Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/27/2002MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 27, 2002 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Ruzicka called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management/Govemment Center Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Tanaka led the pledge of allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Joe Ruzicka, Vice Chairman Steve Tye, and Commissioners Steve Nelson, Dan Nolan and Jack Tanaka. Also Present: Ann Lungu, Associate Planner, Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant, Planning Consultant David Meyer, and Stella Marquez, Administrative Assistant, 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chair/Ruzicka recommended that Agenda Item 5.1 be considered as the last agenda item following Item 7.5. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of Regular Meetings of August 13, 2002. C/Nolan moved, C/Tanaka seconded, to approve the minutes of August 13, 2002, as submitted. Motion carried 4-1 with C/Nelson abstaining. 6. NEW BUSINESS: 6.1 Comprehensive Sign Program No. 2002-03 — request for approval of a two-story multi -tenant community development of approximately 10,400 square feet. PROJECT ADDRESS 1 20855 Golden Springs Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AUGUST 27, 2002 PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION Golden Diamond Star, LLC 11747 Valley Boulevard El Monte, CA 91732 Harry Wu 11747 Valley Boulevard El Monte, CA 91732 PC/Meyer presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commission approval of Comprehensive Sign Program No. 2002-03, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. VC/Tye was concerned about tenant's adhering to consistent signage in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing look to the building. Chair/Ruzicka felt it might be appropriate to require tenants to use one sign company in order to insure uniformity in size, color, texture, etc. PC/Meyer believed that the sign program established conformity in size, color and texture. He discouraged the Commission from stipulating that the building owner utilize the services of only one company because it would restrict competitive bidding. The condition could stipulate that the property owner would have to approve a tenant's sign application prior to submission to the City for staff's review. VC/Tye concurred that the objective would be served by PC/Meyer's recommendation. Ying Lee, partner, Golden diamond Star, LLC, told the Commission that his firm wants the tenant's to have a sign program consistent with the City's requirement. Each prospective tenant is told that they must comply with the building's sign program. Approximately 80 percent of the tenant space is occupied by national credit tenants who understand compliance with a City's requirements. Chair/Ruzicka opened the matter for public testimony. There being no one who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Ruzicka closed public testimony. 1 1 1 AUGUST 27, 2002 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION PC/Meyer recommended the addition of Condition (e) on page 2, to the resolution to wit: "The property owner, or his or her representative, shall review all tenant sign applications before they are submitted to the City for permit issuance." VC/Tye moved, C/Nolan seconded, to approve Comprehensive Sign Program No. 2002-03, the Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution with the addition of Condition (e) as previously stated. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Tye, Nolan, Nelson, Tanaka Chair/Ruzicka NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Development Review No. 2002-08 and Minor Conditional use Permit No. 2002- 07 Tree Permit No. 2002-05 Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact No. 2002-03 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48, 22.56 and 22.38). The applicant has requested approval of plans to construct an approximate 8,200 square foot three (3) story single-family residence with an attached 5 -car garage (total gross floor area of 11,490 square feet), on an approximate 62,303 square foot (1.43) acres) R-1(40,000) zoned lot. Additionally, the applicant requests approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow for a 10 -foot high tennis court fencing and a Tree Permit to remove and replace a protected tree species. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER: 23930 Falcons View Drive (APN 8713-039-017) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Chao Ouyang and Yanni Chen 20531 Simon Court Walnut, CA 91789 APPLICANT: Horizon Pacific 2707 Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PC/Meyer presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2002-08, Minor Conditional Use Permit AUGUST 27, 2002 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION No. 2002-07, Tree Permit No. 2002-05, and Negative Dec]aratigp of Environmental Impact No. 2002-03, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Jerry Yeh, Horizon Pacific, said that he and the property owner read staff's report and concur with the conditions of approval. Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to speak on this item. Chair/Ruzicka closed the public hearing. C/Nelson moved, C/Nolan seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2002-08, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-07, Tree Permit No. 2002-05, and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact No. 2002-03, the Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution, subject to staff's request to strike required non -conforming structured findings and the following amendments: 1) the conditions shall stipulate that replacement trees will be in-kind 15 gallon California Walnuts for the 11 trees that are removed; 2) on page 6, screening trees that would not be effective year-round be eliminated; 3) the person preparing the landscape plan be directed to concentrate the trees on the descending slope where the property abuts the open space of Tonner Canyon, and 4) because the property directly abuts Tonner Canyon, the review of the final landscape and irrigation plan shall come back to the Planning Commission for its review and approval - Item 8(d). Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS Nelson, Nolan, Tanaka, VC/Tye, Chair/Ruzicka None None 7.2 Development Review No. 2001-15 (pursuant to Code Section 22.48.020.A.) is a request to construct a two-story single family residence on a vacant lot with a two -car garage, rear balcony/patio cover and front porch totaling to approximately 4,620 square feet. Additionally, the request includes a rear retaining wall with a maximum exposed height of six feet. 1 1 1 AUGUST 27, 2002 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT ADDRESS: 1194 Chisholm Trail (Lot 12 of Tract No. 37873) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ Mr. and Mrs. Eddie Pinzon APPLICANT: 737 Featherwood Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2001-15, the Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Joe Monfreda, 1931 Eloise Way, Upland, concurred with staff's report and conditions of approval. The owner desires to make the home compatible in every way possible with the surrounding neighborhood. Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing. There being no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Ruzicka closed the public hearing. VC/Tye noted that the applicant has made every good effort to comply with the City's and Planning Commission's recommendations for this project. C/Nolan moved, C/Nelson seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2001-15, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Nelson, Tanaka, VC/Tye, Chair/Ruzicka NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7.3 Tentative Parcel Man No. 22987 (pursuant to Title 21, Subdivision Ordinance — Section 21.22) is a request to subdivide one parcel into three lots. Currently, the project site is developed with a restaurant structure and a hotel. If approved, the restaurant structure will be located on a 1.32 acre lot; the hotel will be located on a 2.70 acre lot; and the remaining 1 acre lot will be for future commercial development. The Planning Commission is charged with conducting a public hearing and making a recommendation to the City Council for this project. AUGUST 27, 2002 PAGE b PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT ADDRESS: 259 Gentle Springs Lane (Lot 1 of Parcel Map No. 15547) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Ratan Hospitality 259 Gentle Springs Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Carl Kobbins 8880 Benson Avenue, #100 Montclair, CA 91763 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 22987 (pursuant to Title 21, Subdivision Ordinance — Section 21.22) is a request to subdivide one existing commercial parcel into three commercial lots. AssocP/Lungu responded to C/Tanaka that her assumption was that the applicant read Condition (p) on page 6, and concurs with it since there has been no objection expressed. AssocP/Lungu indicated to C/Nelson that in her opinion, this proposal increases the opportunity for development of the vacant area. PC/Meyer suggested to Chair/Ruzicka that the Commission consider a condition to create an association so that common CC&R's that are acceptable to the City Attorney would be included. All of the ingress/egress, parking, drainage issues, etc. are dependent upon adjoining parcels. What should be prohibited in the long term is that the parcels, if sold to three independent donors, would have fences built along the property lines. Carl Kobbins, applicant, said he read staff's report and concurs with the proposed conditions. He wasn't certain he understood staff's proposed revision with respect to the cross -lot drainage. PC/Meyer explained to Mr. Kobbins that without the requirement for the common association and various specifications that would include maintenance of the drainage channel, individual owners would not be required to comply with maintenance of the common drainage system. In addition, access to the site is via a private street and not 1 1 AUGUST 27, 2002 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION a public street. Therefore, the association would have responsibility for maintaining the street. P. N. Patel, property owner, thanked the Commission for its consideration. He explained the recent purchase of the property and how he proposes to improve the parcels. He questioned some of the proposed conditions. PC/Meyer explained that the property owners concerns could be worked out through the implementation of CC&R's. The City's intent is to insure that all three property owners work together as a unit for the common good of the three parcels. Therefore, staff is proposing the following condition: "The applicant shall prepare Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the subject property in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney and the City's Development staff. The CC&R's shall provide for the repair and maintenance of common facilities such as the private -street, drainage facilities, lighting, landscaping, ingress and egress, and off-street parking, etc." Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing. There being no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Ruzicka closed the public hearing. VC/Tye said that when he contemplates a project, he asks himself three questions: Is it good for the City? Is it good for the project? And is it good for the neighborhood? He does not believe that this subdivision meets that stated criteria. This property was owned by one individual who put up a fence/gate to keep out a tenant because of parking problems. Problems would be created on this inaccessible piece of property if the hotel owner decided, due to differences of opinion with the new owner, that they cannot have access. In accordance with this proposal, access to Parcel No. 3 is via an alley. Therefore, access would, by necessity, be through the hotel property. He suggested that if development takes place, that it take place with the current ownership and that the property not be divided into three parcels. PC/Meyer pointed out that the proposed association would address VC/Tye's concerns. Accordingly, access and parking lots would all have common benefit. One parcel could not be blocked off from having access. VC/Tye asked PC/Meyer how subdividing this property would be an improvement over development by a single owner. AUGUST 27, 2002 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION PC/Meyer pointed out that for example, subdivision of the parcels would create a greater opportunity for financing development by allowing the owner to encumber only one parcel. VC/Tye moved to recommend City Council denial of Tentative Parcel Map No. 29987. Motion died for lack of a second. C/Nolan moved, C/Tanaka seconded, to recommend City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 22987, the Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution including a condition to create an association as proposed by PC/Meyer. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Tanaka, Nelson, Chair/Ruzicka VC/Tye None 7.4 Development Review No. 2002-19 (pursuant to Code Section 22.48.020) is a request to construct a two-story, single family residence of approximately 11,382 gross square feet including balconies, porch, covered patio, attached four -car garage, detached 504 square foot two -car garage, and a guesthouse with porch totally 365 square feet. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: 3159 Windmill Drive (Lot 10, Tract 50314) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Windmill Estates, LLC 3480 Torrance Boulevard #300 Torrance, CA 90503 DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2002-19, the Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. In response to C/Tanaka, DSA/Smith explained that access to this property is from Wagon Train Lane through "The Country Estates" entry. Kurt Nelson, Windmill Estates, LLC, stated that he reviewed staff's report and concurs with the conditions of approval. This project is a custom pre -sold home. AUGUST 27, 2002 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing. There being no one who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Ruzicka closed the public hearing. C/Nelson moved to approve Development Review No. 2002-19, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution with the modification adding a condition that the landscape plan come back to the Planning Commission for review,. He explained that his request for the modification was to prevent suburban "slobber" between landscaped and natural areas. VC/Tye seconded the motion as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, VC/Tye, Nolan, Tanaka Chair/Ruzicka NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7.5 Development Review No. 2002-20 (pursuant to Code Section 22.48.020) is a request to construct a two-story, single family residence of approximately 12,395 gross square feet including balcony, porte cochere, covered patio and four -car garage with workshop. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: 2877 Oak Knoll Drive (Lot 3, Parcel Map 26235) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Windmill Estates, LLC 3480 Torrance Boulevard #300 Torrance, CA 90503 DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2002-20, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Kurt Nelson, Windmill Estates, LLC, stated he read staff's report and concurred with the conditions of approval as recommended. He explained that this project is also a custom home purchase by a property owner who previously purchased in Phase I of this development. 1 Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing. AUGUST 27, 2002 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION There being no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Ruzicka closed the public hearing. C/Nelson moved, C/Tanaka seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2002- 20, the Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution with the modification adding a condition that the landscape plan come back to the Planning Commission for review. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Tanaka, Nolan, VC/Tye, Chair/Ruzicka NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 5. OLD BUSINESS: 5.1 Planning Commission Discussion Regarding Protected Trees. (Continued from August 13, 2002) AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff as appropriate. Chair/Ruzicka asked for public comment on this matter. There was no one present who wished to speak on this item. Chair/Ruzicka closed the public comment portion for Agenda Item 5.1. Commission discussion ensued. C/Nelson explained that just because a tree has naturalized itself does not necessarily mean that it is good for the habitat. He took exception to the term "preserve in place" on page 1 of the memorandum. As it applies to oak, walnut, willow and sycamores he took no exception to the term. However, he took exception to "preserve in place" with respect to Naturalized Pepper Trees. While there may be valid cultural reasons to obtain the peppers, there are exceptions. He cited the following example: Supposing a developer wanted to remove an acre of Coastal Sage Scrub. As part of the CEQA mitigation and sensitive habitat, the City required him to enhance and restore two acres of the scrub at a 2:1 ratio. In attempting to mitigate, the developer found degraded scrub that he needed to restore, if there were Naturalized Pepper AUGUST 27, 2002 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION 1 Trees growing on the slope, the first thing the expert restoration ecologist would recommend would be the removal of the peppers. Therefore, if it is a protected tree, does that mean that the developer must mitigate for his mitigation - that makes no sense. To leave the pepper in place with literally 10's of thousands of seeds dropping from the Peppers every year there are thousands of opportunities for baby peppers to develop. Soon, the Coastal Sage Scrub is overtaken and all that is left is a Naturalized Pepper woodland that serves no purpose in attempting to retain some of the natural wildlife and vegetative resources in the City. C/Nelson suggested clarifying language in the Tree Preservation and Protection Code. One possible solution would be to break the sentence into three categories of protected species to wit: "Requires the preservation and maintenance of: 1) native trees including Oak, Walnut, Sycamore and Willow; 2) significant trees of cultural or historical value; and 3) Naturalized California Pepper Trees where appropriate. Or, Naturalized California Pepper Trees could be included as examples of significant trees of cultural or historical value that would reduce the categories to 2. Further, Item 1 of protected trees could be called "Naturalized Pepper Trees where not growing in native habitats or plant communities. Additionally, the exceptions might include: "The following shall be exempt from provisions of this chapter — Naturalized Pepper where they occur within native habitats and are not a part of an otherwise organized historic landscape area." C/Nelson further stated that his suggestion would be to separate the native from the naturalized pepper to avoid confusion. Peppers are not indigenous and they are not native. In fact, they are highly invasive. At the same time, by separating them out, it can be recognized that they have significant cultural and historic values and that the trees certainly provide for exceptions where appropriate to have them removed without requiring an applicant to mitigate them. C/Nelson offered to work with staff to come up with appropriate language for the Commission's contemplation. VC/Tye asked why the City should care about preserving the pepper trees at all. Why not just eliminate them. C/Nelson responded because of the work done in the middle 1990's to preserve duality specimens growing in an appropriate setting. 1 AUGUST 27, 2002 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Ruzicka directed staff to consider C/Nelson's input and provide alternative Development Code language for consideration by the Commission at a future meeting. S. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: VC/Tye said that proceeding southerly on Diamond Bar Boulevard near Diamond Crest, the Oak trees appear to be dead. Is the development responsible for preservation of those trees and if so, how do we bring it to their attention. Staff members appeared to agree that the developer was responsible and PC/Meyer said the matter would be pursued. 9. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: PC/Meyer explained that there is a matter of timeliness when it comes to review of landscape and irrigation plans. He wondered if the Commission would want to pursue the plans from a technical aspect or from a policy standpoint and whether the Commission would want to do so as a body or appoint a subcommittee in order to be more responsive to the developer and keep the process moving. C/Nelson said he was most interested in the species list and where the items would be placed on the property. Chair/Ruzicka agreed with C/Nelson that the City should be attuned to what kind of landscaping was being planted on projects. He does not want to delay the process for the developer. However, he believed the Commission should have an opportunity to consider the matter. PC/Meyer said that staff could provide preliminary details on landscape plans during the development review process if that is the Commission's desire. Or, once a policy is established, the subcommittee could review individual projects in detail. C/Nelson explained that if landscape plans indicating species had been submitted with the project he would not have added such a condition to the resolution. He said he would be happy to serve on a subcommittee. Chair/Ruzicka said he would prefer to have the landscape and irrigation plan submitted with the project plan for approval. VC/Tye pointed out that consideration of a landscape plan is not always under the jurisdiction of the developer. Upon reflection, PC/Meyer thought that the current system for consideration was adequate. AUGUST 27, 2002 1 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As scheduled. Chair/Ruzicka reminded the Commission that the City and Chamber of Commerce is co- sponsoring a 9/11 event in honor of last year's terrible occurrence. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Ruzicka adjourned the meeting at 9:34 p.m. 1 Attest: C Ch ' an Joe Ruzic a 1 Respectfully Submitted, James DeStetager Deputy City