that he was once afforded. If someone had asked him in advance how his neighbor's addition would have affected him he would have told staff or anyone else willing to listen that his neighbor should not be able to complete such a project because it would destroy the privacy of his back yard. In this case, he understood staff's reasoning. The encroachment appears to be behind a wall and not involve any privacy issues. 9. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: DCM/DeStefano clarified comments he made during the prior Commission meeting regarding the Capital Improvement Program. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As scheduled. JUNE 11, 2002 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION J ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:17 p.m. Attest: ha &an Jo Ruzic 1 Jaz"nes DeSte Deputy City Submitted,