Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/10/2004MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 2004 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Tye called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Wei led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Steve Tye; Vice Chairman Dan Nolan; and Commissioners Steve Nelson; Jack Tanaka; and Osman Wei. Also present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCEIPUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Approval of January 27, 2004, Regular Meeting minutes. VC/Nolan moved, C/Tanaka seconded, to approve the January 27, 2004, Regular Meeting minutes as presented with C/Wei abstaining. 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: 6.1 Government Code Section 65402 — Resolution of the Planning Commission finding that the sale of surplus school district property is not in conformance with the General Plan (GC§65401.) DCM/DeStefano reported that on Friday, staff prepared a report indicating staff's support for Planning Commission adoption of a resolution finding the sale of the surplus property in conformance with the General Plan. In FEBRUARY 10, 2004 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION consultation with the City Attorney's office today, a new staff and resolution were prepared that recommends Planning Commission adoption finding the sale of property not to be in conformance with the City's General Plan. The issue is that the school district is proposing to sell Site D, the 26 -acre site located in the southerly portion of Diamond Bar at Diamond Bar Boulevard at Brea Canyon Road (vacant property across from Evangelical Free Church.) The property is designated in the City's General Plan as Public Facility and zoned by the City's Code as Residential. The school district is interested in disposing of the property and has indicated their desire that the property be sold and developed for residential purposes. That intended land use provides the highest return in their minds for that property in accordance with their interest in generating revenue for on-going capital projects and other activities. The City has been marketing the same property for a commercial development because the City has a void of commercial properties in that area of the City. It would provide revenues to the City and goods and services to the general public in Diamond Bar and adjacent municipalities. The school district has put forth information to prospective bidders that indicates a minimum bid price and indicates a proposed intended land use of Residential. Since the intended use of the property is Residential or possibly Commercial, and since neither of those land uses are consistent with the current designation of Public Facilities, staff believes that the Commission cannot find the sale of property to be consistent with the City's General Plan. The same holds true for the South Point West Property. This approximately 25 gross acre site located south of Larkstone Drive and south of the existing South Point Middle School property. This property consists of a net usable acreage of about seven acres. This property has been declared surplus and is being offered to prospective bidders for development purposes. The school district is seeking the highest value achievable, which they believe to be Residential and have so indicated. The property is classified by the City's General Plan as a Planning Area with a need for a future Master Planning Document consisting of a combination of Recreation, Open space and Public Facilities. The current zoning is Residential, similar to its surrounding neighborhood. However, the property has Map and Deed restrictions that prohibit the construction of residential products. The City has been assisting the school district in marketing the site to prospective residential developers. However, in terms of finding conformity with the City's General Plan, a residential use is not consistent with the current designation of Planning Area. Therefore, staff is recommending that through this resolution, the Planning Commission find the proposed sale and use of the property not to be in conformance with the City's General Plan. L FEBRUARY 10, 2004 Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION DCM/DeStefano explained that the Planning Commission has the authority to move in any direction. Regardless of the Commission's decision, the school district is not required by law to abide by the decision and it does not affect the sale of the school district properties. C/Tanaka asked for an example of "Public Facilities." DCM/DeStefano responded that Public Facilities could be parks, city hall, library, water facility, fire station, sheriff's station, and similar types of land use. There was no one present who wished to speak on this matter. C/Nelson asked for clarification on whether the City would be supporting the sale of the property for the ultimate use as either Residential or Commercial or do we prefer Commercial? At some point there would be a zone change and a General Plan Amendment. is that done as part of the sale and does the City cooperate with that or does that represent a conflict for us to cooperate in advising them? DCM/DeStefano responded that there is no conflict. The City advises private parties on a regular basis in terms of what they may be able to do with their property and what the City's vision for their property will be. The City markets properties on a regular basis in order to try to achieve the preferred land usage, i.e., the current Calvary Chapel project. It does not impede the Planning Commissions and City Councils future decisions and does not dictate the absolute direction. The General Plan is nine years old and is a static document in a dynamic society. Market conditions are changing. In this case, the school district's interests for use of the property are changing and the City's General Plan probably needs to be amended. To what land use is still in question. VC/Nolan asked if he was correct in assuming that the request does not conform to the City's General Plan. If the Planning Commission were to pass the resolution as previously written it would be wrong because the document was incorrect and potentially, there could be some liability. DCM/DeStefano agreed. This revised resolution is a result of legal staff taking a careful look at the Govemment Code Section and being able to review the school district's documents for purposes of sale of the property. Staff is trying to insure that there is no misunderstanding as to the City's intent. The City is not saying that Residential and Commercial uses are FEBRUARY 1.0, 2004 Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION appropriate in this instance and there should be no confusion surrounding the matter at this time. VC/Nolan moved, C/Nelson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 2004-07 finding the sale of surplus school district property not to be in conformance with the General Plan (GC §65402.) Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Nolan, Nelson, Tanaka, Wei, Chair/Tye NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None DCM/DeStefano advised the Commission that he personally contacted the school superintendent today to discuss this matter to make sure the school district understood what the City needed to do and why staff was recommending that the Planning Commission take this evening's action. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Development Review No. 2003-09 and Tree Permit 2003-10 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020(a) (1) and 22.38) is a request to construct a two- story, single family residence with basement including balconies, porch, deck and two attached two -car garages totaling approximately 15,930 gross square feet. Additionally, a request to encroach upon the 10 foot protective drip line and canopy of a mature oak tree and reduce the crown of the oak tree by approximately 30 percent. (Continued from January 13, 2004) PROJECT ADDRESS: 3131 Steeplechase Lane (Lot 2 of Parcel Map 23382) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Polly Wu 1326 Golden Coast Lane Rowland Heights, CA 91748 APPLICANT: Simon Shum & Manolo Manalo S&W Development 20272 Carrey Road Walnut, CA 91789 FEBRUARY 10, 2004 Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION DCM/DeStefano stated that staff has been working with the developer/architect on this project and all parties concluded late last week that an additional continuance was necessary in order to accurately respond to the Planning Commissions requests. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing for Development Review No. 2003-09 and Tree Permit No. 2003-09 to April 27, 2004. Chair/Tye reopened the public hearing. There was no one present to speak on this matter. DCM/DeStefano explained to Chair/Tye that unless the Planning Commission scheduled a special session on this matter, April 27 is the drop - dead date. On April 27 staff would present an application to the Commission for its final action. VC/Nolan moved, C/Tanaka seconded, to continue the public hearing for Development Review No. 2003-09 and Tree Permit No. 2003-09 to April 27, 2004. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Nolan, Tanaka, Wei, Nelson Chair/Tye NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7.2 Develo ment Review No. 2003-11 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-09 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020(1)(1), 22.56.020 and 22.68.020) is a request to construct a second story addition of approximately 2,100 square feet including deck and balcony to an existing one-story single- family residence of approximately 1,774 square feet including the two car garage. The request also includes a Minor Conditional Use Permit due to the legal non -conforming existing side yard setbacks. (Continued from January 27, 2004) PROJECT ADDRESS 23831 Twin Pines Lane (Tract 27530, Lot 116) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Rene Sanchez 23831 Twin Pines Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 FEBRUARY 10, 2004 Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANT: Ramon Gallardo 3317 Beverly Boulevard #108 Montebello, CA 90640 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2003-11 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-09, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. Rene Sanchez testified that that he had complied with all of the Commission's requests. 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/Nelson moved, C/Wei seconded, to approve Development Review �- No. 2003-11 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-09, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Wei, Tanaka, VC/Nolan, Chair/Tye NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 8.1 Development Review No. 2003-26 Minor Conditional Use Permit No.2003-14 and Tree Permit No. 2003-11 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020(a)(1)) (3), 22.52.020 (2) and 22.38.020) is a request to construct a two-story accessory structure within the rear yard to be utilized as a three car garage and recreation room totaling to approximately 1,157 square feet with a bridge/walkway connecting the proposed structure to the main residence. The request includes: a retaining wall with a maximum exposed height of four feet to create the driveway pad to the proposed garage; and converting the existing garage to approximately 580 square feet of livable area. Development Review is an architectural/design review and also required because the proposed project is on a descending slope FEBRUARY 10, 2004 Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSION abutting a public street. Minor Conditional Use Permit is for a proposed driveway width wider than allowed by code. Tree Permit is required for the removal/replacement of a California pepper tree. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: 2759 Steeplechase Lane (Lot 40, Tract No. 30289) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Hong Dong 2759 Steeplechase Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Ms. Daphne Fan I.C.&Q. Design & Development, Inc. 13501 Tracy Street #B Baldwin Park, CA 91706 AssocP/Lunge presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2003-26, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-14 and Tree Permit No. 2003-11, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. C/Tanaka asked if it was a difficult and long process to abandon a recreation or equestrian easement? AssocP/Lungu responded that such easements were private matters. VC/Nolan thought that the California pepper tree was eliminated from the list of endangered species. AssocP/Lungu indicated that the species was not eliminated. The. Code was amended to read "where appropriate." Chair/Tye asked in reference to Item 5. (f) on page 9 when plan check submittal takes place. AssocP/Lungu explained that plan check submittal is the next process after Planning Commission approval. If the easement is not abandoned the applicant would not be able to place the tennis court on the location because the permits would not be issued. FEBRUARY 10, 2004 Page 8 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nelson also believed that the City had eliminated the naturalized California pepper tree from the endangered species list in general but recognized that it had certain aesthetic, cultural and historical values in some settings. In this case, it appears to be a strict interpretation of the revised Development Code that it is required. Further, the resolution calls for replacement of the California pepper trees "in kind" which he believed was not intended by the Code. AssocP/Lungu explained that the Commission would have flexibility regarding "in kind." The General Plan requires that the City have an ordinance to protect pepper trees. It does not specify "California" pepper trees. The language was changed to read "pepper trees, where appropriate" upon lots of 1/z acre or greater. Daphne Fan explained that the applicant proposes to replace the pepper tree with six pepper trees. She further explained that Los Angeles Fire Department requested a 20 -foot wide driveway. The style of the proposed building mirrors the existing main dwelling. She indicated that the property — owner was working with the title company to resolve the easement abandonment issue. C/Wei moved, C/Tanaka seconded, to approve Development Review N0.2003-26, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-14 and Tree Permit No. 2003-11, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Tanaka, Wei VC/Nolan, Chair/Tye NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8.2 Development Review No. 2004-02, Minor Variance No 2.003-14 and Tree Permit No. 2003-09 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020.(1)(1), 22.52.020(2) and 22.38.020.) is a request to construct a two story plus a basement single family residence with a six car garage (three tandem spaces) balconies, front porch totaling to approximately 9,397 square feet. The request includes rear, side and front yard retaining walls, walls not to exceed an exposed height of six feet. Development Review is an architectural design review. Minor Variance is related to a 20 percent reduction of the required 30 -foot front yard setback. The Tree Permit is related to the removal, replacement and protection of specific tree species as described in the City's Development Code. F] L FEBRUARY 10, 2004 Page 9 PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT ADDRES: 22607 Ridgeline Road (Lot 21, Tract No. 30091) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ An Chi Lin APPLICANT: 1357 W. Alhambra Road San Gabriel, CA 91775 AssocP/Lunge presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2004-02, Minor Variance No. 2003-14 and Tree Permit No. 2003-09, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. An Chi Lin, applicant, explained that his project is located in "The Country Estates." The design is contemporary and coverage is about seven percent of the total lot. Before he commenced his project he went to the Planning Department with his plan and obtained approval from "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association. He completed his due diligence in order to insure the quality and safety of his project for the surrounding neighborhood. He asked for approval of his project. 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/Wei moved, C/Nelson seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2004-02, Minor Variance No. 2003-14 and Tree Permit No. 2003-09, 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: Wei, Nelson, Tanaka, VC/Nolan, Chair/Tye None None 9, PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: Chair/Tye thanked DCM/DeStefano for arranging the Commissions tour of the Diamond Bar Center, an outstanding facility. He looks forward to the grand opening. Regarding hillsides and slopes, he was involved in a project, spearheaded by Mr. Zirbes, to help assist a resident with mitigation. With the current hillside and slope FEBRUARY 10, 2004 Page 10 PLANNING COMMISSION maintenance requirements, what is the process by which the City notifies a homeowner about a slide or a hillside that does not meet the requirements? DCM/DeStefano explained that a proactive Code Enforcement Officer would note the deficiency and at a minimum, submit a courtesy notice to correct and moving forward depending on the response. Chair/Tye asked how long the City would have to wait for the SCAQMD property hillside to be mitigated? DCM/DeStefano responded that the AQMD is aware of the problem and has hired a geotechnical engineer in order to determine possible further slippage and what mitigation measures should be incorporated. He did not know when the project would be completed but agreed to obtain the information and report back to the Commission. 10. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects — as itemized in the agenda packet. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in the Agenda. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Tye adjourned the meeting at 7:58 p.m. Attest: r Steve Tye, hairman