HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/13/2003MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
I
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSI
MAY 13, 2003
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Tye called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South
Management/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Fast Copley Drive, Dia
91765.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Commissioner Ruzicka led the pledge of allegiance.
1. ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Steve Tye, Vice Chairman Dan Nolan, and ommis;
Steve Nelson, Joe Ruzicka and Jack Tanaka.
Also present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager, Ann Lu gu, As,
Planner, Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant, and
Marquez, Administrative Assistant.
2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Of
3.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented.
4.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.1 Approval of April 22, 2003, regular meeting minutes.
C/Ruzicka moved, C/Tanaka seconded, to approve the April 22, 2003
minut
s as
presented. Without objection, the motion was so ordered with Chair
ye abstai
ing.
5.
OLD BUSINESS: None
6.
NEW BUSINESS: None
7.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7.1 Development Review No. 2003-01 (Pursuant to Code Section 22.
request to construct a two story, single family residence of approximately
8.020.A.
1%643
is a
gross square feet including balconies, porch, patio and attached fou
car gara
.
MAY 13, 2003
PROJECT ADDRESS
PROJECT OWNER/
APPLICANT:
Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
3099 Windmill Drive
(Lot 5, Tract No. 50314)
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Windmill Estates, LLC
3480 Torrance Boulevard #300
Torrance, CA 90503
AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
approve Development Review No. 2003-01, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as
listed within the resolution.
Chair/Tye asked if "The Country Estates" architectural committee had approved the project.
AssocP/Lungu explained that the JCC project is located within "The Country Estates."
However, JCC has their own CC&R's and their own architectural committee.
Curt Nelson, applicant, said he read staff's report and concurred with the conditions of
approval. However, the project does not have a basement as stated in staff report (page 3).
Chair/Tye opened the public hearing.
There being no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Tye closed the public
hearing.
C/Ruzicka moved, VC/Nolan seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2003-01,
Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried
by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Ruzicka, Tanaka, VC/Nolan, Chair/Tye
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMNUSSIONERS: None
7.2 Variance No. 2003-02. Administrative Development Review No. 2002-22. Tree
Permit No. 2003-03 and Negative Declaration No. 2003-03 (pursuant to Code
Sections 22.54, 22.48.020, and 22.38) this is a request to construct a three story (two -
stories with basement), single-family residence with balcony, covered patio, and two
two -car garages totaling to approximately 5,673 gross square feet. The request also
includes site retaining walls up to an exposed height of six (6) feet. The applicant
n
1
1
MAY 13, 2003
Page 3
PLANNING COMMISSION
requests approval of a Variance for a reduced front yard setback and Tree Permit to
remove and replace protected/preserved trees.
PROJECT ADDRESS
PROPERTY OWNER:
APPLICANT:
22364 Kicking Horse Drive
(Lot 6, Tract 32482)
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Lo and Alba Moesser
2707 Diamond Bar Boulf
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Horizon Pacific
2707 Diamond Bar Boult
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commission appro al of
Variance No. 2003-02, Administrative Development Review No. 2002-2 2, Tree Permit
No. 2003-03, Negative Declaration No. 2003-03, Findings of Fact, and conditions of
approval as listed within the draft resolution.
DSA/Smith responded to C/Nelson that staff's condition for replacement of �he two
trees should be one of the two protected species.
Chair/Tye opened the public hearing.
Jerry Yeh, applicant, said he and the owner reviewed staff's report and cncur wit >p the
conditions of approval.
There being no one else who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Tye cl�sed the
hearing.
C/Nelson wanted the approval of this project to include specific speci s of tree for
replacement of the pepper trees. He felt the Walnuts were the best choice foreplacem ' t of
the peppers and Oaks for Oaks.
C/Ruzicka moved, C/Nelson seconded, to approve Variance No. 2003-02,
Development Review No. 2002-22, Tree Permit No. 2003-03, Negati
No. 2003-03, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within
subject to the provision that the two pepper trees slated for removal will bi
California Walnut trees. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
inistr$tive
he resolu ion,
replaced ith
MAY 13, 2003
Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Ruzicka, Tanaka, VC/Nolan, Chair/Tye
NOES: CONIlVIISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS-. None
7.3 Development Code Amendment No. 2003-01 (pursuant to Code Section 22.44) is a
request to amend the following Articles/Sections of the Development Code:
PROJECT ADDRESS:
PROPERTY OWNER
Citywide
City of Diamond Bar
AssocP/Lungu explained the following proposed amendments.
ARTICLE III
Sections 22.38.010 22.38.030 and 22.38.060 — Tree Preservation and Protection:
Amendment relates to the preservation of naturalized California pepper trees where
appropriate and changes "naturalized California pepper trees" to just pepper trees.
Section 22.16.090 — Setback Regulations and Exceptions: Amendment relates to setbacks for
walls and fences on a reverse corner lot.
Gives the director authority to reverse the required setback from 10 feet to 5 feet on a reverse
comer lot if the clear line of site is maintained for vehicles and pedestrian traffic. This is a
housekeeping amendment to clean up the typos.
C/Tanaka asked AssocP/Lungu to give him an example of a reverse corner lot and she
sketched an example on the overhead.
Section 22.42.110, Table 3-15 — Residential Accessory Uses and Structures: Amendment
relates to setbacks for a tennis court and guesthouse.
Table 3-15 does not currently list setbacks for tennis courts and guesthouses. The
recommendation is to make the language clearer by including in the table for tennis courts,
that they have side and rear setbacks of 10 feet and tennis courts on a street side would have
the same setback as the main structure. For guesthouses, staff is recommending that setbacks
be the same as the main structure.
The next change is for housekeeping purposes and specifies overall parcel coverage as
required in each of the residential zoning districts.
MAY 13, 2003 Page 5 PLANNING C MMISS ON
Section 22.42.110 — Residential Accessory Uses and Structures: Amendmet relates t the
maximum height of tennis court fencing and walls.
Experience shows that tennis courts need 10 foot fencing.
a Vllamff O W. Ing 0&.Al Y11 is Klmv s\I wnvlm�=nr=lvG
JL.L.L1V11 — %-AJJ11111L/1L/Lai JLQ11uLuua [L111L L.rG.J`T.VVV —
Amendment relates to landscape maintenance standards for slopes.
This section relates to maintenance of slopes on private property that are adja ent or balk up
to a thoroughfare.
Chair/Tye noticed some rather unconventional slopes. Where would this code leave t iose
people? Or, in the instance of the elderly lady whose property backs up to Diamond Bar
Boulevard that Paint the Town helped one year. She is not in a position t vegetate and
irrigate the slope.
DCM/DeStefano responded that the area across from Lorbeer owned by the
ady that Raint
the Town helped about three years ago may be an area, due to its high visibili
, that the
ity
could include in an assessment district. Code Enforcement is a tool, but woL
Id the elderly,
perhaps fixed income and handicapped property owner deal with the situation
In other a
-eas,
Code Enforcement may be appropriate. There is an entire tract of homes in Darte
for w
ich
front yards were planted in Cape weed. It is a species that other homeowners
u11 out of
heir
front yards. It is difficult to arrive at standards.
C/Ruzicka felt that any type of landscape situation should take into consideration that
Diamond Bar is in a desert area. Whatever the City decides should take into account today's
water usage and the population forecast for 20 years from today and what kind of water usage
would be faced at that point. He felt the City would do itself a great service by mal cing
certain that sustained growth and water use is taken into consideration n w so that this
section of the code does not have to be rewritten down the line.
DCM/DeStefano stated that during the past 14 years Diamond Bar began a process to g -een
up. Brown native landscaping was the appropriate palate of choice prior to thai time. Pro'
is
approved 10, 12, and 14 years ago were predominately utilizing those types of plant gala es —
brown, seasonal, lower water usage overall. As the community and its popula ion has gr wn
it now wants green slopes. Case in point — Chino Hills and the development rojects a ng
Grand Avenue. The City has added trees and flowers to medians — a lot more green and a lot
more water — because that is what the public is telling the City they want. Hi lside prof cts
MAY 13, 2003 Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION
are a lot greener in their landscaping palate at this point in history that they were a few years
ago. C/Ruzicka's point is well taken. However, the City is being pulled in a different
direction.
C/Ruzicka said the public should have what it wants as long as everyone bears in mind that
there will be an increased price for the additional water the City uses.
Section 22.30.080 — Driveways and Site Access: Amendment relates to the pavement width
of a driveway in a single-family residential zoning district.
This amendment would require that a Minor Conditional Use Permit be obtained through the
public hearing process if the property owner wanted to increase the width of the driveway
area beyond 12 feet in excess of the garage width. The purpose of this Section is to prevent
people from cementing their front yards.
Chair/Tye said his house rested on a flag lot. If he wanted to extend his driveway to the right
side of his garage back toward the back yard he could do so without a Minor Conditional Use
Permit if he kept the width to 12 feet or under. If he wanted 13 feet, it would require a public
hearing. How do you measure a flag lot?
DCM(DeStefano said that the majority of the single-family lots in the City are traditional.
Flag lots are unusual. A Variance may be necessary to achieve an appropriate goal for a flag
lot.
Sections 22.36.050 and 22.36.080 — Exemptions from Sign Permits and Prohibited Sills:
Amendment relates to the placement and size of election signs and signs in the public right-
of-way.
The recommended amendment would paragraph 5 would be repealed. It would be replaced
with the language under the recommended amendment that reads — Election signs, temporary
signs pertaining to a local, state or national election, are permitted on private property subject
to the following limitations: (as listed within the staff report and forwarded to staff by the
City Attorney). According to the City Attorney, he felt that 60 days was the most appropriate
restrictive time -period for sign placement. The next section eliminates signs in the public
right-of-way except official, traffic control, directional and identification signs erected by the
City or other government agencies with jurisdiction.
DCM/DeStefano said that this amendment responds to adverse reactions during recent
elections.
MAY t3,2003 Page 7 PLANNING C MMI!
Chair/Tye said he thought people were entitled to place election signs in theublic ri
way within 30 days of an election.
DCM/DeStefano responded that according to the City Attorney, individuals are not c
to place election signs in the public right-of-way even though it has bec me cc
practice. If the Commission wishes to allow signs within the public right -of- ay, that
be the recommendation to the Council.
VC/Nolan asked if staff could determine other municipalities that have adopted a similar
ordinance. He applauded the language and the effort to remove election signs from the pi
right-of-way.
Section 22.42.060 — Guesthouses: amendment relates to lot coverage for
Section 22.42.130 — Radio and Television Antenna and Wireless Telecommunica
Antenna Facilities: amendment relates to the number of telecommunications facilities
parcel in residential zoning districts.
Currently, the code does not specify these types of facilities with respect to
than one would be allowed per property.
Section 22.42.120 — Secondary Housing Units: amendment relates to changi g the
Minor Conditional Use process to a ministerial review process to comply wit Gov(
Code 65852.2.
ARTICLE V
Section. 22.68.030 — Restrictions on Non -Conforming Structures:
when a structure shall be deemed non -conforming.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recorn>fnending
Council approval of Development Code Amendment No. 2003-01.
C/Tanaka was concerned about the sign standards. He would favor approval of he rema
items and would like further consideration of sign standards with additional in ut from
about how other cities handle sign standards.
VC/Nolan felt it would benefit the Commission to understand what other ju'sdictions
doing.
-of-
a
to
ty
MAY 13, 2003 Page S PLANNING COMMISSION
C/Nelson agreed. He felt that the concept of restricting public property for placement of
election signs made sense. Given what took place during a recent election, it would add an
element of accountability and responsibility to the election process. On the other hand he did
not want to diminish the excitement of political debate. He too, favored discussing the sign
standards further and approving the balance of requested amendments.
Chair/Tye concurred. He was surprised that the City Attorney found it defensible to ban
election signs in public right-of-way. His understanding is that it would infringe on his
freedom of speech. He realized there may be a need for limitations and the limitations may
have been requirements that were ignored. He has a problem banning election signs from
public right-of-ways and would like additional information on the subject including other
jurisdictions that have found it to be successful and those that have been able to ban election
signs and found it to be defensible.
DCMIDeStefano asked if the Commission was comfortable with the recommended standards
for landscaping.
Chair/Tye said he did have reservations about approving the recommended standards. To
C/Ruzicka's point about water usage he would like to see more data on that subject.
VC/Nolan reiterated his desire to see what other communities similar to Diamond Bar are
doing with regard to landscaping. He brought up the matter of cell sites.
DCM/DeStefano asked if the Commission had a desire to limit or reduce the number of items
on church and school properties as it does on residential properties.
C/Tanaka felt the Commission should consider each type of slope. Some have steep grades
and other slope grades are relatively mild. Additionally, the City has slopes that have been
cut into the hillside as opposed to a fill and they would be difficult to work with.
VC/Nolan felt the City should have restrictions and as a review body have some recourse
before it gets out of hand. Regarding the sign ordinance, his vision of people having signs in
their yards is that someone sold the property owner on the notion that he would vote for the
individual. Private businesses do the same thing. The race to lace them up and down
Diamond Bar Boulevard does not speak to that. As a voter it would be more compelling to
see a sign on private property than on a major boulevard. He does not want Diamond Bar to
be the first City with a sign ordinance that adopts a restrictive ordinance. If there are other
municipalities that have been successful in adopting such an ordinance and there have been
no issues, he would feel a lot more comfortable.
MAY 13, 2003 Page 9 PLANNING CQMMISS ON
DCM/DeStefano stated that based on the comments received from Com ssioners, taff
PP
would like an opportunity to bring additional information back to the Commis ion for fu her
consideration at the June 24 meeting. If the Commission is comfortable in adopting the
balance of the items, it could excise the three categories of concern.
Chair/Tye opened the public hearing.
C/Tanaka moved, C/Nelson seconded, to recommend adoption of a resolution appr ing
Development Code Amendment No. 2003-01 extricating Sections 22.34.030, 22.34. 40,
22.34.050, 22.34.060, 22.36.050, 22.36.080 and 22.42.130, and continue the publichedring
on those items to June 24, 2003. Motion carried by the following Roll Callvote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
Nelson, Ruzicka, Tanaka,
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
None
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
None
8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: C/Nelson said he watc ed with keen
interest the telecommunications tower at St. Denis go up and he is very pl ased wittl the
result of the installation. His only comment was that next time the tree should not lock so
perfect and that the bolts tying the tree to the ground should be camouflagec.
Chair/Tye agreed that it was a good installation.
9. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: DCM/DeStefano earlier joined the City Counci for
tonight's study of the City's current and next year's goals and objectives. Council is WOT cing
on next year's budget. Some of the items that staff would likely bring to th CommisSion
would be some hillside residential projects, zone changes to coincide with the City's Ge eral
Plan, General Plan changes and other projects yet to be determined. In 2004 taff should be
presenting the Commission with larger retail projects to be constructed oil some vacant
remaining land — one on the Calvary Chapel site and Site D. Similar to Councils recogn ition
of "Business of the Month" it is considering "House of the Month" to acknowledge well -kept
properties. The same format could be used to showcase a "Business of the onth."
DCM/DeStefano stated that the Extended -Stay America project was withdr wn at the last
second. Extended -Stay America, a partner in the project, would have exceeded its debt ratio
with its expansion campaign so all projects not physically under construction were stopped.
DCM/DeStefano reported that he, Council Members, the City Manager and other taff
members would be attending the Retail Developers Conference in Las Vegas next we k.
MAY 13, 2003 Page 10 PLANNING COMMISSION
DCM/DeStefano stated that construction has begun on the four year SR57/60 HOV
connector project.
Chair/Tye asked if staff would attempt to interest another hotel owner in similar plans for
development of the trailer park. DCM/DeStefano said he would use the plan that was
forwarded to the City Council. He said he would also use the fact of the Planning
Commission approval as positives. There was a small window of opportunity for Extended -
Stay America to rescind their withdrawal. If there is not some direction from the developer
very soon, they would most likely have to come back before the Planning Commission before
the project went to the City Council.
Chair/Tye pointed out how the center across from Lorbeer Middle School at the corner of
Golden Springs Drive and Diamond Bar Boulevard has improved. He asked DCM/DeStefano
if he would use such examples to attract other business. DCM/DeStefano said he would.
10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
As presented in the agenda.
ADJOURNMENT:
C/Tanaka moved, C/Nelson seconded, to adjourn the meeting. There being no further business to
come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Tye adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
W
JarridbeStefano
Deputy City Man ger