Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/24/2003MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIO JUNE 24, 200$ CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Tye called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamonc Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Ruzicka led the pledge of allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Steve Tye; Vice Chairman Dan Nolan; and Commissioners Joe Ruzicka; and Jack Tanaka Commissioner Steve Nelson was excused. Also present were: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Ann L ngu, Associate Planner; and Stella Marquez Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: one Offered, 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chair/Tye requested that Ag nda Item 8 be moved ahead of Agenda Item 7. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Approval of June 10, 2003, regular meeting minutes. C/Ruzicka asked that page 4, line 5, be amended to read: "Noi all speech is protected by the constitution at the same high level." C/Ruzicka moved, C/Tanaka seconded, to approve the Jurie 10, 2003, minutes as amended. Without objection, the motion was so ordered qith C/Nelson being absent. 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None JUNE 24, 2003 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 8.1 Development Review No. 2003-03 (pursuant to Code Section 22.48.020) is a request to construct a two-story, single family residence of approximately 10,169 gross square feet including balconies, porch five car garage, and a site retaining wall proposed at a maximum height of approximately six feet. PROJECT ADDRESS: 3087 Windmill Drive (Lot 4, Tract 50314) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Windmill Estates, LLC 3480 Torrance Blvd., #300 Torrance, CA 90503 APPLICANT: Richard Gould 3480 Torrance Blvd., #300 Torrance, CA 90503 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2003-03, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/Tye opened the public hearing. There being no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Tye closed the public hearing. C/Ruzicka moved, VC/Nolan seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2003-03, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Ruzicka, Tanaka, VC/Nolan, Chair/Tye None Nelson 8.2 Development Review No. 2003-06 Minor Variance No. 2003-03 and Tree Permit No. 2003-02 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020, 22.54 and 22.38) is a request to construct a three story single-family residence with 1 L JUNE 24, 2003 Page 3 PLANNING CbMMISSIION balconies, covered patio/open air area, and three car garage totaling to approximately 12,806 gross square feet. The request also includes site retaining walls varying in height to a maximum seven feet in a eas of varying topography in the rear yard. The Applicant requests appro al of a inor Variance for a reduced front yard setback and a Tree Permit o remov and replace protected/preserved trees. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: 23135 Ridgeline Ro d (Lot 38, Tract 30091) Diamond Bar, CA 9 765 Vipin Vadecha 21803 Paint Brush ane Diamond Bar, CA 9 765 Simon Shum 20272 Carrey Road Walnut, CA 91789 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recomm Commission approval of Development Review No. 2003-06, No. 2003-03 and Tree Permit No. 2003-02, Findings of Fact, of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Ruzicka asked if the City was asking for 5:1 tree replacem AssocP/Lungu responded that the standard replacement rati Chair/Tye asked if the trees would all be replaced on site? AssocP/Lungu said she understood all tree replacement was ds Plating nor Vari nce id conditions is 3:1. be on Simon Shum, Architect, said this site is a difficult challenge for his firm. With staff's assistance, they were able to fit the unit within the envelo e of this Site and to also fill all of the property owner's requirements and meet "'-he Country Estates" architectural review expectations. Chair/Tye opened the public hearing. There being no one else present who wished to speakI n this it m, Chair/Tye closed the public hearing. MUNE 24, 2003 Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Ruzicka moved, C/Tanaka seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2003-06, Minor Variance No. 2003-03 and Tree Permit No. 2003-02, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Rall Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS Ruzicka, Tanaka, VC/Nolan, Chair/Tye None Nelson 8.3 Development Review No. 2003-08 (pursuant to Code Section 22.48.020) is a request to construct a two-story, single family addition of approximately 1,476 gross square feet. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: 501 Looking Glass (Lot 36, Tract 35581) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Falguni Megha 501 Looking Glass Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Raj Singh 501 Looking Glass Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. She referred to a letter from a resident dated June 12, 2003, disagreeing with the addition and remodel of this project due to its massiveness. Staff recommends Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2003-08, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Ruzicka said he visited the site because he took the writer's concerns very seriously. He would want to be assured that if something was taking place in his neighborhood about which he felt uncomfortable, that the City would take a second look. He spent time reviewing the site and looking at how it could possibly affect all of the other homeowners in the neighborhood. He did not observe that this addition would have any adverse effect on the rest of the neighborhood. 1 1 11 JUNE 24, 2003 Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Tye said that he too, visited the site and did not feel t at the pr ject would adversely affect the neighborhood. This project adds t o levels ach of 700 feet to the back of the house. Fred Diaz, 233 West Bonita, San Dimas, Architect, said he fo Lind the ity's staff members to be quite helpful. He has been in this area for several years and had never had occasion to be in this auditorium. fie found the auditorium quite attractive and believed the visuals were a cellent. This project has been in the works for several months. Many people are ope inof their homes up to family members. The proposed addition is in the re r of the home and should compliment the area. Chair/Tye opened the public hearing. There being no one who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Te closed the public hearing. VC/Nolan said he also visited the site and read the letter of concern. HE felt the last sentence made the writer's feelings evident — "wedon't want any new building developed in the area at all." VC/Nolan applauded the applicant for improving his property. Chair/Tye agreed with VC/Nolan. He felt that because o the -cur ent economic situation it made sense for people to improve their ropertie . C/Tanaka asked if the homeowner planned to rent out any of the room Mr. -Diaz responded that the property owner has no intention to rent out portion of his property. This involves family only. C/Ruzicka moved, VC/Nolan seconded, to approve Development Rev No. 2003-08, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as lised within resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ruzicka, Tanaka, VC Nolan, Chair/Tye NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson JUNE 24, 2003 Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 Development Code Amendment No. 2003-01 (pursuant to Code Section 22.44) is a request to amend the following Article/Sections of the Development Code. (Continued from May 13, 2003). AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report on the following items. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a resolution recommending City Council approval of Development code Amendment No. 2003-01, relative to Section No.'s 22.34.030; 22.34.040; 22.34.050; 22.34.060; 22.36.050; 22.36.080; and 22.42.130. ARTICLE III Section 22.34.030 — Single -Family Standards Section 22.34.040 — Multi - Family Standards Section 22.34.050 — Commercial Standards and Section 22.34.060 — Industrial Standards: amendment relates to landscape maintenance standards for slopes. C/Ruzicka was concerned about the language of the recommended amendment. Does "appearance at the immediate neighborhood" mean the same thing as "appearance of the immediate neighborhood?" And, should that hold true throughout the recommended changes? Chair/Tye asked if no plant material meet the intent of the amendment? He did not see language requiring a slope to have landscaping. Is the City trying to clean up the look or obtain a certain look? He believed the City was trying to clean up the hillsides. If by stripping the hillside it has thus "been cleaned up" and has the City accomplished its purpose or, is the City going to require the homeowner plant something? AssocP/Lungu said the amendment could say that there must be landscaping if that is what the Commission wants. DCM/DeStefano stated that if the recommended language is not clear the language should be amended accordingly. The beginning section states that yards and setback areas be landscaped with lawns, trees, shrubs, etc. A slope is not necessarily a setback. You could have a slope that exceeded the 25 -foot setback. That may be the area that needs to be clarified to insure that the entirety of slope is landscaped, irrigated, etc. He believed that the City was generally looking to have all slopes landscaped and U 1 1 JUNE 24, 2003 Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSION irrigated, not necessarily a consistent landscaping theme. Absent the ity's ownership/easement, it may not be feasible to require cons stent citwide landscaping. VC/Nolan said it seems to him that if residents elect to maitain a t hillside and take appropriate steps for irrigation, it should be t1lowed. Chair/Tye agreed. DCM/DeStefano said that the City is not interested in properties that ap Dear well groomed but are just dirt. The City would prefer to deal w th slopes that share the commonality of at least a green palate and maintenance that c eals with erosion control, AssocP/Lunge responded to VC/Nolan that the reference is to the entire slope, not just the setback area. As suggested by Chair/Tye, the lang age should probably be more specific so that the beginning statement says, for instance, "that yard and slope areas shall be landscaped, etc " C/Tanaka said he did not want to require, for instance, that the entire s ope must be filled in within two years. C/Ruzicka agreed with C/Tanaka. He referred to page 5 oft e San Di as ordinance. DCM/DeStefano suggested language to wit: the ground cover's {ubstantivally" rather than "completely." I II Chair/Tye submitted that the City has current ordinances ithat arenot enforced. He wanted to understand if it was the City's objecti a to enf rce this amendment. DCM/DeStefano said that there are literally hundreds of codes I hat the C ty's Code Enforcement Officers are obligated to enforce, This, lie any ol her aspect of law enforcement boils down to priorities and time-rnanagerrent issues. This issue is of substantial importance to the commun ty and to the City Council. Upon adoption of such an amendment by Cit Councilthe officers would be out in the field using the tools they now ave to ain compliance. Most likely, the most obvious candidates will rete ve immi ent consideration. JUNE 24, 2003 Page 8 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Tanaka was concerned about vegetable gardens that face the street. Chair/Tye opened the public hearing on the property maintenance item. There being no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Tye closed the public hearing. C/Ruzicka recommend including language to require some type of ground cover that would substantially cover the slope within two years of planting. The Commission concurred. Sections 22.36.050 and 22.36.080 — Exemptions from Sign Permits and Prohibited Signs: Amendment relates to the placement and size of election signs and signs in the public right-of-way. AssocP/Lunge reported that the City Attorney is recommending 60 days rather than 30 days for the number of days before an election that a sign could be installed. Most cities do not allow signs in the public right-of-way. The City Attorney wanted Item 5.e. deleted and the following statement inserted in its place: "Where a sign is erected on a vacant lot or in a multi - tenant commercial center in a location on a residential lot that is not visible from the residence, the person causing the sign to be erected shall, upon request, provide evidence to the City of the property owner's permission." C/Ruzicka asked if Item S.B. on page 7, should have "than" added so that it reads "more than"? VC/Nolan felt there was no need to change the current resolution from 30 days. He felt 30 days was appropriate. Additionally, he agreed with the majority of communities that ordained removing signs from the public right- of-way. Chair/Tye respectfully disagreed because he felt that signage along the public right-of-way was an effective communication tool. He wanted to know how it could be determined who caused the sign to be erected. DCM/DeStefano responded that the City deals with inappropriate signage by going directly to the candidate and asking that the sign be brought into compliance or removed. JUNE 24, 2003 Page 9 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Tye asked what the City does when signage is ere ted that has nothing to do with any specific candidate that appear on priv to prop rty? DCM/DeStefano responded that the City might allow the sign to remain and inquire of the property owner whether they granted permission for it lo be there. From a free speech standpoint the sign can remain as long as it meets the other requirements of the City's code. VC/Nolan felt that signage in the public right-of-way reached stagg ring proportions during election campaigns. To him, the high road would be to limit signs in the public -right-of-way. He felt that it was unreal stic toexpect candidates to show restraint. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the City to lay foundation and direction. C/Tanaka agreed with Chair/Tye's comments that an individual's right to freedom of speech should not be limited. At the same time he appreci Elted VC/Nolan's concerns about the amount of signage that goes up during elections but he felt it was part of the process and should not tie eliminated. C/Ruzicka said that so long as signs do not go up more than 60 days pri r to election and come down 10 days after the election, he believed that whatever anyone wanted to do they should be allowed to d:). He w uld agree with the 30 -day program that is in place if the balance of the Commission agreed. There was no one present who wished to speak on this item. C/Ruzicka felt that with the foregoing comments, staff could writa a recommended code for consideration at the Commission's net meed _ Chair/Tye said he did not agree with the City Attorney'spropos d chang for Item 5.e. He would like "only" stricken. In addition, the Commi sion wa ted 5.f. to read "30 -days." Chair/Tye asked if prohibited signs in the public right-of-way would elimir{ate real estate signs? I II DCM/DeStefano responded yes, and also other similar one-tim notifica ion signs. JUNE 24, 2003 Page 10 PLANNING COMMISSION DCM/DeStefano felt that the City Attorney would say that political speech is the highest form of speech and that the City would less likely be able to establish more strident standards for political speech than for commercial speech. DCM/DeStefano agreed with Chair/Tye that absent complete prohibition, there are no alternatives. Section 22.42.130 — Radio and Television Antenna and Wireless Telecommunications Antenna Facilities. Amendment relates to the number of telecommunications facilities on a parcel in residential zoning districts. AssocP/Lungu said her survey revealed that the majority of cities do not limit the number of telecommunications facilities on a parcel. Some use separation distance as a way to limit the number per parcel. The City Attorney wondered why the City would want to limit the number of facilities to one. He felt it would be too constricted. Chair/Tye asked for a clarification of co -location and multiple. C/Ruzicka asked for clarification of the bullet point on page 11 "wireless telecommunications antenna facilities may be allowed in residential zoning districts only if the facility is building mounted stealth design architectural) integrated with the building or concealed. There could be many telecommunications facilities from several different entities without detracting from the original architecture of the building. AssocP/Lungu responded to C/Ruzicka that after analyzing the data different suggestions were extracted to help control the number of sites for a parcel. To Chair/Tye's comment, the Commission may want to reconsider definitions because the definitions include co -location, piggybacking and antenna farms. We may want to eliminate antenna farms and not co -location and piggybacking. Antenna farms is a 5 -acre site with -as many facilities as possible whereas co -location is one structure with several facilities on it and, if it is imbedded in the architecture there may be no concern about the number. Chair/Tye cited the installation in the St. Denis Church tower. Ultimately, a good product was erected. However, they initially objected to placement of the facilities in the bell tower. Chair/Tye would not mind if there were four facilities in the tower. When the applicant first brought the project to the JUNE 245 2003 Page 11 PLANNING COMMISSION Planning Commission it was hideous, the neighbors did not like it and it did not look good. There was no creative thought given to it by the appii ant. After several iterations, we have a very well designed and camouflaged tower. He is not opposed to co -location — he is not in favor of what the applicant originally proposed. C/Ruzicka said he did not agree with the church's decision about not we nted facilities in their bell tower. Now that there is a way to app oach mu tiple sites on this piece of property he would not mind if they replaced eve one of the Italian Cypress at the front of the church. Chair/Tye felt the City would need to set a standard. He was glad that the Development Code did not restrict facilities to one per site. He felt St. C enis shows how you can work together to accomplish what all three parties 1vant to accomplish. DCM/DeStefano said staff discussed the aesthetics of this matter not necessarily concerned about how many are on a site, but whether and or was not you can see them. This City has sites that have co -locations such as the Vineyard Bank (3 facilities) and other similar facilities. Diam nd Bar High School, for instance, has several facilities, some you can see rand some that are not so easily detected. Also of concern was whether the numbor of devices on a particular piece of property violated the i tended use i.e., residential properties with multiple cell sites. When does it drew a conclusion that it is now a commercial piece of property versus its resid ntial intent? When does it eliminate the intended use of the property for commercial purposes in the future if it happens to be vacant property now? From Staff's perspective, we believe we can reach a conclusion that meets the current goals which would be to add a third bullet that C/Ruzicka sp oke about (page 11 of the staff report) that discusses permissible facilities in residential sites with the facilities being building -mounted steal h design, etc. Additionally, page 12 discusses where multiple facilities could bq located and that they would not be located on residential properties developed With residential structures or cited for residential development. Also, that the citing of the antennas in a form that would create an antenna farm would be prohibited and piggybacking would be permissible. Staff would offer a possible solution being the third bullet on page 11 and the two bulletc on page 12 and come back to the Commission with a resolution. The Commission concurred. JUNE 24, 2003 Page 12 PLANNING COMMISSION DCM/DeStefano confirmed that the resolution would not be punitive to a specific property. VC/Nolan asked if someone could be given a time period such as one or two years to meet the new code? DCM/DeStefano said he wanted to consult with the City Attorney before answering VC/Nolan. Chair/Tye asked if the City could ask people to remove inactive sites? DCM/DeStefano asked how you would determine whether a facility was inactive? C/Tanaka asked staff to refer to actual zoning districts in reference to whether sites are located. There was no one present who wished to speak on this matter. 8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: Chair/Tye thanked staff for their input and their business -like and helpful attitude with the public. 9. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: DCM/DeStefano reported that during tonight's Administrative Review he approved several items, not the least of which was the architectural and site planning changes for the former Texaco Station at Golden Springs and Brea Canyon Road as it converts to Shell. The project is slated for completion around October. The SR57/60 freeway construction takes place over the next four years. Already, closures are occurring in the middle of the night to deal with various portions of the project. CalTrans held a study session with the City Council and staff. CalTrans is working closely with Council and staff to reduce the number of closure days. This project represents about 10 percent of current CalTrans projects in Los Angeles County. CaiTrans will hold weekly update meetings. DCM/DeStefano stated that on June 17, City Council adopted the FY 2003104 Budget. As a result of the new budget, the City will be adding a part time weekend neighborhood improvement officer. DCM/DeStefano pointed out that the Commissioners' packets include the "What's Happening" list requested by Chair/Tye at the last meeting. Staff will attempt to get this information to you via email. JUNE 24, 2003 Page 13 PLANNING COMMISSION 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in the Agenda. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come beforthe Planning Commission, Chairman Tye adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Atte Chairma*S'fev-e Tye 1 ully Submitted, Jarries DeStefa Deputy City Ma